Did you read the actual reason that I responded or did you just start typing? Go back and read it then try again. Note the phrase: "went live yesterday" and then explain your R&D comment. By the way, Oslo is in Norway. I suggest you get a map as well.
They have for years- always been rated at the bottom on the barrel. Apple unfortunately had and has their hands tied to contract with them and we get stuck with crippled devices in the US.
20 posts, 9 different threads, all with appropriate negative comments, some having very little connection with actual thread .... and all of this within approx. 2½ hours before presumably going to work .... oh Techie .... A rose by any other name ... still stinks.
Point taken. Went live in Stockholm and Oslo. Actually, FTA: "only the central parts of Stockholm and Oslo".
It's still only one small corner of the world.
No worries. Small corner but still the first corner. Sonera is about to go hot with much higher bandwidths as well. Rumor has it they will go 4G in a year but bump speeds up to 20 or 30 gig. Either way, with my 110mb/s at home and soon to have 20 or 30 gigs while walking through downtown Helsinki, I am happy, happy, happy.
I don't understand why no one is advocating for wireless line sharing for carriers like they do in Europe yet... that would bring down prices more than anything else, plus carriers would be able to reuse each others' networks Best for the consumer. Unfortunately AT&T and Verizon are determined to NOT let that happen. Wonder why....
That would bring the carrier costs down --- but it doesn't mean that it will bring the end user's bill down.
Also AT&T and Verizon sharing cell phone infrastructure has great anti-trust implications.
You realize that Verizon's first crack at 4G will be slower than AT&T's current 3G, let alone the upgraded 3G service that AT&T will have in place before Verizon's 4G is widely deployed?
People who rely on 3G and 4G really are doing themselves and those they are trying to communicate with a disservice.
That is unless they are purposely hiding behind the essentially meaningless labels to artificially prop up their arguments
You do realize that a lot of those numbers are mythical theoretical speed that can never be achieved in real life.
Also LTE will bring in higher uplink speed and lower latency.
Verizon has been very successful (and profitable) in their technology bets over the last 10 years. My point has been --- with that kind of track record --- Verizon deserves to be given the benefit of the doubt.
You don't have to like Verizon to recognize that they thought their network deployment strategy out. You don't have to agree with Verizon but you can't be dismissive about their strategies without some solid evidence either.
No worries. Small corner but still the first corner. Sonera is about to go hot with much higher bandwidths as well. Rumor has it they will go 4G in a year but bump speeds up to 20 or 30 gig. Either way, with my 110mb/s at home and soon to have 20 or 30 gigs while walking through downtown Helsinki, I am happy, happy, happy.
At least your corner of the world understands what broadband speeds should actually be!
You don't have to like Verizon to recognize that they thought their network deployment strategy out. You don't have to agree with Verizon but you can't be dismissive about their strategies without some solid evidence either.
If by: "thought their network deployment strategy out", you mean: "buying Alltel and all the rural red areas of their map", then sure.
I don't think they are going to get the same head start by acquiring some company with a 4G LTE network that just happens to already be built out across the rural parts of the US of A.
At least your corner of the world understands what broadband speeds should actually be!
The scandinavian/nordic countries gave a highly concentrated population where the largest city in the country represents 1/4 to 1/3 of the country's population --- not hard to be on top of the fiber optics curve when you just have to wire one medium size city of 1.5-2 million population.
We are also talking about the Swedish and Finland government is the majority shareholder of the wired/wireless carrier.
If by: "thought their network deployment strategy out", you mean: "buying Alltel and all the rural red areas of their map", then sure.
I don't think they are going to get the same head start by acquiring some company with a 4G LTE network that just happens to already be built out across the rural parts of the US of A.
It means that Verizon was willing not to enter into a bidding war for Alltel the first time around and bought the larger Alltel a year later for comparatively few money per subscriber. That's strategy. We ain't talking about Cingular overpaying for AT&T Wireless in a bidding war with Vodafone.
It means that Verizon was willing not to enter into a bidding war for Alltel the first time around and bought the larger Alltel a year later for comparatively few money per subscriber. That's strategy. We ain't talking about Cingular overpaying for AT&T Wireless in a bidding war with Vodafone.
My point is that Verizon built their red map by M&A means, not by building the actual cell phone tower infrastructure. Nothing in that paradigm tells me Verizon will be any more capable than AT&T at building out a 4G LTE network that covers the vast rural areas of of the US of A.
So "strategy", yeah, maybe. But not one that can be duplicated and not a model they can use to build from for the future.
