dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2012-02-16 10:10:56: AT&T has announced that they've turned on their new LTE network in Tampa, Florida, Sarasota, Florida, and parts of Raleigh, Chapel Hill and Durham, North Carolina. ..


fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

fifty nine

Member

I wish they hadn't screwed up the smartphone plans

I would have knocked my iPhone down to 200MB then got a LTE hotspot. That way, best of both worlds.
chgo_man99
join:2010-01-01
Sunnyvale, CA

chgo_man99

Member

Re: I wish they hadn't screwed up the smartphone plans

Get iPhone 5 lte this summer

3G is not as fast as lte but its still decent, at least where i live, with speeds over 5mb at night.

Robert
Premium Member
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL

1 edit

Robert

Premium Member

What about non-3G markets?

Down here in Florida, we live in a utopia of 3G coverage blanketing nearly our entire state. There's few places that I can go that doesn't have 3G coverage (Everglades is one of them).

What is AT&T doing about expanding their non-3G markets?
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

Re: What about non-3G markets?

said by Robert:

What is AT&T doing about expanding their non-3G markets?

not a damned thing. nearly 5 years after Verizon brought 3G to my area all at&t still offers is edge. And I'm supposed to get a smartphone with their required data plan?

Bill Neilson
Premium Member
join:2009-07-08
Alexandria, VA

Bill Neilson to Robert

Premium Member

to Robert
said by Robert:

Down here in Florida, we live in a utopia of 3G coverage blanketing nearly our entire state. There's few places that I can go that doesn't have 3G coverage (Everglades is one of them).

What is AT&T doing about expanding their non-3G markets?

AT&T has yet to install anything near competent 3G in several areas that I have lived in. It is rather embarrassing really.

I still would like AT&T to explain why I, and everyone else, in/around New Orleans can barely get Edge speeds 99% of the time
bdon78
I didn't do it
join:2009-05-18
Decatur, GA

1 recommendation

bdon78

Member

C'mon Karl

(at least on a largely unoccupied network)...

Karl.. estimates state that currently Verizon only has approx close to 600K LTE customers (due to low early adoption rates and lack of devices).

THAT is a largely unoccupied network as well, making that argument point moot. People read articles like this without knowing the facts and because you say one is unoccupied they take you at face value without digging deeper. Let's not spread misinformation.

I understand you hate AT&T, but let's face the facts, their LTE is faster, as is their 3 (or 3.5G HSPA+) network versus EVDO. The reality is, AT&T has poor coverage but good speed and Verizon has great coverage with average/below average speeds.

sheeshush
@rr.com

sheeshush

Anon

Re: C'mon Karl

I think that the point Karl was trying to make is that claims of speed are difficult to validate when a network isn't being stretched to capacity. It seemed rather obvious to me.
bdon78
I didn't do it
join:2009-05-18
Decatur, GA

bdon78

Member

Re: C'mon Karl

You're being naive.. anyone who reads Karl's site often enough knows he is taking a shot at AT&T cause he hates them.

Karl implies that AT&T is only fast because they have only a few people on their LTE network. What i am saying is, that is actually the case for Verizon's LTE network as well... (600k customers? that's nothing)

The article is misleading because it implies that Verizon's LTE network is "loaded" with customers. (which it is not) Karl is making the case that AT&T's LTE network speeds to appear to be faster solely based on low numbers of customers. Verizon may have a larger LTE footprint, but at this point in time, that doesn't mean a significantly greater amount of customers. (just availability to a larger customer base doesn't mean they are buying it)

So the argument about number of customers affecting speed is MOOT. Neither LTE network is saturated with enough users to truly affect speed (though Karl implies otherwise which is what I thought was misleading).

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT

ptrowski

Premium Member

Re: C'mon Karl

How many AT&T LTE customers are there?
bdon78
I didn't do it
join:2009-05-18
Decatur, GA

bdon78

Member

Re: C'mon Karl

I'll see if I can find out.. but you won't like the answer.. reason? Because AT&T is in less markets, I wouldn't be surprised if their % (not overall number, but percentage of LTE traffic per market) of LTE customers was similar to Verizon's (like the other commenter mentions..)

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT

ptrowski

Premium Member

Re: C'mon Karl

I poked around but couldn't find anything.
en103
join:2011-05-02

en103 to bdon78

Member

to bdon78
Well, that, and their 3G network typically has very good speeds in most markets (3Mbps - ~10Mbps depending on device/area).

For the average user, there currently isn't much incentive on AT&T to switch to LTE over HPSA+.

1. Not in many areas (as you've mentioned)
2. Not significant enough gain in speed to be noticed for 'average' user.
3. You'll just hit caps/pay more faster.
4. No iPhone on LTE (yet).

cfm117
join:2004-02-13
Winnetka, CA

cfm117 to bdon78

Member

to bdon78
Wouldn't that assumption be a indirect shot at VZW? Saying 3k subs or less in each market(just spreading subs evenly) would bring an advanced network to a slowdown is kind looks like it can't handle the load already.

sheeshush
@rr.com

sheeshush to bdon78

Anon

to bdon78
Thank you for pointing out my obvious naiviety. I'm here daily and I'm well aware that Karl can be quite cynical at times.

