My point is it's all marketing spin. It's in their practical interest to cover more people at once (as Verizon mostly did with their rollout), but instead they'd rather pat their backs and say hey we even have LTE in Alaska! My parents reside less ~50 miles from NYC, they were on EDGE until last year, only a few months shy of Verizon flipping the LTE switch. What a joke.
I've been to NY and there are plenty of towns of decent size that had EDGE for a lot longer than one would expect. Do you really think these places are ignored because they think it helps them to market to Alaska first? I don't see that as an option. I see it as it much easier (i.e.: cheaper) to setup an Alaskan city than certain cities of certain states for a wide variety of reasons.
These hardships are not the same between Verizon, AT&T et al. because the spectrums and number of towers each already uses alter the game. This is not a chess game between Verizon and AT&T where each has the exact same number of pieces and types. There is a distinct advantage to Verizon's presence and spectrums coming into the LTE market.
PS: I think a more important concern is how Apple will handle LTE in the iPhone since there are so many operating bands for LTE. The US has 3 bands just for Verizon and AT&T. Note that we only got penta-band chips for 3G as of 2010.
Agreed. I have had AT&T since my first iPhone (3G) and now continue on with the 4. I have already decided I am bailing and going back to Verizon when I order my iPhone 5. My wife and I are on a family plan, but I've "served my time" on my contractual obligation, so I think I alone can bail.
The thing that keeps me from going to Verizon is if I travel outside of and LTE area and I get dropped back to CDMA speeds and the lack of simultaneous voice and data.
I've been to NY and there are plenty of towns of decent size that had EDGE for a lot longer than one would expect. Do you really think these places are ignored because they think it helps them to market to Alaska first? I don't see that as an option. I see it as it much easier (i.e.: cheaper) to setup an Alaskan city than certain cities of certain states for a wide variety of reasons.
These hardships are not the same between Verizon, AT&T et al. because the spectrums and number of towers each already uses alter the game. This is not a chess game between Verizon and AT&T where each has the exact same number of pieces and types. There is a distinct advantage to Verizon's presence and spectrums coming into the LTE market.
I think you're full of excuses honestly, as AT&T is getting their tail whipped. It absolutely is a chess game between the two. I mentioned my parents because it wasn't until Verizon announced LTE for their area that suddenly AT&T had 3G a few weeks later, the intentions were obvious. I'm sure you'll tell me it was a coincidence. AT&T has plenty of spectrum for their rollout, don't buy into their spin that they're some underdog. Verizon is far from some white knight, but they did this right.
I still don't understand why anyone enters a cell phone contract.
Specifically who will save you $18/month over Verizon/AT&T for comparable usage, without resorting to Sprint's network? As in, all-in for $55/month with at least 1GB of data and 120 minutes? That is the zero cost-of-capital cost; the monthly cost really should be under $50.
There are likely good reasons for the way any provider plans its rollout: market size, existing subscriber base, backhaul infrastructure already in place, and likely lots more that we don't know. ..
Yeah, like getting "mapped" by Verizon. AT&T's 4G/LTE rollout strategy is about not having another Verizon ad campaign where AT&T's coverage map looks silly next to Verizon's.
It's not about market size (just look at the cities in the list, and the ones that aren't), subscriber base (refer to list, again), back haul infrastructure (ditto), availability of tower sites, ... It's simply about marketing.
There are likely good reasons for the way any provider plans its rollout: market size, existing subscriber base, backhaul infrastructure already in place, and likely lots more that we don't know. We have Vz LTE here in Fort Wayne, IN, the second largest city in the state at about 250K population. However AT&T rolled theirs out in Muncie and not here, despite that being a much smaller market.
I guess the good news is that the rollout pace is really gathering momentum.
I agree. Market size isn't necessarily the primary reason for prioritizing LTE rollout, but rather feasibility- adequate spectrum, cell sites, & backhaul in place.
