 | |
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. | |
|
 |  tiger72SexaT duorP
Premium Member
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO |
tiger72
Premium Member
2010-Sep-17 9:51 am
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. | |
|
| | | |
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. | |
|
| | 88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness |
to tiger72
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 duorP
Premium Member
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
1 edit |
tiger72
Premium Member
2010-Sep-17 11:28 am
Re: Proof is in the pudding (or lack of)said by 88615298: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. | |
|
| | | | fiberguy2My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20 |
Re: Proof is in the pudding (or lack of)At least Verizon is actually doing, and not "sitting back, waiting".. which is a slam to the consumer's face and to the public in general in which it got spectrum from in order TO build out the next gen network.
Don't you see any issue with that? | |
|
| | | | | | |
Re: Proof is in the pudding (or lack of)said by fiberguy2:At least Verizon is actually doing, and not "sitting back, waiting".. which is a slam to the consumer's face and to the public in general in which it got spectrum from in order TO build out the next gen network. Don't you see any issue with that? Who are you and what happened to the real fiberguy? | |
|
| | | | | | fiberguy2My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20 |
Re: Proof is in the pudding (or lack of)said by sonicmerlin:said by fiberguy2:At least Verizon is actually doing, and not "sitting back, waiting".. which is a slam to the consumer's face and to the public in general in which it got spectrum from in order TO build out the next gen network. Don't you see any issue with that? Who are you and what happened to the real fiberguy? lol | |
|
| | | | ssavoy
Premium Member
join:2007-08-16
Dallas, PA |
to tiger72
For what it's worth, AT&T 3G launched in my area about two months ago and it's consistently significantly faster than Verizon (think...2-2.5x faster). A typical Droid can't suck down more than 800-1000kbps on VZ in this area and I just peaked at 3.4mbps on AT&T.
And honestly I wanted to really see how fast Verizon 3G was in a rural area (full "3G"). Yeah, 125kbps down and 47kbps up. Basically EDGE with a 3G icon.
There's a difference between the 3G icon and actual 3G speeds. So if there's anything I have to say about Verizon, it's that they can easily deploy LTE and not really have "LTE"-like bandwidth to support it. | |
|
| | | |
to tiger72
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. | |
|
|  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA |
to Gdadkins
I have AT&T, so it doesn't bother me either way since I enjoy 3G everywhere I go. | |
|
| | | |
Re: Proof is in the pudding (or lack of)That's not really surprising considering you live in the Los Angeles metro area. | |
|
| | |
to Gdadkins
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. | |
|
|  Gbcue
Premium Member
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA |
to Gdadkins
I'll believe the AT&T HSPA+ when I see it.
It's taken T-Mobile a good part of the whole of 2010 to get where its at right now with HSPA+ and AT&T expects for it to get done in a single quarter? That's laughable, at best! | |
|
| | | |
Re: Proof is in the pudding (or lack of)said by Gbcue:I'll believe the AT&T HSPA+ when I see it. It's taken T-Mobile a good part of the whole of 2010 to get where its at right now with HSPA+ and AT&T expects for it to get done in a single quarter? That's laughable, at best! AT&T has already been deploying the equipment for this last year to the market's they have planned, that way they can activate it all at once and throw it in everyone's face's. It takes a long time for T-Mobile to do anything because they are the smallest wireless provider in the US with the smallest network and least amount of money. If AT&T really wanted to throw all their egg's in one basket they could beat VZW to the punch and have their whole network overlaid by 2012 if they really wanted. | |
|
| | | iLive4Fusion |
to Gbcue
said by Gbcue:I'll believe the AT&T HSPA+ when I see it. It's taken T-Mobile a good part of the whole of 2010 to get where its at right now with HSPA+ and AT&T expects for it to get done in a single quarter? That's laughable, at best! Apparently the backhaul is in place's in part's of the US because a user on HowardForums was able to achieve 6+mbps on an HSPA iPhone which isn't even an HSPA+ phone. I am getting 4mbps right now, 6 is right in line with what a lot of T-Mobile HSPA+ customer's are getting.  | |
|
| | |
to Gdadkins
Mmm, high speed next generation pudding......  - A | |
|
 BlueArcher
Premium Member
join:2003-03-11
Lexington, KY |
Same as FIOS vs UVERSE?????Does this situation seem familiar to anyone else?  | |
|
| tiger72SexaT duorP
Premium Member
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO |
tiger72
Premium Member
2010-Sep-17 9:52 am
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... | |
|
tiger72
1 edit |
tiger72
Premium Member
2010-Sep-17 9:40 am
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. | |
|
|
1 edit |
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. | |
|
| | tiger72SexaT duorP
Premium Member
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
1 edit |
tiger72
Premium Member
2010-Sep-17 10:23 am
Re: GOOD.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. | |
|
| | |  MarkyD
Premium Member
join:2002-08-20
Oklahoma City, OK
1 recommendation |
MarkyD
Premium Member
2010-Sep-17 10:52 am
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. | |
|
| | | | ssavoy
Premium Member
join:2007-08-16
Dallas, PA
1 edit |
ssavoy
Premium Member
2010-Sep-17 6:24 pm
Re: GOOD.My area - Verizon has good service but poor download speeds.
