Last month NY Times had a report about AT&T network problems. Tekstud wet his shorts over it and has it bookmarked to post at any point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
1) Are any of these reports current, or the ones from last year when the iPhone first launched?
2) Do any of these reports mention any good coverage or just bad coverage all over as you have a tendency, to put it lightly, to focus on only the negative aspects of things? Even Melgross didn't say his coverage was great in all places, but he pretty much lives in a Faraday cage and has noted that his coverage has gotten better.
What you do is lazily quote someone's comment and then post a link, usually with nothing else in the reply. You never crop the quoted reply to give focus to the point you are trying to get across. You don't explain that part you actually disagree with, and you never quote parts of the article that support your position. I am not going to read every link that every forum poster pastes; I don't even read every post. If you have something viable to add to the conversation then formulate words into sentences and paragraphs and use the article as a way of backing that position.
Your diatribes about AT&T's problems make it sound as if the company is completely incompetent. If you had read the NY Times report thoroughly it clearly says AT&T's problems are more complex than you make them sound. AT&T is dealing with technical issues and growing pains that it is working through.
On top of that it has a phone that uses enough data to be fourth behind Linux in internet usage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
I have provided you this link like how many times?? from March 13th, 2009. Why haven't you read it?
Cool- I always thought that but everyone keeps saying how GSM is so advanced.
But I'm like- if the quality is poor - who cares? Thanks for the info.
So then where's that CDMA iPhone that China's getting?
This was one reason why I didn't go with Cingular way back when. I'm sure that some European users who only use GSM will deny this, but then, they have nothing to compare it to, do they?
The argument about CDMA vs GSM call quality has been going on for a long time.
I'm not sure what's happening in China, as we hear different things from week to week.
1) Are any of these reports current, or the ones from last year when the iPhone first launched?
2) Do any of these reports mention any good coverage or just bad coverage all over as you have a tendency, to put it lightly, to focus on only the negative aspects of things? Even Melgross didn't say his coverage was great in all places, but he pretty much lives in a Faraday cage and has noted that his coverage has gotten better.
PS: If a comet flies close to the earth go to his house until it passes.
Are you specially referring to GSM and CDMA or to UMTS/HSDPA and CDMA2000, as well?
I have to leave in a few minutes, so I don't have the time to get into the details of each of those. But anything based on GSM has poorer quality, and anything based on CDMA has better quality.
I'm sure that for the hours I'm away, someone can Google this.
I's like to know- To what extent has the 3G network slowed down as a result of AT&T's relentless promotion of other 3G devices compromising the very iPhone it's profitting on?
I predict headaches will turn into migraines in the last half of this year for users of ATT's 3G services if the price points are lowered along with additional tiered data plans. The more people jump into ATT's pool for a swim, the more uncomfortable it will be because they won't tell you the pool is only half full when you sign up. (Using the water content / signal strength, data speed analogy).
Last month NY Times had a report about AT&T network problems. Tekstud wet his shorts over it and has it bookmarked to post at any point.
I did read that when it first came out and not because of a lone hyperlink on this site. I keep the Times in my RSS. That article stated that AT&T was worse than other networks in some major cities and overall, but it also stated that Verizon is not without its problems, showed a graph that had all teh major carriers pretty close to each other overall in SF, and stated that AT&T is putting another $11B into improving their network.
I don't see how that is a "woes me AT&T is teh DO0MED!!!" article that Teckstud is claiming it to be. I want to know if AT&T has improved since last summer when pundits, like David Pogue, couldn't get a signal in many places of NYC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyokuro
The more people jump into ATT's pool for a swim, the more uncomfortable it will be because they won't tell you the pool is only half full when you sign up.
I would love for them to only sell iPhones in certain areas when they have the room to add another device. Like trying to get into a packed club or full restaurant. If they can't handle the activations and data loads when the iPhone launches they put people on waiting lists. I think that many people would rather wait for it than get it and have issues.
They should have done this with MobileMe. First opening up to .Mac users, then offering 3 months free to iPhone buyers and then putting their free-for-all trial open to anyone on the website.
I did read that when it first came out and not because of a lone hyperlink on this site. I keep the Times in my RSS. That article stated that AT&T was worse than other networks in some major cities and overall, but it also stated that Verizon is not without its problems, showed a graph that had all teh major carriers pretty close to each other overall in SF, and stated that AT&T is putting another $11B into improving their network.
