The fact is that if you commute to downtown Chicago from Lincoln Park - a distance of 2-3 miles - you will have 2-4 dead spots where calls cannot be made or calls in progress are dropped. These dead zones are NOT near tall buildings and the iPhone says 'No Service' in the upper left. We have tested this with iPhone 3G & 4Gs.
So until AT&T can deliver basic services to 1995 levels - yes, they will still suck.
Oh, so driving thru a cement and steel jungle (I know where this is), you encounter 2-4 dead spots and therefore AT&T sucks. You are a the "one-percenter" that can never be satisfied.
I understand your point, but if it is not an issue why was it even brought up for argument then? Just for the OP to vent on something that does not even exist today?
Well, if we can go back in to the past, I want to bitch about not having enough money to spend when I was twelve
This was an issue today. It is an issue every day. It does not matter if you are walking, biking or in a car. There are dead zones at Clybourn & Armitage, Webster & Halsted, Webster & Lincoln, Webster & Clark - just to name a few. If you are watching a game at Wrigley you cannot call, text or email on an AT&T phone. The people all around us that have Verizon are calling, texting, etc. with no problems.
SHOBIZ - you seem like a 'little' AT&T fanboy. Do you live/commute in Chicago? Have you been to any of these locations? If you don't like facts then go crawl back in your hole and resume the conversation with yourself!
Oh, so driving thru a cement and steel jungle (I know where this is), you encounter 2-4 dead spots and therefore AT&T sucks. You are a the "one-percenter" that can never be satisfied.
Quite satisfied with AT&T when I travel to other town/cities in WI, MI. IN. Just pointing out issues in Chicago and a level of service that is worse than the analog days.
I understand your point, but if it is not an issue why was it even brought up for argument then? Just for the OP to vent on something that does not even exist today?
Well, if we can go back in to the past, I want to bitch about not having enough money to spend when I was twelve
I don't understand what you are saying. I didn't bring any issue up. Not sure what this thing that doesn't exist is that you are rambling about. I was responding to someone who hit dead zones on Lake Shore drive. I certainly was not complaining or venting. I think AT&T service is excellent along Lake Shore drive. The only point I brought up for you was your troll comment about it being an insignificant stretch of road without seeming to realize that this stretch of road is in the heart of downtown Chicago.
Quite satisfied with AT&T when I travel to other town/cities in WI, MI. IN. Just pointing out issues in Chicago and a level of service that is worse than the analog days.
I didn't live in Chicago in the analog days, but it is certainly much better then it used to be. I have not had a problem with dropped calls for at least a year. Now that I think about it though, I tried to watch the last Apple keynote (with the new live streaming) from my phone in a taxi on the way to Midway airport going down lakeshore drive. I had to stop/start the live stream 2-3 times during the trip due to the signal dropping for a moment.
I have never liked AT&T (especially after having to deal with their management in my professional life) but I am very pleased with my iPhone's performance. 3-5mb of connection and solid 3G here in Atlanta. I stream radio in my car all over the city.
Our iPhone 4s have not dropped a single call since we picked them up on launch day. My wife uses hers for phone conferences all day long.
So which is the actual claim? Is AT&T 60% faster, or is Verizon 60% slower? Those are VERY different numbers.
If Verizon is 60% slower than AT&T (in other words, 40% as fast) then AT&T is 2.5x as fast as Verizon. A.k.a. 150% faster.
i was wondering the same thing. it's one thing to lie with statistics but more and more i find news involving numbers is just plain wrong or inaccurate.
I wonder if this will shut up all those "AT&T sucks" people out there.
It sucks really badly in lower Manhattan right now (last 6-8 weeks has been really bad). There are areas, like NYC's financial district where AT&T service is horrific, presumably due to overwhelmed backhaul and tower capacity. AT&T's infrastructure is simply not keeping up with growing demand -- they keep selling iPhone 4s and 3G iPads, but are not upgrading their network at the same rate, especially in NYC & San Francisco where there is a huge and constantly growing concentration of iPhone and iPads.
So yes, AT&T sucks, and will continue to suck until they end their business as usual attitude and get serious about continuously upgrading NYC & SF.
I tried to watch the last Apple keynote (with the new live streaming) from my phone in a taxi on the way to Midway airport going down lakeshore drive. I had to stop/start the live stream 2-3 times during the trip due to the signal dropping for a moment.
Had the same problem on a gigE connection. It may not have been your phone.
i was wondering the same thing. it's one thing to lie with statistics but more and more i find news involving numbers is just plain wrong or inaccurate.
