dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1637
share rss forum feed

BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH

DSLReports is becoming so biased

While this particular move is wrong on AT&T's part due to the technology that is being employed here, DSLR is becoming so biased in general (look at the first sentence).

AT&T introduced cheaper data plans, and DSLR complains, complains, complains.

AT&T has the overall fastest network in the US with coverage second only to Verizon. DSLR complains, complains, complains.

And now, with AT&T&T, DSLR complains, when this is going to be an incredible synergy of spectrum and technology, and is going to be great for the consumers of both companies, especially the coverage-disadvantaged T-Mobile. There are some whiners out there who are complaining about this, however, the VAST MAJORITY of both companies' customers are pleased about this acquisition, as all they are about is having good coverage, and a wide selection of cool phones, both of which will be unparalleled when AT&T&T is put together.


chgo_man99

join:2010-01-01
San Jose, CA

I agree, and ATT is the only fastest wireless broadband provider than provides coverage in small towns. I am going to move to Dubuque, IA for IBM. I know there is not much of consumer choices there due to size of population but its not that small. There is a local tourism there. Neither Verizon nor Sprints provides "4G" there while AT&T lunched this year HSPA that averages to 3 MB down and 1 up on my phone. Not bad.



88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

said by chgo_man99:

I agree, and ATT is the only fastest wireless broadband provider than provides coverage in small towns.

BS. At&T doesn't provide 3G in my town. Verizon does though.


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to BiggA

said by BiggA:

AT&T introduced cheaper data plans, and DSLR complains, complains, complains.

LOL. Cheaper based on what?

chgo_man99

join:2010-01-01
San Jose, CA
reply to 88615298

You can compare HSPA with EVDO



dmxrob6
Premium
join:2005-06-24
Boonville, MO
Reviews:
·AT&T Southwest
reply to BiggA

I admit, I agree with your statements about AT&T. I live in a small town in Missouri and AT&T is our local telephone company. The phone service and support is top notch (AT&T worked for weeks last summer diagnosing a problem with my voice line and eventually came and laid new copper to the house and credited me three months of service) and the DSL has been, for the past 7 years I've had it, top notch and very stable.

My only gripe is I would like to see the 150GB DSL cap placed at 250GB to give more "growth" room. Of course, I don't think we should have caps at all -- but I am resigned to the fact that they are coming and so we have to deal with them.


nishiko7
Premium
join:2007-05-01
Pleasant Hill, CA
reply to BiggA

DSLReports does a fantastic job of keeping these companies honest. You can accuse DSLR of being biased, but define what biased really is. Give exact stories covered and factual errors made. Karl usually backs up most of what he writes with external factual references.

No, I think what bothers SOME people (mostly in the industry) is that Karl is one of the last outlets consistently shining a big bad hologen-bright light on all the unseemly practices this nations ISP's perpetrate seemingly unendingly. Simply because they can.

Limited competition & bought-and-paid for lawmakers on the ISP's side.... if Karl wanted to, he could sell out and live a comfortable life, yet he and his group toil on providing this invaluable service at DSLR because he actually cares. He's a truly heroic principled American, and I truly appreciate all he does to help save the Internet from being totally destroyed by corporate interests.

Thank you Karl for all the hard work you do! I appreciate it greatly, and know many others do as well!


cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9
reply to chgo_man99

I can compare "has service" with "does not have service."

AT&T is very careful with their marketing BS... "covering more PEOPLE"... AT&T targets high density population centers where they can make more money with less effort. Verizon covers more area, meaning when I step 5 feet outside a major city, my phone still works.


cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9
reply to dmxrob6

You're giving a lot of credit to AT&T for doing what they are required by stacks of laws to do. Voice (POTS) is very regulated. They cannot simply throw their hands up and call it a day leaving you with broken phone service. If new trunk cable is what it takes, then that's what they have to do; and they cannot charge you for it.

DSL tends to work for ever as long as it's left alone. It's when people go messing with stuff that it goes horribly wrong. (unless you live in a lightning prone area.)

Caps are wrong -- period. You should let AT&T know that by ceasing to do business with them. Luckily, I live in an area where I have choices. (cable, covad, clearwire...)


stridr69

join:2003-05-19
San Luis Obispo, CA
reply to nishiko7

+1


BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH
reply to BiggA

@BF69: $25 instead of $30. That's $60/year I save, and I still get such a large quantity of data (for a phone) that I don't have to worry about going over.

@dmxrob6: There is absolutely no excuse for the caps on a DSL type service, and I think that DSLReports' criticism of AT&T for not laying FTTH like Verizon is well warranted.

What I'm mad about is the constant AT&T bashing on the wireless side. This whole "unreliable network" thing is based on some teething problems with 3G, especially in San Francsico and NYC. The other 99% of the country was just fine all along, and they have come a long way in urban areas.

@nishko7: The constant network bashing is false, and annoying. That, and criticizing the AT&T&T acquisition is unwarranted, as this is going to be a FANTASTIC network that will stimulate competition by throwing the AT&T-Verizon duopoly totally out of balance.

I appreciate DSLR's coerage of the wireline side, which is pretty much correct, but the baseless AT&T bashing on the wireless side gets annoying because it's simply disconnected with reality. If I wasn't an actual AT&T customer, who uses AT&T wireless as his only phone connection, I would think AT&T sucked. Well, I actually have AT&T, so I know that it rocks, has insane coverage, insane speed, and I'm guaranteed to have no overages with a zillion Rollover minutes, UL texting, and 2GB of data.

