Actually, if they are using a different radio spectrum than they anticipated to transmit MMS then the base stations may in fact have needed to be calibrated. When they calibrate them they are (among other things I'm sure) making sure that when they tune they remove any offsets that are inherent in the base station, tune or adjust voltage controlled oscillators etc to make sure that potential errors of reception and transmission are mitigated.
I think everyone's experience is that when someone uses a word like "calibrate" in a vague, condescending sense they are mostly throwing up a smoke screen. ("Looks like we'll need to calibrate your frammis. It's gonna take some time and cost as much as my boat payment.")
If there are technical reasons involving specific adjustments at their towers that delayed the enabling of MMS (beyond AT&T's general network overload) they should explain them in plain, non-technical English, or just say "we screwed up and our network wasn't ready". (As well as explaining why this affected them so much but not other iPhone carriers.) "Calibration" smacks of hand-waving and just makes them look like they are trying to BS their way out of this.
Obviously, they are responding to the spate of articles over the last few days discussing their "PR nightmare." But, doing so in the way they have simply compounds the problem. No one trusts them to begin with, so putting out videos with vague language that basically say, "Hey, it's not our fault," isn't convincing to say the least. I suspect their PR nightmare will continue unless and until they actually get their network up to speed.
In the meantime, being nice to their customers and dropping their hard-ass attitude might have some mitigating effects. They might want to start that now, before they lose exclusivity, before it's too late.
I doubt it, though. As pointed out in a previous response AT&T/SBC has a long corporate culture of "waging war" on their customers, and there's no reason to believe they've suddenly seen the light. The upside for customers is that this sort of attitude increases the likelihood of meaningful regulation of the wireless industry.
looking from a 30,000 ft. perspective.. why is AT&T investing this much in 3G? By this time next year, Verizon is planning LTE (4G) ... I could be missing many factors into this, but it's like if 4G wasn't on the rise, AT&T would be throwing money at EDGE... seems like they're a step behind... i'm hoping verizon gets the iPhone....
Our service in the US is positively stone-age compared to South Korea, for example.
I'm not defending US carriers, but it's apples and oranges when you compare these. Most States are larger than South Korea. US carriers have to negotiate with 50 of them in a huge area that's got far varied terrain than most countries. If a US carrier only had to supply service to just one state, I think you'd see a far different result. "Stone Age" is way over the top. Service needs improvement, but it's fairly good in most places.
.... with Verizon, my memory was that their business model was to severely limit the functionality of all of their the phones despite their capabilities
Excellent insight. That's how they've controlled their bandwidth.
OTOH, in fairness to ATT, they've let Apple (largely) dictate the user experience.
Like I've said before, wait till (and if) Verizon gets the iPhone. They'll be on their knees too, crying 'uncle.' They should be careful what they wish for!
None of them get it guys, and it's a lack of real competition that matters. All of our services are inferior to the rest of the world, because they went and spent their money on wireless infrastructure. It is the easiest way to reach everyone and provide them with decent service.
The companies we have here just don't get it.
Here's some pleasant reading on what they actually think:
Each time i travel to other countries there phone services work great. But they are, I believe, considerably more expensive than in the USA. My friends in Europe pay a lot more each month on average to do their dialing then we do. A friend from New Zealand says that the cost of data is so high it discourages use of feature phones. "Unlimited" is impossible to buy in many countries or is unaffordable as compared to here in the USA. Plans for high or unlimited data use do not even exist in some countries - as the cost per mb starts rolling with very little use.
so what is the real gig here? Is it that demand is exceeding supply? Is it that demand deserves an expanded distribution to other providers who have less burden on their networks? Is it that we don't really know the REAL cost of data and phone services in other countries that offer better coverage and less dropped calls? Is it that in some countries, phone service is a monopoly harvested by government oversight, while here it is a monopoly harvested by bribes paid to government entities (stuff like "Special interest groups and lobbyists in Washington spent a whopping 13 billion" in the headlines).. Or is it ALL OF THE ABOVE?
