| Proof is in the pudding (or lack of) If their LTE market deployment rate is like their 3G rate, then I think it would safe to say if you don't have 3G now, you won't have LTE either. Maybe they slowed down their 3G coverage in hopes LTE would provide better range/penetration/coverage....
I have Verizon, so it doesn't bother me either way since I enjoy 3G everywhere I go. |
|
| Same as FIOS vs UVERSE????? Does this situation seem familiar to anyone else?  |
|
|
|
 tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1
1 edit | GOOD. Any GSM/UMTS operator that is moving to LTE already is either:
1. Stupid.
2. Government funded
3. Stupid.
Glad to see ATT is taking the smart approach, and waiting for the technology to mature before rolling it out to the market. Considering the spectral efficiency of LTE isn't that much higher than fully upgraded HSPA+, that's another reason to wait until LTE is more mature, or LTE-A is ready for rollout.
Moreover, ATT said that they know that their users will be dropping from LTE to HSPA(+) during the initial rollout, so they'd like their users to have faster speeds even when they're NOT on their LTE network.
So here's Verizon's scenario:
12mbps LTE. Lose LTE signal -> drop to 1.1mbps EVDO.
ATT's scenario:
12mbps LTE. Lose LTE signal -> drop to 8mbps (or higher) HSPA+
And Karl thinks that ATT should follow in VZW's footsteps - yet complains about buckets-o-bytes, lower caps, etc.. What world are you living in?
And yet he continues to bash HSPA+ as "nursing"? Seriously?
How bout this, Karl: Tell us what benefits LTE has for consumers OR operators at this point over HSPA+. I'd absolutely love to hear what your insight is. Especially since you think HSPA+ is simply "nursing" 3g along (as if UMTS is dieing), while LTE is the light at the end of the tunnel.
So again, why on earth SHOULD ATT invest in LTE NOW, rather than say late next year or in 2012 (with the rest of the GSM world)?
Why is it somehow better to pay more now for a technology which hasn't yet been deployed commercially on a nationwide footprint (TeliaSonera is limited to horribly small coverage in 2 cities with government mandates for FTTH)? Especially when there's fully tested and proven HSPA+ which gives operators 85% of the benefits of LTE, at a fraction of the cost? Oh, and consumers get to KEEP their handsets, rather than trading them in for shorter battery life. And those consumers who want the fastest speeds can STILL get newer MIMO handsets that take advantage of the latest HSPA+ revisions. So that's the best of both worlds.
For Verizon, LTE is a necessity.
For ATT, T-Mobile, or any other GSM operator, LTE is an unncesseary luxury. At least until LTE-Advanced is ready.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara |
|
tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | reply to Gdadkins
Re: Proof is in the pudding (or lack of) said by Gdadkins:If their LTE market deployment rate is like their 3G rate, then I think it would safe to say if you don't have 3G now, you won't have LTE either. Maybe they slowed down their 3G coverage in hopes LTE would provide better range/penetration/coverage.... I have Verizon, so it doesn't bother me either way since I enjoy 3G everywhere I go. ATT actually has sped back up their 3g rollouts. Some places, like Peoria, IL and Manhattan, KS actually got T-Mobile 3g before ATT 3g - even though ATT had a 3 year head start rolling out its 3g services. There's a thread on howardforums which details ATT's rollouts and it's pretty clear that they're working on expanding 3g coverage.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara |
|
tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | reply to BlueArcher
Re: Same as FIOS vs UVERSE????? said by BlueArcher:Does this situation seem familiar to anyone else? Not exactly. Unlike FiOS vs UVerse, FiOS actually delivers on its promises... |
|
1 edit | reply to tiger72
Re: GOOD. ATT's scenario of Lose LTE signal and drop to Edge is the more appropriate response. I'm all for the HSPA+ upgrades, but it won't do people any good that can't even get 3G now unfortunately. |
|
| reply to tiger72
Re: Proof is in the pudding (or lack of) More availability and options the better imo. Sprint's coverage still lacks around in this area too. |
|
| AT&T I don't think AT&T cares about their broadband customers. They just let them stay in the dark ages and collect monthly fees. |
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to Gdadkins
Re: Proof is in the pudding (or lack of) I have AT&T, so it doesn't bother me either way since I enjoy 3G everywhere I go. |
|
| Lte Isnt most of atts 3g equipment lte capable? Just needs a firmware update? So they could add a whole bunch of lte markets pretty quickly right? |
|
mobbo
join:2005-04-13
Denton, TX | reply to tiger72
Re: GOOD. I've had my AT&T Captivate for over a month now and I have NEVER received anything close to an 8mbps HSPA+ data connection. And I'm sitting in my office in the middle of downtown Houston, TX. Not exactly the middle of nowhere. A vast majority of the time I'm on the EDGE network or my phone says 3G but data-related tasks crawl or stall out. |
|
tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1
1 edit | reply to Gdadkins
Last I checked, ATT offers fairly capable 3g in all 30 NFL cities that Verizon says it'll roll out to.
