The Wired article should make for some interesting questions during AT&T's earnings call on Thursday morning. What the article alluded to but didn't really explain was that a lot of the problems have to do with antiquated backhaul infrastructure (backhaul refers to the bandwidth supplied to a cell tower site) and a lack of available licensed wireless spectrum for transmitting from towers to handsets.
AT&T can spend to improve backhaul -- it spent nearly $2 billion last year adding fiber and more T-1 lines to sites in San Francisco and New York alone -- but it is going to have to wait to get more spectrum, and in the meantime it will continue to deny there's a problem and sell you another iPhone.
Do users care? Are they figuring this out? How fast would they leave if Verizon got the iPhone? All questions to be answered...
AT&T is deplying fiber for the backhaul infrastructure and has been at the forefront of the spectrum crunch issue and spoken publicly on it for quite some time. What excatly are you looking for. Both issues are acknowledged as critical by AT&T and being worked.
Didn't someone whine about "form over function?" Yet we know that the antenna engineer who designed the iPhone 4's antenna told Management that it was going to be a problem long before the design went gold. And now we know that Apple chose a radio chip that is known to work poorly in non-optimal signal areas, and knew it, and went ahead with it anyway.
Bottom line: Knowing all this, if you buy an iPhone, you deserve crappy service.
Again, it's very interesting that this info is being completely ignored here. If the article had said Apple wanted to use a super duper chip and AT&T balked, well, there would be plenty of negative comments about AT&T's reaction. All these iPhone design clues and they are being ignored. Easier to say AT&T's network is crap and Apple is god I suppose.
If AT&T goes down, someone will buy their assets and it's almost certain the AT&T network will not be shut off. Someone will have to maintain all that stuff - and it's pretty unlikely you'll see the new owners getting 400,000 H-1B visas to import a bunch of low-wage workers to replace the people in place now.
Excuse me?
The vast majority of AT&T employees are born and bred in the US. Those with visas are paid at the same scale as others doing the same job. Low-wage workers? Your xenophobia is repugnant.
Your information is incorrect. SBC owned the majority share of Cingular when the original contract was signed. They received the balance of Cingluar when SBS purchased BellSouth.
Let's split some hairs why don't we. SBC had recently changed its name to AT&T before the acquisition of BellSouth which is why I referred to them as SBC/AT&T. AT&T had attempted to change the name of Cingular to AT&T even before the merger with BellSouth was completed in Dec 2006. Cingular was operating as a independent company at the time of the original contract with Apple. Although independent also wholly owned 60% AT&T, 40% BellSouth.
I'm only on page 2. You guys got it completely backwards with the Infineon thing.
Apple works with a number of carriers around the globe. Let's say 100 carriers, as an example. Of those 100 carriers, 99 of them play well with the Infineon chip. AT&T does not. How the HELL is that not AT&T's problem?
I'm only on page 2. You guys got it completely backwards with the Infineon thing.
Apple works with a number of carriers around the globe. Let's say 100 carriers, as an example. Of those 100 carriers, 99 of them play well with the Infineon chip. AT&T does not. How the HELL is that not AT&T's problem?
Not to mention that none of the other carriers are complaining about the Infineon chip.
Let's split some hairs why don't we. SBC had recently changed its name to AT&T before the acquisition of BellSouth which is why I referred to them as SBC/AT&T. AT&T had attempted to change the name of Cingular to AT&T even before the merger with BellSouth was completed in Dec 2006. Cingular was operating as a independent company at the time of the original contract with Apple. Although independent also wholly owned 60% AT&T, 40% BellSouth.
I didn't take issue with referring to them as SBC/AT&T. I do that as well.
Cingular was not acting "independently." Yes, Cingular had it's own management structure but they were responsible to and reported to SBC and BLS. Decisions like "Apple" were not made independently by Cingular brass. Lastly, there's never been any indication that if Cingular's ownership mix changed that Apple had an "out" in the contract.
I'm only on page 2. You guys got it completely backwards with the Infineon thing.
Apple works with a number of carriers around the globe. Let's say 100 carriers, as an example. Of those 100 carriers, 99 of them play well with the Infineon chip. AT&T does not. How the HELL is that not AT&T's problem?
