AT&T announces completion of nationwide 3G upgrade

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 43
    rot'napplerot'napple Posts: 1,839member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    Reminds me of the whole "Mission Accomplished" sign fiasco...



    That's so last decade... come, join us in the present...



    "Even though I don't have all the facts, the Cambridge Police Department "acted stupidly"! ~ Obama



    or



    "the system worked" regarding the BVD's Christmas Bomber - Napolitano Secretary, Homeland Security



    or



    "No Smoking Gun" ~ Brennan



    or



    "We didn't connect the dots." What?! Again!
  • Reply 22 of 43
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ccjunk View Post


    Just tried my first speed test in quite a while and got my highest result ever (on my 3GS):



    I'm in Austin.



    Test Date: Jan 5, 2010 5:35:13 PM

    Connection Type: Cellular



    Download: 2936 kbps

    Upload: 244 kbps

    Ping: 259 ms







    Damn, where in Austin? I am up the street in Pfville, and this is what I get:



  • Reply 23 of 43
    Where's new york, and san francisco on the list?

    This is lame! Why is Charollete and Dallas that important on this list? Not a lot of activity that, we know.. Happen there. This really sucks!
  • Reply 24 of 43
    al_bundyal_bundy Posts: 1,525member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ulfoaf View Post


    Houston was supposed to be upgraded. If so, I can't tell a difference. Doing a speed test depends ENTIRELY on from where you request the test. I get from 1.5Mb/s to .25 with Speed Test. You really can't tell what you're getting when contacting a particular server.



    with radio your position compared to the tower will make a lot of difference. i used to work with military radios and it was crazy. you could be well within range and move a few feel to the left or right and get much better reception
  • Reply 25 of 43
    "And now I feel like the kid in those bank commercials who is given a toy only to have it taken away by a boob in a suit with a fake smile on his face."



    They didn't say that you could have a real pony.
  • Reply 26 of 43
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Galley View Post


    Yeah, I lose 3G service in Easley and Simpsonville. If you stay in Greenville, you're OK.



    That's how it is everywhere. Bare minimum required.
  • Reply 27 of 43
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,455member
    It is truly scary that what they have out there now is considered an "upgrade" to what they had before.



    Here's your shit sandwich iPhone users, now with 20% more shit.
  • Reply 28 of 43
    Up until a few weeks ago, I was getting speeds of 1.4 Mbps on average. I've seen a difference here in Houston recently:



  • Reply 29 of 43
    I think that AT&T cannot multitask. Apple needs to break the monopoly that AT&T has with the iPhone so that they are compelled to upgrade faster. It's embarassing to tell people I have an iPhone then try to show them something that requires 3G to get something done and it won't connect to it, and sometimes no connection at all unless I turn off 3G.



    TMobile is done upgrading and AT&T is just starting? I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise after it took so long just to get MMS turned on and tethering is still a mythological being in the iPhone world. Someday.....
  • Reply 30 of 43
    shaminoshamino Posts: 412member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    AT&T reported the successful completion of a nationwide software upgrade program that will enable the company to deliver High-Speed Packet Access (HSPA) 7.2 Mbit technology across its 3G cell sites. ...



    So they're upgrading the capability of their 3G cells, but are keeping silent about whatever plans they may or may not have to upgrade the 2G cells to 3G.



    Their own map says it all. Note the distinct lack of blue (3G) coverage.



    So you'll get really high speed in a small number of places and absolutely lousy speed everywhere else.
  • Reply 31 of 43
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by shamino View Post


    So they're upgrading the capability of their 3G cells, but are keeping silent about whatever plans they may or may not have to upgrade the 2G cells to 3G.



    Their own map says it all. Note the distinct lack of blue (3G) coverage.



    So you'll get really high speed in a small number of places and absolutely lousy speed everywhere else.



    You are in Vienna VA and the map shows very good coverage in the greater DC metro area. What do you want, 3G speeds when you are touring the fall colors along Skyline Dr in the Blue Ridge Mountains?



    The map discussion thing is silly marketing hype.



