AT&T doesn't have a problem with coverage in NYC. The coverage is fine. The problem is the with the number of people using the network at the same time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Yes, it was very spotty the last time I was in the city, but NY state was pretty good overall. It is odd that NYC seems so neglected. However, I can atest that AT&T's coverage has been growing like crazy since the iPhone announcement, that most of the cities seem well covered and that I get considerably more than 2x in most places, even while moving between cities. That said, there is plenty of room for improvement all around.
AT&T doesn't have a problem with coverage in NYC. The coverage is fine. The problem is the with the number of people using the network at the same time.
Er, which would tell me that they don't have the bandwidth for their paying customers. Which to *me* is a network problem.
I wanted the iPhone so bad but put it off because I didn't want to switch from T-Mobile to AT&T. I finally bit the bullet when the 3G came out and am so glad because AT&T has been great. I haven't had to call them and the service has been solid. I'll take the upgrade to 3Mbps! Is the limitation hardware or firmware based?
Lower SOMA is a dead zone, too. The Mission has 2 bars of edge period. If you go into most buildings you get one bar. Txt msg'ing fails often. Even outside, there are dead zones... you can move one block and then have full 3G. Dropped calls are pretty common. IF you are in a crowd of people in SF, furgheaboutit. most people have iphones here and it quickly overtaxes any nearby towers.
I know it's not the phone because when i go to other places it tends to work fine.
SF is a small city- it shouldn't be too hard to cover it properly. especially, given they have a huge customer base here.
I curse AT&T literally every day here in San Francisco. I was a Verizon customer before and rarely had dropped calls here in the city. And their customer service, both technical and account-wise, was INCREDIBLE.
I switched to AT&T with a heavy heart to (surprise!) get an iPhone. Since then, my few encounters with customer support have been a royal pain and my dropped calls have gone up exponentially. It is a true testament to how much I love the iPhone that I have not switched back.
I can only hope that this de la Vega dude is not blowing the same old smoke and that we will see meaningful improvement in coverage in a place that is, after all, a stone's throw from tech-mecca (i.e. Silicon Valley). I'll believe it when I see it.
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...
Oh yes it is a network problem. No other network has a phone that uses nearly as much data as the iPhone. We cannot really compare if other networks could handle the load any better. For AT&T its somewhat of a good and bad problem at the same time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kickaha
Er, which would tell me that they don't have the bandwidth for their paying customers. Which to *me* is a network problem.
Oh yes it is a network problem. No other network has a phone that uses nearly as much data as the iPhone. We cannot really compare if other networks could handle the load any better. For AT&T its somewhat of a good and bad problem at the same time.
I understand what you are saying and while that is undoubtedly true and I agree with you that the network itself isn't bad for the iPhone, AT&T should have anticipated this with the original iPhone release frenzy AND should have stopped selling if they reached their NYC network threshold. Since these things don't seem to have been dealt with properly AT&T does have a network problem in some major cities. While I hate the car analogies, sometime they are quite apropos: If a city doesn't build enough and big enough highways to deal with the influx of new drivers after making housing very affordable and jobs abundant they can't very well blame the drivers for causing traffic jams. Okay, that was pretty weak, but I think you see mine and Kickaha's POV.
I'm not blaming the users for AT&T's problems. Its definitely AT&T's fault. I'm simply explaining the reason for the problem.
Gotcha. I'm glad we are all on the same page.
PS: This talk of G4 LTE from AT&T is a bit silly when they have so much infrastructure they need to build to support current 3G users and the fact that their 3G still hasn't reached HSUPA or HSPA, which is considerably faster than the fastest theoretical HSDPA speeds.
I felt De La Vega was actually playing down the need for AT&T to switch to LTE. He said that AT&T has a lot more room to speed up 3G before they get to 4G. At the same time they cannot loose the bragging war in this realm. They cannot allow Verizon to gain a big lead in marketing of its LTE coverage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
.
PS: This talk of G4 LTE from AT&T is a bit silly when they have so much infrastructure they need to build to support current 3G users and the fact that their 3G still hasn't reached HSUPA or HSPA, which is considerably faster than the fastest theoretical HSDPA speeds.
I felt De La Vega was actually playing down the need for AT&T to switch to LTE. He said that AT&T has a lot more room to speed up 3G before they get to 4G. At the same time they cannot loose the bragging war in this realm. They cannot allow Verizon to gain a big lead in marketing of its LTE coverage.
That is a good point. People don't know or care about what the actually speeds are of such things. Unless you are in the know you make assumptions on marketing term like 3G and 4G.
SF is a small city- it shouldn't be too hard to cover it properly.
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.
I'm sorry to see no mention by Vega of Los Angeles. The network is very poor here with many "dead zones" that result in dropped calls. Please send HELP!!!
