dslreports logo
 story category
AT&T Does Damage Control on Wireless Growth Claims
Includes Wi-Fi Offloading in Numbers to Keep Things Scary

"Data consumption right now is growing 40% a year," John Stankey of AT&T recently told investors, numbers confirmed by CEO Randall Stephenson on a recent investor call. That was a startling admission, given that those entirely-reasonable growth rates were a far cry from earlier predictions. AT&T lobbyists are very busy trying to scare politicians into making numerous poor wireless policy decisions based on the idea they face a disastrous capacity crisis, when in reality the company squats on oodles of spectrum, and any capacity constraints are due to their inefficient use of existing spectrum.

Click for full size
A number of people noticed our story and had been talking about how AT&T shot their own super-scary-predictions in the foot with their brief moment of accidental honesty, so the company did a little damage control this week. On the heels of a new Cisco study showing explosive growth (Cisco ignoring their incorrect earlier predictions), AT&T issued a blog post insisting that things were just as scary as always, with data on their wireless network doubling annually:
quote:
Running year-end numbers that show the same result as previous years is typically a sign of stability. But when the year-end numbers show a doubling of wireless data traffic from 2010 to 2011 – and you’ve seen at least a doubling every year since 2007 – the implications are profound. Over the past five years, AT&T’s wireless data traffic has grown 20,000%.
Amusingly, Tim Farrar at TMF Associates notes that in order to downplay their previously incorrect predictions and keep things scary, AT&T changed some of the definition of what they measured, bloating the numbers by including Wi-Fi offloading (including AT&T's massive hotspot network and home femtocells, which don't even consume cellular capacity):
quote:
...AT&T’s blog post is apparently obfuscating the issue by changing its definition from “mobile data” (in March 2011) to "wireless data” (in the current blog post). In other words, AT&T’s WiFi offloading (at Starbucks, Times Square, the Superbowl, etc.), which is helping to drastically reduce the growth of (on-network) "mobile data" traffic, is presumably now included in their statistics.
That's not to say spectrum isn't finite, or that AT&T isn't still seeing impressive growth, but it is to say that AT&T continues to play up the growth they're seeing because it's politically useful. Having politicians scurry to pass AT&T written anti-competitive laws because the nation's wireless networks will collapse if they don't -- makes for good motivation. It's also handy to have a national press believing the same thing, so when AT&T raises rates, or squats on spectrum to stop competitors from getting it -- the press can know it was necessary to save the universe. Capacity fear mongering is AT&T's way of justifying bad behavior and spectrum squatting.

Keep in mind AT&T never actually releases real network data because people could consistently see how full of crap they are and demand accountability. You'll recall that when AT&T imposed caps on their U-Verse and DSL customers they claimed it was due to network congestion, something the press mindlessly repeated without a shred of evidence -- while network engineers claimed congestion was minimal. When you over-state your resources as dangerously finite, you can more easily justify higher prices.

We recently noted how anyone proclaiming there's an unavoidable capacity crisis on modern networks is lying in order to sell something, and traffic predictions from Cisco, AT&T and the FCC all were recently shown to be over-inflated. Granted Cisco wants to sell more hardware, AT&T wants to scare the press and politicians into supporting anti-competitive policies, and the FCC wants to make money off of spectrum auctions, so there's not a high priority placed on accurate data on any front.
view:
topics flat nest 
firedrakes
join:2009-01-29
Arcadia, FL

1 recommendation

firedrakes

Member

thats att for you

they do love to lie alot
voipnpots
join:2011-10-13
USA

voipnpots

Member

Re: thats att for you

...and charge a lot.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

1 edit

FFH5 to firedrakes

Premium Member

to firedrakes
said by firedrakes:

they do love to lie alot

They didn't lie at all. Right in their blog entry they talk about it including their WiFi network. It isin't their fault if people can't read or understand the terms.
»www.attinnovationspace.c ··· 185975=1

Only thing out of sorts here is Tim Farrar at TMF Associates who proceeds to knock down a strawman he set up. AT&T never claimed in the blog post these numbers were the same as cellphone data numbers. He accuses AT&T of trying to deceive everyone (without any proof) and then attacks AT&T for trying to fool him.

