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.
I am running out of spoons!
Again- NY Times;
"The reasons for the trouble are complicated. Part of the problem is that the companies are constantly upgrading their networks — creating a patchwork of technology on cell towers, and integrating slices of radio spectrum that carry voice and data transmissions.
Analysts said the problem was not unique to AT&T, but was especially pronounced on its network in some cities because of the way its infrastructure was built."
"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?
Again, quoting a newspaper. You do realize these "polls" or "surveys" these establishments do are typically skewed, if even only a little, to get their point across. Since you like quoting other people's opinions and statistics, show me some stats that show the majority of people, or even something close to it, being unhappy with their device or service, and then we can talk.
The full context of that statement is about all US mobile carriers not just AT&T. The article says that the iPhone symbolizes problems all of the carriers face. The problems appear larger for AT&T because of the iPhone's popularity and exposure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
"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.
"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?
Do you seriously have a mental block that keeps you from being objective. TenoBell, Melgross and I both posted things that AT&T needs to improve on, things they do right and where Verizon et al. have issues and aldo things right. Where one is better than the other and vice versa.
Your dead set focus that AT&T is the devil is just asinine. If you don't like AT&T and/or the coverage in your area isn't good (which is entirely possible as we've discussed) then don't use AT&T. But as others have pointed out and you've quickly deemed as liars, Verizon has troubled areas and AT&T has good areas. The fact that AT&T's coverage is overall worse than Verizon because of towers and radio type doesn't mean that it's Verizon is super-duper great and that AT&T is super-stinky bad as you like to preach.
Again, quoting a newspaper. You do realize these "polls" or "surveys" these establishments do are typically skewed, if even only a little, to get their point across. Since you like quoting other people's opinions and statistics, show me some stats that show the majority of people, or even something close to it, being unhappy with their device or service, and then we can talk.
No- that's up for you -to show me an article or survey refuting mine.
Do you seriously have a mental block that keeps you from being objective. TenoBell, Melgross and I both posted things that AT&T needs to improve on, things they do right and where Verizon et al. have issues and aldo things right. Where one is better than the other and vice versa.
Your dead set focus that AT&T is the devil is just asinine. If you don't like AT&T and/or the coverage in your area isn't good (which is entirely possible as we've discussed) then don't use AT&T. But as others have pointed out and you've quickly deemed as liars, Verizon has troubled areas and AT&T has good areas. The fact that AT&T's coverage is overall worse than Verizon because of towers and radio type doesn't mean that it's Verizon is super-duper great and that AT&T is super-stinky bad as you like to preach.
So sorry that you are in such denial. You really need to put down magic glasses and re-read that article. The article speaks for itself and I didn't write it.
You are not making it up, you just don't understand what you are reading.
Patchwork does not mean they are patching up the network. Patchwork means they are using different mobile standards and frequencies. AT&T has been using TDMA, GSM, and HDSPA all on different frequencies, they all carry voice and data differently. That is a patchwork of technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
Again- NY Times;
"The reasons for the trouble are complicated. Part of the problem is that the companies are constantly upgrading their networks — creating a patchwork of technology on cell towers, and integrating slices of radio spectrum that carry voice and data transmissions.
The full context of that statement is about all US mobile carriers not just AT&T. The article says that the iPhone symbolizes problems all of the carriers face. The problems are appear larger for AT&T because of the iPhone's popularity and exposure.
Denial.
it's just not at all about the iPhone's whatever - it's about AT&T.
It must because I live in the Silicon Valley area, but I've never had a problem with AT&T, neither with their customer service nor the network. I'll drop calls in the obvious areas, like over 17, but it works pretty darn good. I've been a customer since they were first Cingular back in 1998, and never felt the need to switch. The iPhone only added more to the service. 3G works beautifully here (for me anyway). Oh, one exception: at ATT Park. Absolutely "zero" coverage in the park, perhaps they don't want 40,000 fans jawing on the phone when they should be watching the game?
