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.
Gawd, another "it sucks for me so it sucks for everyone" post.
Hospitals don't have cell boosters in every hallway. Besides, if the signal was stronger going into a structure, it would penetrate further.
True if the signal were stronger it would penetrate further into buildings. However, it's not feasible to boost the signal strength because the signal outside would bleed into adjacent cells and create interference with nearby towers and mobile users.
3G mostly runs on higher frequency whereby GSM is carried on a lower, much better penetrating MHz. That's why it's common to see 3G to EDGE handover in dense structures. AT&T has been moving more of its 3G to the lower MHz as it phases out EDGE service. Problem is, there is only so much spectrum in existence. Thus, capacity reaches a ceiling rather quickly.
Must say I switched from Verizon to AT&T for the iPhone 3Gs in 2009 and was quite disappointed with AT&T in my area of South Central PA, (no 3G) and lots of dropped calls. Couldn't wait for Verizon to get the iPhone, but one year later I'm quite pleased with AT&T, incredibly fast 3G service (much faster than Verizon) everywhere in my area and no dropped calls. Just hope AT&T keeps investing heavily in their network over the next few years.
AT&T is all about mobile service not sellinbg phones. Shouldn't the service be better?? After all this is not new technology. There's no excuse for 'dead spots' and dropped calls in todays world of technology. Why should anyone have to stay near a window to get signal or not be able to go in their basement because of no reception issue???
For the record, I've been quite pleased with the 3G service and coverage in Austin, TX. On iPad or iPhone, it's been reliable and fast.
As a fellow Austinite, I'm going to second this comment--AT&T has been great here, less great in San Francisco. For AT&T was earlier a case of a good thing not always being to good, at least initially. If everyone with an iPhone would just quit downloading video, etc....so I can download mine, I'd appreciate it.
Where does AT&T pull this stuff from? My friend's Nexus One, which isn't even HSPA+ compatible, pulls 6mbps in Austin. My Evo pulls around 4-5mbps. Verizon may be the only network that they best in flat-out download speeds... seeing that you actually get a usable signal with AT&T at the time.
As a fellow Austinite, I'm going to second this comment--AT&T has been great here, less great in San Francisco. For AT&T was earlier a case of a good thing not always being to good, at least initially. If everyone with an iPhone would just quit downloading video, etc....so I can download mine, I'd appreciate it.
I am guessing you live in central or North Austin? I live in South Austin and couldn't complete a call to save my life. My data connection was horrible and often simply wouldn't connect. Granted, San Francisco was worse, but I would give Austin 2nd place in the worst cities I've used my phone, with San Antonio being the best.
I no longer have an iPhone, because I couldn't handle the dropped data/calls. My friends with iPhone 4's all complain about the horrible coverage.
I now have an Evo on Sprint, and it's like night and day. I always have data. Always. It's 3G or 4G. I always complete calls. Always. I'm thinking people don't know how bad they have it until they have a carrier that's worthwhile to show them.
I wonder if this will shut up all those "AT&T sucks" people out there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadash
It won't, because speed isn't the issue for most people. It's coverage. And AT&T's coverage is ass.
I agree with shadash's comment. What's the point of having a much faster network if you can't provide the people with the coverage they need to take advantage of the speed?
From what I've noticed with my friends on AT&T (I'm on Verizon), is that even though their network speed is higher on paper (60% faster is dubious, as I've read that this was an AT&T-sponsored "study"), in real life, the difference isn't anything mind-blowing. Maybe a few seconds difference at best.
It's Vodafone Australia which is a similar network to AT&T (HSDPA, HSUPA), tethered iPhone 4.
So how fast does Verizon "3G" go?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob
I agree with shadash's comment. What's the point of having a much faster network if you can't provide the people with the coverage they need to take advantage of the speed?
From what I've noticed with my friends on AT&T (I'm on Verizon), is that even though their network speed is higher on paper (60% faster is dubious, as I've read that this was an AT&T-sponsored "study"), in real life, the difference isn't anything mind-blowing. Maybe a few seconds difference at best.
