AT&T CEO lays out plans to improve 3G coverage in 2009

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 52
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    I have to agree with this AT&T is terrible is Los Angeles. I'm in LA often. When there I am generally in West Hollywood and Culver City. Service is noticeably worse than average.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Kesem View Post


    I live in the West Los Angeles/Beverly Hills and everyone I know makes constant jokes about the poor coverage here. If it wasn't for the iphone everyone would be on Verizon.



  • Reply 42 of 52
    the article states that iphone 3g hardware does not suprt the faster speeds beyond 3.6 mbps...



    this can't be true because the iphone: Cellular and wireless

    UMTS/HSDPA (850, 1900, 2100 MHz)



    the hsdpa allows for up to 7.2 mbps, which is not available in really any area (except maybe san fran in order to get the commercial for the 3g filmed)
  • Reply 43 of 52
    macrrmacrr Posts: 488member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NeilM View Post


    You're kidding, right? SF's topology is about as cell unfriendly as it gets, with giant hills blocking radio wave propagation. However the 850Mhz rollout, mentioned in the article as due to be completed this year, should help you quite a bit.





    really? because SOMA/Mission is about as large/flat an area SF gets- and this is where it blows ass the most.



    and yes- 7x7 miles- hills or no, shouldn't be too hard to cover.



    stop being an AT&T apologist.
  • Reply 44 of 52
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 8CoreWhore View Post


    For voice calls - turn off 3G. When you need the web, turn 3G back on. I know you shouldn't have to do that - but in the meantime...



    Thanks for your post, 8. I know you're right about toggling to Edge. I just forget sometimes and it's a pain when I do.



    I hope this AT&T guy is right about improvements coming in '09...
  • Reply 45 of 52
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mac4evan View Post


    the article states that iphone 3g hardware does not suprt the faster speeds beyond 3.6 mbps...



    this can't be true because the iphone: Cellular and wireless

    UMTS/HSDPA (850, 1900, 2100 MHz)



    the hsdpa allows for up to 7.2 mbps, which is not available in really any area (except maybe san fran in order to get the commercial for the 3g filmed)



    Those protocols were rolled out in different stages. The protocol having a theoretical ceiling doesn't mean that HW supported the protocols also support those ceilings. For instance, HSDPA can also supports 14.4Mbps but there is no manufacturer that I know of that creates the network or client-side HW to support such speeds.
  • Reply 46 of 52
    As someone said earlier, if you're in San Francisco, turn off 3G and you'll be fine. I used to experience drop calls constantly, even up through 2.2. I took it to the Apple store and they confirmed it was a network issue. While partly AT&T's fault, it's also a matter of being in a very densely populated area where everyone own an iPhone, and we're surrounded by water with huge hills and tall buildings. Not a good combination for network reliability.



    It has been much better over the last month or so, I have to say. I now leave 3G on most of the time unless I have to make an important call.
  • Reply 47 of 52
    macrrmacrr Posts: 488member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stonefree View Post


    As someone said earlier, if you're in San Francisco, turn off 3G and you'll be fine. I used to experience drop calls constantly, even up through 2.2. I took it to the Apple store and they confirmed it was a network issue. While partly AT&T's fault, it's also a matter of being in a very densely populated area where everyone own an iPhone, and we're surrounded by water with huge hills and tall buildings. Not a good combination for network reliability.



    It has been much better over the last month or so, I have to say. I now leave 3G on most of the time unless I have to make an important call.



    I'll try turning off 3G (even though I paid for it and live in the technological center of the USA).



    But let's get this straight...



    Being surrounded by water means nothing other than you have less area to provide coverage for. And SF has hills- but not mountains. And they are sporadically around. On the flattest part of SF- their signal is the worst. And on russian hill or nob hill works great (two of the largest hills in SF)



    The building here are actually, for the most part not too tall unless you get into the FiDi. And oddly enough- that's where the 3G works best. Not to mention a far denser area like MAnhattan or Chicago downtown don't have these issues despite the prevalence of taller buildings.