Achieving consistent 2.5-3mbps downloads aren't a problem on AT&T. VZ barely tops a meg. | |
|
| | | | | MarkyD
Premium Member
join:2002-08-20
Oklahoma City, OK |
MarkyD
Premium Member
2010-Sep-17 9:14 pm
Re: GOOD.said by ssavoy:My area - Verizon has good service but poor download speeds. Achieving consistent 2.5-3mbps downloads aren't a problem on AT&T. VZ barely tops a meg. I guess it all comes down to your area. Here, AT&T has a piss poor network. Verizon, on the other hand, just entered our market a year ago via an alltel acquisition. Alltel built their network really well here, all on 850. | |
|
| mobbo
join:2005-04-13
Denton, TX |
to tiger72
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. | |
|
| | Renthal
join:2005-10-16
West Lafayette, IN |
Re: GOOD.The Captivate does not support HSPA+ currently. Despite the fact the phone is capable, it has been disabled by AT&T. | |
|
| | | mobbo
join:2005-04-13
Denton, TX |
mobbo
Member
2010-Sep-17 7:07 pm
Re: GOOD.You could make an arguement that the phone isn't 3G capable at all and I'd believe you. Freakin' thing sits on 2G EDGE all day in the middle of the 4th largest city in the US! | |
|
| gaforces (banned)United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA |
to tiger72
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. | |
|
| | tiger72SexaT duorP
Premium Member
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
1 edit |
tiger72
Premium Member
2010-Sep-19 9:12 pm
Re: GOOD.said by gaforces: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. Right. Because Verizon's "5-12mbps" is substantially faster than existing HSPA+ deployments in the USA (T-Mobile) and Canada (Rogers/Bell/Telus) at 9-14mbps. How bout you read up on the technology before throwing around LTE talking points you read from some blog. | |
|
| | |
to tiger72
said by tiger72: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. Dropping to HSPA+...with a 2 GB cap. | |
|
| |
AT&TI don't think AT&T cares about their broadband customers. They just let them stay in the dark ages and collect monthly fees. | |
|
| |
LteIsnt 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? | |
|
| tiger72SexaT duorP
Premium Member
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO |
tiger72
Premium Member
2010-Sep-17 10:29 am
Re: Ltesaid 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. | |
|
| |
Just in time for the Iphone 5Hopefully  | |
|
| |
my speed
speed |
| |
|
| |
pricing?can anyone give solid answers to any of these?
will they have data card or usb cards for laptops?
will they have unlimited packages??? | |
|
| fiberguy2My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20 |
Re: pricing?said by vlad1000:can anyone give solid answers to any of these? will they have data card or usb cards for laptops? will they have unlimited packages??? Give a solid answer for something that isn't even rolled out yet? are you ma'ad? sniffin' bond water or something? For one, I doubt that anyone needs a solid answer to know that there will be data cards deployed.. hard to tell if they'll be USB or not. As for unlimited packages? .. um.. yea.. WAY too soon.. so why are you even asking about something that isn't even launched, OR while the ground itself remains un-broken.... | |
|
1 edit |
HSDPA+ is close to cable modem speeds for what I purchasedMy experience with the iPhone 4 on HSDPA+ is very good. At home I have Comcast 6/2 and it works for me at that speed. Once they go to full DOCSIS 3 I will then see 12/2.
When I run speed tests on my iPHone 4, I am getting results anywhere from 3.72/1.85 to 6.07/2.56. running my iPhone via wifi, I can get anywhere from 8.08/3.12 down to 4.32/.057. There will always be variability but right now that is not bad and rivals my cable modem. Obviously the type of internet traffic via the iPhone is going to be different than what I run through my cable but not much to complain about. LTE can only improve things but for now HSDPA+ is on par with my home!
If ATT wants to take time with LTE, that may be fine as what they offer today is acceptable in my market. | |
|
| |
capsWell, with the caps we all secretly know they will have and their deployment topped with price... The flash drive carrier pigeon will still be more effective.. Sad isn't it | |
|
jfmezei
Premium Member
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC |
jfmezei
Premium Member
2010-Sep-18 12:31 am
is this Iphone driven ?If AT&T originally had no plans to deploy LTE soon, and is now fast-tracking that project for 2011 deployment, my gut tells me it is because Verizon's LTE deployment will be a threath to AT&T.
Networks have to think longer term. They want to have the next generation network with credible coverage before they start to lose customers because the can't carry the latest and greatest handsets.
And if there is to be a great iPhone LTE party next year, AT&T doesn't want to be absent.
I suspect that LTE is an easier upgrade for networks already on a GSM stack. | |
|
Netgear CM2000
(Software) pfSense
Asus RT-AX86
|
AT&T does not have an HSPA+ network deployedI'm not sure where you guys got the info that AT&T has deployed HSPA+, but I can tell you that they have not deployed it anywhere in the country. The best they have deployed now is HSDPA/HSUPA (3GPP R5/R6), which provides theoretical speeds of 14Mbps down/5.76Mbps up. As far as I know, T-Mobile is the only carrier in the US to have HSPA+ deployed. | |
|
|
••••
|
|
|