    The blue 3G map seems to line up pretty well with the blue/black of the US population density map (below the blues is less than 50 people per square mile):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US...on-density.gif



    Good 3G in all metro areas and major highways. Sure if I leave the suburbs of Austin I don't get 3G except along major arteries. I could care less (unless I lived out there as a farmer and then I would probably have to rely on Satellite for high speed wireless Internet). I don't go into the countryside so I can surf Youtube or the Internet. As long as the map works that's all I care about. Why would you need 3G when you are out in rural areas? If you absolutely need to get that email or picture of the countryside to your buddy then Edge will be fine. It's not like you are going to get 1M+ service from Verizon in the countryside either.
  • Reply 32 of 43
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,453member
    All I know is that in midtown Manhattan on 5th Avenue in the 40s, an area I would certainly consider to be "prime", it's almost impossible to send/receive data or make/receive a call.



    And in my home in Forest Hills, Queens, where Verizon worked perfectly, I can only make/receive calls if the phone is sitting by the window (even a few feet away won't work reliably). I bought a Bluetooth earphone so I don't have to stand by the window.



    And their stupid "Mark the Spot" application is absurd. How can you mark the spot if you can't send them the results because it won't connect?



    However, even if Apple offered a Verizon compatible (CDMA) phone, my fear is that Verizon would soon be overrun with the same amount of traffic that AT&T has to contend with and service would degrade there as well. But having said that, if Apple does a deal with Verizon, I'm switching back.
  • Reply 33 of 43
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post


    All I know is that in midtown Manhattan on 5th Avenue in the 40s, an area I would certainly consider to be "prime", it's almost impossible to send/receive data or make/receive a call.



    And in my home in Forest Hills, Queens, where Verizon worked perfectly, I can only make/receive calls if the phone is sitting by the window (even a few feet away won't work reliably). I bought a Bluetooth earphone so I don't have to stand by the window.



    And their stupid "Mark the Spot" application is absurd. How can you mark the spot if you can't send them the results because it won't connect?



    However, even if Apple offered a Verizon compatible (CDMA) phone, my fear is that Verizon would soon be overrun with the same amount of traffic that AT&T has to contend with and service would degrade there as well. But having said that, if Apple does a deal with Verizon, I'm switching back.





    ...except that AT&T's reception sucked before the iPhone existed. I never had a single problem with Verizon and can't wait to switch back when it's available.
  • Reply 34 of 43
    This technology does no good whatsover if you cannot get 3g signal. And that is a common problem thanks to the use of 1900 Mhz and the resulting degraded wall penetration.
  • Reply 35 of 43
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,455member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post


    All I know is that in midtown Manhattan on 5th Avenue in the 40s, an area I would certainly consider to be "prime", it's almost impossible to send/receive data or make/receive a call.



    And in my home in Forest Hills, Queens, where Verizon worked perfectly, I can only make/receive calls if the phone is sitting by the window (even a few feet away won't work reliably). I bought a Bluetooth earphone so I don't have to stand by the window.



    And their stupid "Mark the Spot" application is absurd. How can you mark the spot if you can't send them the results because it won't connect?



    However, even if Apple offered a Verizon compatible (CDMA) phone, my fear is that Verizon would soon be overrun with the same amount of traffic that AT&T has to contend with and service would degrade there as well. But having said that, if Apple does a deal with Verizon, I'm switching back.



    Some of this should just be laid outright on AT&T's feet. I'll give you an example. We recently drove to Las Vegas from the Los Angeles area on Interstate 15. This is a very heavily traveled road. It has entire large sections that have no 3G coverage at all. We aren't talking BFE, or flyover country. We are talking the major freeway that probably has half a million folks on it on busy weekends and a very decent number most weekends. There was roughly 150 miles with no 3G coverage that Verizon had completely blanketed while AT&T had nothing.



    This is exactly the type of circumstance where service would be nice and we can't debate if the 3G could be improved. There isn't any 3G service there.
  • Reply 36 of 43
    shaminoshamino Posts: 412member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ccjunk View Post


    You are in Vienna VA and the map shows very good coverage in the greater DC metro area. What do you want, 3G speeds when you are touring the fall colors along Skyline Dr in the Blue Ridge Mountains?



