Yes, and for marketing alone it would seem to make sense to claim "up to 21" like T-Mobile and the Canadians even though you will really only get 14 if you are not right next to a tower. That is 14 if you are lucky! There may be some coverage benefits to not going to 21, I have no clue. Either way, if the actual real world speeds are over 7.2 that will be a heck of an achievement based on what we were getting 12 months ago, and for that matter what we are getting now, knowing that there will be even more iPhones and other smartphones on their net by early summer. More important than bandwidth will be latency reductions and reliability improvements. AT&T has gotten much better on both counts in the last year, even when I venture into the edge area in the NY finger lakes region. Sure would love to see more 3G reach, but I am not sure how many subscribers they have amongst the amish and corn farmers.
Bingo x 3. My d**k goes "up to" 12 inches... This "up to" stuff is the worse kind of marketing drivel ever to arise in modern times.
Yes, and for marketing alone it would seem to make sense to claim "up to 21" like T-Mobile and the Canadians even though you will really only get 14 if you are not right next to a tower. That is 14 if you are lucky! There may be some coverage benefits to not going to 21, I have no clue. .
If AT&T enable the 21 Mbps but advertise it as 14, kudos to them.
There are no coverage benefits of not going to 21Mbps. The modulation and coding selection is dynamic and is changed every 2-10 ms based on the quality reports from the phones. This means that if you are in average radio conditions, you'll get pretty much the same results as you are getting now since you will be using the same modulations and coding schemes anyways. The bitrate improvements can only really be seen if the channel quality is high enough.
The real improvements come when either the network quality improves (seems to be happening gradually) and/or MIMO is available in the phones and network.
For the latency improvements there are really two steps: a) enable HSUPA (if you are seeing uplink speeds of over 384kbps, you're there) and b) the network enables direct tunnel (you won't know unless you monitor latency very carefully).
Verizon's "There's a map for that" ads weren't based on fiction, you know. Huge parts of the country still don't even get a reliable AT&T Edge signal, let alone 3G.
When they start promising something even better than 3G, I take it as a slap on the face to the vast number of their own customers who know after years of waiting that *nothing* *is* *actually* *being* *done* to improve their service. That 3G coverage map? It hasn't changed in THREE FULL YEARS . . . .
That is an extremely good point. The 250 million plus people will only be major cities, leaving the loyal customers struggling to find 3G. Death to ATT.
That is an extremely good point. The 250 million plus people will only be major cities, leaving the loyal customers struggling to find 3G. Death to ATT.
You're absolutely right. I'm going to start a phone company and offer 4G service in Wyoming and South Dakota. New York and San Francisco can live with Edge.
All this talk of various data speeds makes me chuckle. Outside and around Philly I rarely get anything over 1.5mbps. I may have gotten to 2mbps a few times. Typically, I'm getting around 1 or even less.
On my FIOS service, I often get 20mbps in real world conditions. Somehow I think it will be a long time before mobile devices get near that.
It almost makes me want to push for these telecoms to have to publish real average download speeds as opposed to theoretical maximums. Everyone understands that we won't get the max, but could we stop advertising speeds that are...I don't know...700 freaking percent higher than reality???
Yes, and for marketing alone it would seem to make sense to claim "up to 21" like T-Mobile and the Canadians even though you will really only get 14 if you are not right next to a tower. That is 14 if you are lucky! There may be some coverage benefits to not going to 21, I have no clue. Either way, if the actual real world speeds are over 7.2 that will be a heck of an achievement based on what we were getting 12 months ago, and for that matter what we are getting now, knowing that there will be even more iPhones and other smartphones on their net by early summer. More important than bandwidth will be latency reductions and reliability improvements. AT&T has gotten much better on both counts in the last year, even when I venture into the edge area in the NY finger lakes region. Sure would love to see more 3G reach, but I am not sure how many subscribers they have amongst the amish and corn farmers.
Well, there is at least 1 here and it would be nice to have 3G coverage in the Fingerlakes.
When the hell is 14.4 Mbps coming to landline broadband, let alone wireless broadband? Actually, come to think of it, 7.2 Mbps is faster than my cable connection at home. Something is seriously wrong in the ISP business...
Uh, how about, buying faster service?
I'm sitting here with 30mbps from Verizon and I gotta say, pretty happy.
Verizon's "There's a map for that" ads weren't based on fiction, you know. Huge parts of the country still don't even get a reliable AT&T Edge signal, let alone 3G.
When they start promising something even better than 3G, I take it as a slap on the face to the vast number of their own customers who know after years of waiting that *nothing* *is* *actually* *being* *done* to improve their service. That 3G coverage map? It hasn't changed in THREE FULL YEARS . . . .
AT&T has no obligation to provide service to anyone.
If they'd rather bump my speeds from 2.6 mbps to 3.x, and leave bumfuk North Dakota without service, I couldn't possibly care less.
The answer is: Don't live there, or get different phone service. Not a big deal.