Oh please. I had AT&T when it was Cingular and had tons of dropped calls in the NYC, Northern NJ area. I switched to Verizon and the service was flawless. Never dropped a call. Being an Apple user, I have wanted the iPhone since it was introduced but have waited hoping there would be a Verizon version. With the introduction of the 3GS and no Verizon version, I made the switch being assured the network is much better. I have so many dropped calls and times I can't even get a signal it is ridiculous. I couldn't even get a signal on I-78 in a metro area. As soon as there is a Verizon version, I will gladly pay the early termination fee and be done with AT&T forever.
I for one think this whole "At&t sucks, Im going to Verizon" thing is funny. First of all, Kudos for At&t for even taking a chance on the iphone. Second, i believe that even if the iphone were produced from Verizon that we would still be in the same boat. It is obvious that iphone users use a tremendous amount of data. So to say that the iphone would be better if it were launched by verizon is not a safe assumption. With the amount of social networking and youtubing that people do on the iphone, would cause a strain on any carrier.
Everyone has their own story about how they have slow data speeds or dropped calls with their carrier. I had verizon and had dropped calls galore where i lived. As far as mms goes, when i switched to the iphone from a blackberry i really didnt miss the whole mms thing. The only thing that would benefit me is the tethering function. But then again wifi is so widespread that i can just jump on and surf that way.
The point is that the only other carrier that would even begin to support the iphone is verizon. If and when they get the iphone, they will experience a similar scenario. It may be easier on them though because they are learning from At&t's mishaps. But im sticking to my guns when i say that if verizon had launched the iphone first, then we would still be experiencing the same problems as we are right now.
And you did your own study on this? Did you work for AT&T's and Verizon's IT department? Where do you gain such knowledge that you feel you can believe that Verizon would have had the same level of service?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tekneeq84
I for one think this whole "At&t sucks, Im going to Verizon" thing is funny. First of all, Kudos for At&t for even taking a chance on the iphone. Second, i believe that even if the iphone were produced from Verizon that we would still be in the same boat. It is obvious that iphone users use a tremendous amount of data. So to say that the iphone would be better if it were launched by verizon is not a safe assumption. With the amount of social networking and youtubing that people do on the iphone, would cause a strain on any carrier.
Everyone has their own story about how they have slow data speeds or dropped calls with their carrier. I had verizon and had dropped calls galore where i lived. As far as mms goes, when i switched to the iphone from a blackberry i really didnt miss the whole mms thing. The only thing that would benefit me is the tethering function. But then again wifi is so widespread that i can just jump on and surf that way.
The point is that the only other carrier that would even begin to support the iphone is verizon. If and when they get the iphone, they will experience a similar scenario. It may be easier on them though because they are learning from At&t's mishaps. But im sticking to my guns when i say that if verizon had launched the iphone first, then we would still be experiencing the same problems as we are right now.
Usual for this country. Seems like these days, most ad money is spent trying to convince us that the "new improved" crap they are trying to sell us is what we want. Just when was it that advertising turned from informing the consumer to brainwashing them?
OK, I like the figures but it's an invalid comparison. Netapps does not equate to MMS. Sure, the smartphones are putting more strain on a network because you can actually use a web-based app now but MMS has nothing to so with that and has been around for many years. Now, AT&T, if you want to tell me that your bandwidth has been sucked up, that I will believe and merely say, build up or shut up.
For those that don't want to take the time to watch the video, I will summarize:
1) We sold lots of iPhones but our network can't handle the data requirements.
2) We are concerned about our users' experiences but not so concerned that we would stop selling iPhones on our hopelessly overtaxed network because we like money.
3) You are in a two year agreement so suck it and hope that our network upgrades won't be a day late and a dollar short when they finally arrive in 2010 sometime...if you are lucky.
To get the full video experience, read the above and pretend it is being said by the goofiest looking person you ever saw.
Well if your right about the AT&T business model and Apple renew the contract for iPhone with them, then what will that tell you about Apple??
