True. But there's no excuse for dense urban areas not to have excellent, affordable service options.
The dense areas pay for the less dense areas, especially the hundreds of thousands of roads which people travel but rarely live, and there still not covered that well in places. There are MVNOs that mainly service cities for a low cost. They also have fees for using the phone outside your base area or state even though you can still call nationwide and many other plans. They even use loaded SIMs like many other countries. They work for some people, but not for most. I hate Metro PCS for awhile a few years back. It was horrible for me.
Personally, I'm glad that the MNOs compete for nationwide coverage at one price. I remember when I was charged to call outside the state or hefty fees for using in another state. It can get unexpectedly pricey. I'm sure it sucks if you have family and friends in Vladivostok you chat with frequently or someone from Northern Ireland calling Ireland, but I have family in friends spread over many states from coast to coast. I can't imagine going to a plan that charged me more to call a different state or had additional fees for using my phone on the highways between cities. Pros and cons.
Quote:
But roaming between countries is cheap as hell. In addition, as there are few carrier locks (one of the most important parts of this discussion), switching SIM cards is at least an option. In the US, not.
The carrier lock in's suck, but even with the "unlocked" iPad you're still stuck with AT&T if you want 3G speeds. Your only other non MVNO option is T-Mobile for GPRS and EDGE, and Verizon and Sprint are a no go. We'll have to wait awhile before LTE is widespread before some of these changes will take place.
One thing is for certain, I like being able to access both the data and voice at the same time on AT&T. In my mind, Verizon's failure to implement that makes it's network suck or in the very least not open to a fair comparison with AT&T's network.
That is a feature I use pretty much every time I'm using the phone, which isn't often but usually for long durations when I do. I can't imagine giving that up. It's odd that AT&T didn't market that until months after the 3GS was released when that was a part of the 3GSM network from the start. I'm not sure if BB and WinMo phones were configured to use simultaneous voice and data, but the iPhone was so they could have started marketing it back in May 2008. It's almost like they didn't know about it.
I'm told that the upgrade to EV-DO Rev. B from EV-DO Rev. A is purely a software update. If true, why didn't they do that. It sounds like it would inexpensive and decent stopgate between the LTE build out.
Yes, there is a lot to envy right now. High unemployment rate, worst health care system in terms of cost and availability, high tax rate, corrupt politicians, etc., etc., etc.
The dense areas pay for the less dense areas, especially the hundreds of thousands of roads which people travel but rarely live, and there still not covered that well in places. There are MVNOs that mainly service cities for a low cost. They also have fees for using the phone outside your base area or state even though you can still call nationwide and many other plans. They even use loaded SIMs like many other countries. They work for some people, but not for most. I hate Metro PCS for awhile a few years back. It was horrible for me.
Personally, I'm glad that the MNOs compete for nationwide coverage at one price. I remember when I was charged to call outside the state or hefty fees for using in another state. It can get unexpectedly pricey. I'm sure it sucks if you have family and friends in Vladivostok you chat with frequently or someone from Northern Ireland calling Ireland, but I have family in friends spread over many states from coast to coast. I can't imagine going to a plan that charged me more to call a different state or had additional fees for using my phone on the highways between cities. Pros and cons.
The carrier lock in's suck, but even with the "unlocked" iPad you're still stuck with AT&T if you want 3G speeds. Your only other non MVNO option is T-Mobile for GPRS and EDGE, and Verizon and Sprint are a no go. We'll have to wait awhile before LTE is widespread before some of these changes will take place.
How did you respond to any of my points? All of the things you wrote, which I don't dispute, just prove my point that the US has a lot of catching up to do.
Metro San Francisco is roughly the size of Hong Kong, in terms of area and population. Forget interstate -- where are the options to have metro-wide UMTS/HSPA 3G, with performance that doesn't suck? Your choices? AT&T or nothing. Don't pretend that any of the MVNOs you mentioned (if we're talking about the iPad) are on anything but the AT&T network. That's the very definition of "limited".
Whereas here we have four independent UMTS/HSPA 3G network infrastructures and about 20 MVNOs to choose from. That's "options".
Like I said, there's no excuse for places like San Francisco not to have better options.