@Cramer: You are describing T-Mobile and to a certain extent, Sprint. AT&T has excellent nationwide coverage. There are areas that Verizon has better coverage than AT&T, but there are also areas where AT&T has service and Verizon doesn't. I've used my AT&T phone to tether EDGE in northern Michigan where there's very limited land-based broadband, and with regular service in the Lakes Region New Hampshire, Snowshoe, West Virginia (where AT&T is the only carrier that gets a signal at all), throughout Kentucky, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and New England.


chgo_man99

join:2010-01-01
San Jose, CA
reply to cramer

There are some areas where Verizon has poor or no signal and ATT gets. And vice-versa. Both Verizon and ATT are rip-offs.

ATT also covers a lot of area. It may not have coverage everywhere where Verizon does but it still has very big coverage.

And you can't blame them for not having 3G in a town of 3000 people. They are business and are to make money, not loose them. Its simple principles of economy.

Verizon got away with upgrading more places to "3G" because they could do mostly just software upgrade and perhaps just more T1 backhaul. 3G GSM (T-Mobile, AT&T) on other hand requires new equipment. It uses different technology and different spectrum. It costs a lot of money.

Now Verizon rolls out LTE and it will take a while to roll out everywhere. Notice their 4G coverage is not very big for now.


BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH

All of the big cell carriers, T-Mo and Sprint are involved in the same dishonest tactics with overage billing, roaming, etc.

However, the overall prices are quite reasonable for the sheer scale of the huge networks and the coverage they offer.

AT&T is the best value out there, as you get almost-Verizon coverage, Rollover minutes, cheaper data, and their upgrade policy is slightly better than Verizon, and you can SIM swap to you heart's content.

Verizon is on a fast track to roll out 4G, as EVDO Rev.A just isn't that fast, and doesn't have that much capacity.

Because of the nature of EVDO and CDMA being two separate networks, whereas AT&T has both voice and data on the same UMTS system, AT&T's data woes affected their calls for a while in some locations, whereas Verizon's network is slowing down on the data side, but texts and voice calls are totally unaffected.



JimThePCGuy
Formerly known as schja01.
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-27
Morton Grove, IL
reply to BiggA

Where can I get some of that AT&T Cool-Aid you're drinking?
J


BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH

I have AT&T. There's no Cool-Aid.


FreddyMacG

join:2011-03-25
Alden, IL
reply to BiggA

Wait what? This is absolutely.. WRONG.

1.) AT&T is the best value? What the hell are you smoking? Sprint wins this category by FAR.

2.) EVDO Rev A isn't very fast, sure, but it does have more capacity than any GSM based data transfer technology. (Which is GPRS)

3.) EVDO is a CDMA standard, not separate. AT&T is using separate networks, as UMTS is a CDMA techonolgy. (Google it.) Furthermore, the reason why CDMA EVDO suffers slowdowns during heavy use of the network is simply the better traffic management protocols inherent in CDMA itself. Voice always get's priority over data with CDMA.

For more information go here:

»www.androidhelpers.com/index.php?topic=310.0


BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH

1. Yes. Sprint is not a good VALUE, it is CHEAP. There's a big difference. Sprint has much more limited coverage than AT&T. Soon as you go away from a highway or populated area, you're in a Sprint dead zone. AT&T has nearly continuous coverage, although admittedly Verizon is a little bit better in this area.

2. AT&T now uses HSPA+, not GPRS. GPRS is a dial-up equivalent.

3. EVDO operates in a SEPARATE chunk of spectrum from CDMA. As a result, the two networks cannot degrade each other, only their own network. AT&T's UMTS/HSPA+ system has a 10mhz channel which can be used for either voice or data, and re-allocated on the fly. AT&T's more modern system theoretically offers the best service on both, but that's not always the case in reality. I'm well aware that UMTS is based on the concept of CDMA, but it NOT the CDMA standard, it's just based on code division, as are all modern cellular networks (only GSM is based on time division). Voice gets priority over data because they operate in totally separate chunks of spectrum. Verizon was also able to roll out EVDO quickly, since it is an add-on for the CDMA network, and it only need 2.5mhz channels to get set up, unlike AT&T's complete 3G system which requires 10mh channels to get set up. Each has it's advantages and disadvantages, but at this point, EVDO is hitting the end of the line, which is why Verizon is rapidly rolling out LTE.

It's funny how I remember it like yesterday that PC Magazine tested the first PCMCIA EVDO card, and it incredible because it was the first cellular data card that hit 1 megabit, and it was incredibly amazing and awesome.



Anon_Nona

@rr.com
reply to BiggA

quote:
coverage-disadvantaged T-Mobile
Compared to what ATT? Which has some of the worst service in the nation? No ATT caller can even make a call from my house in the city.

My T-Mobile cell service has been flawless in most western states (vacationed all over) including some national parks and forests where I wouldn't expect any service at all...

BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH

T-Mobile has GPRS in many areas, their 3G/4G footprint is tiny, and in many more areas, they simply have no coverage AT ALL.

AT&T is second only to Verizon, and in some cases ahead. AT&T's is EDGE-heavy, whereas Verizon is 100% 3G, but EDGE is good enough to get online and get information for traveling.