Two points. First, Apple's refusal to work with their partner on the issue was plain stoopid. Setting up the iPhone for potential poor performance in its initial rollout market ain't too bright. Second,which of those "99" carrier markets covers a territory the size of AT&T's. Aren't we regularly smacked about the body and head by overseas posters explaining how their cell infrasturcture is more dense and superior? The chip in question is supposedly a poor performer when signal strength is poor.
Now, Apple could have either helped work the issue, waited for an infrastructure that would better support that lessser chip, or done what they apparently did. Ignore it and say "not my problem." Swell partner there, eh?
Two points. First, Apple's refusal to work with their partner on the issue was plain stoopid. Setting up the iPhone for potential poor performance in its initial rollout market ain't too bright. Second,which of those "99" carrier markets covers a territory the size of AT&T's. Aren't we regularly smacked about the body and head by overseas posters explaining how their cell infrasturcture is more dense and superior? The chip in question is supposedly a poor performer when signal strength is poor.
Now, Apple could have either helped work the issue, waited for an infrastructure that would better support that lessser chip, or done what they apparently did. Ignore it and say "not my problem." Swell partner there, eh?
Wrong. I don't see Australians complaining. I don't see Russians complaining. I don't see Chinese complaining. Just like the economy, size of territory is not a viable excuse.
Why is Apple's "rollout market" more important than their global market, anyway? Should Apple sacrifice their global customers to appease Americans? Talk about entitlement!
Wrong. I don't see Australians complaining. I don't see Russians complaining. I don't see Chinese complaining. Just like the economy, size of territory is not a viable excuse.
Why is Apple's "rollout market" more important than their global market, anyway? Should Apple sacrifice their global customers to appease Americans? Talk about entitlement!
I agree with your points. Apple needs to work with an eye towards their global markets. But, it isn't like the international market hasn't been affected by Apple making concessions to AT&T in the past. Our carriers allow tether and MMS, but the features were delayed because of AT&T. Similarly, VOIP over 3G apps, internationally, had to wait for AT&T to approve it.
Two points. First, Apple's refusal to work with their partner on the issue was plain stoopid.
No, 'stoopid' is relying on silly rumors as the basis of your world view.
There is plenty of data out there if you open your eyes and look for facts. Apple and AT&T have both stated publicly that they are happy with the relationship. They have both stated publicly that they worked together on the iPhone launch. The iPhone went from nowhere to the #1 single phone model in the world (all RIM phones together outsell the iPhone, but no single model does), at least partly due to the cooperation with AT&T (such as the creation of visual voicemail).
Now, you can run your life on the basis of jumping onto every single rumor that supports your jaded worldview or you can look at facts. Your choice.
Wrong. I don't see Australians complaining. I don't see Russians complaining. I don't see Chinese complaining. Just like the economy, size of territory is not a viable excuse.
Why is Apple's "rollout market" more important than their global market, anyway? Should Apple sacrifice their global customers to appease Americans? Talk about entitlement!
Where are you monitoring for these complaints? AppleInsider? Are you seriously suggesting there is no one outside of the US complaining about their cell phone service? Really?
Size of territory has very much to do with it. Good grief. Only so much money, time and resources...you think it's easier to get a higher percentage of coverage in a smaller geographical area or a larger one? To use your examples, you think Russia and China have fewer dead zone cell coverage than AT&T in the US? Really?
Look, in the US nearly "everyone" (yes a slight exageration) has a cell and expects perfect coverage. In those larger countries comparatively few have cell phones and most of those phones are not within the vast rural areas. In the smaller countries of Europe, for example, I would expect relatively few dead zones, again a function of size of territory.
The reason I mentioned Apple's "rollout" market is simple. You want that initial rollout to go smoothly, no issues that might be attributed to the phone and cast a negative picture for expansion. That wasn't obvious?
Entitlement? <sigh> Why does it seem that so many people want to argue just for the sake of arguing? And a to you too.
verizon pre cripples its own networks making sure every one get a tad above shit service
but no one gets dropped calls
Sorry, not even close to true. The worst service I ever had was Verizon, and they didn't care at all why. A five-year-long endless bloody stream of expensive insults, that.
