While I am all for competition in the marketplace, I fear any carrier that receives such a hot product cannot predict the overwhelming demand placed on its infrastructure. Yes, one could argue to just build more towers, do the upgrades in advance, but all these carriers are a business. They will not incur a giant expense with no cash flow coming in to cover. It's a bad PR thing, but it makes most business sense to release these then build infrastructure. You have people on 2 year contracts, they aren't going anywhere. Yes you can call, whine, moan, bitch all you want up the "ladder", but it's not going to get a tower built any quicker or approved any quicker.
Once your 2 year agreement is up, you have every right to switch to any carrier you want. This may be a great balancing act for AT&T to off-load these customers who use up bandwidth and customer service hours spent whining about their service.
I don't discount anyone else's bad experience. But I'm thrilled with AT&T. I live in Southern California and my 3G data service is good. Every now and then it will drop off, but a restart of my 3GS usually fixes it. I don't experience dropped calls either. Customer service has been great both at the stores and via telephone. Even if Verizon had the IPhone and I was out of contract I would not make the switch. I'm very happy with AT&T. The one caveat I should add is that I came from Sprint which was so bad on every level that the bar was set pretty low.
I'm confused. Do they want us to stay in the 20th century and just use cell phones for talking on and perhaps charging too much for text messages? Or do they want us to use these high speed phone networks (such as 3G). Are those high speed networks only for a few?
Sounds like they did a poor forecast and are trying to shift the blame elsewhere, such as the customer.
C'mon people. Use as much bandwidth as you can, on all the networks. Demand always forces supply. In a few years, we'll all enjoy blinding speeds just like one day we wished for a real browser on the phone.
There are a million websites on the iphone tear downs --- the most expensive parts are the memory, the display and the touch sensitive modules. Doing a VZ iphone would add maybe $2 on the parts list.
He said radio requirements. Qualcom?s per unit licensing is reported to be quite outrageous. I?ve read that it would have added ~$40 per unit.
Since the beginning of this semester 2 weeks ago me and many of my friends have been experiencing many dropped calls during morning and early afternoon hours within our university campus. The problem seems worst during the 10 minutes between classes. AT&T was always excellent in our area but I guess they are really having trouble keeping up with demand. The good news is their 3G coverage approaching our town and now just few miles away vs. 30 miles early this summer.
Same here in Oklahoma. I'll be talking to a friend and then I can't hear them but they can hear me. All own iPhones too and it happens the other way around as well. Luckily I haven't had that happen to me while talking to a client. Think it might be an network upgrade issue? I can only hope... Get with it AT&T...
AT&T has enough blame, but what about Apple? It takes years to expand a Wireless Network. Given that.......
1. What forecast did Apple give AT&T as far as projected US sales of iPhones and estimated average bandwidth per user? I bet it was far lower than anyone had ever expected. Without accurate projections, how could any wireless carrier build out a capable network ahead of the demand? Remember, too, that when the iPhone first came out, the APP Store was not even on anyone's radar. Apple kept adding features without first checking for network capacity.
2. Why did Apple choose just one US Wireless Carrier? Remember, this was Apple's decision, not AT&T's. We all know the reason why....higher subsidies from a single carrier (versus multiple carriers). So all that money that could have been used by AT&T to expand the network is sitting in Apple's bank accounts.
I definitely agree with this. Most here are way too quick to blame AT&T for anything and everything, yet they don't have all the facts to make a sound judgment - their judgement is based on face value alone. What if Apple massively underestimated the anticipated data usage of each iPhone owner? Was AT&T aware of the extra bandwidth guzzling features that Apple planned to add? For all we know, AT&T have built their network exactly to the requirements that Apple advised them too, and that Apple made an error on the anticipated demand and bandwidth requirements of the device.
I've been having problems with O2 in the UK for months now.
When I first got my iPhone, the network was fine, however now I can't make a call without it failing, and most people that try to call me go straight through to voicemaill, then voicemails often don't show up until the following morning.
It's rubbish and O2 are not providing the service we are paying for!
The iPhone is great, but I'm finding it amost impossible to use, and think I'm going to ditch the network moths ahead of my contract running out to Jailbreak my phone and use it on a network that can provide the service they sell.
