Visit the San Fran or the NYC metro area and ask the at&t customers there.
You literally have to go there because their phones don't work.
I visited for a week this last sumer. No issues. Zero. My 3G experience was fine in hotel or traveling the area, including a boat on the bay. My daughter has lived in SF proper for the last year or so, she calls home daily from her cell phone, never a dropped call. Quit with the hyperbole.
Visit the San Fran or the NYC metro area and ask the at&t customers there.
You literally have to go there because their phones don't work.
I travel to Seattle, San Francisco, San Jose, Las Vegas way more times than I can count in one year.... and have been doing it for over 10 years. Since I got my iPhone 3G way back when it released (and upgraded to iPhone4 recently) I don't ever recall dropping call in the Bay Area, maybe once, but I don't recall. I remember being in my hotel room at the Nikko Hotel up high and had problems accessing a 3G signal for internet use. But that's all I ever recall.
I don't live in the Bay Area, but with my positive experience with iPhones and AT&T, is this "dropped call" thing overblown by a small handful of people who've had problems because of bad areas and are louder than the satisfied customers?
To be fair, ITU doesn?t have any exclusivity on the term ?4G?. It?s no more true than Verizon referring to it?s 4th generation of cellular evolution as ?4G?. Both need to be qualified to have any real meaning. For instance, the current iPhone is ?4G?, and that?s the truth as it?s the 4th generation iPhone yet doesn?t mean its cellular radio can do 100Mbps+.
First ITU was appointed by the United Nations to classify what qualifies as 4G and what does not, and they have said, and determined that 100 Mbps or more qualified as 4G, Second AT&T nor Apple have said that the iPhone 4 is a 4G phone. So please check up on thinks before you run your mouth.
Visit the San Fran or the NYC metro area and ask the at&t customers there.
You literally have to go there because their phones don't work.
I live in Miami FL, and I work in New York On a Boat The only place I have problems in NY is at Bayridge Anchorage but that's because the boat swings around on the anchor. But all over NY City and Staten Island no problems.
First ITU was appointed by the United Nations to classify what qualifies as 4G and what does not, and they have said, and determined that 100 Mbps or more qualified as 4G, Second AT&T nor Apple have said that the iPhone 4 is a 4G phone. So please check up on thinks before you run your mouth.
EAC
Chief Engineer.
Way to completely miss the point.
Again, it doesn’t matter who appoints whom to what using a number followed by the letter ‘G’ to refer to generation is a common and not owned by the ITU so anyone is allowed to use such terms. As previously noted the iPhone is in its 4th generation LTE will be Verizon’s 4th generation of major cellular network change, so unless they are qualifying their ‘4G’ as being ‘4G’ as defined by the ITU then they have all the right in the world to use the number ‘4” and the letter ‘G’ back to back and in that order.
Having been to both cities, spent a few years with the Signal Corps, and taken a boat down the Inland waterway as far as the Keys where there were spots which denied my Bell card from a phone booth let alone no cellular service of any kind, you tend to be appreciate what you have and have a better understanding that not everything is available or works perfectly on demand.
I usually defend AT&T as being adequate and since they are the only provider for iPhone I can usually put up with the few inconveniences, however, yesterday I was stuck in line at LAX immigration and customs for more than an hour. AT&T has absolutely zero service in that building while the Verizon users were happily chatting away, making ground travel arrangements and checking email, I couldn't even get my iPhone to update the timezone.
Was this in the immigration and customs room where the signs state "No cell phone usage?"
Again, it doesn?t matter who appoints whom to what using a number followed by the letter ?G? to refer to generation is a common and not owned by the ITU so anyone is allowed to use such terms. As previously noted the iPhone is in its 4th generation LTE will be Verizon?s 4th generation of major cellular network change, so unless they are qualifying their ?4G? as being ?4G? as defined by the ITU then they have all the right in the world to use the number ?4? and the letter ?G? back to back and in that order.
Was this in the immigration and customs room where the signs state "No cell phone usage?"