A decade ago I don't think I was getting 1Mbps on a cable network, so I'm certainly not complaining about 3Mbps on my phone.
Here are some simple stats for 5 large countries.
Russia: . 140,041,247 population / 16,377,742 sq km = . 8.55 pop. per sq km
China: .1,338,612,968 population / .9,569,901 sq km = 139.88 pop. per sq km
US: . . . 307,212,123 population / .9,161,966 sq km = .33.53 pop. per sq km
Canada: . .33,487,208 population / .9,093,507 sq km = . 3.68 pop. per sq km
Australia: 21,262,641 population / .7,682,300 sq km = . 2.77 pop. per sq km
Obviously Canada and Russia have vast areas that aren't inhabited but I have no way of calculating based on inhabited land. Even if I did, it would still not be very telling as there are still many other factors to consider. It's easy to want one nation's carriers to work like another but the reality is always going to be very different.
From this population density graphic, it's rather obvious China invests mainly along it's Eastern sea board.
Even this old map of the USSR shows that Russia's main population is packed in a small upper left corner of it's nation.
Well IN THE REST OF THE WORLD 4G refers at least to LTE technology, which promises to provide between 50 - 100 mbps on a mobile connection.
I've seen a talk by Intel saying these speeds are only theoretical, and real world speeds are more like 6 to 12Mb per second. I don't know about you, but that's fast enough for me. If it's always 6Mb "at the least" than what's the issue?
I've seen a talk by Intel saying these speeds are only theoretical, and real world speeds are more like 6 to 12Mb per second. I don't know about you, but that's fast enough for me. If it's always 6Mb "at the least" than what's the issue?
I think that after certain level speed is a perceptional matter. I myself think 6Mbit/s is fast because i can recall days when i surfed through 56kbit/s modem, but my younger brother never had such an amazing surfing experience. His broadband is 1Gbit/s and for him anything that a mobile network can offer is a turtle.
Not quite following that. On the one hand, you refuse to get the 3G iPad because you refuse to have your "wallet raped", while simultaneously admitting that the AT&T data plan for the iPad can't be beat.
So the problem seems to be the idea that AT&T's network "just sucks", even though a) it's improved quite a bit over the last year and b) that idea was always highly contingent on your location, with lots of users being perfectly satisfied.
I would want to make sure that AT&T's service actually currently sucked in my location (and was going to continue to suck for the entire time I planned to keep my iPad) before I passed up at least the option to do a month to month cheap data connection.
agreed
seems like we are so over thinking the whole ipad deal that people are acting like they have one already .
There is certainly a case to be made for MiFi connected WiFi-only iPad over a 3G IPad, but the relatively low price of iPad data plan (which I'm still astounded by) does pretty much mean that you'd have to be connecting multiple devices on-the-go in the same location for it to be financially feasible. One scenario might be a family with the desire for 2 or more iPads and/or notebooks when traveling.
Or, as the advertising says, get your value out of the 10x faster speeds....
If Sprints 4G card approaches anywhere near 10 mbps, I think I might be interested.
..., but that'll happen when pigs fly and Steve Jobs stops bending Apple to his every whim.
That is a brilliant observation. Clearly everyone wold agree that what keeps Apple from making products that are attractive to consumers and from making the sort of margins and profits Palm, Motorola, Dell, and others are making is "Steve Jobs bending Apple to his every whim."
This post makes little sense. First you claim AT&T's network plain sucks. Yet, you say it's data plain is a good deal. If it truly sucks, no amount of money would make it a good deal. Personally, I think the quality of AT&T's network depends greatly on too many personal factors like your location. One thing is for certain, I like being able to access both the data and voice at the same time on AT&T. In my mind, Verizon's failure to implement that makes it's network suck or in the very least not open to a fair comparison with AT&T's network.
Personally, I think the 3G iPad is the best deal. You know there are going to be 3G specific applications for the iPad. For instance, GPS applications. Those will not be available for the strict Wi-Fi ones. I mean seriously, the iPad will make a sweet GPS unit.
Again, you are confused. I said it would be wonderful to have $30/month-to-month unlimited internet access as a plan. That's a great idea. However, that idea with AT&T's network is what sucks, which is why I didn't pre-order a 3G iPad. If Verizon had the same deal, I'd be all over it because their network works.
