Finland, Sonera an iPhone 3G costs $250 and for $50 per month includes 100 voice minutes, 100 SMS messages and 100 MB of data. Tethering allowed?
Canada, Rogers an iPhone 3G costs $199 and for $75* per month includes 300 voice minutes, unlimited weekends and evenings, 2500 SMS outgoing messages (unlimited incoming) and 6Gbs of data. Tethering allowed. Requires 3 year contract.
USA, AT&T an iPhone 3G costs $199 and for $75 per month includes 450 voice minutes, 5000 weekend and nights, 200 SMS outgoing and incoming messages and unlimited data. Tethering not allowed. Requires 2 year contract.
So, I contend that tethering like everything is not free; it is just the way that it is calculated.
*Rogers Family Plan cost $27 extra for each phone, includes unlimited local calls between plan members and 1000 shared long distance calls.
AT&T charges about $60 for two iPhone 3G lines. Up to three additional iPhone lines can be added for $39.99 each.
Mobile data has been available, and has been in use for a very long time, well prior to 3G
I didn't even bother to go there. It would have been a waste of time. I was using the Nokia Data Suite way back when HSCSD was the rage.
When GPRS dropped, we used this as well. Let's just all feel sorry that AT&T is having these growing pains that other operators seem to have taken in stride. Not to mention that Europeans as a whole have been using data for some time.
[/quote]Well there are network providers that have been manufacturing these networks for quite a while now, if they purchased their network off someone with experience in this field, then yes, they should have been able to get very good support (if they had been willing to pay for it).
But providing the network to the entire US? I couldn't imagine that AT&T would pay for that much coverage[/QUOTE]
You say you work for the US State Department, yet I don't think that you are an American.
Why? Because you continually dis anything American.
Now that you have disclosed your cell service costs, it is obvious that you pay more for less. And if you really work for State, perhaps you should ask some of your colleagues instead of yourself.
You say you work for the US State Department, yet I don't think that you are an American.
Why? Because you continually dis anything American.
Now that you have disclosed your cell service costs, it is obvious that you pay more for less. And if you really work for State, perhaps you should ask some of your colleagues instead of yourself.
1. I really do not care what you think, nor do you really care what I think so we are even there.
2. Compared to your rate plan I would say that I am paying about $.05 more a month than you while receiving unlimited (no cap) data. Visual voicemail has not been implemented but Sonera said they plan to include that for free. Seeing who is calling you or passing the ANI. Are you kidding me? This has been standard fair for ages. The only advantage to your plan over mine that I see is the amount of text messages.
3. As for asking my colleagues, once again I have no idea what you are talking about, but it doesn't matter really does it?
Oh... I dis what I feel like dissing as it is my biz to dis it. If it is wrong, in my opinion, I say so. Sorry that I am not the kool aid drinking lemming that seems to prowl the AI halls looking for dissenting points of view. I say what I think, and if I am proven wrong, I will say so. WIth all this being said I think we have cleared up any misperceptions where we stand on things.
Mobile data has been available, and has been in use for a very long time, well prior to 3G
Wireless telecommunications had been available in some form since the 1960's. Wasn't until over 30 years later that it became practical and affordable to be commonly used.
Their has been some form of wireless data for some time. But not until recently that it has been commonly used. My point is that for years wireless carriers did not have to support a heavy data use.
Quote:
Well there are network providers that have been manufacturing these networks for quite a while now, if they purchased their network off someone with experience in this field, then yes, they should have been able to get very good support (if they had been willing to pay for it).
That doesn't matter. Setting up a inter-office network using common computers requires some degree of debugging and network stabalization. Setting up a nationwide wireless network is of magnatudes more challenging.
Quote:
But providing the network to the entire US? I couldn't imagine that AT&T would pay for that much coverage
Their goal is to provide 3G to all of the major areas across the country by the end of the year. Those areas hold the far majority of the US population.
But the USA has a population some 58 times that of Finland, but only the land area 30 times bigger. Why couldn't they provide a similar service?
Only 30 times bigger? Seeing as Finland is smaller than the three largest US states. Exactly at what point should land mass become a challenge?
What other carrier has launched a new 3G service and immidiatly has it working with few problems in the third largest country in the world to hundreds of millions of consumers. Right when mobile data use has grown at 200%.
Wireless telecommunications had been available in some form since the 1960's. Wasn't until over 30 years later that it became practical and affordable to be commonly used.