Comments
The Wired article should make for some interesting questions during AT&T's earnings call on Thursday morning. What the article alluded to but didn't really explain was that a lot of the problems have to do with antiquated backhaul infrastructure (backhaul refers to the bandwidth supplied to a cell tower site) and a lack of available licensed wireless spectrum for transmitting from towers to handsets.
AT&T can spend to improve backhaul -- it spent nearly $2 billion last year adding fiber and more T-1 lines to sites in San Francisco and New York alone -- but it is going to have to wait to get more spectrum, and in the meantime it will continue to deny there's a problem and sell you another iPhone.
Do users care? Are they figuring this out? How fast would they leave if Verizon got the iPhone? All questions to be answered...
AT&T is deplying fiber for the backhaul infrastructure and has been at the forefront of the spectrum crunch issue and spoken publicly on it for quite some time. What excatly are you looking for. Both issues are acknowledged as critical by AT&T and being worked.
Didn't someone whine about "form over function?" Yet we know that the antenna engineer who designed the iPhone 4's antenna told Management that it was going to be a problem long before the design went gold. And now we know that Apple chose a radio chip that is known to work poorly in non-optimal signal areas, and knew it, and went ahead with it anyway.
Bottom line: Knowing all this, if you buy an iPhone, you deserve crappy service.
Again, it's very interesting that this info is being completely ignored here. If the article had said Apple wanted to use a super duper chip and AT&T balked, well, there would be plenty of negative comments about AT&T's reaction. All these iPhone design clues and they are being ignored. Easier to say AT&T's network is crap and Apple is god I suppose.
If AT&T goes down, someone will buy their assets and it's almost certain the AT&T network will not be shut off. Someone will have to maintain all that stuff - and it's pretty unlikely you'll see the new owners getting 400,000 H-1B visas to import a bunch of low-wage workers to replace the people in place now.
Excuse me?
The vast majority of AT&T employees are born and bred in the US. Those with visas are paid at the same scale as others doing the same job. Low-wage workers? Your xenophobia is repugnant.
Your information is incorrect. SBC owned the majority share of Cingular when the original contract was signed. They received the balance of Cingluar when SBS purchased BellSouth.
Let's split some hairs why don't we. SBC had recently changed its name to AT&T before the acquisition of BellSouth which is why I referred to them as SBC/AT&T. AT&T had attempted to change the name of Cingular to AT&T even before the merger with BellSouth was completed in Dec 2006. Cingular was operating as a independent company at the time of the original contract with Apple. Although independent also wholly owned 60% AT&T, 40% BellSouth.
Apple works with a number of carriers around the globe. Let's say 100 carriers, as an example. Of those 100 carriers, 99 of them play well with the Infineon chip. AT&T does not. How the HELL is that not AT&T's problem?
I'm only on page 2. You guys got it completely backwards with the Infineon thing.
Apple works with a number of carriers around the globe. Let's say 100 carriers, as an example. Of those 100 carriers, 99 of them play well with the Infineon chip. AT&T does not. How the HELL is that not AT&T's problem?
Not to mention that none of the other carriers are complaining about the Infineon chip.
Let's split some hairs why don't we. SBC had recently changed its name to AT&T before the acquisition of BellSouth which is why I referred to them as SBC/AT&T. AT&T had attempted to change the name of Cingular to AT&T even before the merger with BellSouth was completed in Dec 2006. Cingular was operating as a independent company at the time of the original contract with Apple. Although independent also wholly owned 60% AT&T, 40% BellSouth.
I didn't take issue with referring to them as SBC/AT&T. I do that as well.
Cingular was not acting "independently." Yes, Cingular had it's own management structure but they were responsible to and reported to SBC and BLS. Decisions like "Apple" were not made independently by Cingular brass. Lastly, there's never been any indication that if Cingular's ownership mix changed that Apple had an "out" in the contract.
I'm only on page 2. You guys got it completely backwards with the Infineon thing.
Apple works with a number of carriers around the globe. Let's say 100 carriers, as an example. Of those 100 carriers, 99 of them play well with the Infineon chip. AT&T does not. How the HELL is that not AT&T's problem?