:-)
'
Probably. I didn't see any signs though. Would they have been printed in 20 languages? I guess it would make sense to prevent people from taking photos of proprietary security procedures but they should also ban cameras as well if that were the reason. Personally it makes no sense to deny people's access to information such as connecting flight status, confirmation numbers stored in email, communicating with family to inform them of terminal, or flight number changes as was my case. Anyway it is not AT&T's job to enforce immigration policies.
LTE doesn't handle voice and data in an all-IP all packet-switched network. 4G will, after its spec is chosen, and after it is rolled out. And none of that will even begin to happen until 2012 at the earliest.
So far, it looks like "LTE Advanced" will be chosen as the 4G spec. But things can change.
Verizon spent about 10 Billion to win the FCC wireless spectrum auction a few years ago.
If you look at what these companies actually spend on infrastructure, the difference is even more staggering. Verizon spends approximately 20% more per subscriber. AT&T is also spending a disproportionate amount of its money maintaining it's wired network. Verizon is spending more and spending smarter.
AT&T has purchased more 700 mhz spectrum than anyone else and spent more money on it. They purchased the B block holdings from Aloha, purchased more in the FCC auction (actually more than Verizon purchased in the same auction), and they are now adding the Qualcom spectrum. Their purchases are much smarter than Verizon's because verizon has the nationwide C block whick is uniform bandwidth across the country where AT&T has considerably more 700 mhz bandwidth in all of the top population centers (as much as 3x Verizon's), including wider bands since their Aloha and auction purchases are in a contiguous space. They have less bw in some of the rural areas but usage is obviously not uniform between rural North Dakota and downtown Chicago so that makes much more sense.
Obviously they still have to build out a network to use the spectrum, but if you know much about the industry, AT&T's 700 mhz holdings plus their 850 and 1900 give them a pretty good competitive advantage as far as potential coverage, the ability to deliver BW to denser population centers, and the ability to offer building penetrating BW in the next gen. Verizon has the 850, but far less 700 mhz spectrum, and Sprint an T-Mobile have neither and will always struggle to serve rural areas cost effectively.
AT&T has some issues, but spectrum investment is definitely not one of them.
To be fair, AT&T also spent 6.6 billion in that auction and now another 1.9 billion. So to add up the expenditures for wireless spectrum:
Verizon: $9.4 billion
AT&T: $8.5 billion
The figures have nothing to do with any wired network infrastructure upgrades although the back haul wired part of the mobile network is a very important factor. 'Spending smarter' remark is subjective.
AT&T also spent $2.5+ billion on the Aloha spectrum. And these are just for 700 mhz.
LOL. AT&T's 3G is probably faster than everyone else's but out of the major five but the others all have and are focusing on 4g ...including Metro PCS! This means that AT&T is in 5th and soon to be 6th if U.S. Cellular could get their 4G system out.
Verizon is saying by the end of 2013 they'll have LTE built out to where their 3G is today. That's 3 years at the latest. AT&T has had 3-1/2 years with the iPhone exclusively, during which time they have raked in billions of extra dollars from smartphone customers, during which time they have been unable to even get their 3G to the level of Verizon's. My confidence is extremely low that they'll be able to match Verizon's performance, just as they have not been able to since 2007. From a technical standpoint, they might be "ahead of the game." As far as actually executing, they are way behind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Welcome to the forum, Jallen.
Verizon is only "ahead of the game? if you define it as implementing the latest marketing buzzwords, but right now LTE isn?t optimal for cell phones.
I don?t think any carrier in the world is selling an LTE-capable cellphone at this point; I think they are all cellular modems, and even those are few and far between. That should tell you a lot about the tech.
The bottom line is that HSPA+ is more tried and true with smaller, more power-efficient chips with top theoretical speeds that aren?t even possible because the technology for it also hasn?t been invented yet to make it feasible, which is the underlying problem with LTE for least this next year.