But don't they provide free wi-fi access for the whole park?
You are not making it up, you just don't understand what you are reading.
Patchwork does not mean they are patching up the network. Patchwork means they are using different mobile standards and frequencies. AT&T has been using TDMA, GSM, and HDSPA all on different frequencies, they all carry voice and data differently. That is a patchwork of technology.
Wrong- re-read . The problem is they keep adding to the 2G tower to bring it up to 3G rather than replacing it -hence the piss poor signal that you must love so much in Brooklyn.
The 2G signal then interferes with the 3G signal on the same tower. Did you even read it?
"The reasons for the trouble are complicated. Part of the problem is that the companies are constantly upgrading their networks ? creating a patchwork of technology on cell towers, and integrating slices of radio spectrum that carry voice and data transmissions.
Analysts said the problem was not unique to AT&T, but was especially pronounced on its network in some cities because of the way its infrastructure was built]."
You'd think I was making these things up!
You're not making the article up, you're just making the conclusion up. First of, why bold patchwork? It doesn't mean the pejorative patching in the way you think it does. It's not saying that AT&T is doing crappy patches (although they might be) it's saying that the cell carriers as a whole are putting a lot of different technologies onto the towers, which is part of the problem.
I bolded the parts of the quoted article that don't point to AT&T being the only problem out there. BTW, thanks for quoting the relevant parts of the article that support your argument. Now lets see if we can get you to be objective.
If people are happy with their AT&T coverage why do care so much to tell them there experience is wrong? Why do you think everyone has to be as spiteful as you on these boards?
You're not making the article up, you're just making the conclusion up. First of, why bold patchwork? It doesn't mean the pejorative patching in the way you think it does. It's not saying that AT&T is doing crappy patches (although they might be) it's saying that the cell carriers as a whole are putting a lot of different technologies onto the towers, which is part of the problem.
I bolded the parts of the quoted article that don't point to AT&T being the only problem out there. BTW, thanks for quoting the relevant parts of the article that support your argument. Now lets see if we can get you to be objective.
If people are happy with their AT&T coverage why do care so much to tell them there experience is wrong? Why do you think everyone has to be as spiteful as you on these boards?
I don't and they're not. Didn't I just highlight for you the complete opposite of your above hilighted post? I like facts no matter which way the wind blows. Again the article speaks for itself. I don't need to defend it as I didn't write it.
And for the record it sepcifically states that about AT&T without mentioning another network regarding the patchwork issue!!!!
"On AT&T’s 2G network, cellphone towers — even ones in close proximity to one another — use different chunks of the radio spectrum to carry information. As phone users move around on foot or in a car, their phones switch from one frequency to another. "
“When you have more than three cell sites overlapping, you get interference,” said one infrastructure engineer who works for AT&T, who asked not to be named so as not to upset the company. “You get bad quality, funky sounds. If you’re doing data, the rates get slower and slower until you lose it.”
Oh, one exception: at ATT Park. Absolutely "zero" coverage in the park, perhaps they don't want 40,000 fans jawing on the phone when they should be watching the game?
That is really odd. I get perfect coverage there and always thought it was because it was so high profile for AT&T. I get good connections there when there is a game or concert or when it's empty. I'm often on my boat in the marina around the park, and it's good there too.
Palo Alto has great coverage...except very ironically, there's a dead zone right by Steve Jobs' house.
I don't and they're not. Didn't I just highlight for you the complete opposite of your above hilighted post? I like facts no matter which way the wind blows. Again the article speaks for itself. I don't need to defend it as I didn't write it.
And for the record it sepcifically states that about AT&T without mentioning another network regarding the patchwork issue!!!!
"On AT&T?s 2G network, cellphone towers ? even ones in close proximity to one another ? use different chunks of the radio spectrum to carry information. As phone users move around on foot or in a car, their phones switch from one frequency to another. "
?When you have more than three cell sites overlapping, you get interference,? said one infrastructure engineer who works for AT&T, who asked not to be named so as not to upset the company. ?You get bad quality, funky sounds. If you?re doing data, the rates get slower and slower until you lose it.?