Two points. First, Apple's refusal to work with their partner on the issue was plain stoopid. Setting up the iPhone for potential poor performance in its initial rollout market ain't too bright. Second,which of those "99" carrier markets covers a territory the size of AT&T's. Aren't we regularly smacked about the body and head by overseas posters explaining how their cell infrasturcture is more dense and superior? The chip in question is supposedly a poor performer when signal strength is poor.
Now, Apple could have either helped work the issue, waited for an infrastructure that would better support that lessser chip, or done what they apparently did. Ignore it and say "not my problem." Swell partner there, eh?
Two points. First, Apple's refusal to work with their partner on the issue was plain stoopid. Setting up the iPhone for potential poor performance in its initial rollout market ain't too bright. Second,which of those "99" carrier markets covers a territory the size of AT&T's. Aren't we regularly smacked about the body and head by overseas posters explaining how their cell infrasturcture is more dense and superior? The chip in question is supposedly a poor performer when signal strength is poor.
Now, Apple could have either helped work the issue, waited for an infrastructure that would better support that lessser chip, or done what they apparently did. Ignore it and say "not my problem." Swell partner there, eh?
Wrong. I don't see Australians complaining. I don't see Russians complaining. I don't see Chinese complaining. Just like the economy, size of territory is not a viable excuse.
Why is Apple's "rollout market" more important than their global market, anyway? Should Apple sacrifice their global customers to appease Americans? Talk about entitlement!
Wrong. I don't see Australians complaining. I don't see Russians complaining. I don't see Chinese complaining. Just like the economy, size of territory is not a viable excuse.
Why is Apple's "rollout market" more important than their global market, anyway? Should Apple sacrifice their global customers to appease Americans? Talk about entitlement!
I agree with your points. Apple needs to work with an eye towards their global markets. But, it isn't like the international market hasn't been affected by Apple making concessions to AT&T in the past. Our carriers allow tether and MMS, but the features were delayed because of AT&T. Similarly, VOIP over 3G apps, internationally, had to wait for AT&T to approve it.
Two points. First, Apple's refusal to work with their partner on the issue was plain stoopid.
No, 'stoopid' is relying on silly rumors as the basis of your world view.
There is plenty of data out there if you open your eyes and look for facts. Apple and AT&T have both stated publicly that they are happy with the relationship. They have both stated publicly that they worked together on the iPhone launch. The iPhone went from nowhere to the #1 single phone model in the world (all RIM phones together outsell the iPhone, but no single model does), at least partly due to the cooperation with AT&T (such as the creation of visual voicemail).
Now, you can run your life on the basis of jumping onto every single rumor that supports your jaded worldview or you can look at facts. Your choice.
Wrong. I don't see Australians complaining. I don't see Russians complaining. I don't see Chinese complaining. Just like the economy, size of territory is not a viable excuse.
Why is Apple's "rollout market" more important than their global market, anyway? Should Apple sacrifice their global customers to appease Americans? Talk about entitlement!
Where are you monitoring for these complaints? AppleInsider? Are you seriously suggesting there is no one outside of the US complaining about their cell phone service? Really?
Size of territory has very much to do with it. Good grief. Only so much money, time and resources...you think it's easier to get a higher percentage of coverage in a smaller geographical area or a larger one? To use your examples, you think Russia and China have fewer dead zone cell coverage than AT&T in the US? Really?
Look, in the US nearly "everyone" (yes a slight exageration) has a cell and expects perfect coverage. In those larger countries comparatively few have cell phones and most of those phones are not within the vast rural areas. In the smaller countries of Europe, for example, I would expect relatively few dead zones, again a function of size of territory.
The reason I mentioned Apple's "rollout" market is simple. You want that initial rollout to go smoothly, no issues that might be attributed to the phone and cast a negative picture for expansion. That wasn't obvious?
Entitlement? <sigh> Why does it seem that so many people want to argue just for the sake of arguing? And a
verizon pre cripples its own networks making sure every one get a tad above shit service
but no one gets dropped calls
Sorry, not even close to true. The worst service I ever had was Verizon, and they didn't care at all why. A five-year-long endless bloody stream of expensive insults, that.