AT&T's Network Crumbles At Coachella > Get used to it.

reply to Logan 5

Re: Get used to it.

I stand sit corrected.

Since 2005 AT&T tripled their profits. Even if they add a couple billion per year more into their network, it doesn't come close to how much they skimped in previous years. The more money they put into it, the higher the quality of the network will become and the faster it will improve.

reply to openbox9
So when do I get DSL here in Bloomington, IN?

reply to openbox9
That's why you have to properly plan ahead.

I think ATT continues to pay a price for the fact that they have spent years trying to skimp. Sooner or later it catches up with you and, in a business like this, there is no quick way to fix it.

reply to nathill
I don't know, nor do I care. What does that have to do with investing in wireless infrastructure upgrades?

reply to asdfdfdfdfdf
I believe that AT&T was truly caught off guard by the iPhone. I have no doubt that any other provider would have seen similar impact to its network as well, so I don't believe it's total shortsightedness by AT&T. And yes, catching up is often more difficult than keeping up.

reply to Frank
not in this case, I want to see any company replace every T1 or T3 back haul to a fiber back haul over night. When this happens publish the contractors names who did the work, we could finally have this country wired with FTTH, we could surpass the Japanese with broadband penetration in the country.

Sorry, but the reason AT&T's network sucks so bad in congested markets is because they are servicing there cell sites with multiple T1's at 1.5 mb each, or with T3's max of 45 mb. When you have thousands of people trying to use a cell site, with a connection that's slower then a normal household connection with no overhead, your going ot have poor service. Now with fiber to these cell sites, they could run a Bandwidth on Demand type service, and if more bandwidth is needed the network equipment will auto boost the speeds causing these failures to not happen. Network seeing increased usage, it increases the bandwidth to prevent poor QOS for anyone on that cell site.

reply to sonicmerlin
The 2009 net income was actually 2.6 times the 2005 net income. What's more important to note is that from 2005 to 2009, capex increased 3 times from $5.576B to $16.595B. So, capex actually increased at a rate faster than net income. All of these figures are complicated by the M&A that happened during this time frame so it's not this black and white.

reply to openbox9
"I believe that AT&T was truly caught off guard by the iPhone."
Like 3 years ago when it came out. This really is a lame excuse now. They already had significant, widespread congestion problems BEFORE the IPhone even came out. They simply didn't spend enough on upgrades even before it came out, skimped for years after it came out, and now are playing catchup for years of underinvestment.

reply to openbox9

reply to openbox9

reply to asdfdfdfdfdf
Actually AT&T grew too fast and bought out other networks.

Ironically, in AT&T's base area (The former SBC) capacity issues seem few.... but when you expand rapidly and buy out other Telcos you get what you pay for. AT&T has not been in that big of a hurry to bring everywhere up to par.

They need the financials to always show increasing profits to keep stock prices rising. They'll get there eventually. Maybe.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

reply to Logan 5
That's always easy to say in hindsight. Forecasting, planning, and budgeting for infrastructure, let alone for the whole corporation, isn't a menial task.

reply to openbox9

Can you point to a year that AT&T, in any of its incarnations, invested $0? Otherwise, I have no idea what your point was supposed to be.