I agree with your point to some degree. Yes Apple are a going concern and are obligated by their corporate charter to enhance shareholder value (that means make as much money as possible). However, Apple seems to have a different ratio when it comes to balancing product quality against profit motive. AT&T is tilted way to the profit side and I don't think they innovate as much as they could. Apple seems to internally value product quality as facet of their corporate culture and yet still makes a massive profit. Imagine what AT&T could achieve if they could drag themselves out of the Microsoft/Wal Mart business model swamp and be ore like Apple.
There are fundamental differences between the ATT versus Verizon and Sprint wireless networks. ATT 3G uses a version of CDMA called WDMA over 5 MHz channel. Voice and data travel in coded packets. Voice is not a big user of resources, but data is... when there is too much data, voice calls that are data anyway, get affected. Also the size of the coverage decreases and the cell "breathes in".
VZ and Sprint used CDMA over smaller channels that are 1.25 MHz wide. They can comingle voice and data, but instead have a separate data channel called EVDO. So voice and data do not interfere with each other.
Why do we have separate tech? Qualcomm "invented" CDMA in the current version and they control the chip and royalties of about 5.5% per handset. The GSM cabal, particularly the EU did not like that. So they came up with their own version called WCDMA or UMTS/3G. Dilutes some of the American company patents and forces them into cross licensing. The result was miss match of tech. It is ok for voice, but sucks for mass use of data.
ATT is not run by dummies... they were forced into the wrong technical standard because of the need for global roaming. The will have to spends tens of $Bs to make up for this problem. I am not even optimistic about LTE. The tech not mature, certainly not the handset chipsets.
Apple may have no choice but to sell to the CDMA carriers with the appropriate radio set.
...including spending between $17 to $18 billion on upgrades scheduled for this year on top of the $38 billion invested over the past two years.
I wonder how much of this "investment" is delayed because it is AT&T is hoping to fund it out of stimulus funds that won't be announced until later this year, or available until next year.
This is just what the struggling taxpayers need, with real unemployment approaching 20%, another mega corporation suckling on the taxpayers teat in order to subsidize their infrastructure that only benefits the most wealthy single digit percentage of cellphone users.
Since South Korea is about the size of New Jersey it must be easier to provide service as compared to.... The USA!!! What's it take maybe 25 cell towers to cover the whole country?
Technology comparisons are valid even if the reason for their existence may differ.
Don't give me these weirdo sideways head videos asking for our understanding- all you carriers are assholes engaging in anti-competitive behavior.
It's called capitalism!
It forces competition, and enables increases in the sophistication of consumer goods and decreases in price.
If you suck, you lose customers... except when capitalism is circumvented by tinges like exclusive contracts, designed only to benefit the companies that engage in them and provide a buffer between the way they want to do business and the demands of capitalism.
If apple had released the iphone on every network simultaneously, we would not have this discussion. ATT would have gotten their shit together.
You want to make it up to us ATT? Give your customers free incoming MMS, $30 a month for tethering with unlimited data, or a simple $5/day charge for 24 hours of tethering for those times when we are on business and truly cannot find free wifi.
Man I can't wait for this exclusivity crap to end... bring on T-Mobile and Sprint with the iPhone.
Maybe the dilithium phase crystals needed a a tri-corder waved over them and they had to crawl through the Jeffries Tubes to reach them in the port nacelle. It's AT&T. They are getting nervous in advance of Verizon's 4G network and inevitable iPhone deployment.[/QUOTE
"Don't mince words Bones, whadahu really think?"
actually, that quote would be inappropriate since Bones was in the original series, and the term jeffries tubes was never used until the next generation.
(read above response with requisite robot-chicken-nerd-style lisp.)
You're right about lowering your expectations. Too many people have been expecting far too much relative to existing technology. Our service in the US is positively stone-age compared to South Korea, for example.
The grass is never greener on the other side.
South Korea's largest carrier owns more than 50% of the market share. Their government imposed a Korea-made mobile API on every cell phone in Korea that nobody uses. Their governmnet forced the CEO of LG Telecom to resign because the government gave the carrier a ev-dv license and ev-dv doesn't exist in real life. Their government forced 2 wibro (korean version of wimax) licenses on 2 carriers and after spending some real money on the network --- nobody actually uses it.