IOW, don't expect that same red map coverage for their 4G network any time soon. We are talking years and years, just like how long it will take the hapless AT&T to accomplish the same thing.
If by: "thought their network deployment strategy out", you mean: "buying Alltel and all the rural red areas of their map", then sure.
I don't think they are going to get the same head start by acquiring some company with a 4G LTE network that just happens to already be built out across the rural parts of the US of A.
alltel acquisition didnt actually add as much as you think. what it did cover well was the northwestern rockies states... very very well. most of the other spots were covered by both alltell and vzw almost equally. if i remember correctly, vzw had to sell some of its alltel towers to comply with the FCC.
My point is that Verizon built their red map by M&A means, not building the actual cell phone tower infrastructure. Nothing in that paradigm tells me Verizon will be any more capable than AT&T at building out a 4G LTE network that covers the vast rural areas of of the US of A.
So "strategy", yeah, maybe. But not one that can be duplicated and not a model they can use to build from for the future.
When you buy a company, you also buy the people working for the company --- "institutional memory".
Alltel built a very good network in rural America, I don't see how Verizon can't use that institutional memory to build a very nice 4G network in rural America.
Cingular bought the poorly built AT&T Wireless --- and those employees subsequently built a poorly set-up national network.
When you buy a company, you also buy the people working for the company --- "institutional memory".
Alltel built a very good network in rural America, I don't see how Verizon can't use that institutional memory to build a very nice 4G network in rural America.
But how many of the Alltel people are still working for Verizon?
This is what is going to keep me with AT&T. A while ago when i had a dumb phone on cingular this was a great feature and when I jumped on with the iPhone 3GS back to the AT&T I really loved this feature of rollover minutes. Plus in my area 3G is everywhere.
However I do get dropped calls in the DC area when thousands of demonstrators come to town. AT&T really needs to fix the voice features (my Blackberry friends on AT&T also see calls drops at the same time I see them) in their network.
"The shortfalls of AT&T's wireless network can be attributed to the company's lack of investment in infrastructure, said Gerard Hallaren, director of research at TownHall Investment"
Holy crap! This guy should call AT&T and let them know.
I'm so glad somebody has figured out the problem. He should get the Nobel for this.
Yeah, he could save AT&T from having to drag all those bags of money to the bank each month. Here they are, carrying twice the data traffic of VZ on a bunch of old cheap network gear. How could they be so stupid?
Because they don?t have to. Verizon and Sprint were running into a dead end with EV-DO. They could have updated to EV-DO Rev. B but that was apparently a pointless stopgap so both ignored it and decided to move to ?4G? technologies. Sprint choose first and chose poorly.
AT&T and T-Mpbile will move to LTE but HSPA has so much life left in it. They?ve barely even scratched the surface of what they technologies can do. Labeling it ?3G? and ?4G? bare no resemblance of the bandwidth capabilities.
LTE is more important than just higher max theoretical throughput for one phone -- it also is far more spectrally efficient than HSPA and allows a far higher TOTAL TOWER throughput between x number of devices and the tower. it should allow ATT to enable more simultaneous data users on one tower (or at least thr same number but with better average throughput per device)
LTE is more important than just higher max theoretical throughput for one phone -- it also is far more spectrally efficient than HSPA and allows a far higher TOTAL TOWER throughput between x number of devices and the tower. it should allow ATT to enable more simultaneous data users on one tower (or at least thr same number but with better average throughput per device)
- Sent from my iPhone
I agree with everything you?ve said, but 3GSM networks just aren?t in the same predicament so they can wait longer than CDMA2000 networks. I?d love AT&T to jump on sooner rather than later but having feasible LTE radios are still a ways off. At this point, I think 2012 is the earliest we can expect and LTE iPhone to be feasible.
20 posts, 9 different threads, all with appropriate negative comments, some having very little connection with actual thread .... and all of this within approx. 2½ hours before presumably going to work .... oh Techie .... A rose by any other name ... still stinks.
What techie? I was stating a fact -nothing negative.
Comments
Did you read the actual reason that I responded or did you just start typing? Go back and read it then try again. Note the phrase: "went live yesterday" and then explain your R&D comment. By the way, Oslo is in Norway. I suggest you get a map as well.
Here is a bit more help for you: http://dailymobile.se/2009/12/14/tel...holm-and-oslo/ (More R&D huh?)
Point taken. Went live in Stockholm and Oslo. Actually, FTA: "only the central parts of Stockholm and Oslo".