Verizon got a couple years head start because it had too. It's 3G CDMA is painfully slow. and the CDMA air interface technology had basically reached it max (3Mbs). The GSM upgrade path allows LTE speeds. albeit with less spectrum effeciency and next generation services. From my experiences, AT&T 4G is pretty good. I average around 6-7Mbs download speed. On Verizon 3G, I rarely get speeds above 1Mbs. For Verizon LTE, I average 8Mbs down, but occasionally see 10,15, or even 30Mbs download speeds. However, in everyday use, I don't really notice a huge speed difference between LTE & 4G, unlike the considerable difference between 4G & 3G & 2G. While LTE speeds are much faster, things like the time it takes for the browser (CPU) to render a webpage, or time it takes for an app to process downloaded data, overshadows the faster transmit speeds since it's the weakest link. For smaller bursts of data transmissions, we are only talking about fraction of a second, or maybe couple of seconds faster for the user. Where LTE does make a huge difference is for large downloads, such as email attachments and app downloads where the unnoticeable speed differences for small downloads add up to a significant difference. The difference for video streaming is that LTE can basically Blu-Ray quality, since broadcast quality is determined by available throughput. The upside is amazing video quality, but the downside is massive data consumption. With the paltry, expensive data caps offered by carriers today, sometimes it's more desirable to accept lower quality video for less data consumption.
I still don't understand why anyone enters a cell phone contract. It makes no financial sense when compared to buying an unlocked device and doing a prepaid, especially if you do the prepaid through an MVNO. The payback is something like 6-8 months. The only frustrating thing will be that none of the first tier operators allow MVNOs to access their LTE networks. However, HSPA+ isn't actually that much slower than LTE in actual practice. In fact, between my iPad 3 on AT&T's LTE network and my iPhone 4S's HSPA+ I can't tell much difference.
Specifically who will save you $18/month over Verizon/AT&T for comparable usage, without resorting to Sprint's network? As in, all-in for $55/month with at least 1GB of data and 120 minutes? That is the zero cost-of-capital cost; the monthly cost really should be under $50.
straight talk has $45 a month unlimited everything and they go over AT&T. their fair use policy is 2.5GB a month data.
figure $150 a month for a 2 line plan on AT&T you "save" $60 a month. but then you have to pop $650 at once for each iphone or other phone. if you have 4 or more lines on a mobile share plan then you can mix and match high voice users to high data users and get more data in the end than with prepaid.
It's coming to the twin cities. AI must have just missed that info, that's why you always check for multiple sources since you can never trust just one.
Specifically who will save you $18/month over Verizon/AT&T for comparable usage, without resorting to Sprint's network? As in, all-in for $55/month with at least 1GB of data and 120 minutes? That is the zero cost-of-capital cost; the monthly cost really should be under $50.
Straight Talk. $45 a month (no taxes or fees added on) for unlimited voice and SMS, and 2 GB of data. On the AT&T network.
I still don't understand why anyone enters a cell phone contract. It makes no financial sense when compared to buying an unlocked device and doing a prepaid, especially if you do the prepaid through an MVNO. The payback is something like 6-8 months. The only frustrating thing will be that none of the first tier operators allow MVNOs to access their LTE networks. However, HSPA+ isn't actually that much slower than LTE in actual practice. In fact, between my iPad 3 on AT&T's LTE network and my iPhone 4S's HSPA+ I can't tell much difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doh123
and what prices are you actually getting for your usage? Last I did the math with what I do, I would be paying just about the same monthly fee either way... if thats the case why not get the discount off the purchase price? Its not like I'm going to stop using the phone in under a couple years.
$45/mo for unlimited talk/text/data (which is really 3GB) plus $30/mo for AT&T LTE on the iPad. My wife on the same smartphone plan. Our monthly cost went from $190/mo to $120.
They are still way way way behind Verizon. Not to mention their roll out makes no sense.
Ah, on this topic, could any AT&T user (or anyone closely following this) tell me if they've given up on 3G rollout entirely and are focusing on just replacing all existing hardware with 4G (specifically real 4G—LTE)?