Their has been some form of wireless data for some time. But not until recently that it has been commonly used. My point is that for years wireless carriers did not have to support a heavy data use.
Maybe not in the US but other parts of the world have been using data services for a while. While the US is large, and rolling out a network on a large scale is an undertaking, it is not the massive project that you continue to want to portray. The technology is proven and COTS solutions are easily available if AT^T wants to pay for them. If you want to put a network together on the cheap, you get what you pay for. Serious consultants cost money, serious money but they do the job. AT&T could have been further down the road if they had wanted to but they most likely knew they would have people to cover their back and apologize for them.
Quote:
That doesn't matter. Setting up a inter-office network using common computers requires some degree of debugging and network stabalization. Setting up a nationwide wireless network is of magnatudes more challenging.
Great that you have the ability to determine what is and is not important. Considering global networks are going up everywhere, but AT&T seems to not be able to get it right. Hmmmm......
Quote:
Their goal is to provide 3G to all of the major areas across the country by the end of the year. Those areas hold the far majority of the US population.
Only 30 times bigger? Seeing as Finland is smaller than the three largest US states. Exactly at what point should land mass become a challenge?
What other carrier has launched a new 3G service and immidiatly has it working with few problems in the third largest country in the world to hundreds of millions of consumers. Right when mobile data use has grown at 200%.
Are you having problems understanding that the technology is not new. AT&T should not be having problems on this large a scale. Sure there are some things that need to be tweaked, and optimized but for the most part this has been done by the other network operators, but hey, 20 years from now, you can still claim that AT&T is trying to get their network optimized or whatever.
I've been tethering for a year or so, and they don't disconnect you every couple of minutes. I've actually downloaded some rather large "files" with no problem. I say bring it on, this may get more people, including myself, to switch to the iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
One way or another you will get capped. If they do offer tethering, they will secretly disconnect you every couple of minutes - and if you complain, they will make up some excuse like that a passing vehicle must have caused interference. We already have unlimited data on the iPhone it is just impossible to actually take advantage of it because of the poor network quality. I think they really just want to keep VoIP off their wireless network.
Maybe not in the US but other parts of the world have been using data services for a while. While the US is large, and rolling out a network on a large scale is an undertaking, it is not the massive project that you continue to want to portray. The technology is proven and COTS solutions are easily available if AT^T wants to pay for them. If you want to put a network together on the cheap, you get what you pay for. Serious consultants cost money, serious money but they do the job. AT&T could have been further down the road if they had wanted to but they most likely knew they would have people to cover their back and apologize for them.
While data services have been available for some time no large percentage of consumers were using it because of costs. There have been many articles about European carriers wanting to gain more data users. Many reports showing actual 3G usage in Europe was very low until recently as prices have declined.
Quote:
Great that you have the ability to determine what is and is not important. Considering global networks are going up everywhere, but AT&T seems to not be able to get it right. Hmmmm......
I ask again. What other carrier is putting up a network under the same conditions as ATT and having no problems?
Quote:
This is not news.
I was giving some context to how ATT was covering the whole country.
Well aware of it. Use NetShare, but very seldom, because Wi-Fi is so readably available and a hell of a lot faster and of course, totally free.
WIFI isn't everywhere in Canada and it sure is not free unless you come across someone who either lacks common sense or just doesn't take the time to read the instructions on securing their WLAN. There is both a risk to the person running such a WLAN and to the user who wants to use that open connection. On open WIFI it's very easy to use a packet sniffer to read your email and obtain financial data such as when you do banking online, etc.
Are you having problems understanding that the technology is not new. AT&T should not be having problems on this large a scale. Sure there are some things that need to be tweaked, and optimized but for the most part this has been done by the other network operators, but hey, 20 years from now, you can still claim that AT&T is trying to get their network optimized or whatever.
Exactly what are you basing this on? Most of the major GSM carriers have already set up their 3G systems.
Who else has attempted to launch a new HDSPA network across a large land mass right when mobile data usage is beginning to grow. Do this without any problems.
Even O2 UK and Orange France which have more mature networks felt the need to cap data usage until they felt sure their networks could handle the load.
This means larger networks are more complex and more expensive to achieve the same quality nationwide. If you have a much higher user density then the system needs to be more complex.
It's the same reason that broadband penetration in the US trails much smaller countries like South Korea. Smaller greenfield builds are a hell of a lot easier than replacement of a large legacy system.