It's still only one small corner of the world.
Ya think?
They have for years- always been rated at the bottom on the barrel. Apple unfortunately had and has their hands tied to contract with them and we get stuck with crippled devices in the US.
20 posts, 9 different threads, all with appropriate negative comments, some having very little connection with actual thread .... and all of this within approx. 2½ hours before presumably going to work .... oh Techie .... A rose by any other name ... still stinks.
Point taken. Went live in Stockholm and Oslo. Actually, FTA: "only the central parts of Stockholm and Oslo".
It's still only one small corner of the world.
No worries. Small corner but still the first corner. Sonera is about to go hot with much higher bandwidths as well. Rumor has it they will go 4G in a year but bump speeds up to 20 or 30 gig. Either way, with my 110mb/s at home and soon to have 20 or 30 gigs while walking through downtown Helsinki, I am happy, happy, happy.
I don't understand why no one is advocating for wireless line sharing for carriers like they do in Europe yet... that would bring down prices more than anything else, plus carriers would be able to reuse each others' networks
That would bring the carrier costs down --- but it doesn't mean that it will bring the end user's bill down.
Also AT&T and Verizon sharing cell phone infrastructure has great anti-trust implications.
You realize that Verizon's first crack at 4G will be slower than AT&T's current 3G, let alone the upgraded 3G service that AT&T will have in place before Verizon's 4G is widely deployed?
People who rely on 3G and 4G really are doing themselves and those they are trying to communicate with a disservice.
That is unless they are purposely hiding behind the essentially meaningless labels to artificially prop up their arguments
You do realize that a lot of those numbers are mythical theoretical speed that can never be achieved in real life.
Also LTE will bring in higher uplink speed and lower latency.
Verizon has been very successful (and profitable) in their technology bets over the last 10 years. My point has been --- with that kind of track record --- Verizon deserves to be given the benefit of the doubt.
You don't have to like Verizon to recognize that they thought their network deployment strategy out. You don't have to agree with Verizon but you can't be dismissive about their strategies without some solid evidence either.
No worries. Small corner but still the first corner. Sonera is about to go hot with much higher bandwidths as well. Rumor has it they will go 4G in a year but bump speeds up to 20 or 30 gig. Either way, with my 110mb/s at home and soon to have 20 or 30 gigs while walking through downtown Helsinki, I am happy, happy, happy.
At least your corner of the world understands what broadband speeds should actually be!
You don't have to like Verizon to recognize that they thought their network deployment strategy out. You don't have to agree with Verizon but you can't be dismissive about their strategies without some solid evidence either.
If by: "thought their network deployment strategy out", you mean: "buying Alltel and all the rural red areas of their map", then sure.
I don't think they are going to get the same head start by acquiring some company with a 4G LTE network that just happens to already be built out across the rural parts of the US of A.
At least your corner of the world understands what broadband speeds should actually be!
The scandinavian/nordic countries gave a highly concentrated population where the largest city in the country represents 1/4 to 1/3 of the country's population --- not hard to be on top of the fiber optics curve when you just have to wire one medium size city of 1.5-2 million population.
We are also talking about the Swedish and Finland government is the majority shareholder of the wired/wireless carrier.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeliaSonera
If by: "thought their network deployment strategy out", you mean: "buying Alltel and all the rural red areas of their map", then sure.
I don't think they are going to get the same head start by acquiring some company with a 4G LTE network that just happens to already be built out across the rural parts of the US of A.
It means that Verizon was willing not to enter into a bidding war for Alltel the first time around and bought the larger Alltel a year later for comparatively few money per subscriber. That's strategy. We ain't talking about Cingular overpaying for AT&T Wireless in a bidding war with Vodafone.
It means that Verizon was willing not to enter into a bidding war for Alltel the first time around and bought the larger Alltel a year later for comparatively few money per subscriber. That's strategy. We ain't talking about Cingular overpaying for AT&T Wireless in a bidding war with Vodafone.
My point is that Verizon built their red map by M&A means, not by building the actual cell phone tower infrastructure. Nothing in that paradigm tells me Verizon will be any more capable than AT&T at building out a 4G LTE network that covers the vast rural areas of of the US of A.
So "strategy", yeah, maybe. But not one that can be duplicated and not a model they can use to build from for the future.
IOW, don't expect that same red map coverage for their 4G network any time soon. We are talking years and years, just like how long it will take the hapless AT&T to accomplish the same thing.