And what sort of idiotic regulation forces you to lose your telephone if you go from an ev-do (which is "considered" to be 2G in Korea) phone to a HSDPA phone. And we are not talking about changing to a different cell phone carrier. You stay with your current carrier and the government regulation requires that you lose your telephone number.
I say good for them. What carrier company gives a rats ass to their customers. Apple has changed the status quo and AT&T had the guts to go with it. Give the guys some credit. At least they are working and trying to make it better. A few years ago your complaint goes in one ear and out the other, with a smidgen of laughter from the carriers during transit.
Comments
The head tilt and the hair is horrible. They really should have chosen another spokesperson.
Actually, if they are using a different radio spectrum than they anticipated to transmit MMS then the base stations may in fact have needed to be calibrated. When they calibrate them they are (among other things I'm sure) making sure that when they tune they remove any offsets that are inherent in the base station, tune or adjust voltage controlled oscillators etc to make sure that potential errors of reception and transmission are mitigated.
I think everyone's experience is that when someone uses a word like "calibrate" in a vague, condescending sense they are mostly throwing up a smoke screen. ("Looks like we'll need to calibrate your frammis. It's gonna take some time and cost as much as my boat payment.")
If there are technical reasons involving specific adjustments at their towers that delayed the enabling of MMS (beyond AT&T's general network overload) they should explain them in plain, non-technical English, or just say "we screwed up and our network wasn't ready". (As well as explaining why this affected them so much but not other iPhone carriers.) "Calibration" smacks of hand-waving and just makes them look like they are trying to BS their way out of this.
Obviously, they are responding to the spate of articles over the last few days discussing their "PR nightmare." But, doing so in the way they have simply compounds the problem. No one trusts them to begin with, so putting out videos with vague language that basically say, "Hey, it's not our fault," isn't convincing to say the least. I suspect their PR nightmare will continue unless and until they actually get their network up to speed.
In the meantime, being nice to their customers and dropping their hard-ass attitude might have some mitigating effects. They might want to start that now, before they lose exclusivity, before it's too late.
I doubt it, though. As pointed out in a previous response AT&T/SBC has a long corporate culture of "waging war" on their customers, and there's no reason to believe they've suddenly seen the light. The upside for customers is that this sort of attitude increases the likelihood of meaningful regulation of the wireless industry.
Our service in the US is positively stone-age compared to South Korea, for example.
I'm not defending US carriers, but it's apples and oranges when you compare these. Most States are larger than South Korea. US carriers have to negotiate with 50 of them in a huge area that's got far varied terrain than most countries. If a US carrier only had to supply service to just one state, I think you'd see a far different result. "Stone Age" is way over the top. Service needs improvement, but it's fairly good in most places.
.... with Verizon, my memory was that their business model was to severely limit the functionality of all of their the phones despite their capabilities
Excellent insight. That's how they've controlled their bandwidth.
OTOH, in fairness to ATT, they've let Apple (largely) dictate the user experience.
Like I've said before, wait till (and if) Verizon gets the iPhone. They'll be on their knees too, crying 'uncle.' They should be careful what they wish for!
None of them get it guys, and it's a lack of real competition that matters. All of our services are inferior to the rest of the world, because they went and spent their money on wireless infrastructure. It is the easiest way to reach everyone and provide them with decent service.
The companies we have here just don't get it.