It's Vodafone Australia which is a similar network to AT&T (HSDPA, HSUPA), tethered iPhone 4.
So how fast does Verizon "3G" go?
Congratulations, your speed over there is fast. I'm glad that you feel good for winning a pissing contest.
I live in CT and it just happens to be that the vast majority of times, I'm loading up websites as quickly or just a bit behind my AT&T friends. Maybe it's the geography and where the towers are. Or maybe it's my browser processing the information faster to make up for it.
Load time for most websites is around 10 - 15 seconds, which is just fine by me. I'm also just as capable of streaming video and music. Maybe you're Keanu Reeves and need to make sure that you get the vital information so you can clip the wire when the timer reads 0:01.
But I think the point still stands. I would rather take Verizon's slower, but almost guaranteed connection over AT&T's where it goes in and out.
Maybe I like uploading videos to YouTube straight away, rather than going home, transferring to a computer and uploading from there.
Maybe I also like videochatting using Fring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob
Congratulations, your speed over there is fast. I'm glad that you feel good for winning a pissing contest.
I live in CT and it just happens to be that the vast majority of times, I'm loading up websites as quickly or just a bit behind my AT&T friends. Maybe it's the geography and where the towers are. Or maybe it's my browser processing the information faster to make up for it.
Load time for most websites is around 10 - 15 seconds, which is just fine by me. I'm also just as capable of streaming video and music. Maybe you're Keanu Reeves and need to make sure that you get the vital information so you can clip the wire when the timer reads 0:01.
But I think the point still stands. I would rather take Verizon's slower, but almost guaranteed connection over AT&T's where it goes in and out.
Maybe I like uploading videos to YouTube straight away, rather than going home, transferring to a computer and uploading from there.
Maybe I also like videochatting using Fring.
I've uploaded YouTube videos straight from my phone with no issues. Take the video (all the way up to 720p) then select "Share" then "YouTube". Done.
While I don't have a front camera for video chats, I have played around with Fring and Tango (with friends on both AT&T and Verizon) and the quality's pretty good. A little jittery, but nothing horrible. Just waiting for Verizon to get a phone with a front camera (iPhone 4 or a new Android phone).
New York is right next to me and I'd bet it's one of the first cities to get onto Verizon LTE before the end of the year. I'd love to get my hands on an LTE phone next year and see how fast that network will be.
New York is right next to me and I'd bet it's one of the first cities to get onto Verizon LTE before the end of the year. I'd love to get my hands on an LTE phone next year and see how fast that network will be.
Don't expect too much from LTE when it comes out as I'm sure some fine tuning will be necessary. Sprint with its 4G is a perfect example. Sprints 4G is no better than 3G in most places where you can get it, if you have a 4G phone.
I've uploaded YouTube videos straight from my phone with no issues. Take the video (all the way up to 720p) then select "Share" then "YouTube". Done.
While I don't have a front camera for video chats, I have played around with Fring and Tango (with friends on both AT&T and Verizon) and the quality's pretty good. A little jittery, but nothing horrible. Just waiting for Verizon to get a phone with a front camera (iPhone 4 or a new Android phone).
New York is right next to me and I'd bet it's one of the first cities to get onto Verizon LTE before the end of the year. I'd love to get my hands on an LTE phone next year and see how fast that network will be.
I'll give you props for keeping that goalpost mobile. Personally, I've never recorded anything in HD that's that massive. If it would take 4-5 hours as you claim, then I'd most likely be home anyway. But that's why I use WiFi for large uploads. Plenty of free hotspots in my area. Call it a cop-out if you want. I still believe LTE should resolve this issue (at least the voice/data limitation).
BTW, I find it amusing that you've taken my first comment almost personal to defend AT&T. Seeing as how you've had to boil it all the way down to uploading large files.
I wonder if this will shut up all those "AT&T sucks" people out there.
You mean the ones that eternally stuck on with Edge while all the CDMA carriers plus T-mobile have 3G because they don't want to spend money to upgrade the network?