If by: "thought their network deployment strategy out", you mean: "buying Alltel and all the rural red areas of their map", then sure.
I don't think they are going to get the same head start by acquiring some company with a 4G LTE network that just happens to already be built out across the rural parts of the US of A.
alltel acquisition didnt actually add as much as you think. what it did cover well was the northwestern rockies states... very very well. most of the other spots were covered by both alltell and vzw almost equally. if i remember correctly, vzw had to sell some of its alltel towers to comply with the FCC.
My point is that Verizon built their red map by M&A means, not building the actual cell phone tower infrastructure. Nothing in that paradigm tells me Verizon will be any more capable than AT&T at building out a 4G LTE network that covers the vast rural areas of of the US of A.
So "strategy", yeah, maybe. But not one that can be duplicated and not a model they can use to build from for the future.
When you buy a company, you also buy the people working for the company --- "institutional memory".
Alltel built a very good network in rural America, I don't see how Verizon can't use that institutional memory to build a very nice 4G network in rural America.
Cingular bought the poorly built AT&T Wireless --- and those employees subsequently built a poorly set-up national network.
When you buy a company, you also buy the people working for the company --- "institutional memory".
Alltel built a very good network in rural America, I don't see how Verizon can't use that institutional memory to build a very nice 4G network in rural America.
But how many of the Alltel people are still working for Verizon?
ATT has rollover minutes....Verizon does not.
ATT does not charge extra for Visual Voice Mail.
This is what is going to keep me with AT&T. A while ago when i had a dumb phone on cingular this was a great feature and when I jumped on with the iPhone 3GS back to the AT&T I really loved this feature of rollover minutes. Plus in my area 3G is everywhere.
However I do get dropped calls in the DC area when thousands of demonstrators come to town. AT&T really needs to fix the voice features (my Blackberry friends on AT&T also see calls drops at the same time I see them) in their network.
But how many of the Alltel people are still working for Verizon?
They can fire the backend office workers. They can't really fire the frontline people because they don't duplicate in geographical areas.
ATT supports concurrent Voice and Data access. Verizon does not. ).
Only if you're lucky enough to be in the handful of 3G coverage zones. With not, you're stuck with edge doesn't allow voice and data access.
5 bars outside my home, 4 bars inside. Gonna cancel my landline soon.
You're on of the few and probably live in a mega metro. Still, does it have 3G or a big E listed most of the time?
"The shortfalls of AT&T's wireless network can be attributed to the company's lack of investment in infrastructure, said Gerard Hallaren, director of research at TownHall Investment"
Holy crap! This guy should call AT&T and let them know.
I'm so glad somebody has figured out the problem. He should get the Nobel for this.
Yeah, he could save AT&T from having to drag all those bags of money to the bank each month. Here they are, carrying twice the data traffic of VZ on a bunch of old cheap network gear. How could they be so stupid?
Because they don?t have to. Verizon and Sprint were running into a dead end with EV-DO. They could have updated to EV-DO Rev. B but that was apparently a pointless stopgap so both ignored it and decided to move to ?4G? technologies. Sprint choose first and chose poorly.
AT&T and T-Mpbile will move to LTE but HSPA has so much life left in it. They?ve barely even scratched the surface of what they technologies can do. Labeling it ?3G? and ?4G? bare no resemblance of the bandwidth capabilities.
LTE is more important than just higher max theoretical throughput for one phone -- it also is far more spectrally efficient than HSPA and allows a far higher TOTAL TOWER throughput between x number of devices and the tower. it should allow ATT to enable more simultaneous data users on one tower (or at least thr same number but with better average throughput per device)
- Sent from my iPhone
LTE is more important than just higher max theoretical throughput for one phone -- it also is far more spectrally efficient than HSPA and allows a far higher TOTAL TOWER throughput between x number of devices and the tower. it should allow ATT to enable more simultaneous data users on one tower (or at least thr same number but with better average throughput per device)
- Sent from my iPhone
I agree with everything you?ve said, but 3GSM networks just aren?t in the same predicament so they can wait longer than CDMA2000 networks. I?d love AT&T to jump on sooner rather than later but having feasible LTE radios are still a ways off. At this point, I think 2012 is the earliest we can expect and LTE iPhone to be feasible.
PS: Where the hell have you been?
20 posts, 9 different threads, all with appropriate negative comments, some having very little connection with actual thread .... and all of this within approx. 2½ hours before presumably going to work .... oh Techie .... A rose by any other name ... still stinks.
What techie? I was stating a fact -nothing negative.