dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
563
share rss forum feed


tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1

1 edit

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.

--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara

Gdadkins

join:2009-05-11
Mantachie, MS

1 edit
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.

mobbo

join:2005-04-13
Denton, TX
reply 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.


tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1

1 edit
reply to Gdadkins
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.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara


MarkyD
Premium
join:2002-08-20
Oklahoma City, OK

1 recommendation

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.


gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall

join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
reply 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.
--
Let them eat FIBER!

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply 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.

ssavoy
Premium
join:2007-08-16
Dallas, PA

1 edit
reply to MarkyD
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.

Renthal

join:2005-10-16
West Lafayette, IN
reply to mobbo
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
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!


MarkyD
Premium
join:2002-08-20
Oklahoma City, OK
reply to ssavoy
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.


tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1

1 edit
reply to gaforces
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.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara