AT&T defensively publishes private dropped call data
While Apple's chief executive Steve Jobs said AT&T wouldn't let him reveal its proprietary data about dropped call statistics for competitive reasons, the mobile provider has revealed some numbers in an effort to defend its network from poor dropped call scores collected by ChangeWave.
ChangeWave published the results of a March survey which indicated AT&T had much higher dropped calls than its US competitors: 4.5 percent compared to 2.8 percent for T-Mobile, 2.4 percent for Sprint, and just 1.5 percent for Verizon Wireless.
That data was collected by a survey of 4,040 smartphone users who were asked to report their own percentage of dropped calls. AT&T's dropped call rate has reportedly inched higher since September 2008, when it was reported to be 3.6 percent, while Verizon's score improved over the same period from a high of 2.7 percent.
AT&T responds
AT&T was obviously not happy with the numbers, and in response to a Tech-Ex report publishing the ChangeWave figures, pointed to scientific national drive testing performed by GWS, contrasting its "actual quantitative results derived from millions of calls made during extensive drive-testing of the AT&T mobile broadband network by a highly respected outside firm" with "the opinions compiled in the survey" which were "dramatically at odds" with the GWS data.
A "statistically valid drive test shows the AT&T network continues to deliver the nation's fastest 3G network and near best-in-class call retainability nationwide," the company said. "AT&T's network dropped only 1.44 percent of calls nationwide, within two-tenths of 1 percent of the industry leader and a difference of less than two calls out of 1,000."
AT&T noted that "those results, from GWS, show that, on a national basis, AT&T is within just two-tenths of a percent of the industry leader in wireless call retainability. That's a difference of just two calls in a thousand, a virtual dead-heat."
Network, phones and location, location, location
AT&T's numbers likely differ so dramatically for a number of key reasons. In addition to the performance of the network, dropped calls can also be related to the performance of handsets and where they are being used. The fact that AT&T carries more smartphone users and handles more data than all the other US providers combined also has an impact, as it is easier to maintain calls for embedded phones than sophisticated smartphones that may drop a call due to other factors (such as the iPhone 4's proximity sensor flaw).
Different models also have different call drop rates. Even Apple acknowledged that there is a difference between the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4; while Jobs downplayed the difference as being less than one dropped call per 100, he also admitted that the problem was real and committed to an expensive free case offer to rectify the situation, as case use should help to improve reception by isolating the device from the user's hand.
Apart from performance differences between phones, there is also a major difference in call reliability between users in different locations, whether that is a product of the quality of AT&T's network in a specific location or an issue related to a large number of users located in a overburdened area. That can be a chronic problem or an acute issue caused by a large number of visitors flocking to the same event.
San Francisco Network destroys its own network
Users in areas such as San Francisco with notoriously bad spots of poor or nonexistent coverage are obviously going to see far more dropped calls than users in a area where AT&T doesn't have to fight neighborhood groups working to prevent the installation of any new towers due to fears that their radio output will cause health problems.
Jobs noted that AT&T spends an average of three years applying for new cellular tower sites in San Francisco, compared to just three weeks in other markets such as Texas.
Part of the credit for San Francsicos's terrible cellular service can be attributed to the tireless efforts of the San Francisco Neighborhood Antenna-Free Union (SNAFU), which actively prevents network expansions due to what it calls "mounting evidence concerning the health and environmental effects of radiofrequency (RF) radiation used by cellular phones, cellular antennas and other wireless transmitters."
Google and Earthlink faced similar political problems in San Francisco when they offered to build out a city-wide WiFi network providing free service to everyone while offering a faster paid tier of service to subscribers. The WiFi network was proposed by mayor Gavin Newsom in 2004, but by 2007 San Francisco's Board of Supervisors had successfully waged a political war against the mayor to defeat any hope for a free municipal WiFi network. That same year, SNAFU even managed to get Board of Supervisors president Aaron Peskin to introduce legislation imposing a 45-day moratorium on microcell antennas throughout San Francisco.
In addition to radio antenna fear mongers, the Board's fight with the mayor over WiFi was joined by community activists who demanded free WiFi at full broadband speeds while also demanding twice the agreed upon contractual commitments from Google and Earthlink, and privacy advocates who assailed the city's contract for making "creepy" mentions of "the needs of law enforcement," allowing access to "lawful Internet content," and noting support for all "legal devices that do not harm the Network."