    People who think a few hills and a tiny financial district with a small land mass to deal with )7x7 miles) is enough to give AT&T a pass are fools. It doesn't seem to hurt verizon or T Mobile.
  • Reply 48 of 52
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    If most of AT&T's San Francisco 3G bandwidth is on its 1900MHz frequency then water, hills, and buildings do make a difference in coverage, 1900MHz is easily blocked. This will improve when AT&T switches over to its new 850MHz frequency.



    I know this knowledge doesn't help when you don't have good coverage, but it is the truth.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRR View Post


    People who think a few hills and a tiny financial district with a small land mass to deal with )7x7 miles) is enough to give AT&T a pass are fools. It doesn't seem to hurt verizon or T Mobile.



  • Reply 49 of 52
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Kesem View Post


    I live in the West Los Angeles/Beverly Hills and everyone I know makes constant jokes about the poor coverage here. If it wasn't for the iphone everyone would be on Verizon.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    I have to agree with this AT&T is terrible is Los Angeles. I'm in LA often. When there I am generally in West Hollywood and Culver City. Service is noticeably worse than average.



    LA/Orange County and Inland Empire are all profoundly terrible on the AT&T network. I had a friend who went from Cingular to AT&T and then to Verizon. He went from not being able to make a phone call in his own home to getting calls pretty much everywhere.



    I have a classmate who has an iPhone and it was the same thing. We were on a discussion about who has landlines or just cellphones and she said she has to have a landline because 90% of the time, her calls won't get through at home.



    Finally my close friend and his business partner went and bought iPhones. I don't know what codec they were using but a call from his living room sounded like he was driving in his truck with the window down. We tried it multiple times to make sure it was not a bad connection. His partner kept the phone but the running joke is that you call him on the landline and have him make up excuses about the phone not working.



    My wife wants an iPhone. I wouldn't mind it if they made the camera better, added voice dialing and picture messaging (I don't care if you can use email, I don't use that either.) Several friends would easily purchase iPhones if not for the network in So Cal. AT&T is terrible here.
  • Reply 50 of 52
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    A pre-iPhone cell conversation I had north of San Diego with a friend in Poway who works in the industry, paraphrased:



    "Hey, Merry Christmas."



    "Merry Christmas."



    "Sorry for the late call, but I've tried to call the last few days and the network has been completely overwhelmed."



    "Really? Wow, I'm surprised. Wait, who's your carrier?"



    "Cingular."



    "Oh, then I'm not surprised."



    The nub is that then-Cingular's coverage not just in the area where I live, but in the entire region where I live is very good. AT&T's has been better. So it really does boil down to where you live. It also points to a possible decision on AT&T's part to build out infrastructure that can handle most ordinary traffic, but not splurge on the infrastructure that can keep up with huge spikes like Christmas.
  • Reply 51 of 52
    unotherunother Posts: 40member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iluomo View Post


    [QUOTE}Might I suggest you stop expecting your phone to work in an elevator?



    I suggest you drop the smug attitude and stop assuming things. I am an IT consultant and deal with unreasonable expectation all day long. I do not have unreasonable expectations.

    [/QUOTE]



    I'd like to add that I too have issues with AT&T's 3G network. And this is with a Blackberry Bold. I have an area of transit between the Outer Richmond and the Financial District daily. Web service is often unavailable in the morning; speeds are atrocious; and one night in Laurel Heights I had the same call drop THREE TIMES.



    Look @iluomo, there's a reason AT&T has had a lawsuit filed against it: simply put the network in SF is oversaturated and unable to handle the volume of data being sent onto it...
  • Reply 52 of 52
    unotherunother Posts: 40member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Kickaha View Post


    Don't forget the humidity - water (water vapor in the air, greenery, all sorts of wet goodness) attenuates cell signals to a significant degree. Call quality in the Raleigh, NC area drops during summer, and gets better in winter when it's drier. SF is... not dry. (Neither is Seattle, now that I think of it, and similar rolling hill topology... still not an excuse for a flaky network.)



    Hm, that might explain why the network quality is so much worse than in the morning... thank you my good man for that explanation!
Sign In or Register to comment.