AT&T towers are situated mostly for 850mhz density not 1900. 1900 takes a bit hit going through buildings. You also get dropped calls from AT&T patchwork network when you handoff from a 3G tower to a GSM tower. AT&T doesn't have the financial resources to rebuild the entire network at once.
Neither did Verizon really and their financials show it.
While data services have been available for some time no large percentage of consumers were using it because of costs. There have been many articles about European carriers wanting to gain more data users. Many reports showing actual 3G usage in Europe was very low until recently as prices have declined.
We are talking about 3G services. As I mentioned earlier. I was using data back before 3G or EDGE, or even GPRS. This is nothing new.
Quote:
I ask again. What other carrier is putting up a network under the same conditions as ATT and having no problems?
I say again, AT&T is not different than any other operator that has had to put up networks. If AT&T didn't learn from them, then AT&T are stupid. Period, point, blank. The equipment is not new technology or just invented for AT&T. If they are to incompetent to buy competent help then let them flounder. Luckily, I do not have to use them. If State sends me back to the US, I will simply stop using my iPhone if I have to use AT&T.
Quote:
I was giving some context to how ATT was covering the whole country.
Exactly what are you basing this on? Most of the major GSM carriers have already set up their 3G systems.
Who else has attempted to launch a new HDSPA network across a large land mass right when mobile data usage is beginning to grow. Do this without any problems.
Even O2 UK and Orange France which have more mature networks felt the need to cap data usage until they felt sure their networks could handle the load.
Here it is in a nutshell. O2, Orange, T-Mobile, and many others see the iPhone as cutting into their revenue streams via VoIP. The iPhone is a perfect VoIP platform and the operators know this. launching a large network involves no more than putting the pieces in place. This is not new. My God, how many times do I have to say this. The equipment and technology are proven. It is just a matter of putting the pieces in place. The hardest parts are the actual negotiations with land owners with whom AT&T might want to put up an antenna on their land. I have seen and participated in the roll outs in Germany and Finland. So I do not jump on the "poor AT&T is having it rough" bandwagon. If it is so hard, then they should not charge money for it.
This means larger networks are more complex and more expensive to achieve the same quality nationwide. If you have a much higher user density then the system needs to be more complex.
Which components? The core network, the BTS, the BSC... Which systems are more complex?
Quote:
It's the same reason that broadband penetration in the US trails much smaller countries like South Korea. Smaller greenfield builds are a hell of a lot easier than replacement of a large legacy system.
Smaller buildout territories simply mean smaller networks. Same equipment, just not as much.
Quote:
AT&T towers are situated mostly for 850mhz density not 1900. 1900 takes a bit hit going through buildings. You also get dropped calls from AT&T patchwork network when you handoff from a 3G tower to a GSM tower. AT&T doesn't have the financial resources to rebuild the entire network at once.
When you say towers, do you mean actual towers or the antenna that hang on them? Antenna can go almost anywhere. I see it everyday. In Sweden, antenna hang off of buildings, same in Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Finland, the UK. So coverage is not the issue. Buildout/rollout is. Can you explain the 3G to GSM tower hand off? Are you saying that you switch from a 3G network to a 2G network? I will agree with you on the financial part. AT&T is lucky Apple chose them.
Quote:
Neither did Verizon really and their financials show it.
Which components? The core network, the BTS, the BSC... Which systems are more complex?
The total system is more complex. The components are the same although you may see more complex set ups (leading to more issues to resolve) or more robust implementations of components (read more expensive). For example you might need/want more transcivers or more combiners or whatever in a more complex site that sectorizes to handle higher density from one physical site via more cells.
Quote:
Smaller buildout territories simply mean smaller networks. Same equipment, just not as much.
Smaller buildouts cost less money and typically can support a simultaneous rollout. There are fewer customers so you can get away with more rapid changes. You can wing it more and get the same results.
This is like saying that building a house is the same as building a skyscraper. Same raw components, just not as much.
Quote:
When you say towers, do you mean actual towers or the antenna that hang on them?
Why on earth would anyone JUST talk about the antennas. Tower is short hand for everything that goes into a site.
Comments
Finland, Sonera an iPhone 3G costs $250 and for $50 per month includes 100 voice minutes, 100 SMS messages and 100 MB of data. Tethering allowed?
Canada, Rogers an iPhone 3G costs $199 and for $75* per month includes 300 voice minutes, unlimited weekends and evenings, 2500 SMS outgoing messages (unlimited incoming) and 6Gbs of data. Tethering allowed. Requires 3 year contract.