Yeah I can't believe no one asked that earlier either. Frankly I'm betting it's 60% faster, because if it was really 150% faster, that's what ATT would be touting.
Well, when you are essentially sitting inside a metal box what so you expect from a radio signal?
I expect it to freakin work thats what I expect. it worked for about a month so I know it's possible. I'm a huge apple fan but this blind support for AT&T whose taking advantage of the iPhones popularity is ridiculous. the truth is they need a higher density of towers, that's it, but they're coasting on the iPhones success and saving up capital for utter investment while the current users suffer. and then they just come up with this crap saying they're faster. it doesn't matter if you can't get a signal. I repeat EFF YOU AT&T !!!
The problem is areas where it's jumping back and forth between 3G and edge, or you've got no signal at all and calls drop. This happens too much around Los Angeles.
Speaking from my experience, that rarely happens to me. And I've been mostly all of Los Angeles. The only place that this does happen to me is in Huntington Park/HP. iPhone 3GS owner btw.
... the truth is they need a higher density of towers, that's it, but they're coasting on the iPhones success and saving up capital for utter investment while the current users suffer. and then they just come up with this crap saying they're faster.
Sure they need more towers, but finding some place to put them is the main bottleneck. The article did mention:
"AT&T noted that it has invested nearly $6 billion in wireless initiatives over the first three quarters of 2010."
That seems like a fair chunk of change, but maybe they need to do more. Apparently your particular location is not ideal for AT&T however, in my location, it works quite well and much better than in 2007 with the first iPhone.
I wonder if this will shut up all those "AT&T sucks" people out there.
Not likely. I'm an iPhone user and I think AT&T's network sucks.
I will say this: I've not been having dropped calls very often of late, in the Boston area, and I used to get them a lot. I am regularly using the phone in place of my landline at home and I couldn't do that even a year ago, it was just too unreliable. So, things have improved. But network performance? It's decent as long as I can get 3G, but I see the phone dropping back to E a lot even in the suburban Boston area, and in most non-urban areas I've traveled to I often have no connectivity at all -- not even basic phone service.
That includes most of NH and VT, and I was totally unable to get any signal anywhere in upstate NY (I imagine there must be towns where it works, but I didn't find them). I was unable to even get a signal sitting in the middle of downtown Moab, UT. (Verizon customers were all-bars, I had to borrow a phone to call home.) I had no trouble just over the border in Grand Junction, CO, but when it comes to UT everywhere other than Salt Lake City was a dead zone. The phone worked OK right in the middle of Bismark, ND but didn't work at all even long before I was out of town. It worked fine in Madora, ND (with the one cell tower high above town) although I had to download the iPhone manual to my iPad to look up what a dot on the network status indicator meant (GPRS, IIRC, even slower than E).
YMMV, and probably does, but I am going to have to think very hard about going to VZ if they ever get the iPhone. The improved network breadth would be totally worth it, even if it's true that raw network performance isn't as good. It's not as important to me that I get blazing fast network as it is that I get any connectivity at all. It would be a no brainer if it weren't so expensive to switch both of our phones, and even with the cost it's still a strong "maybe."
I live in West Los Angeles and recently got the Root Metrics app for my iphone. It is dead on accurate for the coverage I get. When I compare the Verizon coverage to ATT there is no comparison. Verizon wins by a mile. I really wish ATT was better, but unless things change soon my wife and I will have to switch. ATT is not a charity.
I run a Droid and don't find Verizon slow at all most of the time. We'll see what happens when the iPhone comes to them early next year.
Verizon will not be using LTE for voice until 2012 or 2013 from what I remember reading. So the answer to your questions would be your data would drop. That is unless Verizon does upgrade the version of CDMA they are using to EDVO Rev B which can do simultaneous data and voiice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noexpectations
Verizon CDMA is slow....real slow.
When AT&T and Verizon both have LTE within the next few months, Verizon still needs to fallback on this slow CDMA network for a long long time. At least AT&T can fallback on a 14.4mbs network, not 3mbs as is the case for Verizon.
Q: If I'm on Verizon's LTE and I fallback to CDMA, what drops first, my voice call or my internet access?
That's probably because you haven't used a faster HSDPA/HSUPA based device.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timon
I run a Droid and don't find Verizon slow at all most of the time. We'll see what happens when the iPhone comes to them early next year.
Verizon will not be using LTE for voice until 2012 or 2013 from what I remember reading. So the answer to your questions would be your data would drop. That is unless Verizon does upgrade the version of CDMA they are using to EDVO Rev B which can do simultaneous data and voiice.