Check out the cutting edge 4G phones on Sprint. WiMAX may barely beat out AT&T and T-Mobile?s 3G download speeds (not upload speeds) but it tears right through the the battery to do it. So far, I?ve seen no LTE chips that are small enough or efficient enough to be in a modern smartphone, much less the iPhone, which could easily get a 14.4Mbps/5.78Mbps ?3G? chip in the next revision. I?ll take that over some spotty and power hungry ?4G? buzzword any day.
Note, Verizon and Sprint had to jump to the new tech because EV-DO was so far behind HS*PA. GSM-based carriers have the luxury of a smoother, more efficient transition into LTE, which is just the next step for 3GPP.
Verizon is saying by the end of 2013 they'll have LTE built out to where their 3G is today. That's 3 years at the latest. AT&T has had 3-1/2 years with the iPhone exclusively, during which time they have raked in billions of extra dollars from smartphone customers, during which time they have been unable to even get their 3G to the level of Verizon's. My confidence is extremely low that they'll be able to match Verizon's performance, just as they have not been able to since 2007. From a technical standpoint, they might be "ahead of the game." As far as actually executing, they are way behind.
You make it sound like AT&T hasn?t updated their network at all since before 2007 when in fact they have spent billions per year adding to the infrastructure.
Do they have as much ?3G? coverage as Verizon? But if you have money to put toward increasing the ability of users in Dallas/Fort Worth to maintain access in a rapidly growing data-heavy users or adding some towers to farmland in the middle of Idaho just to compete with Verizon?s larger ?3G? coverage area despite the disparate network technologies then I say AT&T chose well.
My speeds on AT&T have done nothing but increase since the iPhone 3G arrived, while Verizon?s speeds for ?3G? have long ago reached a bottle neck and still offer no solution for simulations voice and data.
If you say it will be more no more than 3 years before Verizon?s ?3G? coverage matches their current ?3G? coverage, then great, but in the meantime I?ll be using a fast network with power efficient chips. If in three years, this is the case, then perhaps LTE chips will have evolved enough to become viable, but note that AT&T and Verizon will both be on LTE and using 700MHz which makes waiting 3 years for Verizon to beat AT&T a pointless objective. Note that 3 years ago there wasn?t even a ?3G? iPhone on the market.
As far as what AT&T has done with 3-1/2 years of iPhone exclusivity, I have 2 things to go on. Their coverage maps and my experience. They both show me AT&T has not done enough. Can you explain to me how Verizon can build out LTE in the next 3 years, but AT&T has not managed to build out last gen's technology in the last 3-1/2?
This is NOT a case of "adding some towers to farmland." Cities (like where I live) supposedly have great AT&T coverage, but have dead zones throughout. You and I both know that is the case (and has been WIDELY reported by many more than just me), so quit trying to pretend otherwise.
Bottom line: If AT&T had been capable of executing, we would not be seeing a CDMA iPhone in a few months. Apple would have waited for LTE before jumping ship to Verizon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
You make it sound like AT&T hasn?t updated their network at all since before 2007 when in fact they have spent billions per year adding to the infrastructure.
Do they have as much ?3G? coverage as Verizon? But if you have money to put toward increasing the ability of users in Dallas/Fort Worth to maintain access in a rapidly growing data-heavy users or adding some towers to farmland in the middle of Idaho just to compete with Verizon?s larger ?3G? coverage area despite the disparate network technologies then I say AT&T chose well.
My speeds on AT&T have done nothing but increase since the iPhone 3G arrived, while Verizon?s speeds for ?3G? have long ago reached a bottle neck and still offer no solution for simulations voice and data.
If you say it will be more no more than 3 years before Verizon?s ?3G? coverage matches their current ?3G? coverage, then great, but in the meantime I?ll be using a fast network with power efficient chips. If in three years, this is the case, then perhaps LTE chips will have evolved enough to become viable, but note that AT&T and Verizon will both be on LTE and using 700MHz which makes waiting 3 years for Verizon to beat AT&T a pointless objective. Note that 3 years ago there wasn?t even a ?3G? iPhone on the market.
As far as what AT&T has done with 3-1/2 years of iPhone exclusivity, I have 2 things to go on. Their coverage maps and my experience. They both show me AT&T has not done enough. Can you explain to me how Verizon can build out LTE in the next 3 years, but AT&T has not managed to build out last gen's technology in the last 3-1/2?