As for all the GPS stuff, that would imply carrying it around everywhere. I've got an iPhone for stuff like that.
The problem is you don't get GPS without 3G. For me, the iPad will make a terrific in-car entertainment system, including overseas if one is able to buy a pre-paid SIM. The iPad is unlocked.
I have GPS enabled on my Touch. It isn't real GPS, and either is GPS through 3G. Mine uses triangulation of wifi signals, which is actually more accurate.
I really believe the 3G option is a waste of $. Wifi is available most places, at no cost generally. Many in this forum were speaking about being outside with their iPad and I'll tell you this much; if the screen on the iPad isn't any better than the screen on my Touch, you won't be able to see the screen, anyway.
I won't be purchasing an iPad until I see what it's capable of. There's another tablet that'll be out soon from a German company that has been around a long time; the WePad.
Again, you are confused. I said it would be wonderful to have $30/month-to-month unlimited internet access as a plan. That's a great idea. However, that idea with AT&T's network is what sucks, which is why I didn't pre-order a 3G iPad. If Verizon had the same deal, I'd be all over it because their network works.
As for all the GPS stuff, that would imply carrying it around everywhere. I've got an iPhone for stuff like that.
You could go over to the Verizon store, purchase a Pre Plus, and you and four of your friends can use it as a wifi hotspot. Just an idea...
(and I know I'll get attacked by all of you fanboys out there but, I got rid of my iPhone last year not because of the phone, which is merely okay by the way, but because of AT&T)
I'll tell you all a short story. Last February my boss was vacationing in Prague. He gave me a call one morning to check in and see how things were going. Both of us were on iPhones. I have used mobile phones since the early 90's, in my car, and I have never, ever, had a call as clear and as fast as that call from Prague. My boss was standing in his hotel room at the time. The phones were capable of great reception; the network wasn't.
I lived in Italy a while ago and traveled to other parts of Europe. I can say without hesitation that we, meaning Americans, are WAY behind the curve when it comes to cell technology. The folks in Finland, via Nokia, were using cell phones a decade before they got here. We have some catching up to do.
Maybe a good exercise would be to look at your current billing statement for your iPhone, and consider your planned usage with the iPad. Compare data used via wifi and then via 3g on the iPhone.
You won't be making calls on the iPad, unless you use Skype. The movies you download will be over wifi, via iTunes, and probably to your laptop/desktop. Remember, the downloads will be much larger in size than they are for the iPhone/Touch!
I just don't see a need for 3g with this device. Nobody has convinced me. Please try!
I once stayed at a Mandarin Oriental -- in a $900 room (someone else was paying ) -- and the 24-hour internet charge was $49.95! That was a bit shocking........
That is pure profit, its as bad as a new car dealer selling rustproofing service, as almost all cars get rustproofing at the factory. They take and spray $2 worth of chemicals under the car and charge several hundred dollars. I guess everyone needs to make an extra buck or two.
Again, you are confused. I said it would be wonderful to have $30/month-to-month unlimited internet access as a plan. That's a great idea. However, that idea with AT&T's network is what sucks, which is why I didn't pre-order a 3G iPad. If Verizon had the same deal, I'd be all over it because their network works.
As for all the GPS stuff, that would imply carrying it around everywhere. I've got an iPhone for stuff like that.
He's not confused, he's being objective. Your comments read as blanket statements that AT&T sucks and Verizon doesn't. No one denies that Verizon's 3G is in more areas, but most people with AT&T seem to have usable service in their area. I certainly do, and at speeds that Verizon's customers can only dream of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vmcc
I have GPS enabled on my Touch. It isn't real GPS, and either is GPS through 3G. Mine uses triangulation of wifi signals, which is actually more accurate.
1) Triangulation via WiFi is not more accurate than GPS using satellites to pin point your location. How do you have GPS on an iPod Touch or is this an HTC Touch?
2) His comment, "The problem is you don't get GPS without 3G" is in regards to the iPad HW, not a statement of technical limitation of GPS actually requiring a 3G connection. The only iPad that comes with a GPS module is the 3G version.