And you still think that using AT&T as an example means that they are only ones who are affected and that they are "teh do0m!1!!" Seriously, you can hate on AT&T all you want but there are plenty of people who are happy with their service... whether you like it or not.
Palo Alto has great coverage...except very ironically, there's a dead zone right by Steve Jobs' house.
Probably not a dead zone, Jobs probably made AT&T only accept AT&T phones with specific IEMIs that his family uses. I'm not serious, but I do think he narcissistic enough to want such a thing.
You only pay most attnetion to the bad news about AT&T, and little attention to what they are doing to address the problems.
Dealing with 2G is a problem, but not "THE" Problem. Every one has to slowly add to their existing 2G. Most mobile phones are 2G, 3G is still growing.
The problem primarily described in the article was solely on the 3G network. Signals from close towers crossing each other on the same frequency and causing radio noise. Lowering the amplification of the signal alleviates this problem but raises the other problem of phones having different abilities to receive signals.
This year AT&T shut down its TDMA network and is switching HSPA over to 850MHz spectrum that TDMA was using. Their have been several reports of AT&T adding new software, transmitters, and routers. This is what 11 billion dollars in network improvements looks like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
Wrong- re-read . The problem is they keep adding to the 2G tower to bring it up to 3G rather than replacing it -hence the piss poor signal that you must love so much in Brooklyn.
The 2G signal then interferes with the 3G signal on the same tower. Did you even read it?
I must be one of the lucky ones also. I live in NJ and I have far better service with AT&T than I ever did with Verizon. I think I may have dropped 1 call since getting my iPhone a year ago. I would never consider going back to Verizon.
Couple people I know have AT&T & are always saying how they wish they had Verizon because it's more reliable. My experience has been that they get just as good coverage as I do, but for some reason there is this belief floating around that Verizon just works great everywhere you go. Is it the commercials?
Comments
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.
I am running out of spoons!
Again- NY Times;
"The reasons for the trouble are complicated. Part of the problem is that the companies are constantly upgrading their networks — creating a patchwork of technology on cell towers, and integrating slices of radio spectrum that carry voice and data transmissions.
Analysts said the problem was not unique to AT&T, but was especially pronounced on its network in some cities because of the way its infrastructure was built."
You'd think I was making these things up!
I've only had one dropped call since August.
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?
Again, quoting a newspaper. You do realize these "polls" or "surveys" these establishments do are typically skewed, if even only a little, to get their point across. Since you like quoting other people's opinions and statistics, show me some stats that show the majority of people, or even something close to it, being unhappy with their device or service, and then we can talk.
"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?
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?
Do you seriously have a mental block that keeps you from being objective. TenoBell, Melgross and I both posted things that AT&T needs to improve on, things they do right and where Verizon et al. have issues and aldo things right. Where one is better than the other and vice versa.
Your dead set focus that AT&T is the devil is just asinine. If you don't like AT&T and/or the coverage in your area isn't good (which is entirely possible as we've discussed) then don't use AT&T. But as others have pointed out and you've quickly deemed as liars, Verizon has troubled areas and AT&T has good areas. The fact that AT&T's coverage is overall worse than Verizon because of towers and radio type doesn't mean that it's Verizon is super-duper great and that AT&T is super-stinky bad as you like to preach.
Again, quoting a newspaper. You do realize these "polls" or "surveys" these establishments do are typically skewed, if even only a little, to get their point across. Since you like quoting other people's opinions and statistics, show me some stats that show the majority of people, or even something close to it, being unhappy with their device or service, and then we can talk.
No- that's up for you -to show me an article or survey refuting mine.
And you used the phone one time? That stinks.
Do you seriously have a mental block that keeps you from being objective. TenoBell, Melgross and I both posted things that AT&T needs to improve on, things they do right and where Verizon et al. have issues and aldo things right. Where one is better than the other and vice versa.