USA, AT&T an iPhone 3G costs $199 and for $75 per month includes 450 voice minutes, 5000 weekend and nights, 200 SMS outgoing and incoming messages and unlimited data. Tethering not allowed. Requires 2 year contract.
So, I contend that tethering like everything is not free; it is just the way that it is calculated.
*Rogers Family Plan cost $27 extra for each phone, includes unlimited local calls between plan members and 1000 shared long distance calls.
AT&T charges about $60 for two iPhone 3G lines. Up to three additional iPhone lines can be added for $39.99 each.
Example: My Monthly Charges
Service:.................................................. .......$.............................Description
Voice .............................................. $27 ..................300 minutes family plan (3 cell phones)
.................................................. ................................free weekend and evening starting at 6PM
Data Usage Plan .............................. $30 ..................6Gbs (only used 42MBs)
3G Visual Voicemail Value Pack ........$11...................(1st month free) Visual Voicemail, Call Display,
.................................................. ................................WhoCalled? & 2,500 Sent Text Messages (incoming are free)
System Access Fee .............................$6.95
Total ................................................$74.95
I got you now. Okay
My Plan
500 mins voice, 500 sms, unlimited data: 51 ? or approximately $75.
If I go over the SMS or voice mins, I naturally pay for these extra mins.
Mobile data has been available, and has been in use for a very long time, well prior to 3G
I didn't even bother to go there. It would have been a waste of time. I was using the Nokia Data Suite way back when HSCSD was the rage.
When GPRS dropped, we used this as well. Let's just all feel sorry that AT&T is having these growing pains that other operators seem to have taken in stride. Not to mention that Europeans as a whole have been using data for some time.
[/quote]Well there are network providers that have been manufacturing these networks for quite a while now, if they purchased their network off someone with experience in this field, then yes, they should have been able to get very good support (if they had been willing to pay for it).
But providing the network to the entire US? I couldn't imagine that AT&T would pay for that much coverage[/QUOTE]
X gets the square for the correct answer.
But the USA has a population some 58 times that of Finland, but only the land area 30 times bigger. Why couldn't they provide a similar service?
Been asking myself that for years.
Been asking myself that for years.
You say you work for the US State Department, yet I don't think that you are an American.
Why? Because you continually dis anything American.
Now that you have disclosed your cell service costs, it is obvious that you pay more for less. And if you really work for State, perhaps you should ask some of your colleagues instead of yourself.
You say you work for the US State Department, yet I don't think that you are an American.
Why? Because you continually dis anything American.
Now that you have disclosed your cell service costs, it is obvious that you pay more for less. And if you really work for State, perhaps you should ask some of your colleagues instead of yourself.
1. I really do not care what you think, nor do you really care what I think so we are even there.
2. Compared to your rate plan I would say that I am paying about $.05 more a month than you while receiving unlimited (no cap) data. Visual voicemail has not been implemented but Sonera said they plan to include that for free. Seeing who is calling you or passing the ANI. Are you kidding me? This has been standard fair for ages. The only advantage to your plan over mine that I see is the amount of text messages.
3. As for asking my colleagues, once again I have no idea what you are talking about, but it doesn't matter really does it?
Oh... I dis what I feel like dissing as it is my biz to dis it. If it is wrong, in my opinion, I say so. Sorry that I am not the kool aid drinking lemming that seems to prowl the AI halls looking for dissenting points of view. I say what I think, and if I am proven wrong, I will say so. WIth all this being said I think we have cleared up any misperceptions where we stand on things.
Mobile data has been available, and has been in use for a very long time, well prior to 3G
Wireless telecommunications had been available in some form since the 1960's. Wasn't until over 30 years later that it became practical and affordable to be commonly used.
Their has been some form of wireless data for some time. But not until recently that it has been commonly used. My point is that for years wireless carriers did not have to support a heavy data use.
Well there are network providers that have been manufacturing these networks for quite a while now, if they purchased their network off someone with experience in this field, then yes, they should have been able to get very good support (if they had been willing to pay for it).
That doesn't matter. Setting up a inter-office network using common computers requires some degree of debugging and network stabalization. Setting up a nationwide wireless network is of magnatudes more challenging.
But providing the network to the entire US? I couldn't imagine that AT&T would pay for that much coverage
Their goal is to provide 3G to all of the major areas across the country by the end of the year. Those areas hold the far majority of the US population.
But the USA has a population some 58 times that of Finland, but only the land area 30 times bigger. Why couldn't they provide a similar service?