Apple why are you restricting us to these sub standard networks???????
All the recent Verizon Blackberries come with Qualcomm worldphone chipsets --- ev-do and HSDPA and GSM combined. And it didn't break Verizon's bank to subsidize these blackberries.
Adding ev-do radio would increase the parts list cost by a couple of dollars, that's it.
Hummer of cell phones? Hmm... so what would one call all of those fancy tv-streaming, all-in-one, bandwidth-hogging phones sold in Japan that has been doing just about the same stuff for years? I don't hear them complaining about network capacity problems. Sure they are a much smaller country with less space.
I think this just shows how behind the US network infrastructure is compared to the rest of the developed nations.
Me think the iPhone gave the US networks a long-needed kick in the a**. Even for those that don't yet have the iPhone on their network, they too are upgrading their networks. They see what is in store for them and don't want to be caught with their pants down.
I know what I said, i even repeated it to you. You somehow inferred that because I stated that it’s "becoming more common" with smartphones that this automatically included Blackberries on Sprint. More common doesn’t mean all smartphones. It certainly doesn’t mean the average cheap Blackberry. I’ve read your posts for a long time, you are angry, short-sided and just not very good at any complex thought or idea, but I don’t think it’s too much to ask you to at least re-read what you are going to respond to on this forum. It would go a long way to not have all have the slowest posters hate you around here. Again, more common does not mean any and all you wish to make include.
"You're too this, you're too that." Whines. I
And if you have to re-explain it over and over than your meandering doesn't belong on any forum.
And your passive/agressive nonsense is really frightening.
Remember it was you that wrote this morning (which besides making absolutely NO sense, was totally trying to be condescending):
Quote:
Aren’t you two brilliant. How can anyone argue with your logic that slower bandwidth should less than faster bandwidth, regardless of the medium in which it is sent?
The bottom line is that you're the only one on here that defends AT&T by making up such lame excuses without telling us who else is doing the same.
eventually around the world, slow internet will be an issue of the past
And then they'll begin marketing a new generation of devices that will eat all of that up.
I've been waiting for a responsive computer that simply works as fast as I can give it input since my Commodore 64 (which came closer than any machine I have TODAY).
Overhead, code bloat, multi-user drag and other bottlenecks always seem to stay a step or two ahead of improvements in hardware and even software (e.g., the leaner, meaner Snow Leopard).
So I know only one thing ... as long as I'm using computers I expect beachballs, hour glasses, progress bars or whatever the current icon of "I can't keep up with you, sorry" is.
And if you have to re-explain it over and over than your meandering doesn't belong on any forum.
And your passive/agressive nonsense is really frightening.
Remember it was you that wrote this morning (which besides making absolutely NO sense, was totally trying to be condenscending):
Later.
You?re so right. I can?t imagine how I missed your infallible logic that per-kilobyte costs for cable and wireless costs are exactly the same. How dare a nationwide cellular service that is subsidizing hundreds of dollars per device charge more for slower data than a regional cable company. I now see your genius, oh wise one.
When summer officially ends and Fall officially begins.
Until then, any MMS lawsuit is not warranted per the AT&T "late summer" promise to deliver MMS. Once that date/time rolls around, lawsuits will be warranted.
For the world to move forward and a telco to stay relevant these networks will need to be capable of many times more capacity still. Quit whining and get building!
this seems to sum up the thread so far, but it's bad logic. It is not the whiners who will do the building. They are not mutually exclusive--in fact the article makes rather clear that both are happening and have been happening all along.
Nobody would argue that AT&T didn't underestimate the usage demands that the iPhone would create. OK, their bad. But did anyone really expect the iPhone users to use 10X the bandwidth? The "they are sitting on all this money doing nothing" argument is childish. It takes years to build out infrastructure like this-- they can't just throw billions at it to make it go away. Meanwhile, iPhone sales are just accelerating...
I'm not apologizing for AT&T, but I see their situation realistically. I'm just not sure I see the point of raising our bloodpressure whinining about how they are doing nothing...
Qualcomm is the largest wireless chipset manufacturers in the world and they wouldn't be number 1 if using their chips would add $40 per unit.