Because I live somewhere that used to be a few miles from where their 3G service ends. Now it's somewhere that is a few miles from where their 4G service ends. We're still EDGE, it just jumps straight to 4G instead of any 3G being in between…
I'm not happy that Salt lake city Utah isn't on that list. They told us that we were suppose to get LTE this year... Looks like I'm gonna jump ship to Verizon.
This argument makes no sense. If you can cover the largest, most congested city in the US, you should be able to cover one 80 miles away that's 1/4 the size and a smaller area.
It isn't that simple. A carrier has to deal with a whole host of issues. Local and state regulation play a big part as does local corruption. Do not underestimate the impact of corruption in getting approvals to install transmitting towers.
Then you have issues of geography. You need to get leases on land or structures to install your equipment. On top of that towers need infrastructure including high speed data connections. finally local communities can either be hostile or embracing of the technology.
Agreed. I have had AT&T since my first iPhone (3G) and now continue on with the 4. I have already decided I am bailing and going back to Verizon when I order my iPhone 5. My wife and I are on a family plan, but I've "served my time" on my contractual obligation, so I think I alone can bail.
The fact that Philadelphia doesn't have LTE is absurd. But it's worse than that. It will be YEARS before the Philly suburbs and exurbs get it (where I am). I am in the very last Western suburb of Philly...halfway to Lancaster, PA...and Verizon already has LTE coverage here. Add that to AT&T's bogus mobile share pricing and absolutely UNRELIABLE, CRAPPY NETWORK and my decision is easy.
"Bye Bye..."
I'm with you (Exton, PA here.) I can't get AT&T coverage inside my house even though I live on a hill. Where I work in Wilmington, DE, data throughput on my iPhone goes out daily at 2:30. You can almost set your watch by it. So I too want to give Verizon a chance. It's time.
The thing that keeps me from going to Verizon is if I travel outside of and LTE area and I get dropped back to CDMA speeds and the lack of simultaneous voice and data.
The new Qualcomm chipsets, likely to be in new iPhone (also found in the US Galaxy S3) allow for simultaneous voice and data across the CDMA network, FYI. Don't ask me how it works, but I've seen it, it does.
Comments
I've been to NY and there are plenty of towns of decent size that had EDGE for a lot longer than one would expect. Do you really think these places are ignored because they think it helps them to market to Alaska first? I don't see that as an option. I see it as it much easier (i.e.: cheaper) to setup an Alaskan city than certain cities of certain states for a wide variety of reasons.
These hardships are not the same between Verizon, AT&T et al. because the spectrums and number of towers each already uses alter the game. This is not a chess game between Verizon and AT&T where each has the exact same number of pieces and types. There is a distinct advantage to Verizon's presence and spectrums coming into the LTE market.
PS: I think a more important concern is how Apple will handle LTE in the iPhone since there are so many operating bands for LTE. The US has 3 bands just for Verizon and AT&T. Note that we only got penta-band chips for 3G as of 2010.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Agreed. I have had AT&T since my first iPhone (3G) and now continue on with the 4. I have already decided I am bailing and going back to Verizon when I order my iPhone 5. My wife and I are on a family plan, but I've "served my time" on my contractual obligation, so I think I alone can bail.
The thing that keeps me from going to Verizon is if I travel outside of and LTE area and I get dropped back to CDMA speeds and the lack of simultaneous voice and data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I've been to NY and there are plenty of towns of decent size that had EDGE for a lot longer than one would expect. Do you really think these places are ignored because they think it helps them to market to Alaska first? I don't see that as an option. I see it as it much easier (i.e.: cheaper) to setup an Alaskan city than certain cities of certain states for a wide variety of reasons.
These hardships are not the same between Verizon, AT&T et al. because the spectrums and number of towers each already uses alter the game. This is not a chess game between Verizon and AT&T where each has the exact same number of pieces and types. There is a distinct advantage to Verizon's presence and spectrums coming into the LTE market.