Here's some pleasant reading on what they actually think:
http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/...nd-bar-low.ars
Each time i travel to other countries there phone services work great. But they are, I believe, considerably more expensive than in the USA. My friends in Europe pay a lot more each month on average to do their dialing then we do. A friend from New Zealand says that the cost of data is so high it discourages use of feature phones. "Unlimited" is impossible to buy in many countries or is unaffordable as compared to here in the USA. Plans for high or unlimited data use do not even exist in some countries - as the cost per mb starts rolling with very little use.
so what is the real gig here? Is it that demand is exceeding supply? Is it that demand deserves an expanded distribution to other providers who have less burden on their networks? Is it that we don't really know the REAL cost of data and phone services in other countries that offer better coverage and less dropped calls? Is it that in some countries, phone service is a monopoly harvested by government oversight, while here it is a monopoly harvested by bribes paid to government entities (stuff like "Special interest groups and lobbyists in Washington spent a whopping 13 billion" in the headlines).. Or is it ALL OF THE ABOVE?
my guess is that it is ALL OF THE ABOVE
Oh please. I had AT&T when it was Cingular and had tons of dropped calls in the NYC, Northern NJ area. I switched to Verizon and the service was flawless. Never dropped a call. Being an Apple user, I have wanted the iPhone since it was introduced but have waited hoping there would be a Verizon version. With the introduction of the 3GS and no Verizon version, I made the switch being assured the network is much better. I have so many dropped calls and times I can't even get a signal it is ridiculous. I couldn't even get a signal on I-78 in a metro area. As soon as there is a Verizon version, I will gladly pay the early termination fee and be done with AT&T forever.
I for one think this whole "At&t sucks, Im going to Verizon" thing is funny. First of all, Kudos for At&t for even taking a chance on the iphone. Second, i believe that even if the iphone were produced from Verizon that we would still be in the same boat. It is obvious that iphone users use a tremendous amount of data. So to say that the iphone would be better if it were launched by verizon is not a safe assumption. With the amount of social networking and youtubing that people do on the iphone, would cause a strain on any carrier.
Everyone has their own story about how they have slow data speeds or dropped calls with their carrier. I had verizon and had dropped calls galore where i lived. As far as mms goes, when i switched to the iphone from a blackberry i really didnt miss the whole mms thing. The only thing that would benefit me is the tethering function. But then again wifi is so widespread that i can just jump on and surf that way.
The point is that the only other carrier that would even begin to support the iphone is verizon. If and when they get the iphone, they will experience a similar scenario. It may be easier on them though because they are learning from At&t's mishaps. But im sticking to my guns when i say that if verizon had launched the iphone first, then we would still be experiencing the same problems as we are right now.
AT&T is run like it's owned by the government - slow and unresponsive.
AT&T is a big, fat cow. If I had a choice I would be at another service provider in a split second.
I for one think this whole "At&t sucks, Im going to Verizon" thing is funny. First of all, Kudos for At&t for even taking a chance on the iphone. Second, i believe that even if the iphone were produced from Verizon that we would still be in the same boat. It is obvious that iphone users use a tremendous amount of data. So to say that the iphone would be better if it were launched by verizon is not a safe assumption. With the amount of social networking and youtubing that people do on the iphone, would cause a strain on any carrier.
Everyone has their own story about how they have slow data speeds or dropped calls with their carrier. I had verizon and had dropped calls galore where i lived. As far as mms goes, when i switched to the iphone from a blackberry i really didnt miss the whole mms thing. The only thing that would benefit me is the tethering function. But then again wifi is so widespread that i can just jump on and surf that way.
The point is that the only other carrier that would even begin to support the iphone is verizon. If and when they get the iphone, they will experience a similar scenario. It may be easier on them though because they are learning from At&t's mishaps. But im sticking to my guns when i say that if verizon had launched the iphone first, then we would still be experiencing the same problems as we are right now.
1) We sold lots of iPhones but our network can't handle the data requirements.
2) We are concerned about our users' experiences but not so concerned that we would stop selling iPhones on our hopelessly overtaxed network because we like money.
3) You are in a two year agreement so suck it and hope that our network upgrades won't be a day late and a dollar short when they finally arrive in 2010 sometime...if you are lucky.
To get the full video experience, read the above and pretend it is being said by the goofiest looking person you ever saw.
-kpluck
Well if your right about the AT&T business model and Apple renew the contract for iPhone with them, then what will that tell you about Apple??
