dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
AT&T LTE Now Available in 190 Markets
Still On Pace to Cover 300 Million People by End of 2014
by Karl Bode 08:33AM Tuesday Apr 30 2013
With the launch of six new markets last week (Flint, Michigan, Kokomo, Indiana, Morgantown, West Virginia, Petersburg, Virginia, Shelbyville, Kentucky and Springfield, Missouri), AT&T says that the company now offers faster LTE service in a total of 190 markets. AT&T continues to insist that they'll cover 300 million people with their LTE deployment by the end of 2014. Meanwhile, some of the markets AT&T had announced for a summer launch appear to be coming online ahead of scheduled as well. Chattanooga, for example, was slated for a summer launch but came online as of today.

view:
topics flat nest 

Gilitar

join:2012-02-01
Mobile, AL

That's great....

Now how about spending a few dollars on the wired side and upgrading the fiber to the curb systems left over from Bellsouth.

Mizzat
Will post for thumbs
Premium
join:2003-05-03
Atlanta, GA
kudos:1

Re: That's great....

Why would you when LTE has the capability to do over 500 Mbps? Aggregate your capacity to smaller areas (like cable does), but cheaper to deploy to the last mile. Work on latency and capacity, and there isn't even a reason to do wireline anymore.

It's all about spectrum at this point.

PapaMidnight

join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD

Re: That's great....

~500 Theoretical Mbps over wireless...
or
~1000 Real-world Mbps over fiber...

decisions, decisions...

(You're not wrong, but practicality is a factor too).

tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
kudos:1

Re: That's great....

said by PapaMidnight:

~500 Theoretical Mbps over wireless...
or
~1000 Real-world Mbps over fiber...

decisions, decisions...

(You're not wrong, but practicality is a factor too).

then lets take into considerations the cost per port to deliver 1000mbps to every customer on the loop.

q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..."

PapaMidnight

join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD

Re: That's great....

Likewise, let's take into consideration the equipment cost to manufacture, produce, and power equipment capable of broadcasting at 500Mbps with enough power capable of providing to all persons in a regional service area; and then make sure that the signal penetrates buildings far enough to provide service - then top it off with as low latency as technologically possible while attempting to mitigate as much packet loss as possible (as it is wireless).

Again, practicality.
en103

join:2011-05-02

Re: That's great....

Lets see...

FTTN/VDSL (current AT&T tech) - doesn't deliver +100Mbps/node, but can use existing tech for short range (few of blocks). Low cost to upgrade from POTS. Maintenance costs can eat up profits. Upgrades (VDSL, CPE) can cost. Only feasible in Urban/Suburban markets. Not all users are 'equal'

FTTH - Installation isn't cheap. Feasible in urban and some suburban markets. Relatively low maintenance costs (compared to FTTN/VDSL).

Wireless - Range = good, Deployment methods = good/relatively quick. Cost = mostly on spectrum licensing. Current bandwidth = limited. 2.6GHz may be needed for 'fixed wireless'. Low cost of maintenance compared to FTTN/FTTH. Wireless barriers cause users in no-man's land to not have decent service.

VDSL biggest downfall = EOL technology (POTS lines)
FTTH biggest downfall = Cost of deployment
Wireless biggest downfall = capacity

thender
Screen tycoon
Premium
join:2009-01-01
Brooklyn, NY
kudos:1
said by PapaMidnight:

with enough power capable of providing to all persons in a regional service area;

It doesn't have to cover everyone. It can cover most people, but advertise they cover everyone anyway. Or, advertise amazing coverage with an asterisk next to amazing that leads to font size 4 text on the bottom of the TV commercial saying "covers most people only."

said by PapaMidnight:

then top it off with as low latency as technologically possible while attempting to mitigate as much packet loss as possible (as it is wireless).

Wired internet provides benefits over wireless, such as superior latency - on average, and less chance for packet loss. However, as is evident with our current broadband options, people are used to being crapped on when it comes to latency. My time warner business class cable for $179/mo often has 250 ms ping times to Google that my Android phone could beat.