Comments
Hospitals don't have cell boosters in every hallway. Besides, if the signal was stronger going into a structure, it would penetrate further.
No, I think more lower powered signal towers is the entire strategy on which cell networks are based. Nobody wants to be subjected to high radiation.
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.
Gawd, another "it sucks for me so it sucks for everyone" post.
I wonder if this will shut up all those "AT&T sucks" people out there.
It won't, because speed isn't the issue for most people. It's coverage. And AT&T's coverage is ass.
Hospitals don't have cell boosters in every hallway. Besides, if the signal was stronger going into a structure, it would penetrate further.
True if the signal were stronger it would penetrate further into buildings. However, it's not feasible to boost the signal strength because the signal outside would bleed into adjacent cells and create interference with nearby towers and mobile users.
3G mostly runs on higher frequency whereby GSM is carried on a lower, much better penetrating MHz. That's why it's common to see 3G to EDGE handover in dense structures. AT&T has been moving more of its 3G to the lower MHz as it phases out EDGE service. Problem is, there is only so much spectrum in existence. Thus, capacity reaches a ceiling rather quickly.
ATT not getting the message till its to late.
Before the inevitable AT&T bashing begins...
For the record, I've been quite pleased with the 3G service and coverage in Austin, TX. On iPad or iPhone, it's been reliable and fast.
As a fellow Austinite, I'm going to second this comment--AT&T has been great here, less great in San Francisco. For AT&T was earlier a case of a good thing not always being to good, at least initially. If everyone with an iPhone would just quit downloading video, etc....so I can download mine, I'd appreciate it.
Lies.
As a fellow Austinite, I'm going to second this comment--AT&T has been great here, less great in San Francisco. For AT&T was earlier a case of a good thing not always being to good, at least initially. If everyone with an iPhone would just quit downloading video, etc....so I can download mine, I'd appreciate it.
I am guessing you live in central or North Austin? I live in South Austin and couldn't complete a call to save my life. My data connection was horrible and often simply wouldn't connect. Granted, San Francisco was worse, but I would give Austin 2nd place in the worst cities I've used my phone, with San Antonio being the best.
I no longer have an iPhone, because I couldn't handle the dropped data/calls. My friends with iPhone 4's all complain about the horrible coverage.
I now have an Evo on Sprint, and it's like night and day. I always have data. Always. It's 3G or 4G. I always complete calls. Always. I'm thinking people don't know how bad they have it until they have a carrier that's worthwhile to show them.
I wonder if this will shut up all those "AT&T sucks" people out there.
It won't, because speed isn't the issue for most people. It's coverage. And AT&T's coverage is ass.
I agree with shadash's comment. What's the point of having a much faster network if you can't provide the people with the coverage they need to take advantage of the speed?
From what I've noticed with my friends on AT&T (I'm on Verizon), is that even though their network speed is higher on paper (60% faster is dubious, as I've read that this was an AT&T-sponsored "study"), in real life, the difference isn't anything mind-blowing. Maybe a few seconds difference at best.
Gawd, another "it sucks for me so it sucks for everyone" post.
Blues-er: my observations are backed up by independent data - see Root Metrics.
Here, is that higher?
It's Vodafone Australia which is a similar network to AT&T (HSDPA, HSUPA), tethered iPhone 4.
So how fast does Verizon "3G" go?
I agree with shadash's comment. What's the point of having a much faster network if you can't provide the people with the coverage they need to take advantage of the speed?
From what I've noticed with my friends on AT&T (I'm on Verizon), is that even though their network speed is higher on paper (60% faster is dubious, as I've read that this was an AT&T-sponsored "study"), in real life, the difference isn't anything mind-blowing. Maybe a few seconds difference at best.
Here, is that higher?
It's Vodafone Australia which is a similar network to AT&T (HSDPA, HSUPA), tethered iPhone 4.
So how fast does Verizon "3G" go?
Congratulations, your speed over there is fast. I'm glad that you feel good for winning a pissing contest.