I agree with your point to some degree. Yes Apple are a going concern and are obligated by their corporate charter to enhance shareholder value (that means make as much money as possible). However, Apple seems to have a different ratio when it comes to balancing product quality against profit motive. AT&T is tilted way to the profit side and I don't think they innovate as much as they could. Apple seems to internally value product quality as facet of their corporate culture and yet still makes a massive profit. Imagine what AT&T could achieve if they could drag themselves out of the Microsoft/Wal Mart business model swamp and be ore like Apple.
VZ and Sprint used CDMA over smaller channels that are 1.25 MHz wide. They can comingle voice and data, but instead have a separate data channel called EVDO. So voice and data do not interfere with each other.
Why do we have separate tech? Qualcomm "invented" CDMA in the current version and they control the chip and royalties of about 5.5% per handset. The GSM cabal, particularly the EU did not like that. So they came up with their own version called WCDMA or UMTS/3G. Dilutes some of the American company patents and forces them into cross licensing. The result was miss match of tech. It is ok for voice, but sucks for mass use of data.
ATT is not run by dummies... they were forced into the wrong technical standard because of the need for global roaming. The will have to spends tens of $Bs to make up for this problem. I am not even optimistic about LTE. The tech not mature, certainly not the handset chipsets.
Apple may have no choice but to sell to the CDMA carriers with the appropriate radio set.
This is just what the struggling taxpayers need, with real unemployment approaching 20%, another mega corporation suckling on the taxpayers teat in order to subsidize their infrastructure that only benefits the most wealthy single digit percentage of cellphone users.
Since South Korea is about the size of New Jersey it must be easier to provide service as compared to.... The USA!!! What's it take maybe 25 cell towers to cover the whole country?
Technology comparisons are valid even if the reason for their existence may differ.
It's called capitalism!
It forces competition, and enables increases in the sophistication of consumer goods and decreases in price.
If you suck, you lose customers... except when capitalism is circumvented by tinges like exclusive contracts, designed only to benefit the companies that engage in them and provide a buffer between the way they want to do business and the demands of capitalism.
If apple had released the iphone on every network simultaneously, we would not have this discussion. ATT would have gotten their shit together.
You want to make it up to us ATT? Give your customers free incoming MMS, $30 a month for tethering with unlimited data, or a simple $5/day charge for 24 hours of tethering for those times when we are on business and truly cannot find free wifi.
Man I can't wait for this exclusivity crap to end... bring on T-Mobile and Sprint with the iPhone.
Maybe the dilithium phase crystals needed a a tri-corder waved over them and they had to crawl through the Jeffries Tubes to reach them in the port nacelle. It's AT&T. They are getting nervous in advance of Verizon's 4G network and inevitable iPhone deployment.[/QUOTE
"Don't mince words Bones, whadahu really think?"
actually, that quote would be inappropriate since Bones was in the original series, and the term jeffries tubes was never used until the next generation.
(read above response with requisite robot-chicken-nerd-style lisp.)
You're right about lowering your expectations. Too many people have been expecting far too much relative to existing technology. Our service in the US is positively stone-age compared to South Korea, for example.
The grass is never greener on the other side.
South Korea's largest carrier owns more than 50% of the market share. Their government imposed a Korea-made mobile API on every cell phone in Korea that nobody uses. Their governmnet forced the CEO of LG Telecom to resign because the government gave the carrier a ev-dv license and ev-dv doesn't exist in real life. Their government forced 2 wibro (korean version of wimax) licenses on 2 carriers and after spending some real money on the network --- nobody actually uses it.
And what sort of idiotic regulation forces you to lose your telephone if you go from an ev-do (which is "considered" to be 2G in Korea) phone to a HSDPA phone. And we are not talking about changing to a different cell phone carrier. You stay with your current carrier and the government regulation requires that you lose your telephone number.
http://telecomskorea.com/index.php/P...-2g-cdmaq.html
I say good for them. What carrier company gives a rats ass to their customers. Apple has changed the status quo and AT&T had the guts to go with it. Give the guys some credit. At least they are working and trying to make it better. A few years ago your complaint goes in one ear and out the other, with a smidgen of laughter from the carriers during transit.
Zzzz.........