The article also described the technical issues AT&T was having and what they were doing to fix the problems.
Quote:
I don't see how that is a "woes me AT&T is teh DO0MED!!!" article that Teckstud is claiming it to be. I want to know if AT&T has improved since last summer when pundits, like David Pogue, couldn't get a signal in many places of NYC.
It has improved. I'm not sure if their was necessarily problems in any one particular place. Last summer to me it seemed there were just problems all around. It was pretty clear the network was over loaded.
Quote:
I would love for them to only sell iPhones in certain areas when they have the room to add another device. Like trying to get into a packed club or full restaurant. If they can't handle the activations and data loads when the iPhone launches they put people on waiting lists. I think that many people would rather wait for it than get it and have issues.
This is exactly what happened in NYC last year. There were just too many 3G phones added in one short amount of time and they couldn't handle it.
From a practical point of view they are unlikely to put people on a waiting list, most people are unlikely to actually wait. AT&T would risk them buying a different phone on another carrier.
It sounds as though this summer AT&T plans to be prepared for the influx of new phones.
The article also described the technical issues AT&T was having and what they were doing to fix the problems.
They didn't describe anything we haven't already discussed here and knew about.
Quote:
It sounds as though this summer AT&T plans to be prepared for the influx of new phones.
I sure hope so. They are definitely working on improving things, but to what level. I suspect that the new rumored HW and v3.0 will be selling many more handsets than last year. I just hope that have taken that well into account.
They had a waiting list last year, but only because they didn't have stock. Apple could just organize how and when the retails stores get stock in certain cities. It would probably backfire though, not with people jumping to other carriers and phones, but with people claiming that Apple and AT&T are creating a false demand when they have plenty of handsets on ready.
PS: This relates to nothing but I found an interesting feature of the iPhone's GPS that I didn't know existed. If you go out of cell range completely A-GPS can't work. You also can't grab the maps from Google. This happened to me a couple weeks ago in some middle of nowhere area of Kentucky. I was trying to find my destination and was out of options since I couldn't make a call. I decided to go into Google maps, it was on the last page showing the map of the destination I had looked up earlier. I pinched the map out until it was fairly small and surrounded by the empty grid. There was blue dot, which moved with me until I worked my way up to the cached map. Maybe it's just me, but I was impressed that the remaining map coordinates were still keep in sync.
You don't know the numbers. You also don't know what, if anything, they may get kicked back from data services. You're just reading the rumors and repeating them.
You're right about my posts being speculative, and maybe it would have been useful for me to be more clear about that. It's been my observation that speculation is a significant, accepted part of these forums. We don't have all of the numbers, but we have a lot of them. $30 a month for data. 24 months is $720. Half of that is probably eaten upfront by the subsidy, and the other half divided between Apple, network upgrades and maintenance (much of which seems to be driven by the iPhone), other overhead, interest, the IRS, and actual retained cash. My best guess is that cash isn't AT&T's big motivation for the partnership. I assume it's massively profitable, but it's not bringing the net cash. That's all I was trying to say.
They didn't describe anything we haven't already discussed here and knew about.
Never discussed with such detail until after article came out. And when exactly do these changes take place? You seem th think it's been done already by your prior post.
the article also described the technical issues at&t was having and what they were doing to fix the problems.
It has improved. I'm not sure if their was necessarily problems in any one particular place. Last summer to me it seemed there were just problems all around. It was pretty clear the network was over loaded.
This is exactly what happened in nyc last year. There were just too many 3g phones added in one short amount of time and they couldn't handle it.
From a practical point of view they are unlikely to put people on a waiting list, most people are unlikely to actually wait. At&t would risk them buying a different phone on another carrier.
It sounds as though this summer at&t plans to be prepared for the influx of new phones.
How do you know it's not a patch and not what the article speaks to?
AT&T isn't sharing revenue anymore. AT&T is straight subsidizing the sale of each phone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DHKOsta
$30 a month for data. 24 months is $720. Half of that is probably eaten upfront by the subsidy, and the other half divided between Apple, network upgrades and maintenance (much of which seems to be driven by the iPhone)....
I'm saying that in the context of Teckstud using this as his most damaging report of AT&T.
Gotcha! I read that article as a good thing for AT&T customers moving forward so I didn't really understand how the sky was falling when there was talk of constant improvements on all sides.