Why do you think (IS95/CDMA2000) CDMA failed? Why do you think both Nokia and SE virtually withdraw from the CDMA market? Qualcomm controlled the market, charged high prices for their chips and drove up the cost of phone development.
Qualcomm's technology and chips are the best around but manufacturers and carriers pay a very high premium for them. They're the Apple of the silicon world.
Comments
Once your 2 year agreement is up, you have every right to switch to any carrier you want. This may be a great balancing act for AT&T to off-load these customers who use up bandwidth and customer service hours spent whining about their service.
Sounds like they did a poor forecast and are trying to shift the blame elsewhere, such as the customer.
Well, clearly, they ignored the total number of concurrent users.
Umm... And what were Apple folks supposed to do to that number of AT&T customers?
AT&T should have had a look around to learn how to have delivered their service without having hurt their reputation...
There are a million websites on the iphone tear downs --- the most expensive parts are the memory, the display and the touch sensitive modules. Doing a VZ iphone would add maybe $2 on the parts list.
He said radio requirements. Qualcom?s per unit licensing is reported to be quite outrageous. I?ve read that it would have added ~$40 per unit.
Since the beginning of this semester 2 weeks ago me and many of my friends have been experiencing many dropped calls during morning and early afternoon hours within our university campus. The problem seems worst during the 10 minutes between classes. AT&T was always excellent in our area but I guess they are really having trouble keeping up with demand. The good news is their 3G coverage approaching our town and now just few miles away vs. 30 miles early this summer.
Same here in Oklahoma. I'll be talking to a friend and then I can't hear them but they can hear me. All own iPhones too and it happens the other way around as well. Luckily I haven't had that happen to me while talking to a client. Think it might be an network upgrade issue? I can only hope... Get with it AT&T...
AT&T has enough blame, but what about Apple? It takes years to expand a Wireless Network. Given that.......
1. What forecast did Apple give AT&T as far as projected US sales of iPhones and estimated average bandwidth per user? I bet it was far lower than anyone had ever expected. Without accurate projections, how could any wireless carrier build out a capable network ahead of the demand? Remember, too, that when the iPhone first came out, the APP Store was not even on anyone's radar. Apple kept adding features without first checking for network capacity.
2. Why did Apple choose just one US Wireless Carrier? Remember, this was Apple's decision, not AT&T's. We all know the reason why....higher subsidies from a single carrier (versus multiple carriers). So all that money that could have been used by AT&T to expand the network is sitting in Apple's bank accounts.
I definitely agree with this. Most here are way too quick to blame AT&T for anything and everything, yet they don't have all the facts to make a sound judgment - their judgement is based on face value alone. What if Apple massively underestimated the anticipated data usage of each iPhone owner? Was AT&T aware of the extra bandwidth guzzling features that Apple planned to add? For all we know, AT&T have built their network exactly to the requirements that Apple advised them too, and that Apple made an error on the anticipated demand and bandwidth requirements of the device.
When I first got my iPhone, the network was fine, however now I can't make a call without it failing, and most people that try to call me go straight through to voicemaill, then voicemails often don't show up until the following morning.
It's rubbish and O2 are not providing the service we are paying for!
The iPhone is great, but I'm finding it amost impossible to use, and think I'm going to ditch the network moths ahead of my contract running out to Jailbreak my phone and use it on a network that can provide the service they sell.
Apple why are you restricting us to these sub standard networks???????
Great job at the whiteboard, guys...
He said radio requirements. Qualcom?s per unit licensing is reported to be quite outrageous. I?ve read that it would have added ~$40 per unit.
Qualcomm is the largest wireless chipset manufacturers in the world and they wouldn't be number 1 if using their chips would add $40 per unit.
http://www.sramanamitra.com/2009/07/...adcom-stmicro/
All the recent Verizon Blackberries come with Qualcomm worldphone chipsets --- ev-do and HSDPA and GSM combined. And it didn't break Verizon's bank to subsidize these blackberries.
Adding ev-do radio would increase the parts list cost by a couple of dollars, that's it.
I think this just shows how behind the US network infrastructure is compared to the rest of the developed nations.
Me think the iPhone gave the US networks a long-needed kick in the a**. Even for those that don't yet have the iPhone on their network, they too are upgrading their networks. They see what is in store for them and don't want to be caught with their pants down.