You?re missing the point. Verizon and Sprint had no choice but to upgrade. EV-DO is a dead end. They can?t compete with AT&T and T-Mobile so they had to jump the gun to the next tech while others can utilize the very fast and efficient tech that is HS*PA. You?re getting caught up in some pointless numerical value. AT&T and T-Mobile?s ?3G? will be better tech than LTE for a long time. By the time LTE has a viable handset hardware I bet they will have a network built up to support it, while at the same time having one of these releases in our handsets not pointlessly eating through our batteries.
Note that we?re still on Category 7 for HSDPA and Category 6 for HSUPA in the iPhone 4:
This is NOT a case of "adding some towers to farmland." Cities (like where I live) supposedly have great AT&T coverage, but have dead zones throughout. You and I both know that is the case (and has been WIDELY reported by many more than just me), so quit trying to pretend otherwise.
Now you?re talking about spectrum and tower placement. This is the cake walk that you think it is.
Quote:
Bottom line: If AT&T had been capable of executing, we would not be seeing a CDMA iPhone in a few months. Apple would have waited for LTE before jumping ship to Verizon.
This is irrelevant. Growth is growth and a CDMA-based iPhone was always going to come at some point.
You’re missing the point. Verizon and Sprint had no choice but to upgrade. EV-DO is a dead end. They can’t compete with AT&T and T-Mobile so they had to jump the gun to the next tech while others can utilize the very fast and efficient tech that is HS*PA. You’re getting caught up in some pointless numerical value. AT&T and T-Mobile’s ‘3G’ will be better tech than LTE for a long time. By the time LTE has a viable handset hardware I bet they will have a network built up to support it, while at the same time having one of these releases in our handsets not pointlessly eating through our batteries.
Then why is AT&T launching their own LTE network in 2011? While Verizon builds out their LTE network, they have a strong CDMA network to fall back on. The same cannot be said of AT&T.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Now you’re talking about spectrum and tower placement. This is the cake walk that you think it is.
I don't give a fig if it is easy or not. The iPhone and other smartphones are worth billions of dollars a year. If they can't make it work then I will go to a company that can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
This is irrelevant. Growth is growth and a CDMA-based iPhone was always going to come at some point.
Are you saying in 2007 or 2008 you thought Apple was going to eventually get to a CDMA iPhone? That would make you a minority of 1 on this forum. There have been countless posts about how CDMA is a dead technology, Apple is in the business of killing off old tech like the floppy and serial port, etc. If you really thought that, then fine. But I think you're wrong. I doubt Apple planned on CDMA once they released the GMS iPhone, and what changed that plan was AT&T's performance.
You make it sound like AT&T hasn?t updated their network at all since before 2007 when in fact they have spent billions per year adding to the infrastructure.
Do they have as much ?3G? coverage as Verizon? But if you have money to put toward increasing the ability of users in Dallas/Fort Worth to maintain access in a rapidly growing data-heavy users or adding some towers to farmland in the middle of Idaho just to compete with Verizon?s larger ?3G? coverage area despite the disparate network technologies then I say AT&T chose well.
My speeds on AT&T have done nothing but increase since the iPhone 3G arrived, while Verizon?s speeds for ?3G? have long ago reached a bottle neck and still offer no solution for simulations voice and data.
If you say it will be more no more than 3 years before Verizon?s ?3G? coverage matches their current ?3G? coverage, then great, but in the meantime I?ll be using a fast network with power efficient chips. If in three years, this is the case, then perhaps LTE chips will have evolved enough to become viable, but note that AT&T and Verizon will both be on LTE and using 700MHz which makes waiting 3 years for Verizon to beat AT&T a pointless objective. Note that 3 years ago there wasn?t even a ?3G? iPhone on the market.
I use both a Verizon and AT&T phone (3G) on a daily basis in Seattle and I can say that the quality of service on the latter is poor relative to the former. I experience inconsistent voice quality and a number of dropped calls per week. Although the bandwidth on the AT&T network is higher it is not as constant as what Verizon offers.