Alex J
@ecatel.net

Alex J

Anon

Re: thats att for you

You're the one not reading that after admitting growth was slower than they had predicted, they included Wi-Fi to keep the numbers high.

Metatron2008
You're it
Premium Member
join:2008-09-02
united state

Metatron2008

Premium Member

Re: thats att for you

Well it isn't lying, it's just marketing doublespeak meant to fool users who aren't very knowledgeable on the subject. It's the same as talking really fast while having the details in ultra small print.

unforgiven
@myvzw.com

unforgiven

Anon

Re: thats att for you

Sorry, but doublespeak is lying. But I do agree, they lie in order to fool the ignorant and the stupid alike.

nycnetwork
join:2000-11-12
Brooklyn, NY

nycnetwork to Alex J

Member

to Alex J
Wait, so AT&T is claiming that increased smartphone sales trigger huge growth in wireless data... wait... didn't they sell those phones, collected money, and are also getting monthly at least $70+ per pop ?
WTF?! Where did that money go? Did they use any of that for network upgrades or those corporate pigs are pocketing it alowng with our $36 upgrade fees? Why not predicting issues, upgrading it accordingly and in advance or if they can't accept more subscribers, STOP OFFERING SUBSCRIPTIONS!!!!
If they can't provide me with the service I signed up for, and I kept using my phone the same way as two years ago, then I want my money back, and no ETF.
WTF?! GREED MUCH?!
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned) to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
you can't count wi-fi. My smartphone has wi-fi I use that instead of my data so I don't use up all my data allotment and go over. If I had to rely on cell data only I would use less.

Metatron2008
You're it
Premium Member
join:2008-09-02
united state

Metatron2008 to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
Well it is deceitful, as it's clearly marketing doublespeak. In the same breath, keeping up with how fast things are going up in use with both cell phone and wifi would be a good thing, as you can build out (at&t build out, LOL) with that in mind. However, this piece gives no distinction on the two, and I would have to agree with the article, no matter how slanted it is, that this is a deceitful articule written to gain support from dumb politicians.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: thats att for you

said by Metatron2008:

Well it is deceitful, as it's clearly marketing doublespeak. In the same breath, keeping up with how fast things are going up in use with both cell phone and wifi would be a good thing, as you can build out (at&t build out, LOL) with that in mind. However, this piece gives no distinction on the two, and I would have to agree with the article, no matter how slanted it is, that this is a deceitful articule written to gain support from dumb politicians.

The whole reason for the existence of marketing departments is to put lipstick on a pig. Politicians are in the same exact business. I truly doubt any politicians are fooled by things put out by marketing departments.

elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO

elios

Member

Re: thats att for you

they dont have to be
but they will say any thing you want them to for the right price

Metatron2008
You're it
Premium Member
join:2008-09-02
united state

Metatron2008 to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
Well yeah, bullshit articles without tons of cash under the table wouldn't fake a prostitute politician...
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

sonicmerlin to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

said by Metatron2008:

Well it is deceitful, as it's clearly marketing doublespeak. In the same breath, keeping up with how fast things are going up in use with both cell phone and wifi would be a good thing, as you can build out (at&t build out, LOL) with that in mind. However, this piece gives no distinction on the two, and I would have to agree with the article, no matter how slanted it is, that this is a deceitful articule written to gain support from dumb politicians.

The whole reason for the existence of marketing departments is to put lipstick on a pig. Politicians are in the same exact business. I truly doubt any politicians are fooled by things put out by marketing departments.

Well then you don't know how politics works. The politicians have almost nothing to do with the data or bills. They spend their time drumming up campaign support. It's their young and inexperienced staffers, often with very little knowledge or understanding of the intrinsic issues, who the lobbyists meet with and are "taught" the new data. Those staffers then make recommendations to their bosses. So AT&T has a vested interest to convey their position.