It also doesn't help that a free city-wide WiFi network in San Francisco would naturally be opposed by paid data service providers from Comcast to Verizon and, ironically, AT&T, which now has a pundit-heavy city of iPhone users who daily rant about the terrible cellular service it provides, while lacking any backup WiFi service that would have been provided by Google and Earthlink.
ChangeWave published the results of a March survey which indicated AT&T had much higher dropped calls than its US competitors: 4.5 percent compared to 2.8 percent for T-Mobile, 2.4 percent for Sprint, and just 1.5 percent for Verizon Wireless.
That data was collected by a survey of 4,040 smartphone users who were asked to report their own percentage of dropped calls. AT&T's dropped call rate has reportedly inched higher since September 2008, when it was reported to be 3.6 percent, while Verizon's score improved over the same period from a high of 2.7 percent.
AT&T responds
AT&T was obviously not happy with the numbers, and in response to a Tech-Ex report publishing the ChangeWave figures, pointed to scientific national drive testing performed by GWS, contrasting its "actual quantitative results derived from millions of calls made during extensive drive-testing of the AT&T mobile broadband network by a highly respected outside firm" with "the opinions compiled in the survey" which were "dramatically at odds" with the GWS data.
A "statistically valid drive test shows the AT&T network continues to deliver the nation's fastest 3G network and near best-in-class call retainability nationwide," the company said. "AT&T's network dropped only 1.44 percent of calls nationwide, within two-tenths of 1 percent of the industry leader and a difference of less than two calls out of 1,000."
AT&T noted that "those results, from GWS, show that, on a national basis, AT&T is within just two-tenths of a percent of the industry leader in wireless call retainability. That's a difference of just two calls in a thousand, a virtual dead-heat."
Network, phones and location, location, location
AT&T's numbers likely differ so dramatically for a number of key reasons. In addition to the performance of the network, dropped calls can also be related to the performance of handsets and where they are being used. The fact that AT&T carries more smartphone users and handles more data than all the other US providers combined also has an impact, as it is easier to maintain calls for embedded phones than sophisticated smartphones that may drop a call due to other factors (such as the iPhone 4's proximity sensor flaw).
Different models also have different call drop rates. Even Apple acknowledged that there is a difference between the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4; while Jobs downplayed the difference as being less than one dropped call per 100, he also admitted that the problem was real and committed to an expensive free case offer to rectify the situation, as case use should help to improve reception by isolating the device from the user's hand.
Apart from performance differences between phones, there is also a major difference in call reliability between users in different locations, whether that is a product of the quality of AT&T's network in a specific location or an issue related to a large number of users located in a overburdened area. That can be a chronic problem or an acute issue caused by a large number of visitors flocking to the same event.
San Francisco Network destroys its own network
Users in areas such as San Francisco with notoriously bad spots of poor or nonexistent coverage are obviously going to see far more dropped calls than users in a area where AT&T doesn't have to fight neighborhood groups working to prevent the installation of any new towers due to fears that their radio output will cause health problems.
Jobs noted that AT&T spends an average of three years applying for new cellular tower sites in San Francisco, compared to just three weeks in other markets such as Texas.
Part of the credit for San Francsicos's terrible cellular service can be attributed to the tireless efforts of the San Francisco Neighborhood Antenna-Free Union (SNAFU), which actively prevents network expansions due to what it calls "mounting evidence concerning the health and environmental effects of radiofrequency (RF) radiation used by cellular phones, cellular antennas and other wireless transmitters."
Google and Earthlink faced similar political problems in San Francisco when they offered to build out a city-wide WiFi network providing free service to everyone while offering a faster paid tier of service to subscribers. The WiFi network was proposed by mayor Gavin Newsom in 2004, but by 2007 San Francisco's Board of Supervisors had successfully waged a political war against the mayor to defeat any hope for a free municipal WiFi network. That same year, SNAFU even managed to get Board of Supervisors president Aaron Peskin to introduce legislation imposing a 45-day moratorium on microcell antennas throughout San Francisco.