I live in CT and it just happens to be that the vast majority of times, I'm loading up websites as quickly or just a bit behind my AT&T friends. Maybe it's the geography and where the towers are. Or maybe it's my browser processing the information faster to make up for it.
Load time for most websites is around 10 - 15 seconds, which is just fine by me. I'm also just as capable of streaming video and music. Maybe you're Keanu Reeves and need to make sure that you get the vital information so you can clip the wire when the timer reads 0:01.
But I think the point still stands. I would rather take Verizon's slower, but almost guaranteed connection over AT&T's where it goes in and out.
Maybe I also like videochatting using Fring.
Congratulations, your speed over there is fast. I'm glad that you feel good for winning a pissing contest.
I live in CT and it just happens to be that the vast majority of times, I'm loading up websites as quickly or just a bit behind my AT&T friends. Maybe it's the geography and where the towers are. Or maybe it's my browser processing the information faster to make up for it.
Load time for most websites is around 10 - 15 seconds, which is just fine by me. I'm also just as capable of streaming video and music. Maybe you're Keanu Reeves and need to make sure that you get the vital information so you can clip the wire when the timer reads 0:01.
But I think the point still stands. I would rather take Verizon's slower, but almost guaranteed connection over AT&T's where it goes in and out.
Maybe I like uploading videos to YouTube straight away, rather than going home, transferring to a computer and uploading from there.
Maybe I also like videochatting using Fring.
I've uploaded YouTube videos straight from my phone with no issues. Take the video (all the way up to 720p) then select "Share" then "YouTube". Done.
While I don't have a front camera for video chats, I have played around with Fring and Tango (with friends on both AT&T and Verizon) and the quality's pretty good. A little jittery, but nothing horrible. Just waiting for Verizon to get a phone with a front camera (iPhone 4 or a new Android phone).
New York is right next to me and I'd bet it's one of the first cities to get onto Verizon LTE before the end of the year. I'd love to get my hands on an LTE phone next year and see how fast that network will be.
New York is right next to me and I'd bet it's one of the first cities to get onto Verizon LTE before the end of the year. I'd love to get my hands on an LTE phone next year and see how fast that network will be.
Don't expect too much from LTE when it comes out as I'm sure some fine tuning will be necessary. Sprint with its 4G is a perfect example. Sprints 4G is no better than 3G in most places where you can get it, if you have a 4G phone.
e.g. http://youtu.be/H52U3cLc7YQ?hd=1
Which is around 6-7 minutes worth.
It'd be annoying to interupt a 4-5 hour upload.
I've uploaded YouTube videos straight from my phone with no issues. Take the video (all the way up to 720p) then select "Share" then "YouTube". Done.
While I don't have a front camera for video chats, I have played around with Fring and Tango (with friends on both AT&T and Verizon) and the quality's pretty good. A little jittery, but nothing horrible. Just waiting for Verizon to get a phone with a front camera (iPhone 4 or a new Android phone).
New York is right next to me and I'd bet it's one of the first cities to get onto Verizon LTE before the end of the year. I'd love to get my hands on an LTE phone next year and see how fast that network will be.
So what happens if someone calls you while you are uploading a 5-600MB 720p video?
e.g. http://youtu.be/H52U3cLc7YQ?hd=1
Which is around 6-7 minutes worth.
It'd be annoying to interupt a 4-5 hour upload.
I'll give you props for keeping that goalpost mobile. Personally, I've never recorded anything in HD that's that massive. If it would take 4-5 hours as you claim, then I'd most likely be home anyway. But that's why I use WiFi for large uploads. Plenty of free hotspots in my area. Call it a cop-out if you want. I still believe LTE should resolve this issue (at least the voice/data limitation).
BTW, I find it amusing that you've taken my first comment almost personal to defend AT&T. Seeing as how you've had to boil it all the way down to uploading large files.
I wonder if this will shut up all those "AT&T sucks" people out there.
You mean the ones that eternally stuck on with Edge while all the CDMA carriers plus T-mobile have 3G because they don't want to spend money to upgrade the network?