3) Just to be clear, Assisted-GPS (A-GPS), which you find in cell phones is great because it's assisted by cellular and WiFi data to receive more accurate data faster.
All the people in this thread complaining about AT&T's network and saying it's worthless seem to be unaware or to have forgotten the independent study that showed AT&T's network has improved dramatically and is actually now, the fastest and most reliable in the USA.
Comments
True. But there's no excuse for dense urban areas not to have excellent, affordable service options.
The dense areas pay for the less dense areas, especially the hundreds of thousands of roads which people travel but rarely live, and there still not covered that well in places. There are MVNOs that mainly service cities for a low cost. They also have fees for using the phone outside your base area or state even though you can still call nationwide and many other plans. They even use loaded SIMs like many other countries. They work for some people, but not for most. I hate Metro PCS for awhile a few years back. It was horrible for me.Personally, I'm glad that the MNOs compete for nationwide coverage at one price. I remember when I was charged to call outside the state or hefty fees for using in another state. It can get unexpectedly pricey. I'm sure it sucks if you have family and friends in Vladivostok you chat with frequently or someone from Northern Ireland calling Ireland, but I have family in friends spread over many states from coast to coast. I can't imagine going to a plan that charged me more to call a different state or had additional fees for using my phone on the highways between cities. Pros and cons.
But roaming between countries is cheap as hell. In addition, as there are few carrier locks (one of the most important parts of this discussion), switching SIM cards is at least an option. In the US, not.
The carrier lock in's suck, but even with the "unlocked" iPad you're still stuck with AT&T if you want 3G speeds. Your only other non MVNO option is T-Mobile for GPRS and EDGE, and Verizon and Sprint are a no go. We'll have to wait awhile before LTE is widespread before some of these changes will take place.
One thing is for certain, I like being able to access both the data and voice at the same time on AT&T. In my mind, Verizon's failure to implement that makes it's network suck or in the very least not open to a fair comparison with AT&T's network.
That is a feature I use pretty much every time I'm using the phone, which isn't often but usually for long durations when I do. I can't imagine giving that up. It's odd that AT&T didn't market that until months after the 3GS was released when that was a part of the 3GSM network from the start. I'm not sure if BB and WinMo phones were configured to use simultaneous voice and data, but the iPhone was so they could have started marketing it back in May 2008. It's almost like they didn't know about it.
I'm told that the upgrade to EV-DO Rev. B from EV-DO Rev. A is purely a software update. If true, why didn't they do that. It sounds like it would inexpensive and decent stopgate between the LTE build out.
Why would you pay for a Verizon WiFi hotspot doohickey, when it's a slow old CDMA 3G network?
On my 7.2Mbps Network I consistantly get download speeds around 3.5Mbps with peaks above 5Mbps.
No. 1: It isn't "your" network
No. 2: You are an Australian, living in Australia, what is the point of your speed comparison to a US based network.
Yes, there is a lot to envy right now. High unemployment rate, worst health care system in terms of cost and availability, high tax rate, corrupt politicians, etc., etc., etc.
I fully agree with You
The dense areas pay for the less dense areas, especially the hundreds of thousands of roads which people travel but rarely live, and there still not covered that well in places. There are MVNOs that mainly service cities for a low cost. They also have fees for using the phone outside your base area or state even though you can still call nationwide and many other plans. They even use loaded SIMs like many other countries. They work for some people, but not for most. I hate Metro PCS for awhile a few years back. It was horrible for me.Personally, I'm glad that the MNOs compete for nationwide coverage at one price. I remember when I was charged to call outside the state or hefty fees for using in another state. It can get unexpectedly pricey. I'm sure it sucks if you have family and friends in Vladivostok you chat with frequently or someone from Northern Ireland calling Ireland, but I have family in friends spread over many states from coast to coast. I can't imagine going to a plan that charged me more to call a different state or had additional fees for using my phone on the highways between cities. Pros and cons.
The carrier lock in's suck, but even with the "unlocked" iPad you're still stuck with AT&T if you want 3G speeds. Your only other non MVNO option is T-Mobile for GPRS and EDGE, and Verizon and Sprint are a no go. We'll have to wait awhile before LTE is widespread before some of these changes will take place.
