said by FastiBook:And also, their 3G maxes out at less than half the max speed of att's 3G. 1.4 mbits vs 3 mbits and soon upgrades.
EVDO Rev. A maxes at 3.1 Mbps theoretically with real-life speeds in the >2.5 range being typical. HSPA 3.6 maxes out around 3.2 typically. So there is some difference at the high end.
But ATTM has a much smaller 3g footprint, and even within that footprint they have proportionally lot more problem areas with capacity and backhaul issues; so it's much more common to see ATTM subs who can't get close to top speed in typical usage. Not to mention the annoying connection drops, latency problems and random slowdowns experienced by a lot of ATTM users in a lot of places.
As always, YMMV when talking about networks, but there is not doubt that ATTM's network is a poor second- no, third, behind Sprint too- in overall quality nationwide.
quote:
Big red isn't planning speed upgrades, while 7plus mbit will be rolled out by end of 2010 on blue, then LTE after that.
According to what I've read, e.g., »
www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/atan···t-plans/, it'll be more like the end of 2011 by the time ATTM finishes the 7.2 upgrade. By that time according to VZW's announced plans, they will be well into their LTE rollout.
quote:
Sounds like you're disappointed at being stuck in EDGE land, which by the way is all most as fast as EVDO's lower end.
Sounds like you are using a *very generous* definition for 'almost as fast.'
EVDO is usually above 500kbps. EDGE generally maxes out at around 200kbps and in many places is a good deal less. I see A LOT of EDGE where I live (even though the area is supposedly covered by UMTS according to ATTM's maps) and at least here, EDGE speeds in the 110-150kbps range are typical. My understanding from other ATTM subs is that this is typical elsewhere too, and consistent EDGE speeds approaching 200kbps are rare.
In any event, ATTM EDGE is nowhere near 'almost as fast as EVDO's lower end.' Not even on paper, much less in the real world.
Oh, and YOU neglect to mention that on EDGE, the UMTS simultaneous voice/data advantage goes out the window as well.
quote:
Data speeds below EVDO drop down to slower than dialup, whereas EDGE not only has better coverage, but you also can fall back onto GPRS.
1xRTT and GPRS are pretty similar, both generally slightly above dialup speed, say in the 60kbps range. But this isn't really much of a differentiator between the two carriers nationally, because both ATTM and VZW have similar, very high (>90%) geographical EVDO and EDGE and/or UMTS coverage.
quote:
ATT has the fastest netowork, even if they are somewhat behind in "3G" coverage due to an agonizingly complicated build-out process stemming from things earlier in the decade.
It is true that ATTM has had some technical and resource issues that VZW didn't have to deal with, but much of that was due to decisions that were entirely within ATTM's hands. But never mind all that, those decisions were made a handful of years ago, which is like an eon in technology time. They have had years now to fix their network and have skimped. Fact is, they made financially conservative decisions in building their slowly, building out just fast enough to make plausible marketing claims all along, and it shows. Even now, as far behind as they are in 3g deployment, even after the record years of growth in subs and revenue they've had since the iPhone launch, VZW STILL outspends them on network capex.
That tells you all you need to know right there.
I'm no VZW fan, I've never had them as my carrier, they are too expensive and up until recently their policies around handset selection and user control were completely intolerable in my opinion (part of the reason I started with Sprint and stuck with them is because they've always had a good network where I live, have always been relatively inexpensive, and have always released geek-friendly handsets).
But credit where credit is due, they have a much better data network than ATTM, it is no comparison. And seeing people like you making misleading and in some cases factually incorrect excuses for what is to my mind an inexcusable performance on ATTM's part is galling. If YOU are an ATTM sub, you should be more pi**ed than anyone; you shouldn't be making excuses for them.
ATTM has no one but themselves to blame for where they are. I carry an ATTM phone too, I speak from personal experience when I opine that their network does not perform as well as it should, and nowhere near as well as VZW's or even Sprint's overall nationally.
Their claim for years now of having 'America's fastest 3g network' is technically true, but the quality of service on and geographic reach of that network have made those claims so very misleading as an indicator of what sort of service a typical user might expect on ATTM. Far more misleading in fact than anything VZW has said in its recent ads, which are largely true. (Even ATTM has not disputed the truth of the '5x 3g network' claim at the heart of VZW's campaign.)
I am glad VZW is attacking ATTM. Its management hasn't listened to customers' complaints about their network for years now, maybe they will finally listen to a competitor and actually step up.
Maybe this will be the impetus to finally take some of the power away from the bean-counters and marketing types who have run that company for so long, and give it to the engineering people, who have been undervoiced.
