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

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 52
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    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 View Post


    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.



  • Reply 22 of 52
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    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.
  • Reply 23 of 52
    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?
  • Reply 24 of 52
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cameronj View Post


    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.



  • Reply 25 of 52
    macrrmacrr Posts: 488member
    It is shameful here.



    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.
  • Reply 26 of 52
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iluomo View Post


    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...
  • Reply 27 of 52
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    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 View Post


    Er, which would tell me that they don't have the bandwidth for their paying customers. Which to *me* is a network problem.



  • Reply 28 of 52
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    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.
  • Reply 29 of 52
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    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.
  • Reply 30 of 52
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    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.
  • Reply 31 of 52
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    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 View Post


    .

    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.



  • Reply 32 of 52
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    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.
  • Reply 33 of 52
    neilmneilm Posts: 964member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRR View Post


    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.
  • Reply 34 of 52
    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!!!
  • Reply 35 of 52
    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)
  • Reply 36 of 52
    -cj--cj- Posts: 58member
    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.
  • Reply 37 of 52
    The Chicago area is pretty solid, both in 3G data speed and voice reception.
  • Reply 38 of 52
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    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.



    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.)
  • Reply 39 of 52
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tim1724 View Post


    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.
  • Reply 40 of 52
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sflocal View Post


    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 View Post


    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.