A caveat to the above is my observation that Verizon's 3G speeds on EVDO have slightly decreased in my area of use while AT&T's have remained at the same performance levels over the past 1 year. (I measure the speeds using the speedtest app during working hours and not at night.)
Comments
Visit the San Fran or the NYC metro area and ask the at&t customers there.
You literally have to go there because their phones don't work.
I visited for a week this last sumer. No issues. Zero. My 3G experience was fine in hotel or traveling the area, including a boat on the bay. My daughter has lived in SF proper for the last year or so, she calls home daily from her cell phone, never a dropped call. Quit with the hyperbole.
Visit the San Fran or the NYC metro area and ask the at&t customers there.
You literally have to go there because their phones don't work.
I travel to Seattle, San Francisco, San Jose, Las Vegas way more times than I can count in one year.... and have been doing it for over 10 years. Since I got my iPhone 3G way back when it released (and upgraded to iPhone4 recently) I don't ever recall dropping call in the Bay Area, maybe once, but I don't recall. I remember being in my hotel room at the Nikko Hotel up high and had problems accessing a 3G signal for internet use. But that's all I ever recall.
I don't live in the Bay Area, but with my positive experience with iPhones and AT&T, is this "dropped call" thing overblown by a small handful of people who've had problems because of bad areas and are louder than the satisfied customers?
To be fair, ITU doesn?t have any exclusivity on the term ?4G?. It?s no more true than Verizon referring to it?s 4th generation of cellular evolution as ?4G?. Both need to be qualified to have any real meaning. For instance, the current iPhone is ?4G?, and that?s the truth as it?s the 4th generation iPhone yet doesn?t mean its cellular radio can do 100Mbps+.
First ITU was appointed by the United Nations to classify what qualifies as 4G and what does not, and they have said, and determined that 100 Mbps or more qualified as 4G, Second AT&T nor Apple have said that the iPhone 4 is a 4G phone. So please check up on thinks before you run your mouth.
EAC
Chief Engineer.
Visit the San Fran or the NYC metro area and ask the at&t customers there.
You literally have to go there because their phones don't work.
I live in Miami FL, and I work in New York On a Boat The only place I have problems in NY is at Bayridge Anchorage but that's because the boat swings around on the anchor. But all over NY City and Staten Island no problems.
First ITU was appointed by the United Nations to classify what qualifies as 4G and what does not, and they have said, and determined that 100 Mbps or more qualified as 4G, Second AT&T nor Apple have said that the iPhone 4 is a 4G phone. So please check up on thinks before you run your mouth.
EAC
Chief Engineer.
Way to completely miss the point.
Again, it doesn’t matter who appoints whom to what using a number followed by the letter ‘G’ to refer to generation is a common and not owned by the ITU so anyone is allowed to use such terms. As previously noted the iPhone is in its 4th generation LTE will be Verizon’s 4th generation of major cellular network change, so unless they are qualifying their ‘4G’ as being ‘4G’ as defined by the ITU then they have all the right in the world to use the number ‘4” and the letter ‘G’ back to back and in that order.
Visit the San Fran or the NYC metro area and ask the at&t customers there.
You literally have to go there because their phones don't work.
Cement and steel are hard on 3G and that in part can create a major reception problem as in New York City.
As for San Francisco, getting a tower up there at all is a major issue.
- http://pulse2.com/2010/07/19/apple-g...takes-3-years/
- http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?sec...sco&id=7432069
- http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_1663...e=most_emailed
- http://fightthetower.com/devaluation.html
Having been to both cities, spent a few years with the Signal Corps, and taken a boat down the Inland waterway as far as the Keys where there were spots which denied my Bell card from a phone booth let alone no cellular service of any kind, you tend to be appreciate what you have and have a better understanding that not everything is available or works perfectly on demand.I usually defend AT&T as being adequate and since they are the only provider for iPhone I can usually put up with the few inconveniences, however, yesterday I was stuck in line at LAX immigration and customs for more than an hour. AT&T has absolutely zero service in that building while the Verizon users were happily chatting away, making ground travel arrangements and checking email, I couldn't even get my iPhone to update the timezone.