Thus AT&T doesn't obfuscate and lie for the fun of it. They do it because it gets results, in large part because our political system is utterly broken.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: thats att for you

said by sonicmerlin:

said by FFH5:

said by Metatron2008:

Well it is deceitful, as it's clearly marketing doublespeak. In the same breath, keeping up with how fast things are going up in use with both cell phone and wifi would be a good thing, as you can build out (at&t build out, LOL) with that in mind. However, this piece gives no distinction on the two, and I would have to agree with the article, no matter how slanted it is, that this is a deceitful articule written to gain support from dumb politicians.

The whole reason for the existence of marketing departments is to put lipstick on a pig. Politicians are in the same exact business. I truly doubt any politicians are fooled by things put out by marketing departments.

Well then you don't know how politics works. The politicians have almost nothing to do with the data or bills. They spend their time drumming up campaign support. It's their young and inexperienced staffers, often with very little knowledge or understanding of the intrinsic issues, who the lobbyists meet with and are "taught" the new data. Those staffers then make recommendations to their bosses. So AT&T has a vested interest to convey their position.

Thus AT&T doesn't obfuscate and lie for the fun of it. They do it because it gets results, in large part because our political system is utterly broken.

No I think the post previous to yours sums up the reality very well:
»Re: thats att for you

SimbaSeven
I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT
·StarLink

SimbaSeven to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

said by firedrakes:

they do love to lie alot

They didn't lie at all. Right in their blog entry they talk about it including their WiFi network. It isin't their fault if people can't read or understand the terms.
»www.attinnovationspace.c ··· 185975=1

Who gives a sh*t about 3G and 4G then when you can just offload your customers to WiFi?

Just convert all your customers to EDGE and when they want faster speeds, offload them to WiFi.

ITALIAN926
join:2003-08-16

1 recommendation

ITALIAN926 to firedrakes

Member

to firedrakes
How is it that if AT%T claims that data consumption is climbing 40% per year, its an exxageration, and is insignificant according to this website. If a study comes out that .05% people cut the cord this year, its a huge deal , and is headlines on this site twice a week? lol
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

sonicmerlin

Member

Re: thats att for you

said by ITALIAN926:

How is it that if AT%T claims that data consumption is climbing 40% per year, its an exxageration, and is insignificant according to this website. If a study comes out that .05% people cut the cord this year, its a huge deal , and is headlines on this site twice a week? lol

Technology advances. Landline growth has been growing 30% annually for the last decade, but bandwidth has grown cheaper even faster than consumption has increased. This is part of the reason capex has been steadily decreasing the last few years among the ISP monopolies/duopolies.

fuziwuzi
Not born yesterday
Premium Member
join:2005-07-01
Palm Springs, CA

fuziwuzi to firedrakes

Premium Member

to firedrakes
How can you tell when AT&T is lying? They exist. Today's AT&T was built on lies and deception, it is their lifeblood, their SOP.
NeoandGeo
join:2003-05-10
Harrison, TN

NeoandGeo

Member

.

I love reading these articles, while sensationalist, they offer the bare naked truth.
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT
·Frontier FiberOp..
Asus RT-AC68

1 recommendation

BiggA

Premium Member

Karl is at it again

Trying to propagate the lie that AT&T is a massive spectrum squatter (CLR and PCS are used for HSPA+, SMH and AWS will be used for LTE), and that their network would magically fix itself if it were somehow "managed" better, whatever that means. Maybe capping users off at 100MB? I'm sure he'd be real happy about THAT.

Alex J
@ecatel.net

Alex J

Anon

Re: Karl is at it again

AT&T is awful. They're spectrum squatters, anti-competitive, price gougers and suffer from the lowest customer satisfaction rates in the industry. They use bogus groups to bullhorn nonsense and they bribe Congress into passing protectionist crap law. There's a lot of lies out there, but AT&T being pretty disgusting is not among them...
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT

BiggA

Premium Member

Re: Karl is at it again

They don't squat on spectrum, they're not any worse than any other carrier. In fact here, they are the best.