    Yes. What makes you think I only want to use my phone when I'm at home? I've got a 20M FiOS link when I'm at home.



    I do a lot of traveling by car, away from the interstates. When I'm in upstate New York, western Pennsylvania, or countless other places, my friends with AT&T phones often get no signal at all while my Verizon phone continues working fine, with EVDO links at almost all locations. Even central New Jersey - which is only a few miles from AT&T's main R&D centers - has poor-to-nonexistent AT&T coverage.



    I'm glad you never travel any significant distance from major population centers, but don't use that as an excuse for a lousy network and don't try to make me believe that there's something wrong with me for wanting better.
  • Reply 37 of 43
    Well said, shamino. That farmer out in the field would probably be in greater need of a cellphone signal in a life or death situation than the dude yapping on his cellphone in a McDonalds in the city when he should be ordering his food as well. My home county in Oklahoma, which is in a rural area, one of the yellow counties on the population density map, there are no interstate highways and the biggest town is population 1000. Yet there are 10 GSM towers and 12 CDMA towers in the county. The GSM sites are owned either by T-Mobile or CellularOne, and each carrier has roaming agreements with each other. The CDMA towers are owned by Pioneer Cellular and they have roaming agreements with Sprint, Verizon, and US Cellular. They cover every single inch of the county and signal is great on all of them. AT&T has ONE cellsite in the entire county and cannot roam on ANY of the other GSM carriers. AT&T has a license for this county, yet has not built any sort of network that will cover it. In 20 years! That's how long they have had this license. Just a five mile radius around that one tower. In my opinion, the FCC should start a proceeding with AT&T, heck why not all the carriers, in which they require these companies to actually build out ONE network, be it EDGE, 3G, LTE, Clearwire, whatever, that will cover their licensed area once and for all, or give up those licenses to someone who WILL build the network.
  • Reply 38 of 43
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ggore View Post


    Well said, shamino. That farmer out in the field would probably be in greater need of a cellphone signal in a life or death situation than the dude yapping on his cellphone in a McDonalds in the city when he should be ordering his food as well. My home county in Oklahoma, which is in a rural area, one of the yellow counties on the population density map, there are no interstate highways and the biggest town is population 1000. Yet there are 10 GSM towers and 12 CDMA towers in the county. The GSM sites are owned either by T-Mobile or CellularOne, and each carrier has roaming agreements with each other. The CDMA towers are owned by Pioneer Cellular and they have roaming agreements with Sprint, Verizon, and US Cellular. They cover every single inch of the county and signal is great on all of them. AT&T has ONE cellsite in the entire county and cannot roam on ANY of the other GSM carriers. AT&T has a license for this county, yet has not built any sort of network that will cover it. In 20 years! That's how long they have had this license. Just a five mile radius around that one tower. In my opinion, the FCC should start a proceeding with AT&T, heck why not all the carriers, in which they require these companies to actually build out ONE network, be it EDGE, 3G, LTE, Clearwire, whatever, that will cover their licensed area once and for all, or give up those licenses to someone who WILL build the network.



    Thanks for this great piece of information. This is a lot more concrete than my observations while traveling.



    But I don't think the FCC needs to get involved. If there are other carriers with good coverage (and from what you describe, there are) then you should just subscribe to one of them and not use AT&T. Even if they don't get the hint, you'll be on a network with good coverage.



    I agree, it's no fun having to choose between coverage and an iPhone, but you do have the choice. IMO, government should only get involved in when people don't have choices. (Choice as in "it's AT&T or nothing", not choice as in "my favorite model handset isn't available from my favorite carrier.)
  • Reply 39 of 43
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Perhaps they don?t work so well.



    I can assure you that for the week I was able to use one, that it did work well. Quite well indeed.
  • Reply 40 of 43
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post


    And their stupid "Mark the Spot" application is absurd. How can you mark the spot if you can't send them the results because it won't connect?



    Easy. When you get into some place you CAN connect, you click on the location button and drag the map so that the map shows where you had the problem.
Sign In or Register to comment.