Was this in the immigration and customs room where the signs state "No cell phone usage?"
:-)
'
Way to completely miss the point.
Again, it doesn?t matter who appoints whom to what using a number followed by the letter ?G? to refer to generation is a common and not owned by the ITU so anyone is allowed to use such terms. As previously noted the iPhone is in its 4th generation LTE will be Verizon?s 4th generation of major cellular network change, so unless they are qualifying their ?4G? as being ?4G? as defined by the ITU then they have all the right in the world to use the number ?4? and the letter ?G? back to back and in that order.
He's an engineer. Details, details
Was this in the immigration and customs room where the signs state "No cell phone usage?"
:-)
'
So far, it looks like "LTE Advanced" will be chosen as the 4G spec. But things can change.
Verizon spent about 10 Billion to win the FCC wireless spectrum auction a few years ago.
If you look at what these companies actually spend on infrastructure, the difference is even more staggering. Verizon spends approximately 20% more per subscriber. AT&T is also spending a disproportionate amount of its money maintaining it's wired network. Verizon is spending more and spending smarter.
AT&T has purchased more 700 mhz spectrum than anyone else and spent more money on it. They purchased the B block holdings from Aloha, purchased more in the FCC auction (actually more than Verizon purchased in the same auction), and they are now adding the Qualcom spectrum. Their purchases are much smarter than Verizon's because verizon has the nationwide C block whick is uniform bandwidth across the country where AT&T has considerably more 700 mhz bandwidth in all of the top population centers (as much as 3x Verizon's), including wider bands since their Aloha and auction purchases are in a contiguous space. They have less bw in some of the rural areas but usage is obviously not uniform between rural North Dakota and downtown Chicago so that makes much more sense.
Obviously they still have to build out a network to use the spectrum, but if you know much about the industry, AT&T's 700 mhz holdings plus their 850 and 1900 give them a pretty good competitive advantage as far as potential coverage, the ability to deliver BW to denser population centers, and the ability to offer building penetrating BW in the next gen. Verizon has the 850, but far less 700 mhz spectrum, and Sprint an T-Mobile have neither and will always struggle to serve rural areas cost effectively.
AT&T has some issues, but spectrum investment is definitely not one of them.
To be fair, AT&T also spent 6.6 billion in that auction and now another 1.9 billion. So to add up the expenditures for wireless spectrum:
Verizon: $9.4 billion
AT&T: $8.5 billion
The figures have nothing to do with any wired network infrastructure upgrades although the back haul wired part of the mobile network is a very important factor. 'Spending smarter' remark is subjective.
AT&T also spent $2.5+ billion on the Aloha spectrum. And these are just for 700 mhz.
Welcome to the forum, Jallen.
Verizon is only "ahead of the game? if you define it as implementing the latest marketing buzzwords, but right now LTE isn?t optimal for cell phones.
I don?t think any carrier in the world is selling an LTE-capable cellphone at this point; I think they are all cellular modems, and even those are few and far between. That should tell you a lot about the tech.
The bottom line is that HSPA+ is more tried and true with smaller, more power-efficient chips with top theoretical speeds that aren?t even possible because the technology for it also hasn?t been invented yet to make it feasible, which is the underlying problem with LTE for least this next year.
Check out the cutting edge 4G phones on Sprint. WiMAX may barely beat out AT&T and T-Mobile?s 3G download speeds (not upload speeds) but it tears right through the the battery to do it. So far, I?ve seen no LTE chips that are small enough or efficient enough to be in a modern smartphone, much less the iPhone, which could easily get a 14.4Mbps/5.78Mbps ?3G? chip in the next revision. I?ll take that over some spotty and power hungry ?4G? buzzword any day.
Note, Verizon and Sprint had to jump to the new tech because EV-DO was so far behind HS*PA. GSM-based carriers have the luxury of a smoother, more efficient transition into LTE, which is just the next step for 3GPP.