Alex J
@jillyred.net

Alex J

Anon

Re: Karl is at it again

Yeah it's just quirky happenstance that all the spectrum is headed right into the pockets of AT&T and Verizon: »www.dailywireless.org/20 ··· carcity/
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned) to BiggA

Member

to BiggA
said by BiggA:

They don't squat on spectrum, they're not any worse than any other carrier. In fact here, they are the best.

yeah they are awesome. I love how they mandate a minimum $20 data on smartphones but only provides EDGE data in my area which tops out at 130 kbps. On the plus side I don't have to worry about going over my data limit since it so fucking slow.
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT
·Frontier FiberOp..
Asus RT-AC68

BiggA

Premium Member

Re: Karl is at it again

Then why don't you get a carrier that works? AT&T clearly isn't a good choice in your area. Verizon or a local carrier if they are around would be a better choice.

@WiWavelength: I call it like it is, regardless of who is impacts. If anyone wants to talk data in Manhattan, I'm gonna bash AT&T hardcore. Their network down there is a POS.

They are using all their CLR and PCS, and the SMH and AWS is for LTE. Do you think they would just purposefully not use spectrum when their network has capacity problems in some markets?

@bbeesley: Exactly. They would fall apart.

@sonicmerlin: No one else can afford to build out on the spectrum anyways. Verizon has enough, AT&T needs some more so that they can compete with Verizon.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25

Member

Re: Karl is at it again

said by BiggA:

They are using all their CLR and PCS, and the SMH and AWS is for LTE. Do you think they would just purposefully not use spectrum when their network has capacity problems in some markets?

Yes, it helps with their claim of a congested network which helps to justify their prices and "data management" practices.

The numbers are out there, do a little research and see how much they have and how much they actually use.
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT
·Frontier FiberOp..
Asus RT-AC68

BiggA

Premium Member

Re: Karl is at it again

Tell me what exactly they are squatting on? You make these claims with nothing to back them up. For example, in the NYC market, AT&T is listed with three PCS blocks, one CLR block, and two SMH blocks. The SMH blocks are in use for LTE (maybe one is, and one will be, not sure), the PCS and CLR is in use for UMTS and GSM.

In my neck of the woods, they have 1 CLR, four PCS (which they use for most HSPA+ traffic), and two SMH. The SMH will eventually be LTE. And what are they squatting on again?
WiWavelength
join:2011-11-16
Lawrence, KS

WiWavelength to BiggA

Member

to BiggA
said by BiggA:

They don't squat on spectrum, they're not any worse than any other carrier. In fact here, they are the best.

That you need to substantiate. Your repeated assertion is woefully insufficient proof. Show us some AT&T spectrum utilization data that you have compiled or from an independent source.

To quote Jim Calhoun, the blowhard basketball coach from your home state of Connecticut, "Get some facts! And come back and see me."

AJ

bbeesley
join:2003-08-07
Richardson, TX

bbeesley

Member

Re: Karl is at it again

said by WiWavelength:

That you need to substantiate. Your repeated assertion is woefully insufficient proof. Show us some AT&T spectrum utilization data that you have compiled or from an independent source.

That seems like a fair request...perhaps we can ask the same of Karl regarding his repeated assertions and references to his own editorials as proof that they are lying

Jason Hansel
@speakeasy.net

Jason Hansel

Anon

Re: Karl is at it again

To do this you'd need AT&T to reveal raw network data, and that's not going to happen for obvious reasons. AT&T is the one consistently claiming that an unmanageable spectrum and network capacity crisis requires regulation X, law Y, or acquisition Z, so the burden of proof is on their shoulders.
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

sonicmerlin to bbeesley

Member

to bbeesley
said by bbeesley:

said by WiWavelength:

That you need to substantiate. Your repeated assertion is woefully insufficient proof. Show us some AT&T spectrum utilization data that you have compiled or from an independent source.

That seems like a fair request...perhaps we can ask the same of Karl regarding his repeated assertions and references to his own editorials as proof that they are lying

Dude, AT&T and Verizon have all the money. They were the only ones who could afford the beachfront 700 MHz spectrum in the last auction, and now they're trying to bribe Congress into giving them the vast majority of the upcoming auction of 300 MHz of new spectrum.

AT&T spends more money lobbying Congress than any other corporation in the US.