Your dead set focus that AT&T is the devil is just asinine. If you don't like AT&T and/or the coverage in your area isn't good (which is entirely possible as we've discussed) then don't use AT&T. But as others have pointed out and you've quickly deemed as liars, Verizon has troubled areas and AT&T has good areas. The fact that AT&T's coverage is overall worse than Verizon because of towers and radio type doesn't mean that it's Verizon is super-duper great and that AT&T is super-stinky bad as you like to preach.
So sorry that you are in such denial. You really need to put down magic glasses and re-read that article. The article speaks for itself and I didn't write it.
Patchwork does not mean they are patching up the network. Patchwork means they are using different mobile standards and frequencies. AT&T has been using TDMA, GSM, and HDSPA all on different frequencies, they all carry voice and data differently. That is a patchwork of technology.
Again- NY Times;
"The reasons for the trouble are complicated. Part of the problem is that the companies are constantly upgrading their networks — creating a patchwork of technology on cell towers, and integrating slices of radio spectrum that carry voice and data transmissions.
You'd think I was making these things up!
The full context of that statement is about all US mobile carriers not just AT&T. The article says that the iPhone symbolizes problems all of the carriers face. The problems are appear larger for AT&T because of the iPhone's popularity and exposure.
Denial.
it's just not at all about the iPhone's whatever - it's about AT&T.
It must because I live in the Silicon Valley area, but I've never had a problem with AT&T, neither with their customer service nor the network. I'll drop calls in the obvious areas, like over 17, but it works pretty darn good. I've been a customer since they were first Cingular back in 1998, and never felt the need to switch. The iPhone only added more to the service. 3G works beautifully here (for me anyway). Oh, one exception: at ATT Park. Absolutely "zero" coverage in the park, perhaps they don't want 40,000 fans jawing on the phone when they should be watching the game?
But don't they provide free wi-fi access for the whole park?
You are not making it up, you just don't understand what you are reading.
Patchwork does not mean they are patching up the network. Patchwork means they are using different mobile standards and frequencies. AT&T has been using TDMA, GSM, and HDSPA all on different frequencies, they all carry voice and data differently. That is a patchwork of technology.
Wrong- re-read . The problem is they keep adding to the 2G tower to bring it up to 3G rather than replacing it -hence the piss poor signal that you must love so much in Brooklyn.
The 2G signal then interferes with the 3G signal on the same tower. Did you even read it?
Again- NY Times;
"The reasons for the trouble are complicated. Part of the problem is that the companies are constantly upgrading their networks ? creating a patchwork of technology on cell towers, and integrating slices of radio spectrum that carry voice and data transmissions.
Analysts said the problem was not unique to AT&T, but was especially pronounced on its network in some cities because of the way its infrastructure was built]."
You'd think I was making these things up!
You're not making the article up, you're just making the conclusion up. First of, why bold patchwork? It doesn't mean the pejorative patching in the way you think it does. It's not saying that AT&T is doing crappy patches (although they might be) it's saying that the cell carriers as a whole are putting a lot of different technologies onto the towers, which is part of the problem.
I bolded the parts of the quoted article that don't point to AT&T being the only problem out there. BTW, thanks for quoting the relevant parts of the article that support your argument. Now lets see if we can get you to be objective.
If people are happy with their AT&T coverage why do care so much to tell them there experience is wrong? Why do you think everyone has to be as spiteful as you on these boards?
You're not making the article up, you're just making the conclusion up. First of, why bold patchwork? It doesn't mean the pejorative patching in the way you think it does. It's not saying that AT&T is doing crappy patches (although they might be) it's saying that the cell carriers as a whole are putting a lot of different technologies onto the towers, which is part of the problem.
I bolded the parts of the quoted article that don't point to AT&T being the only problem out there. BTW, thanks for quoting the relevant parts of the article that support your argument. Now lets see if we can get you to be objective.