How did you respond to any of my points? All of the things you wrote, which I don't dispute, just prove my point that the US has a lot of catching up to do.
Metro San Francisco is roughly the size of Hong Kong, in terms of area and population. Forget interstate -- where are the options to have metro-wide UMTS/HSPA 3G, with performance that doesn't suck? Your choices? AT&T or nothing. Don't pretend that any of the MVNOs you mentioned (if we're talking about the iPad) are on anything but the AT&T network. That's the very definition of "limited".
Whereas here we have four independent UMTS/HSPA 3G network infrastructures and about 20 MVNOs to choose from. That's "options".
Like I said, there's no excuse for places like San Francisco not to have better options.
A decade ago I don't think I was getting 1Mbps on a cable network, so I'm certainly not complaining about 3Mbps on my phone.
Here are some simple stats for 5 large countries.Obviously Canada and Russia have vast areas that aren't inhabited but I have no way of calculating based on inhabited land. Even if I did, it would still not be very telling as there are still many other factors to consider. It's easy to want one nation's carriers to work like another but the reality is always going to be very different.
From this population density graphic, it's rather obvious China invests mainly along it's Eastern sea board.
Even this old map of the USSR shows that Russia's main population is packed in a small upper left corner of it's nation.
Well IN THE REST OF THE WORLD 4G refers at least to LTE technology, which promises to provide between 50 - 100 mbps on a mobile connection.
I've seen a talk by Intel saying these speeds are only theoretical, and real world speeds are more like 6 to 12Mb per second. I don't know about you, but that's fast enough for me. If it's always 6Mb "at the least" than what's the issue?
I've seen a talk by Intel saying these speeds are only theoretical, and real world speeds are more like 6 to 12Mb per second. I don't know about you, but that's fast enough for me. If it's always 6Mb "at the least" than what's the issue?
I think that after certain level speed is a perceptional matter. I myself think 6Mbit/s is fast because i can recall days when i surfed through 56kbit/s modem, but my younger brother never had such an amazing surfing experience. His broadband is 1Gbit/s and for him anything that a mobile network can offer is a turtle.
Not quite following that. On the one hand, you refuse to get the 3G iPad because you refuse to have your "wallet raped", while simultaneously admitting that the AT&T data plan for the iPad can't be beat.
So the problem seems to be the idea that AT&T's network "just sucks", even though a) it's improved quite a bit over the last year and b) that idea was always highly contingent on your location, with lots of users being perfectly satisfied.
I would want to make sure that AT&T's service actually currently sucked in my location (and was going to continue to suck for the entire time I planned to keep my iPad) before I passed up at least the option to do a month to month cheap data connection.
agreed
seems like we are so over thinking the whole ipad deal that people are acting like they have one already .
peace
9
There is certainly a case to be made for MiFi connected WiFi-only iPad over a 3G IPad, but the relatively low price of iPad data plan (which I'm still astounded by) does pretty much mean that you'd have to be connecting multiple devices on-the-go in the same location for it to be financially feasible. One scenario might be a family with the desire for 2 or more iPads and/or notebooks when traveling.
Or, as the advertising says, get your value out of the 10x faster speeds....
If Sprints 4G card approaches anywhere near 10 mbps, I think I might be interested.
..., but that'll happen when pigs fly and Steve Jobs stops bending Apple to his every whim.
That is a brilliant observation. Clearly everyone wold agree that what keeps Apple from making products that are attractive to consumers and from making the sort of margins and profits Palm, Motorola, Dell, and others are making is "Steve Jobs bending Apple to his every whim."
This post makes little sense. First you claim AT&T's network plain sucks. Yet, you say it's data plain is a good deal. If it truly sucks, no amount of money would make it a good deal. Personally, I think the quality of AT&T's network depends greatly on too many personal factors like your location. One thing is for certain, I like being able to access both the data and voice at the same time on AT&T. In my mind, Verizon's failure to implement that makes it's network suck or in the very least not open to a fair comparison with AT&T's network.
Personally, I think the 3G iPad is the best deal. You know there are going to be 3G specific applications for the iPad. For instance, GPS applications. Those will not be available for the strict Wi-Fi ones. I mean seriously, the iPad will make a sweet GPS unit.