T-Mobile has around 50 MHz of spectrum, Sprint a little more than that (not including Clearwire's junk 2.5 GHz). AT&T and Verizon own 100+ MHz, but the density of their towers is far, far less than European carriers. AT&T's own CEO admitted they massively underinvested in their network from 2007 onwards.

nothing00
join:2001-06-10
Centereach, NY

nothing00 to bbeesley

Member

to bbeesley
There are two ways to have more wireless capacity.

1. Get more spectrum.
2. Build more towers.

One of these is cheaper and has the advantage of denying capacity to your competitors. Guess which?

The "spectrum crunch" is all about the bottom line. It's not that we'll "run out" and be unable to provide service one day. Operators can still maintain healthy margins but they just always want to squeeze that extra 0.5% out... Or more than 0.5% when it comes to fleecing their customers.

•••
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

sonicmerlin to BiggA

Member

to BiggA
said by BiggA:

They don't squat on spectrum, they're not any worse than any other carrier. In fact here, they are the best.

AT&T is your mother, your father, your wife, and your deity. It's a little disturbing.

Paladin
Sage of the light
join:2001-08-17
Chester, IL

1 edit

Paladin to BiggA

Member

to BiggA
Read Kevin Fritchard's article on the Spectrum Crunch.

»gigaom.com/broadband/is- ··· -a-myth/

Stakey (AT&T's COO) also said data growth on cellular networks was 40% a year, a far cry from the crazy figure thrown out by Donovan that included anything and everything AT&T could throw in.
WiWavelength
join:2011-11-16
Lawrence, KS

WiWavelength to BiggA

Member

to BiggA
You accuse others of being "Sprint fanboys" when they reject what they perceive as your biased criticism of Sprint, yet you are always quick to jump in and deflect what you perceive as unfair accusations against AT&T. So, by your own standards of behavior, it must be fair to call you an "AT&T fanboy," correct? If not, then take a good look in the mirror, recognize your hypocritical actions, and admit that you, too, are operating on an agenda.

AJ
mocycler
Premium Member
join:2001-01-22

mocycler to BiggA

Premium Member

to BiggA
The statements Karl has been making on this website for years are not necessarily wrong or not credible.

The issue I have is that he is very one sided and passes off editorials as legitimate "news". It's the same old shit day after day: All big companies are bad and everything they do has an ulterior motive. It's boring and tiresome.

Not much going on in your life, is there Karl? You really need to get a hobby.

There's a reason why 99.999% of my activity here is in one of the social or General Question forums.

BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT
·Frontier FiberOp..
Asus RT-AC68

BiggA

Premium Member

Re: Karl is at it again

I'll give him credit for bringing up issues that no one else does, but the insane editorializing just seems to get worse and worse.

@nothing00: There's only so many places to put towers. Maybe that's AT&T's issue in NYC, since there are many places there, and they don't use towers, they use rooftop sites, but in general, there are a certain amount of towers to get on, and from there you need spectrum. The T-Mobile merger would have given them better spectrum synergy, and better site synergy, which would have added multiplicatively, but no, the FCC didn't want that logical and simple solution.
WernerSchutz
join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX

WernerSchutz to mocycler

Member

to mocycler
said by mocycler:

It's the same old shit day after day: All big companies are bad and everything they do has an ulterior motive. It's boring and tiresome.

But it is true. Funny how truth is boring to some.

Paladin
Sage of the light
join:2001-08-17
Chester, IL

Paladin to BiggA

Member

to BiggA
Read Kevin Fritchard's article on the Spectrum Crunch.

»gigaom.com/broadband/is- ··· -a-myth/

Stakey (AT&T's COO) also said data growth on cellular networks was 40% a year, a far cry from the crazy figure thrown out by Donovan that included anything and everything AT&T could throw in.
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT
·Frontier FiberOp..
Asus RT-AC68

BiggA

Premium Member

Re: Karl is at it again

That article has another ridiculous quote by Karl in it.

The issue is not that there isn't enough spectrum- there is. The issue is that it is horribly divided, cut up into a ton of tiny chunks that are whackily distributed through a long history of M&A, instead of being leased by the government in the first place.