I think you're full of excuses honestly, as AT&T is getting their tail whipped. It absolutely is a chess game between the two. I mentioned my parents because it wasn't until Verizon announced LTE for their area that suddenly AT&T had 3G a few weeks later, the intentions were obvious. I'm sure you'll tell me it was a coincidence. AT&T has plenty of spectrum for their rollout, don't buy into their spin that they're some underdog. Verizon is far from some white knight, but they did this right.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Verizon has Massive LTE coverage in Philly. They better catch up quick to keep me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilM
There are likely good reasons for the way any provider plans its rollout: market size, existing subscriber base, backhaul infrastructure already in place, and likely lots more that we don't know. ..
Yeah, like getting "mapped" by Verizon. AT&T's 4G/LTE rollout strategy is about not having another Verizon ad campaign where AT&T's coverage map looks silly next to Verizon's.
It's not about market size (just look at the cities in the list, and the ones that aren't), subscriber base (refer to list, again), back haul infrastructure (ditto), availability of tower sites, ... It's simply about marketing.
I agree. Market size isn't necessarily the primary reason for prioritizing LTE rollout, but rather feasibility- adequate spectrum, cell sites, & backhaul in place.
Verizon got a couple years head start because it had too. It's 3G CDMA is painfully slow. and the CDMA air interface technology had basically reached it max (3Mbs). The GSM upgrade path allows LTE speeds. albeit with less spectrum effeciency and next generation services. From my experiences, AT&T 4G is pretty good. I average around 6-7Mbs download speed. On Verizon 3G, I rarely get speeds above 1Mbs. For Verizon LTE, I average 8Mbs down, but occasionally see 10,15, or even 30Mbs download speeds. However, in everyday use, I don't really notice a huge speed difference between LTE & 4G, unlike the considerable difference between 4G & 3G & 2G. While LTE speeds are much faster, things like the time it takes for the browser (CPU) to render a webpage, or time it takes for an app to process downloaded data, overshadows the faster transmit speeds since it's the weakest link. For smaller bursts of data transmissions, we are only talking about fraction of a second, or maybe couple of seconds faster for the user. Where LTE does make a huge difference is for large downloads, such as email attachments and app downloads where the unnoticeable speed differences for small downloads add up to a significant difference. The difference for video streaming is that LTE can basically Blu-Ray quality, since broadcast quality is determined by available throughput. The upside is amazing video quality, but the downside is massive data consumption. With the paltry, expensive data caps offered by carriers today, sometimes it's more desirable to accept lower quality video for less data consumption.
Quote:
Originally Posted by focher
I still don't understand why anyone enters a cell phone contract. It makes no financial sense when compared to buying an unlocked device and doing a prepaid, especially if you do the prepaid through an MVNO. The payback is something like 6-8 months. The only frustrating thing will be that none of the first tier operators allow MVNOs to access their LTE networks. However, HSPA+ isn't actually that much slower than LTE in actual practice. In fact, between my iPad 3 on AT&T's LTE network and my iPhone 4S's HSPA+ I can't tell much difference.
only if you're single
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh
Specifically who will save you $18/month over Verizon/AT&T for comparable usage, without resorting to Sprint's network? As in, all-in for $55/month with at least 1GB of data and 120 minutes? That is the zero cost-of-capital cost; the monthly cost really should be under $50.
straight talk has $45 a month unlimited everything and they go over AT&T. their fair use policy is 2.5GB a month data.
figure $150 a month for a 2 line plan on AT&T you "save" $60 a month. but then you have to pop $650 at once for each iphone or other phone. if you have 4 or more lines on a mobile share plan then you can mix and match high voice users to high data users and get more data in the end than with prepaid.