Verizon is saying by the end of 2013 they'll have LTE built out to where their 3G is today. That's 3 years at the latest. AT&T has had 3-1/2 years with the iPhone exclusively, during which time they have raked in billions of extra dollars from smartphone customers, during which time they have been unable to even get their 3G to the level of Verizon's. My confidence is extremely low that they'll be able to match Verizon's performance, just as they have not been able to since 2007. From a technical standpoint, they might be "ahead of the game." As far as actually executing, they are way behind.
You make it sound like AT&T hasn?t updated their network at all since before 2007 when in fact they have spent billions per year adding to the infrastructure.
Do they have as much ?3G? coverage as Verizon? But if you have money to put toward increasing the ability of users in Dallas/Fort Worth to maintain access in a rapidly growing data-heavy users or adding some towers to farmland in the middle of Idaho just to compete with Verizon?s larger ?3G? coverage area despite the disparate network technologies then I say AT&T chose well.
My speeds on AT&T have done nothing but increase since the iPhone 3G arrived, while Verizon?s speeds for ?3G? have long ago reached a bottle neck and still offer no solution for simulations voice and data.
If you say it will be more no more than 3 years before Verizon?s ?3G? coverage matches their current ?3G? coverage, then great, but in the meantime I?ll be using a fast network with power efficient chips. If in three years, this is the case, then perhaps LTE chips will have evolved enough to become viable, but note that AT&T and Verizon will both be on LTE and using 700MHz which makes waiting 3 years for Verizon to beat AT&T a pointless objective. Note that 3 years ago there wasn?t even a ?3G? iPhone on the market.
This is NOT a case of "adding some towers to farmland." Cities (like where I live) supposedly have great AT&T coverage, but have dead zones throughout. You and I both know that is the case (and has been WIDELY reported by many more than just me), so quit trying to pretend otherwise.
Bottom line: If AT&T had been capable of executing, we would not be seeing a CDMA iPhone in a few months. Apple would have waited for LTE before jumping ship to Verizon.
You make it sound like AT&T hasn?t updated their network at all since before 2007 when in fact they have spent billions per year adding to the infrastructure.
Do they have as much ?3G? coverage as Verizon? But if you have money to put toward increasing the ability of users in Dallas/Fort Worth to maintain access in a rapidly growing data-heavy users or adding some towers to farmland in the middle of Idaho just to compete with Verizon?s larger ?3G? coverage area despite the disparate network technologies then I say AT&T chose well.
My speeds on AT&T have done nothing but increase since the iPhone 3G arrived, while Verizon?s speeds for ?3G? have long ago reached a bottle neck and still offer no solution for simulations voice and data.
If you say it will be more no more than 3 years before Verizon?s ?3G? coverage matches their current ?3G? coverage, then great, but in the meantime I?ll be using a fast network with power efficient chips. If in three years, this is the case, then perhaps LTE chips will have evolved enough to become viable, but note that AT&T and Verizon will both be on LTE and using 700MHz which makes waiting 3 years for Verizon to beat AT&T a pointless objective. Note that 3 years ago there wasn?t even a ?3G? iPhone on the market.
As far as what AT&T has done with 3-1/2 years of iPhone exclusivity, I have 2 things to go on. Their coverage maps and my experience. They both show me AT&T has not done enough. Can you explain to me how Verizon can build out LTE in the next 3 years, but AT&T has not managed to build out last gen's technology in the last 3-1/2?
You?re missing the point. Verizon and Sprint had no choice but to upgrade. EV-DO is a dead end. They can?t compete with AT&T and T-Mobile so they had to jump the gun to the next tech while others can utilize the very fast and efficient tech that is HS*PA. You?re getting caught up in some pointless numerical value. AT&T and T-Mobile?s ?3G? will be better tech than LTE for a long time. By the time LTE has a viable handset hardware I bet they will have a network built up to support it, while at the same time having one of these releases in our handsets not pointlessly eating through our batteries.