If people are happy with their AT&T coverage why do care so much to tell them there experience is wrong? Why do you think everyone has to be as spiteful as you on these boards?
I don't and they're not. Didn't I just highlight for you the complete opposite of your above hilighted post? I like facts no matter which way the wind blows. Again the article speaks for itself. I don't need to defend it as I didn't write it.
And for the record it sepcifically states that about AT&T without mentioning another network regarding the patchwork issue!!!!
"On AT&T’s 2G network, cellphone towers — even ones in close proximity to one another — use different chunks of the radio spectrum to carry information. As phone users move around on foot or in a car, their phones switch from one frequency to another. "
“When you have more than three cell sites overlapping, you get interference,” said one infrastructure engineer who works for AT&T, who asked not to be named so as not to upset the company. “You get bad quality, funky sounds. If you’re doing data, the rates get slower and slower until you lose it.”
Oh, one exception: at ATT Park. Absolutely "zero" coverage in the park, perhaps they don't want 40,000 fans jawing on the phone when they should be watching the game?
That is really odd. I get perfect coverage there and always thought it was because it was so high profile for AT&T. I get good connections there when there is a game or concert or when it's empty. I'm often on my boat in the marina around the park, and it's good there too.
Palo Alto has great coverage...except very ironically, there's a dead zone right by Steve Jobs' house.
Overall, I really like AT&T.
I don't and they're not. Didn't I just highlight for you the complete opposite of your above hilighted post? I like facts no matter which way the wind blows. Again the article speaks for itself. I don't need to defend it as I didn't write it.
And for the record it sepcifically states that about AT&T without mentioning another network regarding the patchwork issue!!!!
"On AT&T?s 2G network, cellphone towers ? even ones in close proximity to one another ? use different chunks of the radio spectrum to carry information. As phone users move around on foot or in a car, their phones switch from one frequency to another. "
?When you have more than three cell sites overlapping, you get interference,? said one infrastructure engineer who works for AT&T, who asked not to be named so as not to upset the company. ?You get bad quality, funky sounds. If you?re doing data, the rates get slower and slower until you lose it.?
And you still think that using AT&T as an example means that they are only ones who are affected and that they are "teh do0m!1!!" Seriously, you can hate on AT&T all you want but there are plenty of people who are happy with their service... whether you like it or not.
Palo Alto has great coverage...except very ironically, there's a dead zone right by Steve Jobs' house.
Probably not a dead zone, Jobs probably made AT&T only accept AT&T phones with specific IEMIs that his family uses. I'm not serious, but I do think he narcissistic enough to want such a thing.
Dealing with 2G is a problem, but not "THE" Problem. Every one has to slowly add to their existing 2G. Most mobile phones are 2G, 3G is still growing.
The problem primarily described in the article was solely on the 3G network. Signals from close towers crossing each other on the same frequency and causing radio noise. Lowering the amplification of the signal alleviates this problem but raises the other problem of phones having different abilities to receive signals.
This year AT&T shut down its TDMA network and is switching HSPA over to 850MHz spectrum that TDMA was using. Their have been several reports of AT&T adding new software, transmitters, and routers. This is what 11 billion dollars in network improvements looks like.
Wrong- re-read . The problem is they keep adding to the 2G tower to bring it up to 3G rather than replacing it -hence the piss poor signal that you must love so much in Brooklyn.
The 2G signal then interferes with the 3G signal on the same tower. Did you even read it?
I must be one of the lucky ones also. I live in NJ and I have far better service with AT&T than I ever did with Verizon. I think I may have dropped 1 call since getting my iPhone a year ago. I would never consider going back to Verizon.
Couple people I know have AT&T & are always saying how they wish they had Verizon because it's more reliable. My experience has been that they get just as good coverage as I do, but for some reason there is this belief floating around that Verizon just works great everywhere you go. Is it the commercials?
PS: I think that up to 3 of those 15M activations may have been iPhones.