I know what I said, i even repeated it to you. You somehow inferred that because I stated that it’s "becoming more common" with smartphones that this automatically included Blackberries on Sprint. More common doesn’t mean all smartphones. It certainly doesn’t mean the average cheap Blackberry. I’ve read your posts for a long time, you are angry, short-sided and just not very good at any complex thought or idea, but I don’t think it’s too much to ask you to at least re-read what you are going to respond to on this forum. It would go a long way to not have all have the slowest posters hate you around here. Again, more common does not mean any and all you wish to make include.
"You're too this, you're too that." Whines. I
And if you have to re-explain it over and over than your meandering doesn't belong on any forum.
And your passive/agressive nonsense is really frightening.
Remember it was you that wrote this morning (which besides making absolutely NO sense, was totally trying to be condescending):
Aren’t you two brilliant. How can anyone argue with your logic that slower bandwidth should less than faster bandwidth, regardless of the medium in which it is sent?
The bottom line is that you're the only one on here that defends AT&T by making up such lame excuses without telling us who else is doing the same.
Later.
eventually around the world, slow internet will be an issue of the past
And then they'll begin marketing a new generation of devices that will eat all of that up.
I've been waiting for a responsive computer that simply works as fast as I can give it input since my Commodore 64 (which came closer than any machine I have TODAY).
Overhead, code bloat, multi-user drag and other bottlenecks always seem to stay a step or two ahead of improvements in hardware and even software (e.g., the leaner, meaner Snow Leopard).
So I know only one thing ... as long as I'm using computers I expect beachballs, hour glasses, progress bars or whatever the current icon of "I can't keep up with you, sorry" is.
Sigh.....
"You're too this, you're too that." Whines. I
And if you have to re-explain it over and over than your meandering doesn't belong on any forum.
And your passive/agressive nonsense is really frightening.
Remember it was you that wrote this morning (which besides making absolutely NO sense, was totally trying to be condenscending):
Later.
You?re so right. I can?t imagine how I missed your infallible logic that per-kilobyte costs for cable and wireless costs are exactly the same. How dare a nationwide cellular service that is subsidizing hundreds of dollars per device charge more for slower data than a regional cable company. I now see your genius, oh wise one.
September 22, 2009 at 5:18 pm EDT
When summer officially ends and Fall officially begins.
Until then, any MMS lawsuit is not warranted per the AT&T "late summer" promise to deliver MMS. Once that date/time rolls around, lawsuits will be warranted.
COULD BE tarnished? Ha!
There are two things keeping me from getting an iPhone: 1) no tethering, 2) AT&T.
For the world to move forward and a telco to stay relevant these networks will need to be capable of many times more capacity still. Quit whining and get building!
this seems to sum up the thread so far, but it's bad logic. It is not the whiners who will do the building. They are not mutually exclusive--in fact the article makes rather clear that both are happening and have been happening all along.
Nobody would argue that AT&T didn't underestimate the usage demands that the iPhone would create. OK, their bad. But did anyone really expect the iPhone users to use 10X the bandwidth? The "they are sitting on all this money doing nothing" argument is childish. It takes years to build out infrastructure like this-- they can't just throw billions at it to make it go away. Meanwhile, iPhone sales are just accelerating...
I'm not apologizing for AT&T, but I see their situation realistically. I'm just not sure I see the point of raising our bloodpressure whinining about how they are doing nothing...
Qualcomm is the largest wireless chipset manufacturers in the world and they wouldn't be number 1 if using their chips would add $40 per unit.
Why do you think (IS95/CDMA2000) CDMA failed? Why do you think both Nokia and SE virtually withdraw from the CDMA market? Qualcomm controlled the market, charged high prices for their chips and drove up the cost of phone development.
Qualcomm's technology and chips are the best around but manufacturers and carriers pay a very high premium for them. They're the Apple of the silicon world.
"The report suggests that AT&T's reputation could be tarnished because, for some users, its network is unable to keep up with demand."
COULD BE tarnished? Ha!
There are two things keeping me from getting an iPhone: 1) no tethering, 2) AT&T.
Go get a free 3G Card for your PC....hardware is free and the monthly tethering costs will be the same.