It's coming to the twin cities. AI must have just missed that info, that's why you always check for multiple sources since you can never trust just one.
http://www.twincities.com/technology/ci_21480267/at-t-introducing-next-gen-lte-data-service
http://www.4-traders.com/AT-T-INC-14324/news/AT-T-Inc-AT-T-4G-LTE-Coming-to-Minneapolis-Saint-Paul-in-2012-14492544/
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/t-4g-lte-coming-minneapolis-143000785.html
http://www.dailymarkets.com/stock/2012/09/06/att-4g-lte-coming-to-minneapolis-saint-paul-in-2012/
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh
Specifically who will save you $18/month over Verizon/AT&T for comparable usage, without resorting to Sprint's network? As in, all-in for $55/month with at least 1GB of data and 120 minutes? That is the zero cost-of-capital cost; the monthly cost really should be under $50.
Straight Talk. $45 a month (no taxes or fees added on) for unlimited voice and SMS, and 2 GB of data. On the AT&T network.
Quote:
Originally Posted by focher
I still don't understand why anyone enters a cell phone contract. It makes no financial sense when compared to buying an unlocked device and doing a prepaid, especially if you do the prepaid through an MVNO. The payback is something like 6-8 months. The only frustrating thing will be that none of the first tier operators allow MVNOs to access their LTE networks. However, HSPA+ isn't actually that much slower than LTE in actual practice. In fact, between my iPad 3 on AT&T's LTE network and my iPhone 4S's HSPA+ I can't tell much difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doh123
and what prices are you actually getting for your usage? Last I did the math with what I do, I would be paying just about the same monthly fee either way... if thats the case why not get the discount off the purchase price? Its not like I'm going to stop using the phone in under a couple years.
$45/mo for unlimited talk/text/data (which is really 3GB) plus $30/mo for AT&T LTE on the iPad. My wife on the same smartphone plan. Our monthly cost went from $190/mo to $120.
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy
only if you're single
I'm definitely not single and it got cheaper.
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe
They are still way way way behind Verizon. Not to mention their roll out makes no sense.
Ah, on this topic, could any AT&T user (or anyone closely following this) tell me if they've given up on 3G rollout entirely and are focusing on just replacing all existing hardware with 4G (specifically real 4G—LTE)?
Because I live somewhere that used to be a few miles from where their 3G service ends. Now it's somewhere that is a few miles from where their 4G service ends. We're still EDGE, it just jumps straight to 4G instead of any 3G being in between…
I'm not happy that Salt lake city Utah isn't on that list. They told us that we were suppose to get LTE this year... Looks like I'm gonna jump ship to Verizon.
Then you have issues of geography. You need to get leases on land or structures to install your equipment. On top of that towers need infrastructure including high speed data connections. finally local communities can either be hostile or embracing of the technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Agreed. I have had AT&T since my first iPhone (3G) and now continue on with the 4. I have already decided I am bailing and going back to Verizon when I order my iPhone 5. My wife and I are on a family plan, but I've "served my time" on my contractual obligation, so I think I alone can bail.
The fact that Philadelphia doesn't have LTE is absurd. But it's worse than that. It will be YEARS before the Philly suburbs and exurbs get it (where I am). I am in the very last Western suburb of Philly...halfway to Lancaster, PA...and Verizon already has LTE coverage here. Add that to AT&T's bogus mobile share pricing and absolutely UNRELIABLE, CRAPPY NETWORK and my decision is easy.
I'm with you (Exton, PA here.) I can't get AT&T coverage inside my house even though I live on a hill. Where I work in Wilmington, DE, data throughput on my iPhone goes out daily at 2:30. You can almost set your watch by it. So I too want to give Verizon a chance. It's time.
Thanks for the links - I googled for this info but didn't come across these -
Quote:
Originally Posted by starflyer
The thing that keeps me from going to Verizon is if I travel outside of and LTE area and I get dropped back to CDMA speeds and the lack of simultaneous voice and data.
The new Qualcomm chipsets, likely to be in new iPhone (also found in the US Galaxy S3) allow for simultaneous voice and data across the CDMA network, FYI. Don't ask me how it works, but I've seen it, it does.