If you accept the status quo of ownership, then T-Mobile should have actual ownership of their spectrum, and with that ownership, the right to sell it to whoever they want.

AT&T is the shortest on spectrum relative to number of customers of any carrier. Verizon managed to nab plenty of spectrum through the 700mhz auctions, as well as from SpectrumCo, and likely they will buy SpectrumCo's 700mhz at some point as well. The T-Mobile spectrum, while not as clean as Verizon's purchase of greenfield low-band, would have at least helped them immensely, partly through the spectrum synergy, but also by acquiring more cell sites, which would have provided more density and more efficient use of the current spectrum. But no, the FCC doesn't like efficient use of spectrum apparently.

delusion ftl
@comcast.net

delusion ftl

Anon

Always seemed strange to me

ATT has approx 100 million customers. The US does not have 100 million people in areas only populated by ATT/vzw signal. Why are users not flocking OFF ATT by the millions to more affordable and (apparently) less constrained service providers.
While the "coverage" red herring gets thrown around a lot and admittedly some users don't really have choice, the bulk of the 100 million would be just fine on other carriers. The 2 year price difference between ATT/VZW and the others (Sprint/Tmo) approaches 1000 dollars. For most of those 100 million 1000 dollars is significant.
Back in the old days when the iPhone was only on ATT and you could arguably make the case that it was the best device, I suppose there was some additional constraints, but it's been two years since even steve jobs himself recognized the iPhone as 2nd tier. And you can get the iPhone on a lower cost carrier (we'll ignore how it will bankrupt sprint over the 4 year contract).

•••

ritchblasi
@mycingular.net

ritchblasi

Anon

Wireless Growth Claims

Regardless of what stats are used the fact of the matter is that there is limited spectrum available to handle the content-rich applications and services used by mobile customers. This will continue to grow (pick a number out of the air) as it has on the wired side of the house -- meaning more peple will access video, and soon use the same mobile data networks for their voice calling (mVoIP or VoLTE) - think Skype and Google Voice. If you've ever used them on a 3G or the "so called" 4G networks, you can go through your data plans quickly because they are bandwidth hogs. That eats up spectrum. No matter whether it's AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile or Sprint, they all need spectrum and are all facing quality and capacity issues based on increased data usage. Numbers can be whatever anyone tells you - they can use them and mold them in any fashion they want. In reality, what it comes down to is the customers experience -- and that will change for the worse if more spectrum isn't made available through auctions.
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

sonicmerlin

Member

Re: Wireless Growth Claims

said by ritchblasi :

No matter whether it's AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile or Sprint, they all need spectrum and are all facing quality and capacity issues based on increased data usage.

Says who? Where's your evidence of this?

Have you ever used T-Mobile's HSPA+ 42 service? It's ridiculously fast. Or Verizon and AT&T's LTE? It beats out basic cable.

Or Sprint's Network Vision-renovated cell sites? 3G speeds are wonderful in those places.

Where is your evidence that we're facing a crunch?

Paladin
Sage of the light
join:2001-08-17
Chester, IL

Paladin

Member

Re: Wireless Growth Claims

Where is Karl's?
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY

tmc8080

Member

CANCEL

cancel your account now before you pay for service which sucks (aka throttled!)
40757180 (banned)
join:2009-11-01

40757180 (banned)

Member

Att/tmobile deal would have create & saved jobs, jobs, jobs

Everyone need to understand that if att/tmobile deal was approved it would have created jobs, jobs, jobs.

•••

SimbaSeven
I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT
·StarLink

SimbaSeven

Member

at&t destroys whatever they acquire

We've seen it here in Montana. Alltel was decent and reasonable. Their data rates were pretty good and coverage was awesome.

Here comes at&t. They buy the remaining Alltel areas from Verizon and completely screw it up. I had a comparison of Alltel's speeds and at&t's speeds here and I had a massive "WTF?!!?" moment.

More dropped calls than Alltel (I only had a couple dropped on Alltel in two years), worse data speeds I've ever soon (this is 3G???), and rather sh*tty customer service.

How, exactly, do you take a perfectly running service and completely screw it up? I wonder if they purposely did it. Why? Hell if I know.