I get pretty good 3G coverage in the Los Angeles area. There are a few areas where I've had trouble, but they're pretty few and far between (and mostly in places where you'd expect, such as in canyons or inside large metal-framed buildings).
I was amazed by the 3G coverage I had on a recent trip to Kauai. All of the populated portions of the island have a solid 5 bars. Only in the most remote locations did I not have 3G coverage. (Typically only in the places so remote that they have no cell phone coverage at all, such as on a dirt road in the far reaches Kokee state park.)
So AT&T is capable of very good (Kauai) and reasonably good (Los Angeles) coverage ... it's good to know that they're going to finally fix the SF situation (which must be pretty embarrassing)
I used to have heaps of problems getting a connection with my 3G iPhone. then i had it replaced (a button broke) and the new handset has never had a problem.
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.
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.)
I get pretty good 3G coverage in the Los Angeles area. There are a few areas where I've had trouble, but they're pretty few and far between (and mostly in places where you'd expect, such as in canyons or inside large metal-framed buildings).
I was amazed by the 3G coverage I had on a recent trip to Kauai. All of the populated portions of the island have a solid 5 bars. Only in the most remote locations did I not have 3G coverage. (Typically only in the places so remote that they have no cell phone coverage at all, such as on a dirt road in the far reaches Kokee state park.)
So AT&T is capable of very good (Kauai) and reasonably good (Los Angeles) coverage ... it's good to know that they're going to finally fix the SF situation (which must be pretty embarrassing)
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.
I live in San Francisco and my (1g) iPhone operates perfectly here. I've been a Cigular->AT&T customer for 10+ years. I've never had a coverage problem. Only issue is when I travel to Europe but that isn't too often and when I do, I usually upgrade to a temporary international plan for $20.00 and cancel that piece when I get back. Case closed.
The original information about that plan wasn't very clear about it. It gave me the impression that it was a plan you had to sign up for the entire period of your contract.
Quote:
Every provider will havs a long list of unsatisfied customers and an equally long list of happy customers too. There is no one true savior among the telcos.
If you're having such horrible problems with your phone coverage, either something is wrong internally with your phone, or you are placing yourself in a location where it's going to be a problem. Might I suggest you stop expecting your phone to work in an elevator?
Are you talking just SF or everywhere?
I'm surprised that you're so glibly ruling out the infrastructure, in my town, the signal is often marginal outdoors, and it's not just one phone. For one thing, people outside the US say that they get solid coverage even inside buildings. Also, I can't just change my location, if you're telling us to move to a different down, if you're serious about that, I will provide a suggestion on where you can put that recommendation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
I felt De La Vega was actually playing down the need for AT&T to switch to LTE. He said that AT&T has a lot more room to speed up 3G before they get to 4G. At the same time they cannot loose the bragging war in this realm. They cannot allow Verizon to gain a big lead in marketing of its LTE coverage.
At the moment, I don't so much about the peak speed. I want voice coverage first.
Comments
Yes, it was very spotty the last time I was in the city, but NY state was pretty good overall. It is odd that NYC seems so neglected. However, I can atest that AT&T's coverage has been growing like crazy since the iPhone announcement, that most of the cities seem well covered and that I get considerably more than 2x in most places, even while moving between cities. That said, there is plenty of room for improvement all around.
AT&T doesn't have a problem with coverage in NYC. The coverage is fine. The problem is the with the number of people using the network at the same time.
Er, which would tell me that they don't have the bandwidth for their paying customers. Which to *me* is a network problem.
Just be patient. Your Edge iPhone will soon be getting 1 MBps. Also, ATT will be upgrading your car to get 200 MPG with no modifications.
Lower SOMA is a dead zone, too. The Mission has 2 bars of edge period. If you go into most buildings you get one bar. Txt msg'ing fails often. Even outside, there are dead zones... you can move one block and then have full 3G. Dropped calls are pretty common. IF you are in a crowd of people in SF, furgheaboutit. most people have iphones here and it quickly overtaxes any nearby towers.
I know it's not the phone because when i go to other places it tends to work fine.
SF is a small city- it shouldn't be too hard to cover it properly. especially, given they have a huge customer base here.
I curse AT&T literally every day here in San Francisco. I was a Verizon customer before and rarely had dropped calls here in the city. And their customer service, both technical and account-wise, was INCREDIBLE.
I switched to AT&T with a heavy heart to (surprise!) get an iPhone. Since then, my few encounters with customer support have been a royal pain and my dropped calls have gone up exponentially. It is a true testament to how much I love the iPhone that I have not switched back.
I can only hope that this de la Vega dude is not blowing the same old smoke and that we will see meaningful improvement in coverage in a place that is, after all, a stone's throw from tech-mecca (i.e. Silicon Valley). I'll believe it when I see it.