You need to so some reading about how radio signals propagate and what impedes them. You know, like steel buildings. Ever look at the ceiling in a hospital? Cell signal boosters in every hallway.
Clueless, funny, rant though.
Hospitals don't have cell boosters in every hallway. Besides, if the signal was stronger going into a structure, it would penetrate further.
Comments
The fact is that if you commute to downtown Chicago from Lincoln Park - a distance of 2-3 miles - you will have 2-4 dead spots where calls cannot be made or calls in progress are dropped. These dead zones are NOT near tall buildings and the iPhone says 'No Service' in the upper left. We have tested this with iPhone 3G & 4Gs.
So until AT&T can deliver basic services to 1995 levels - yes, they will still suck.
Oh, so driving thru a cement and steel jungle (I know where this is), you encounter 2-4 dead spots and therefore AT&T sucks. You are a the "one-percenter" that can never be satisfied.
I understand your point, but if it is not an issue why was it even brought up for argument then? Just for the OP to vent on something that does not even exist today?
Well, if we can go back in to the past, I want to bitch about not having enough money to spend when I was twelve
This was an issue today. It is an issue every day. It does not matter if you are walking, biking or in a car. There are dead zones at Clybourn & Armitage, Webster & Halsted, Webster & Lincoln, Webster & Clark - just to name a few. If you are watching a game at Wrigley you cannot call, text or email on an AT&T phone. The people all around us that have Verizon are calling, texting, etc. with no problems.
SHOBIZ - you seem like a 'little' AT&T fanboy. Do you live/commute in Chicago? Have you been to any of these locations? If you don't like facts then go crawl back in your hole and resume the conversation with yourself!
Stupid. What is the point of faster speeds if your connection keeps dropping?
AT&T needs to show that they are fixing their coverage problems, not that in 1% of cases they have faster network.
Well stated....
Oh, so driving thru a cement and steel jungle (I know where this is), you encounter 2-4 dead spots and therefore AT&T sucks. You are a the "one-percenter" that can never be satisfied.
Quite satisfied with AT&T when I travel to other town/cities in WI, MI. IN. Just pointing out issues in Chicago and a level of service that is worse than the analog days.
I understand your point, but if it is not an issue why was it even brought up for argument then? Just for the OP to vent on something that does not even exist today?
Well, if we can go back in to the past, I want to bitch about not having enough money to spend when I was twelve
I don't understand what you are saying. I didn't bring any issue up. Not sure what this thing that doesn't exist is that you are rambling about. I was responding to someone who hit dead zones on Lake Shore drive. I certainly was not complaining or venting. I think AT&T service is excellent along Lake Shore drive. The only point I brought up for you was your troll comment about it being an insignificant stretch of road without seeming to realize that this stretch of road is in the heart of downtown Chicago.
Quite satisfied with AT&T when I travel to other town/cities in WI, MI. IN. Just pointing out issues in Chicago and a level of service that is worse than the analog days.
I didn't live in Chicago in the analog days, but it is certainly much better then it used to be. I have not had a problem with dropped calls for at least a year. Now that I think about it though, I tried to watch the last Apple keynote (with the new live streaming) from my phone in a taxi on the way to Midway airport going down lakeshore drive. I had to stop/start the live stream 2-3 times during the trip due to the signal dropping for a moment.
Our iPhone 4s have not dropped a single call since we picked them up on launch day. My wife uses hers for phone conferences all day long.
So which is the actual claim? Is AT&T 60% faster, or is Verizon 60% slower? Those are VERY different numbers.
If Verizon is 60% slower than AT&T (in other words, 40% as fast) then AT&T is 2.5x as fast as Verizon. A.k.a. 150% faster.
i was wondering the same thing. it's one thing to lie with statistics but more and more i find news involving numbers is just plain wrong or inaccurate.
I wonder if this will shut up all those "AT&T sucks" people out there.
It sucks really badly in lower Manhattan right now (last 6-8 weeks has been really bad). There are areas, like NYC's financial district where AT&T service is horrific, presumably due to overwhelmed backhaul and tower capacity. AT&T's infrastructure is simply not keeping up with growing demand -- they keep selling iPhone 4s and 3G iPads, but are not upgrading their network at the same rate, especially in NYC & San Francisco where there is a huge and constantly growing concentration of iPhone and iPads.
So yes, AT&T sucks, and will continue to suck until they end their business as usual attitude and get serious about continuously upgrading NYC & SF.
I tried to watch the last Apple keynote (with the new live streaming) from my phone in a taxi on the way to Midway airport going down lakeshore drive. I had to stop/start the live stream 2-3 times during the trip due to the signal dropping for a moment.