Only 30 times bigger? Seeing as Finland is smaller than the three largest US states. Exactly at what point should land mass become a challenge?
What other carrier has launched a new 3G service and immidiatly has it working with few problems in the third largest country in the world to hundreds of millions of consumers. Right when mobile data use has grown at 200%.
Wireless telecommunications had been available in some form since the 1960's. Wasn't until over 30 years later that it became practical and affordable to be commonly used.
Their has been some form of wireless data for some time. But not until recently that it has been commonly used. My point is that for years wireless carriers did not have to support a heavy data use.
Maybe not in the US but other parts of the world have been using data services for a while. While the US is large, and rolling out a network on a large scale is an undertaking, it is not the massive project that you continue to want to portray. The technology is proven and COTS solutions are easily available if AT^T wants to pay for them. If you want to put a network together on the cheap, you get what you pay for. Serious consultants cost money, serious money but they do the job. AT&T could have been further down the road if they had wanted to but they most likely knew they would have people to cover their back and apologize for them.
That doesn't matter. Setting up a inter-office network using common computers requires some degree of debugging and network stabalization. Setting up a nationwide wireless network is of magnatudes more challenging.
Great that you have the ability to determine what is and is not important. Considering global networks are going up everywhere, but AT&T seems to not be able to get it right. Hmmmm......
Their goal is to provide 3G to all of the major areas across the country by the end of the year. Those areas hold the far majority of the US population.
This is not news.
Only 30 times bigger? Seeing as Finland is smaller than the three largest US states. Exactly at what point should land mass become a challenge?
What other carrier has launched a new 3G service and immidiatly has it working with few problems in the third largest country in the world to hundreds of millions of consumers. Right when mobile data use has grown at 200%.
Are you having problems understanding that the technology is not new. AT&T should not be having problems on this large a scale. Sure there are some things that need to be tweaked, and optimized but for the most part this has been done by the other network operators, but hey, 20 years from now, you can still claim that AT&T is trying to get their network optimized or whatever.
One way or another you will get capped. If they do offer tethering, they will secretly disconnect you every couple of minutes - and if you complain, they will make up some excuse like that a passing vehicle must have caused interference. We already have unlimited data on the iPhone it is just impossible to actually take advantage of it because of the poor network quality. I think they really just want to keep VoIP off their wireless network.
Maybe not in the US but other parts of the world have been using data services for a while. While the US is large, and rolling out a network on a large scale is an undertaking, it is not the massive project that you continue to want to portray. The technology is proven and COTS solutions are easily available if AT^T wants to pay for them. If you want to put a network together on the cheap, you get what you pay for. Serious consultants cost money, serious money but they do the job. AT&T could have been further down the road if they had wanted to but they most likely knew they would have people to cover their back and apologize for them.
While data services have been available for some time no large percentage of consumers were using it because of costs. There have been many articles about European carriers wanting to gain more data users. Many reports showing actual 3G usage in Europe was very low until recently as prices have declined.
Great that you have the ability to determine what is and is not important. Considering global networks are going up everywhere, but AT&T seems to not be able to get it right. Hmmmm......
I ask again. What other carrier is putting up a network under the same conditions as ATT and having no problems?
This is not news.
I was giving some context to how ATT was covering the whole country.
Well aware of it. Use NetShare, but very seldom, because Wi-Fi is so readably available and a hell of a lot faster and of course, totally free.
WIFI isn't everywhere in Canada and it sure is not free unless you come across someone who either lacks common sense or just doesn't take the time to read the instructions on securing their WLAN. There is both a risk to the person running such a WLAN and to the user who wants to use that open connection. On open WIFI it's very easy to use a packet sniffer to read your email and obtain financial data such as when you do banking online, etc.
Are you having problems understanding that the technology is not new. AT&T should not be having problems on this large a scale. Sure there are some things that need to be tweaked, and optimized but for the most part this has been done by the other network operators, but hey, 20 years from now, you can still claim that AT&T is trying to get their network optimized or whatever.
Exactly what are you basing this on? Most of the major GSM carriers have already set up their 3G systems.
Who else has attempted to launch a new HDSPA network across a large land mass right when mobile data usage is beginning to grow. Do this without any problems.
Even O2 UK and Orange France which have more mature networks felt the need to cap data usage until they felt sure their networks could handle the load.
And this means what?
This means larger networks are more complex and more expensive to achieve the same quality nationwide. If you have a much higher user density then the system needs to be more complex.