Again, you are confused. I said it would be wonderful to have $30/month-to-month unlimited internet access as a plan. That's a great idea. However, that idea with AT&T's network is what sucks, which is why I didn't pre-order a 3G iPad. If Verizon had the same deal, I'd be all over it because their network works.
As for all the GPS stuff, that would imply carrying it around everywhere. I've got an iPhone for stuff like that.
The problem is you don't get GPS without 3G. For me, the iPad will make a terrific in-car entertainment system, including overseas if one is able to buy a pre-paid SIM. The iPad is unlocked.
I have GPS enabled on my Touch. It isn't real GPS, and either is GPS through 3G. Mine uses triangulation of wifi signals, which is actually more accurate.
I won't be purchasing an iPad until I see what it's capable of. There's another tablet that'll be out soon from a German company that has been around a long time; the WePad.
Here's a link... http://wepad.mobi/en
This is more like what most of us will be using..
Again, you are confused. I said it would be wonderful to have $30/month-to-month unlimited internet access as a plan. That's a great idea. However, that idea with AT&T's network is what sucks, which is why I didn't pre-order a 3G iPad. If Verizon had the same deal, I'd be all over it because their network works.
As for all the GPS stuff, that would imply carrying it around everywhere. I've got an iPhone for stuff like that.
You could go over to the Verizon store, purchase a Pre Plus, and you and four of your friends can use it as a wifi hotspot. Just an idea...
(and I know I'll get attacked by all of you fanboys out there but, I got rid of my iPhone last year not because of the phone, which is merely okay by the way, but because of AT&T)
I'll tell you all a short story. Last February my boss was vacationing in Prague. He gave me a call one morning to check in and see how things were going. Both of us were on iPhones. I have used mobile phones since the early 90's, in my car, and I have never, ever, had a call as clear and as fast as that call from Prague. My boss was standing in his hotel room at the time. The phones were capable of great reception; the network wasn't.
I lived in Italy a while ago and traveled to other parts of Europe. I can say without hesitation that we, meaning Americans, are WAY behind the curve when it comes to cell technology. The folks in Finland, via Nokia, were using cell phones a decade before they got here. We have some catching up to do.
You won't be making calls on the iPad, unless you use Skype. The movies you download will be over wifi, via iTunes, and probably to your laptop/desktop. Remember, the downloads will be much larger in size than they are for the iPhone/Touch!
I just don't see a need for 3g with this device. Nobody has convinced me. Please try!
This is so true.
I once stayed at a Mandarin Oriental -- in a $900 room (someone else was paying
That is pure profit, its as bad as a new car dealer selling rustproofing service, as almost all cars get rustproofing at the factory. They take and spray $2 worth of chemicals under the car and charge several hundred dollars. I guess everyone needs to make an extra buck or two.
Again, you are confused. I said it would be wonderful to have $30/month-to-month unlimited internet access as a plan. That's a great idea. However, that idea with AT&T's network is what sucks, which is why I didn't pre-order a 3G iPad. If Verizon had the same deal, I'd be all over it because their network works.
As for all the GPS stuff, that would imply carrying it around everywhere. I've got an iPhone for stuff like that.
He's not confused, he's being objective. Your comments read as blanket statements that AT&T sucks and Verizon doesn't. No one denies that Verizon's 3G is in more areas, but most people with AT&T seem to have usable service in their area. I certainly do, and at speeds that Verizon's customers can only dream of.
I have GPS enabled on my Touch. It isn't real GPS, and either is GPS through 3G. Mine uses triangulation of wifi signals, which is actually more accurate.
1) Triangulation via WiFi is not more accurate than GPS using satellites to pin point your location. How do you have GPS on an iPod Touch or is this an HTC Touch?
2) His comment, "The problem is you don't get GPS without 3G" is in regards to the iPad HW, not a statement of technical limitation of GPS actually requiring a 3G connection. The only iPad that comes with a GPS module is the 3G version.
3) Just to be clear, Assisted-GPS (A-GPS), which you find in cell phones is great because it's assisted by cellular and WiFi data to receive more accurate data faster.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...ance_test.html