In addition to radio antenna fear mongers, the Board's fight with the mayor over WiFi was joined by community activists who demanded free WiFi at full broadband speeds while also demanding twice the agreed upon contractual commitments from Google and Earthlink, and privacy advocates who assailed the city's contract for making "creepy" mentions of "the needs of law enforcement," allowing access to "lawful Internet content," and noting support for all "legal devices that do not harm the Network."
It also doesn't help that a free city-wide WiFi network in San Francisco would naturally be opposed by paid data service providers from Comcast to Verizon and, ironically, AT&T, which now has a pundit-heavy city of iPhone users who daily rant about the terrible cellular service it provides, while lacking any backup WiFi service that would have been provided by Google and Earthlink.
Comments
If anything, it's a single-blind study: AT&T users have heard how crappy their network is for so long that they'd be happy to gripe about the one dropped call they had 12 years to someone calling to obtain their "scientific opinion."
AT&T, I'm with you on this one.
Now give me a $100 gift card.
att has the money to upgrade but doesn't want to spend it.
...
San Francisco is the most dysfunctional city I know of. And, I love to visit as a tourist.
But, the idiotic laws that both the Board and the citizens pass are just insane.
att has the money to upgrade but doesn't want to spend it.
I don't get your remark....AT&T is basically trying to hand over a ton of money to the people of San Fran....in this horrible economy where jobs are scarce.....to build new cell towers and expand the infrastructure and the loonies over at city hall are looking the other way. Idiots.
I hope those lawmakers will realistically look at scientific data and make their decisions based on that and not hyperbole.
BTW:
I live in Texas but really love SF the peninsula and the valley - I really miss it when it is hot and humid here!
AT&Ts data looks bad with respect to the iPhone 4.
The data's from March. iPhone 4 came out end of June. How does it relate?
The trolls attacked when Steve Jobs mentioned the three year period to get a cell tower approved in SF. It seems now that its even worse than that. We apparently have an activist group trying to stop all cell tower deployments in the city.
We have no real idea of how pervasive the so-called iPhone 4 reception issue is either. All we have is a bunch of screaming loonies with YouTube videos and forum rants about how a user's sister's boyfriend drops calls all the time Then the media started sniffing blood in the water and cranked up the hysteria. The end result was a press conference in which Steve Jobs basically called everybody out to put up or shut up. The scab was ripped off the wound and Apple and at&t are now fighting back. And it's starting to look like they're not so far off with their claims after all. And it really all boils down to the fact that forums and blogs concentrate the negative. If I'm happy with a product or service I'm not all that inclined to post in a forum about it or write a letter to the editor extolling my satisfaction. But if I'm unhappy with something I will scream at the top of my lungs to anyone who will listen.
But it doesn't matter apparently. The "if you read on the internet it must be true" mentality is alive and well. Add to this the tendency of people to reject information that doesn't conform to their bias and except information that does. Repeating FUD often enough does seems to make it more acceptable if you want the FUD to be true.
Now I'm sure that we will have critics attacking at&t's third party scientific study and defending the non-scientific "call some people and see what they say" study. The reality is probably somewhere in the middle but we'll never know will we. At least not on blogs and forums where reality is what you say it is. And people rant on about Steve Job's RDF. Take a look in the mirror why don't you.
I am betting this data is different than what the outside testing company showed, the actually drop call on the network was probably higher. But surveying 4000 people and trying to extrapolated that over 80 million users and billion of calls made each date is unrealistic their survey error is probably +/- 4% or 5%
Search TETRA EMF for real bad news.
So how does it work? Your immune system depends on a barrage of signals, literally tens of thousands per second, both chemical and electrical. With such a number and the realities of nature some go wrong but natural selection has determined how many going wrong is a safe proportion. Mass pollution, electrical (EMF) and chemical, increases the number of erroneous immune system signals. So there aren't specific illnesses associated with pollution there is a general increase in 'conditions' (as illnesses are now called by the industry that provides 'treatments' rather than cures).
Really anyone who thinks that massively changing the nature of the human environment will not have detrimental health effects should better understand the nature of being and nature.
@Dan, love your writings, love your attitude, hope you are man enough to dig deeper on this one.
Plug those (sheathed) cables in!!!
I have said many times before: in my overall experience, both with where I live and where I travel to (including, frequently, NYC), I have found ATT to be decent and importantly, no different from my past experience with either Sprint or Verizon.