I'm not a fan of ATT in the least. Their latency is 2-3x higher than my T-Mobile 3g. Even twice as high as my Sprint 3g. They drop calls. Data stalls. But frankly, if you're in a remotely urban area, you probably can get their 3g. And i guarantee that, unless you're in SF or NYC, it's faster than Verizon or Sprint - hands down. I guess that's a bit much, since I haven't been to all 30 NFL cities, but I know that when it comes to Data, Verizon sorely needs LTE to be remotely competitive with ATT and T-Mobile.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara |
|
tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | reply to majortom1029
Re: Lte said by majortom1029:Isnt most of atts 3g equipment lte capable? Just needs a firmware update? So they could add a whole bunch of lte markets pretty quickly right? No. Their backend infrastructure may be easily upgradeable, but the towers all need new radios (OFDMA/SC-FDMA vs WCDMA), and you need all new handsets.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara |
|
 MarkyDPremium
join:2002-08-20
Oklahoma City, OK | reply to tiger72
Re: GOOD. said by tiger72:...And i guarantee that, unless you're in SF or NYC, it's faster than Verizon or Sprint - hands down. hardly. Oklahoma City is a great example. I work at a govt facility on airport property...AT&T is garbage here, and just about everywhere. So many of my co-workers are switching to Verizon, as I did about 6 months ago, due to TERRIBLE quality of service on AT&T. Is 3g pretty much everywhere in the metro? Yes. Do you actually get 3g speeds? Well if 500-800kbps down and 200-300kbps up (with full bars) is 3g, sure. This isn't just the story at work, but just about everywhere else in the area.
The AT&T guys here drop calls. SMS messages fail to send on a regular basis. They can't stream pandora for more than a few minutes without it skipping out. All reasons why I left AT&T for Verizon.
ATT's network may be "theoretically" faster, but the quality of service is just not there, at all. With TWO bars of 3G on Verizon, I just pulled 2.2mbps down and 998mbps up. That's not uncommon. My buddy with an iPhone 4 and a full 3g signal, with his phone sitting right next to mine, got 759kbps down, 180 up...same server, same speedtest app, etc.
ATT may be great in some areas, but certainly not in OKC. |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to tiger72
Re: Proof is in the pudding (or lack of) said by tiger72:said by Gdadkins:If their LTE market deployment rate is like their 3G rate, then I think it would safe to say if you don't have 3G now, you won't have LTE either. Maybe they slowed down their 3G coverage in hopes LTE would provide better range/penetration/coverage.... I have Verizon, so it doesn't bother me either way since I enjoy 3G everywhere I go. ATT actually has sped back up their 3g rollouts. Too little too late. My area still doesn't have at&t 3G within 60 miles of me. Verizon's 3G has been here for 3 years. I'll see LTE from Verizon before I see 3G from at&t. Crap like that is why the vast majority of people here have Verizon service even though at&t regular cell service has the same coverage and quality. |
|
tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1
1 edit | said by BF69:said by tiger72:said by Gdadkins:If their LTE market deployment rate is like their 3G rate, then I think it would safe to say if you don't have 3G now, you won't have LTE either. Maybe they slowed down their 3G coverage in hopes LTE would provide better range/penetration/coverage.... I have Verizon, so it doesn't bother me either way since I enjoy 3G everywhere I go. ATT actually has sped back up their 3g rollouts. Too little too late. My area still doesn't have at&t 3G within 60 miles of me. Verizon's 3G has been here for 3 years. I'll see LTE from Verizon before I see 3G from at&t. Crap like that is why the vast majority of people here have Verizon service even though at&t regular cell service has the same coverage and quality. I doubt that. Verizon has had the advantage of being able to upgrade its same digital network for the past 15 years. CDMAOne->CDMA2000-> EVDO are all upgrades to the exact same network. ATT (and TMO) have had to overlay their 2g networks with 3g coverage. In essence, Verizon is running one network, and has been running and expanding it for 15 years. ATT is running two. With LTE, Verizon's back at square one just like ATT and TMO were when they rolled out their 3g. They're now forced to overlay their existing network with a brand-spankin new one. New backend. New radios. New frequency.
So, are you more likely to get Verizon LTE than ATT 3g? Maybe. Maybe not. After looking at the map, you probably won't be seeing mobile speeds above 2.6mbps anytime soon by ANY provider - and that's assuming you're even getting good EvDO speeds in the first place.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara |
|
| Just in time for the Iphone 5 Hopefully  |
|
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| reply to tiger72
Re: Proof is in the pudding (or lack of) Yeah, I liked to make fun of all the iPhone suckers that were complaining about lack of 3G and MMS. I think AT&T FINALLY got 3G here about December of last year. The main reason I haven't adopted the iPhone is that AT&T is the sole choice. They appear to be a company that lets the competition pass them up when it comes to new technology. I'm glad to say I don't do business with them. |
|
 gaforcesUnited We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA | reply to tiger72
Re: GOOD. Here's some food for thought or something ... yes I'm feeding it ...
While atnt users will be able to text thier grandmas on HSPA+, LTE network users will be in the digital revolution using video chat and other high bandwidth applications like HD.
--
Let them eat FIBER! |
|
Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·Mediacom
 ·T-Mobile US
| reply to Gdadkins
Re: Proof is in the pudding (or lack of) said by Gdadkins:If their LTE market deployment rate is like their 3G rate, then I think it would safe to say if you don't have 3G now, you won't have LTE either. In Illinois they extended 3G coverage from Chicago metro area to south within I-55 highway and its bigger villages/towns. |
|