He didn't mean that. He was asking what percentage of their new subscribers came from the iPhone, not what percentage of iPhone customers were new subscribers.
Thanks melgross, you're right, that's what I was asking. Curious about how AT&T would do poaching customers from other carriers without the iphone as an exclusive.
What you do is lazily quote someone's comment and then post a link, usually with nothing else in the reply. You never crop the quoted reply to give focus to the point you are trying to get across. You don't explain that part you actually disagree with, and you never quote parts of the article that support your position. I am not going to read every link that every forum poster pastes; I don't even read every post. If you have something viable to add to the conversation then formulate words into sentences and paragraphs and use the article as a way of backing that position.
Here you go (spoon not included):
"For many, the iPhone has become a symbol of the gap between the promise of a powerful device and the reality of inconsistent service. Its owners complain of continual hiccups, particularly in certain cities." NY TImes March 13, 2009.
I guess your Warped Distortion Field blocked this part out.
He is just too much for me to take. I can't believe those are serious postings. I guess if you move a tower from 700MHz to 850Mhz and up the bandwidth you are just patching, but it's not an improvement for that tower. I don't get it at all.
Been great in NY, CT, NJ, MA, PA, ND, SD, MN, TX, OR, CA, AZ, OH, FL, VA, AK... where else have I been this year? And I'm not just talking about airports. I'm looking forward to using Skype on my iPhone when we venture into China, HonG Kong, & South Korea later this year.
This has been my experience as well, although not in such broad scope. I have been in 8 major metropolitan areas since having my original iPhone (NYC, Boston, D.C., Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago), not to mention many rural areas in beween, and have had no problems with either version, other than in ares where there just physically was not a tower in range.
And teckstud, I think the "lucky ones" that you speak of are the vast majority of people out there. The people having problems are the ones on here posting, not the ones having perfect service. And if I remember correctly you are the one who refuses to get an iPhone, so I would much rather take my advice from people with first-hand experience, not someone who quotes newspapers all day. It doesn't take much for a newspaper to make a crisis out of something, so I would take that stuff with a grain of salt, especially when it comes to things about Apple, things tend to get blown out of proportion.
Comments
1) Are any of these reports current, or the ones from last year when the iPhone first launched?
2) Do any of these reports mention any good coverage or just bad coverage all over as you have a tendency, to put it lightly, to focus on only the negative aspects of things? Even Melgross didn't say his coverage was great in all places, but he pretty much lives in a Faraday cage and has noted that his coverage has gotten better.
I have provided you this link like how many times?? from March 13th, 2009. Why haven't you read it?
I not only talk the talk, I provide the chalk.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/14/te...y/14phone.html
What you do is lazily quote someone's comment and then post a link, usually with nothing else in the reply. You never crop the quoted reply to give focus to the point you are trying to get across. You don't explain that part you actually disagree with, and you never quote parts of the article that support your position. I am not going to read every link that every forum poster pastes; I don't even read every post. If you have something viable to add to the conversation then formulate words into sentences and paragraphs and use the article as a way of backing that position.
On top of that it has a phone that uses enough data to be fourth behind Linux in internet usage.
I have provided you this link like how many times?? from March 13th, 2009. Why haven't you read it?
I not only talk the talk, I provide the chalk.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/14/te...y/14phone.html
Cool- I always thought that but everyone keeps saying how GSM is so advanced.
But I'm like- if the quality is poor - who cares? Thanks for the info.
So then where's that CDMA iPhone that China's getting?
This was one reason why I didn't go with Cingular way back when. I'm sure that some European users who only use GSM will deny this, but then, they have nothing to compare it to, do they?
The argument about CDMA vs GSM call quality has been going on for a long time.
I'm not sure what's happening in China, as we hear different things from week to week.
1) Are any of these reports current, or the ones from last year when the iPhone first launched?
2) Do any of these reports mention any good coverage or just bad coverage all over as you have a tendency, to put it lightly, to focus on only the negative aspects of things? Even Melgross didn't say his coverage was great in all places, but he pretty much lives in a Faraday cage and has noted that his coverage has gotten better.
PS: If a comet flies close to the earth go to his house until it passes.
Are you specially referring to GSM and CDMA or to UMTS/HSDPA and CDMA2000, as well?