Comments
Yes, and for marketing alone it would seem to make sense to claim "up to 21" like T-Mobile and the Canadians even though you will really only get 14 if you are not right next to a tower. That is 14 if you are lucky! There may be some coverage benefits to not going to 21, I have no clue. Either way, if the actual real world speeds are over 7.2 that will be a heck of an achievement based on what we were getting 12 months ago, and for that matter what we are getting now, knowing that there will be even more iPhones and other smartphones on their net by early summer. More important than bandwidth will be latency reductions and reliability improvements. AT&T has gotten much better on both counts in the last year, even when I venture into the edge area in the NY finger lakes region. Sure would love to see more 3G reach, but I am not sure how many subscribers they have amongst the amish and corn farmers.
Bingo x 3. My d**k goes "up to" 12 inches... This "up to" stuff is the worse kind of marketing drivel ever to arise in modern times.
Yes, and for marketing alone it would seem to make sense to claim "up to 21" like T-Mobile and the Canadians even though you will really only get 14 if you are not right next to a tower. That is 14 if you are lucky! There may be some coverage benefits to not going to 21, I have no clue. .
If AT&T enable the 21 Mbps but advertise it as 14, kudos to them.
There are no coverage benefits of not going to 21Mbps. The modulation and coding selection is dynamic and is changed every 2-10 ms based on the quality reports from the phones. This means that if you are in average radio conditions, you'll get pretty much the same results as you are getting now since you will be using the same modulations and coding schemes anyways. The bitrate improvements can only really be seen if the channel quality is high enough.
The real improvements come when either the network quality improves (seems to be happening gradually) and/or MIMO is available in the phones and network.
For the latency improvements there are really two steps: a) enable HSUPA (if you are seeing uplink speeds of over 384kbps, you're there) and b) the network enables direct tunnel (you won't know unless you monitor latency very carefully).
Regs, Jarkko
How naive can people be?
Verizon's "There's a map for that" ads weren't based on fiction, you know. Huge parts of the country still don't even get a reliable AT&T Edge signal, let alone 3G.
When they start promising something even better than 3G, I take it as a slap on the face to the vast number of their own customers who know after years of waiting that *nothing* *is* *actually* *being* *done* to improve their service. That 3G coverage map? It hasn't changed in THREE FULL YEARS . . . .
That is an extremely good point. The 250 million plus people will only be major cities, leaving the loyal customers struggling to find 3G. Death to ATT.
That is an extremely good point. The 250 million plus people will only be major cities, leaving the loyal customers struggling to find 3G. Death to ATT.
You're absolutely right. I'm going to start a phone company and offer 4G service in Wyoming and South Dakota. New York and San Francisco can live with Edge.
Sheesh.
I'm south of Dover.
Slower lower!
All this talk of various data speeds makes me chuckle. Outside and around Philly I rarely get anything over 1.5mbps. I may have gotten to 2mbps a few times. Typically, I'm getting around 1 or even less.
On my FIOS service, I often get 20mbps in real world conditions. Somehow I think it will be a long time before mobile devices get near that.
It almost makes me want to push for these telecoms to have to publish real average download speeds as opposed to theoretical maximums. Everyone understands that we won't get the max, but could we stop advertising speeds that are...I don't know...700 freaking percent higher than reality???
Yes, and for marketing alone it would seem to make sense to claim "up to 21" like T-Mobile and the Canadians even though you will really only get 14 if you are not right next to a tower. That is 14 if you are lucky! There may be some coverage benefits to not going to 21, I have no clue. Either way, if the actual real world speeds are over 7.2 that will be a heck of an achievement based on what we were getting 12 months ago, and for that matter what we are getting now, knowing that there will be even more iPhones and other smartphones on their net by early summer. More important than bandwidth will be latency reductions and reliability improvements. AT&T has gotten much better on both counts in the last year, even when I venture into the edge area in the NY finger lakes region. Sure would love to see more 3G reach, but I am not sure how many subscribers they have amongst the amish and corn farmers.
Well, there is at least 1 here and it would be nice to have 3G coverage in the Fingerlakes.
When the hell is 14.4 Mbps coming to landline broadband, let alone wireless broadband? Actually, come to think of it, 7.2 Mbps is faster than my cable connection at home. Something is seriously wrong in the ISP business...
Uh, how about, buying faster service?
I'm sitting here with 30mbps from Verizon and I gotta say, pretty happy.
How naive can people be?
Verizon's "There's a map for that" ads weren't based on fiction, you know. Huge parts of the country still don't even get a reliable AT&T Edge signal, let alone 3G.
When they start promising something even better than 3G, I take it as a slap on the face to the vast number of their own customers who know after years of waiting that *nothing* *is* *actually* *being* *done* to improve their service. That 3G coverage map? It hasn't changed in THREE FULL YEARS . . . .
AT&T has no obligation to provide service to anyone.
If they'd rather bump my speeds from 2.6 mbps to 3.x, and leave bumfuk North Dakota without service, I couldn't possibly care less.
The answer is: Don't live there, or get different phone service. Not a big deal.
Well, there is at least 1 here and it would be nice to have 3G coverage in the Fingerlakes.
AT&T has finally enables 3G in the Fingerlakes, so things are good now. It seems they filled the hole between Rochester and Syracuse.