It's the same reason that broadband penetration in the US trails much smaller countries like South Korea. Smaller greenfield builds are a hell of a lot easier than replacement of a large legacy system.
AT&T towers are situated mostly for 850mhz density not 1900. 1900 takes a bit hit going through buildings. You also get dropped calls from AT&T patchwork network when you handoff from a 3G tower to a GSM tower. AT&T doesn't have the financial resources to rebuild the entire network at once.
Neither did Verizon really and their financials show it.
But the USA has a population some 58 times that of Finland, but only the land area 30 times bigger. Why couldn't they provide a similar service?
The land area is much larger as most of the Finns live in the south in a few cities. And we're still not talking about many folks.
While data services have been available for some time no large percentage of consumers were using it because of costs. There have been many articles about European carriers wanting to gain more data users. Many reports showing actual 3G usage in Europe was very low until recently as prices have declined.
We are talking about 3G services. As I mentioned earlier. I was using data back before 3G or EDGE, or even GPRS. This is nothing new.
I ask again. What other carrier is putting up a network under the same conditions as ATT and having no problems?
I say again, AT&T is not different than any other operator that has had to put up networks. If AT&T didn't learn from them, then AT&T are stupid. Period, point, blank. The equipment is not new technology or just invented for AT&T. If they are to incompetent to buy competent help then let them flounder. Luckily, I do not have to use them. If State sends me back to the US, I will simply stop using my iPhone if I have to use AT&T.
I was giving some context to how ATT was covering the whole country.
Fine.
Exactly what are you basing this on? Most of the major GSM carriers have already set up their 3G systems.
Who else has attempted to launch a new HDSPA network across a large land mass right when mobile data usage is beginning to grow. Do this without any problems.
Even O2 UK and Orange France which have more mature networks felt the need to cap data usage until they felt sure their networks could handle the load.
Here it is in a nutshell. O2, Orange, T-Mobile, and many others see the iPhone as cutting into their revenue streams via VoIP. The iPhone is a perfect VoIP platform and the operators know this. launching a large network involves no more than putting the pieces in place. This is not new. My God, how many times do I have to say this. The equipment and technology are proven. It is just a matter of putting the pieces in place. The hardest parts are the actual negotiations with land owners with whom AT&T might want to put up an antenna on their land. I have seen and participated in the roll outs in Germany and Finland. So I do not jump on the "poor AT&T is having it rough" bandwagon. If it is so hard, then they should not charge money for it.
This means larger networks are more complex and more expensive to achieve the same quality nationwide. If you have a much higher user density then the system needs to be more complex.
Which components? The core network, the BTS, the BSC... Which systems are more complex?
It's the same reason that broadband penetration in the US trails much smaller countries like South Korea. Smaller greenfield builds are a hell of a lot easier than replacement of a large legacy system.
Smaller buildout territories simply mean smaller networks. Same equipment, just not as much.
AT&T towers are situated mostly for 850mhz density not 1900. 1900 takes a bit hit going through buildings. You also get dropped calls from AT&T patchwork network when you handoff from a 3G tower to a GSM tower. AT&T doesn't have the financial resources to rebuild the entire network at once.
When you say towers, do you mean actual towers or the antenna that hang on them? Antenna can go almost anywhere. I see it everyday. In Sweden, antenna hang off of buildings, same in Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Finland, the UK. So coverage is not the issue. Buildout/rollout is. Can you explain the 3G to GSM tower hand off? Are you saying that you switch from a 3G network to a 2G network? I will agree with you on the financial part. AT&T is lucky Apple chose them.
Neither did Verizon really and their financials show it.
If you say so.
Which components? The core network, the BTS, the BSC... Which systems are more complex?
The total system is more complex. The components are the same although you may see more complex set ups (leading to more issues to resolve) or more robust implementations of components (read more expensive). For example you might need/want more transcivers or more combiners or whatever in a more complex site that sectorizes to handle higher density from one physical site via more cells.
Smaller buildout territories simply mean smaller networks. Same equipment, just not as much.
Smaller buildouts cost less money and typically can support a simultaneous rollout. There are fewer customers so you can get away with more rapid changes. You can wing it more and get the same results.
This is like saying that building a house is the same as building a skyscraper. Same raw components, just not as much.
When you say towers, do you mean actual towers or the antenna that hang on them?
Why on earth would anyone JUST talk about the antennas. Tower is short hand for everything that goes into a site.