I have to leave in a few minutes, so I don't have the time to get into the details of each of those. But anything based on GSM has poorer quality, and anything based on CDMA has better quality.
I'm sure that for the hours I'm away, someone can Google this.
I's like to know- To what extent has the 3G network slowed down as a result of AT&T's relentless promotion of other 3G devices compromising the very iPhone it's profitting on?
I predict headaches will turn into migraines in the last half of this year for users of ATT's 3G services if the price points are lowered along with additional tiered data plans. The more people jump into ATT's pool for a swim, the more uncomfortable it will be because they won't tell you the pool is only half full when you sign up. (Using the water content / signal strength, data speed analogy).
Back to work.
Last month NY Times had a report about AT&T network problems. Tekstud wet his shorts over it and has it bookmarked to post at any point.
I did read that when it first came out and not because of a lone hyperlink on this site. I keep the Times in my RSS. That article stated that AT&T was worse than other networks in some major cities and overall, but it also stated that Verizon is not without its problems, showed a graph that had all teh major carriers pretty close to each other overall in SF, and stated that AT&T is putting another $11B into improving their network.
I don't see how that is a "woes me AT&T is teh DO0MED!!!" article that Teckstud is claiming it to be. I want to know if AT&T has improved since last summer when pundits, like David Pogue, couldn't get a signal in many places of NYC.
The more people jump into ATT's pool for a swim, the more uncomfortable it will be because they won't tell you the pool is only half full when you sign up.
I would love for them to only sell iPhones in certain areas when they have the room to add another device. Like trying to get into a packed club or full restaurant. If they can't handle the activations and data loads when the iPhone launches they put people on waiting lists. I think that many people would rather wait for it than get it and have issues.
They should have done this with MobileMe. First opening up to .Mac users, then offering 3 months free to iPhone buyers and then putting their free-for-all trial open to anyone on the website.
I did read that when it first came out and not because of a lone hyperlink on this site. I keep the Times in my RSS. That article stated that AT&T was worse than other networks in some major cities and overall, but it also stated that Verizon is not without its problems, showed a graph that had all teh major carriers pretty close to each other overall in SF, and stated that AT&T is putting another $11B into improving their network.
The article also described the technical issues AT&T was having and what they were doing to fix the problems.
I don't see how that is a "woes me AT&T is teh DO0MED!!!" article that Teckstud is claiming it to be. I want to know if AT&T has improved since last summer when pundits, like David Pogue, couldn't get a signal in many places of NYC.
It has improved. I'm not sure if their was necessarily problems in any one particular place. Last summer to me it seemed there were just problems all around. It was pretty clear the network was over loaded.
I would love for them to only sell iPhones in certain areas when they have the room to add another device. Like trying to get into a packed club or full restaurant. If they can't handle the activations and data loads when the iPhone launches they put people on waiting lists. I think that many people would rather wait for it than get it and have issues.
This is exactly what happened in NYC last year. There were just too many 3G phones added in one short amount of time and they couldn't handle it.
From a practical point of view they are unlikely to put people on a waiting list, most people are unlikely to actually wait. AT&T would risk them buying a different phone on another carrier.
It sounds as though this summer AT&T plans to be prepared for the influx of new phones.
The article also described the technical issues AT&T was having and what they were doing to fix the problems.
They didn't describe anything we haven't already discussed here and knew about.
It sounds as though this summer AT&T plans to be prepared for the influx of new phones.
I sure hope so. They are definitely working on improving things, but to what level. I suspect that the new rumored HW and v3.0 will be selling many more handsets than last year. I just hope that have taken that well into account.
They had a waiting list last year, but only because they didn't have stock. Apple could just organize how and when the retails stores get stock in certain cities. It would probably backfire though, not with people jumping to other carriers and phones, but with people claiming that Apple and AT&T are creating a false demand when they have plenty of handsets on ready.
PS: This relates to nothing but I found an interesting feature of the iPhone's GPS that I didn't know existed. If you go out of cell range completely A-GPS can't work. You also can't grab the maps from Google. This happened to me a couple weeks ago in some middle of nowhere area of Kentucky. I was trying to find my destination and was out of options since I couldn't make a call. I decided to go into Google maps, it was on the last page showing the map of the destination I had looked up earlier. I pinched the map out until it was fairly small and surrounded by the empty grid. There was blue dot, which moved with me until I worked my way up to the cached map. Maybe it's just me, but I was impressed that the remaining map coordinates were still keep in sync.