I'm also well aware that its difficult to determine accurate speeds on a largely unused network. Hence the wording.

djdanska
Rudie32
Premium Member
join:2001-04-21
San Diego, CA

djdanska to bdon78

Premium Member

to bdon78
Dslr isn't exactly known for it outstanding journalism. lol
bdon78
I didn't do it
join:2009-05-18
Decatur, GA

bdon78

Member

Re: C'mon Karl

said by djdanska:

Dslr isn't exactly known for it outstanding journalism. lol

Ha, true and Karl's hate for AT&T is often entertaining but people come read this without thinking further about it.. just trying to provoke thoughts and the idea of questioning everything (including my own opinions).
93388818 (banned)
It's cool, I'm takin it back
join:2000-03-14
Dallas, TX

93388818 (banned) to djdanska

Member

to djdanska
It's not journalism at all. It's 1000% op-ed.

jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA

jmn1207 to bdon78

Premium Member

to bdon78
What do you think is attributed to those places where AT&T's LTE outperforms Verizon? The most obvious answer to me is device usage.

The equipment used is nearly identical and the technology is basically the same. Both are utilizing a similar frequency division duplex with a 2x2 MIMO solution. Verizon is using 10MHz per channel in all markets, with AT&T using both 5MHz and 10MHz, depending on the spectrum availability. (Houston uses 10MHz, Chicago uses 5MHz). In these configurations, a theoretical max of around 73Mbps can be expected for 10MHz channels with 37Mbps being the max expected when 5MHz channels are used.

I really don't believe that backhaul is the factor that is creating the differences in performance. Since this technology is highly variable with regards to the signal quality and location, the differences seen where the MIMO channels are similar is most likely a result of the usage load on the network combined with the device type, location, and orientation with respect to the signal path. Otherwise, the performance should really be very nearly identical if it were truly possible to accurately measure the results objectively.

runzero
join:2005-09-16
DC

1 edit

runzero to bdon78

Member

to bdon78
Stop pulling statistics out of your ass and look at Verizon's Q4 results. They added nearly 4 times the amount you claim in last quarter alone.

In most metro markets, AT&T uses 10x10 MHz LTE carriers, exactly the same as Verizon. In areas like Chicago and Southern California, lack of spectrum constrains them to 5x5. That would make AT&T far slower than Verizon in those markets.

The only explanation for the speed difference is nobody is using AT&T's LTE network. And why would they? Coverage is still virtually non-existent (unless you never wander outside city limits) and it costs the same price as Verizon now.
bdon78
I didn't do it
join:2009-05-18
Decatur, GA

1 edit

bdon78

Member

Re: C'mon Karl

Ha ha.. right.. Both networks have very low usage period (between 500K-2 Mil subscribers which accounts for ~1% of their customer base)

The difference between you and I is that I don't hate either company (or Tmobile), so my view isn't as biased as some here (your logo speaks volumes). I'm actually interested in any study results in the news and what they mean, I'm not quick to just discount it because a certain company is said to have a better speed/coverage, etc...

I can imagine no matter the study, you would find a way to rationalize why any result showing AT&T as being superior as being false simply because you hate them.

It's fine to hate them (i hate Comcast for example), but your hate does not actually make their product inferior at all times (though you may FEEL that way).

runzero
join:2005-09-16
DC

runzero

Member

Re: C'mon Karl

What other explanation do you have? AT&T uses their magical elves to boost speeds? Both networks are running at nearly identical frequencies with the same amount of spectrum, plus a great deal of backhaul. For someone who is as neutral as you claim, you sure seem quick to defend AT&T.
bdon78
I didn't do it
join:2009-05-18
Decatur, GA

bdon78

Member

Re: C'mon Karl

Magical elves? Clever, but sorry I am neutral as much as you'd like to believe otherwise.

Your assertion is that since the tech is like, that the difference in Verizon's 1.5Mil LTE subscriber base or AT&T's 500K is enough to make the speed that different.. the gap that large because of a difference of ~1MIL customers. Sorry, find that hard to believe.. if you said Verizon had 20MIL and AT&T had 1MIL you wouldn't have any issue selling me on the "it's slower due to more network usage".

Personally, i don't believe it's there yet. Is it backhaul? Maybe.. Is it network management, prob not (but not impossible)?

Either way, the real test won't happen (for Verizon or AT&T) until each network is truly saturated with subscribers.

djdanska
Rudie32
Premium Member
join:2001-04-21
San Diego, CA

djdanska to bdon78

Premium Member

to bdon78
I only know one person with an at&t LTE phone and the only difference between my phone and his phone is he gets better upload. Download is near identical. Im not using LTE, back home in chicago.

josh72345
@verizon.net

josh72345

Anon

lte

Not sure where 600k users was gotten as far as verizon lte subsribers goes.»www.sidecutreports.com/2 ··· 4g-race/

they have about 1.7 million lte subscribers

josh
josh72345

josh72345

Anon

Re: lte

also that was 2 quarters ago
93388818 (banned)
It's cool, I'm takin it back
join:2000-03-14
Dallas, TX

93388818 (banned)

Member

Interesting

Why is it that any of you think that 3G and LTE aren't sharing the same data core network? The radio technology is only the "last mile" if you will. Radio congestion would only be locally significant.