Had the same problem on a gigE connection. It may not have been your phone.
i was wondering the same thing. it's one thing to lie with statistics but more and more i find news involving numbers is just plain wrong or inaccurate.
Yeah I can't believe no one asked that earlier either. Frankly I'm betting it's 60% faster, because if it was really 150% faster, that's what ATT would be touting.
Well, when you are essentially sitting inside a metal box what so you expect from a radio signal?
I expect it to freakin work thats what I expect. it worked for about a month so I know it's possible. I'm a huge apple fan but this blind support for AT&T whose taking advantage of the iPhones popularity is ridiculous. the truth is they need a higher density of towers, that's it, but they're coasting on the iPhones success and saving up capital for utter investment while the current users suffer. and then they just come up with this crap saying they're faster. it doesn't matter if you can't get a signal. I repeat EFF YOU AT&T !!!
The problem is areas where it's jumping back and forth between 3G and edge, or you've got no signal at all and calls drop. This happens too much around Los Angeles.
Speaking from my experience, that rarely happens to me. And I've been mostly all of Los Angeles. The only place that this does happen to me is in Huntington Park/HP. iPhone 3GS owner btw.
... the truth is they need a higher density of towers, that's it, but they're coasting on the iPhones success and saving up capital for utter investment while the current users suffer. and then they just come up with this crap saying they're faster.
Sure they need more towers, but finding some place to put them is the main bottleneck. The article did mention:
"AT&T noted that it has invested nearly $6 billion in wireless initiatives over the first three quarters of 2010."
That seems like a fair chunk of change, but maybe they need to do more. Apparently your particular location is not ideal for AT&T however, in my location, it works quite well and much better than in 2007 with the first iPhone.
I wonder if this will shut up all those "AT&T sucks" people out there.
Not likely. I'm an iPhone user and I think AT&T's network sucks.
I will say this: I've not been having dropped calls very often of late, in the Boston area, and I used to get them a lot. I am regularly using the phone in place of my landline at home and I couldn't do that even a year ago, it was just too unreliable. So, things have improved. But network performance? It's decent as long as I can get 3G, but I see the phone dropping back to E a lot even in the suburban Boston area, and in most non-urban areas I've traveled to I often have no connectivity at all -- not even basic phone service.
That includes most of NH and VT, and I was totally unable to get any signal anywhere in upstate NY (I imagine there must be towns where it works, but I didn't find them). I was unable to even get a signal sitting in the middle of downtown Moab, UT. (Verizon customers were all-bars, I had to borrow a phone to call home.) I had no trouble just over the border in Grand Junction, CO, but when it comes to UT everywhere other than Salt Lake City was a dead zone. The phone worked OK right in the middle of Bismark, ND but didn't work at all even long before I was out of town. It worked fine in Madora, ND (with the one cell tower high above town) although I had to download the iPhone manual to my iPad to look up what a dot on the network status indicator meant (GPRS, IIRC, even slower than E).
YMMV, and probably does, but I am going to have to think very hard about going to VZ if they ever get the iPhone. The improved network breadth would be totally worth it, even if it's true that raw network performance isn't as good. It's not as important to me that I get blazing fast network as it is that I get any connectivity at all. It would be a no brainer if it weren't so expensive to switch both of our phones, and even with the cost it's still a strong "maybe."
jim frost
[email protected]
Verizon will not be using LTE for voice until 2012 or 2013 from what I remember reading. So the answer to your questions would be your data would drop. That is unless Verizon does upgrade the version of CDMA they are using to EDVO Rev B which can do simultaneous data and voiice.
- Verizon CDMA is slow....real slow.
- When AT&T and Verizon both have LTE within the next few months, Verizon still needs to fallback on this slow CDMA network for a long long time. At least AT&T can fallback on a 14.4mbs network, not 3mbs as is the case for Verizon.
Q: If I'm on Verizon's LTE and I fallback to CDMA, what drops first, my voice call or my internet access?I run a Droid and don't find Verizon slow at all most of the time. We'll see what happens when the iPhone comes to them early next year.
Verizon will not be using LTE for voice until 2012 or 2013 from what I remember reading. So the answer to your questions would be your data would drop. That is unless Verizon does upgrade the version of CDMA they are using to EDVO Rev B which can do simultaneous data and voiice.
You need to so some reading about how radio signals propagate and what impedes them. You know, like steel buildings. Ever look at the ceiling in a hospital? Cell signal boosters in every hallway.
Clueless, funny, rant though.
Hospitals don't have cell boosters in every hallway. Besides, if the signal was stronger going into a structure, it would penetrate further.