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...
Er, which would tell me that they don't have the bandwidth for their paying customers. Which to *me* is a network problem.
Oh yes it is a network problem. No other network has a phone that uses nearly as much data as the iPhone. We cannot really compare if other networks could handle the load any better. For AT&T its somewhat of a good and bad problem at the same time.
I understand what you are saying and while that is undoubtedly true and I agree with you that the network itself isn't bad for the iPhone, AT&T should have anticipated this with the original iPhone release frenzy AND should have stopped selling if they reached their NYC network threshold. Since these things don't seem to have been dealt with properly AT&T does have a network problem in some major cities. While I hate the car analogies, sometime they are quite apropos: If a city doesn't build enough and big enough highways to deal with the influx of new drivers after making housing very affordable and jobs abundant they can't very well blame the drivers for causing traffic jams. Okay, that was pretty weak, but I think you see mine and Kickaha's POV.
I'm not blaming the users for AT&T's problems. Its definitely AT&T's fault. I'm simply explaining the reason for the problem.
Gotcha. I'm glad we are all on the same page.
PS: This talk of G4 LTE from AT&T is a bit silly when they have so much infrastructure they need to build to support current 3G users and the fact that their 3G still hasn't reached HSUPA or HSPA, which is considerably faster than the fastest theoretical HSDPA speeds.
.
PS: This talk of G4 LTE from AT&T is a bit silly when they have so much infrastructure they need to build to support current 3G users and the fact that their 3G still hasn't reached HSUPA or HSPA, which is considerably faster than the fastest theoretical HSDPA speeds.
I felt De La Vega was actually playing down the need for AT&T to switch to LTE. He said that AT&T has a lot more room to speed up 3G before they get to 4G. At the same time they cannot loose the bragging war in this realm. They cannot allow Verizon to gain a big lead in marketing of its LTE coverage.
That is a good point. People don't know or care about what the actually speeds are of such things. Unless you are in the know you make assumptions on marketing term like 3G and 4G.
SF is a small city- it shouldn't be too hard to cover it properly.
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.
I was amazed by the 3G coverage I had on a recent trip to Kauai. All of the populated portions of the island have a solid 5 bars. Only in the most remote locations did I not have 3G coverage. (Typically only in the places so remote that they have no cell phone coverage at all, such as on a dirt road in the far reaches Kokee state park.)
So AT&T is capable of very good (Kauai) and reasonably good (Los Angeles) coverage ... it's good to know that they're going to finally fix the SF situation (which must be pretty embarrassing)
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.
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.)
I get pretty good 3G coverage in the Los Angeles area. There are a few areas where I've had trouble, but they're pretty few and far between (and mostly in places where you'd expect, such as in canyons or inside large metal-framed buildings).
I was amazed by the 3G coverage I had on a recent trip to Kauai. All of the populated portions of the island have a solid 5 bars. Only in the most remote locations did I not have 3G coverage. (Typically only in the places so remote that they have no cell phone coverage at all, such as on a dirt road in the far reaches Kokee state park.)
So AT&T is capable of very good (Kauai) and reasonably good (Los Angeles) coverage ... it's good to know that they're going to finally fix the SF situation (which must be pretty embarrassing)
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.
I live in San Francisco and my (1g) iPhone operates perfectly here. I've been a Cigular->AT&T customer for 10+ years. I've never had a coverage problem. Only issue is when I travel to Europe but that isn't too often and when I do, I usually upgrade to a temporary international plan for $20.00 and cancel that piece when I get back. Case closed.
The original information about that plan wasn't very clear about it. It gave me the impression that it was a plan you had to sign up for the entire period of your contract.
Every provider will havs a long list of unsatisfied customers and an equally long list of happy customers too. There is no one true savior among the telcos.
If you're having such horrible problems with your phone coverage, either something is wrong internally with your phone, or you are placing yourself in a location where it's going to be a problem. Might I suggest you stop expecting your phone to work in an elevator?
Are you talking just SF or everywhere?
I'm surprised that you're so glibly ruling out the infrastructure, in my town, the signal is often marginal outdoors, and it's not just one phone. For one thing, people outside the US say that they get solid coverage even inside buildings. Also, I can't just change my location, if you're telling us to move to a different down, if you're serious about that, I will provide a suggestion on where you can put that recommendation.
I felt De La Vega was actually playing down the need for AT&T to switch to LTE. He said that AT&T has a lot more room to speed up 3G before they get to 4G. At the same time they cannot loose the bragging war in this realm. They cannot allow Verizon to gain a big lead in marketing of its LTE coverage.
At the moment, I don't so much about the peak speed. I want voice coverage first.