Note that we?re still on Category 7 for HSDPA and Category 6 for HSUPA in the iPhone 4:
This is NOT a case of "adding some towers to farmland." Cities (like where I live) supposedly have great AT&T coverage, but have dead zones throughout. You and I both know that is the case (and has been WIDELY reported by many more than just me), so quit trying to pretend otherwise.
Now you?re talking about spectrum and tower placement. This is the cake walk that you think it is.
Bottom line: If AT&T had been capable of executing, we would not be seeing a CDMA iPhone in a few months. Apple would have waited for LTE before jumping ship to Verizon.
This is irrelevant. Growth is growth and a CDMA-based iPhone was always going to come at some point.
You’re missing the point. Verizon and Sprint had no choice but to upgrade. EV-DO is a dead end. They can’t compete with AT&T and T-Mobile so they had to jump the gun to the next tech while others can utilize the very fast and efficient tech that is HS*PA. You’re getting caught up in some pointless numerical value. AT&T and T-Mobile’s ‘3G’ will be better tech than LTE for a long time. By the time LTE has a viable handset hardware I bet they will have a network built up to support it, while at the same time having one of these releases in our handsets not pointlessly eating through our batteries.
Then why is AT&T launching their own LTE network in 2011? While Verizon builds out their LTE network, they have a strong CDMA network to fall back on. The same cannot be said of AT&T.
Now you’re talking about spectrum and tower placement. This is the cake walk that you think it is.
I don't give a fig if it is easy or not. The iPhone and other smartphones are worth billions of dollars a year. If they can't make it work then I will go to a company that can.
This is irrelevant. Growth is growth and a CDMA-based iPhone was always going to come at some point.
Are you saying in 2007 or 2008 you thought Apple was going to eventually get to a CDMA iPhone? That would make you a minority of 1 on this forum. There have been countless posts about how CDMA is a dead technology, Apple is in the business of killing off old tech like the floppy and serial port, etc. If you really thought that, then fine. But I think you're wrong. I doubt Apple planned on CDMA once they released the GMS iPhone, and what changed that plan was AT&T's performance.
You make it sound like AT&T hasn?t updated their network at all since before 2007 when in fact they have spent billions per year adding to the infrastructure.
Do they have as much ?3G? coverage as Verizon? But if you have money to put toward increasing the ability of users in Dallas/Fort Worth to maintain access in a rapidly growing data-heavy users or adding some towers to farmland in the middle of Idaho just to compete with Verizon?s larger ?3G? coverage area despite the disparate network technologies then I say AT&T chose well.
My speeds on AT&T have done nothing but increase since the iPhone 3G arrived, while Verizon?s speeds for ?3G? have long ago reached a bottle neck and still offer no solution for simulations voice and data.
If you say it will be more no more than 3 years before Verizon?s ?3G? coverage matches their current ?3G? coverage, then great, but in the meantime I?ll be using a fast network with power efficient chips. If in three years, this is the case, then perhaps LTE chips will have evolved enough to become viable, but note that AT&T and Verizon will both be on LTE and using 700MHz which makes waiting 3 years for Verizon to beat AT&T a pointless objective. Note that 3 years ago there wasn?t even a ?3G? iPhone on the market.
I use both a Verizon and AT&T phone (3G) on a daily basis in Seattle and I can say that the quality of service on the latter is poor relative to the former. I experience inconsistent voice quality and a number of dropped calls per week. Although the bandwidth on the AT&T network is higher it is not as constant as what Verizon offers.
A caveat to the above is my observation that Verizon's 3G speeds on EVDO have slightly decreased in my area of use while AT&T's have remained at the same performance levels over the past 1 year. (I measure the speeds using the speedtest app during working hours and not at night.)
Perhaps you could get 3G rolled out ... been waiting ... Jeopardy music playing ... where is 3G?
How about getting your act together and catching up with Sprint and Verizon who have had 3G here for 2 years now.
Waiting ... oh that's right, you are focused on buying stuff ... I'll wait.
I am so waiting for a Verizon iPhone.
Disgruntled AT&T User