You don't know the numbers. You also don't know what, if anything, they may get kicked back from data services. You're just reading the rumors and repeating them.
You're right about my posts being speculative, and maybe it would have been useful for me to be more clear about that. It's been my observation that speculation is a significant, accepted part of these forums. We don't have all of the numbers, but we have a lot of them. $30 a month for data. 24 months is $720. Half of that is probably eaten upfront by the subsidy, and the other half divided between Apple, network upgrades and maintenance (much of which seems to be driven by the iPhone), other overhead, interest, the IRS, and actual retained cash. My best guess is that cash isn't AT&T's big motivation for the partnership. I assume it's massively profitable, but it's not bringing the net cash. That's all I was trying to say.
They didn't describe anything we haven't already discussed here and knew about.
Never discussed with such detail until after article came out. And when exactly do these changes take place? You seem th think it's been done already by your prior post.
They didn't describe anything we haven't already discussed here and knew about..
the article also described the technical issues at&t was having and what they were doing to fix the problems.
It has improved. I'm not sure if their was necessarily problems in any one particular place. Last summer to me it seemed there were just problems all around. It was pretty clear the network was over loaded.
This is exactly what happened in nyc last year. There were just too many 3g phones added in one short amount of time and they couldn't handle it.
From a practical point of view they are unlikely to put people on a waiting list, most people are unlikely to actually wait. At&t would risk them buying a different phone on another carrier.
It sounds as though this summer at&t plans to be prepared for the influx of new phones.
How do you know it's not a patch and not what the article speaks to?
$30 a month for data. 24 months is $720. Half of that is probably eaten upfront by the subsidy, and the other half divided between Apple, network upgrades and maintenance (much of which seems to be driven by the iPhone)....
How do you know it's not a patch and not what the article speaks to?
I'm saying that in the context of Teckstud using this as his most damaging report of AT&T.
Gotcha! I read that article as a good thing for AT&T customers moving forward so I didn't really understand how the sky was falling when there was talk of constant improvements on all sides.
He didn't mean that. He was asking what percentage of their new subscribers came from the iPhone, not what percentage of iPhone customers were new subscribers.
Thanks melgross, you're right, that's what I was asking. Curious about how AT&T would do poaching customers from other carriers without the iphone as an exclusive.
What you do is lazily quote someone's comment and then post a link, usually with nothing else in the reply. You never crop the quoted reply to give focus to the point you are trying to get across. You don't explain that part you actually disagree with, and you never quote parts of the article that support your position. I am not going to read every link that every forum poster pastes; I don't even read every post. If you have something viable to add to the conversation then formulate words into sentences and paragraphs and use the article as a way of backing that position.
Here you go (spoon not included):
"For many, the iPhone has become a symbol of the gap between the promise of a powerful device and the reality of inconsistent service. Its owners complain of continual hiccups, particularly in certain cities." NY TImes March 13, 2009.
I guess your Warped Distortion Field blocked this part out.
Now- did I make this up or what?
What patch are you talking about?
He is just too much for me to take. I can't believe those are serious postings. I guess if you move a tower from 700MHz to 850Mhz and up the bandwidth you are just patching, but it's not an improvement for that tower. I don't get it at all.
Been great in NY, CT, NJ, MA, PA, ND, SD, MN, TX, OR, CA, AZ, OH, FL, VA, AK... where else have I been this year? And I'm not just talking about airports. I'm looking forward to using Skype on my iPhone when we venture into China, HonG Kong, & South Korea later this year.
This has been my experience as well, although not in such broad scope. I have been in 8 major metropolitan areas since having my original iPhone (NYC, Boston, D.C., Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago), not to mention many rural areas in beween, and have had no problems with either version, other than in ares where there just physically was not a tower in range.
And teckstud, I think the "lucky ones" that you speak of are the vast majority of people out there. The people having problems are the ones on here posting, not the ones having perfect service. And if I remember correctly you are the one who refuses to get an iPhone, so I would much rather take my advice from people with first-hand experience, not someone who quotes newspapers all day. It doesn't take much for a newspaper to make a crisis out of something, so I would take that stuff with a grain of salt, especially when it comes to things about Apple, things tend to get blown out of proportion.