Situation Normal All Fvcked Up is a pretty good description for what that group has done. It reminds me of the ridiculous rumor and FUD that was spread about power transmission lines. The guy that started it all has retracted his statement. He was unfortunately misquoted (to the bad) several times and this really got blown out of proportion. Google it. ...
The trouble with the "cell phones fry your brain" theory as well as the "power lines cause cancer" theory, is that there is just enough truth in it that it can never be wholly discounted. While most of what you hear is nonsense, there are some studies that indicate that living near power lines can cause higher rates of cancer and some studies that indicate certain cell phones are bad for your brain.
From the reading I've done, the only real things to worry about are living close to and *downwind* (because of the ionising effect) from giant power lines for long periods of time, and letting your children use cellphones too much (because the radiation does actually heat up your brain and their brains are still growing). The cell towers themselves don't have any adverse effects at all that I've read about.
Whilst it's not popular for people to dis wireless of all types in tech circles it fucks your body up. The industries (computer, phone etc) all cover it up but it is well known, such that before I bought my first mobile in 1986 I knew about it from an industry insider subsequently confirmed by a former Navy radio officer working in the cell phone industry. Telecoms engineers report 3x leukemia rates - the source can never be separated from background radiation by subsequent govt/industry (same thing) investigators.
Search TETRA EMF for real bad news.
So how does it work? Your immune system depends on a barrage of signals, literally tens of thousands per second, both chemical and electrical. With such a number and the realities of nature some go wrong but natural selection has determined how many going wrong is a safe proportion. Mass pollution, electrical (EMF) and chemical, increases the number of erroneous immune system signals. So there aren't specific illnesses associated with pollution there is a general increase in 'conditions' (as illnesses are now called by the industry that provides 'treatments' rather than cures).
Really anyone who thinks that massively changing the nature of the human environment will not have detrimental health effects should better understand the nature of being and nature.
@Dan, love your writings, love your attitude, hope you are man enough to dig deeper on this one.
Plug those (sheathed) cables in!!!
You are spot on. I have a similar concern about my tooth fillings too. A swami once told me, in 1964, that aliens lived in it.
I for one am glad to see Apple and at&t finally challenging the FUD and crap spread around about their networks and devices. I'll never understand why normally rational people take anecdotal reports of anonymous users on internet forums as a valid sampling of what is really going on. Using the hospital metaphor, how can one conclude that because a town's hospital is full of patients therefore everybody in the town is also sick? Small, vocal, anonymous user reports of an issue are somehow extrapolated into "massive" issues.
The trolls attacked when Steve Jobs mentioned the three year period to get a cell tower approved in SF. It seems now that its even worse than that. We apparently have an activist group trying to stop all cell tower deployments in the city.
We have no real idea of how pervasive the so-called iPhone 4 reception issue is either. All we have is a bunch of screaming loonies with YouTube videos and forum rants about how a user's sister's boyfriend drops calls all the time Then the media started sniffing blood in the water and cranked up the hysteria. The end result was a press conference in which Steve Jobs basically called everybody out to put up or shut up. The scab was ripped off the wound and Apple and at&t are now fighting back. And it's starting to look like they're not so far off with their claims after all. And it really all boils down to the fact that forums and blogs concentrate the negative. If I'm happy with a product or service I'm not all that inclined to post in a forum about it or write a letter to the editor extolling my satisfaction. But if I'm unhappy with something I will scream at the top of my lungs to anyone who will listen.
But it doesn't matter apparently. The "if you read on the internet it must be true" mentality is alive and well. Add to this the tendency of people to reject information that doesn't conform to their bias and except information that does. Repeating FUD often enough does seems to make it more acceptable if you want the FUD to be true.
I can not agree more, most people lack the ability to take all this information and draw a factual conclusion. Plus most people are users, that have no ideal what it takes to make a product the do not understand the limits of design and what trade of that exists.
I love the people in SF they are like the one around me, all they care about is they got something and they will do everything they can so other do not have what they have. such as they can receive a call in their house and screw the neighbors down the street who can not because you not putting a tower out in from of my house.
The data's from March. iPhone 4 came out end of June. How does it relate?
That's the point. The iPhone 4 is 66% above average, with regards dropped calls.