It costs a lot to provide "proper" service each way. Wireless is practical when you consider

a) The lack of competition

b) Low consumer expectations of broadband service

c) The ability to ADVERTISE a higher mbps number - which is what most people will care about.

It's not the RIGHT thing... but it is practical, when you consider the marketplace.
--
Macbook Screen Repair



Macbook LCDs for sale.

Mizzat
Will post for thumbs
Premium
join:2003-05-03
Atlanta, GA
kudos:1
said by PapaMidnight:

Likewise, let's take into consideration the equipment cost to manufacture, produce, and power equipment capable of broadcasting at 500Mbps with enough power capable of providing to all persons in a regional service area; and then make sure that the signal penetrates buildings far enough to provide service - then top it off with as low latency as technologically possible while attempting to mitigate as much packet loss as possible (as it is wireless).

Again, practicality.

A lot easier than trenching or hanging fiber! The equipment to light all that stuff up isn't cheap!

tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
kudos:1
said by PapaMidnight:

Likewise, let's take into consideration the equipment cost to manufacture, produce, and power equipment capable of broadcasting at 500Mbps with enough

sooo -- cell towers with new equipment?

yes -- there is a finite throughput in each cell spectrum -- but you can't compare a theoretical max on a cell tower to something that the isp will never provide from a cable end of things.

i'm not saying my comparison was 100% realistic -- but lets look at it this way (at least from what i see).

my $54.99 cable service is just as fast as my lte service from att (in the phoenix area).
excluding the caps -- they provide the same service. from this perspective -- it only makes sense to do wireless.

q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..."
Acarney

join:2003-01-27
Richland, WA
Anytime they do run new fiber they should install small cells along the way and leech some of the fiber capacity to roll LTE out at the same time. It wouldn't be ideal big capacity locations but you might be able to take a huge strain off a few localized towers by instead connecting to a small cell that just handles a few dozen users at once. Blazing fast speeds for those guys as well. Would consolidate the costs too if they're running above ground fiber & already have permits to install on poles...

Mizzat
Will post for thumbs
Premium
join:2003-05-03
Atlanta, GA
kudos:1
said by PapaMidnight:

~500 Theoretical Mbps over wireless...
or
~1000 Real-world Mbps over fiber...

decisions, decisions...

(You're not wrong, but practicality is a factor too).

Hey, I agree, 1Gbps would be nice and wireless would be hard pressed to get the latency of fiber, but if we're talking about practicality, from the practicality of a business standpoint, wireless just makes more sense.

From a consumer view, I'd love to have a insanely fast connection for the very times I'd use it just at home, but having an Internet connection I can take anywhere sounds nice too. Currently my phone does faster speeds than my 6Mbps DSL, so I can open that up and I'm essentially paying for two connections. Once latency and speed come closer to wireline (for me the speed is already there, however the congestion is too), it makes sense to just nix wireline.

I can see cable/DSL being the POTS of today in the not too distant future.

trparky
Apple... YUM
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:2
Ain't going to happen. Haven't you heard? AT&T is a wireless company. They are focusing on wireless and basically to hell with wireline.
--
Tom
Boycott AT&T uVerse! | Tom's Android Blog
kshusker

join:2009-10-12

Shelbyville AND Springfield?!

THat's great, but what about North Haverbrook??
en103

join:2011-05-02

Re: Shelbyville AND Springfield?!

Does that mean Bart Simpson has LTE

tigerpaw509

join:2011-01-19

Re: Shelbyville AND Springfield?!

Or are they claiming 3g with 4g like speeds as Lte ?

Crom

@comcast.net

Pointless

Come on guys. Even if AT&T can cover America 100% and then some, they are still going to impose caps at even high rates. Their rates/caps make home LTE internet unpractical as a land line alternative. 65 dollar monthly LTE caped at 10GB or DSL 3mb/s caped at 150GB? What's your flavor of pain?

RR Conductor
NWP RR Inc.,serving NW CA
Premium
join:2002-04-02
Redwood Valley, CA
kudos:1

Waiting on AT&T LTE in Mendocino and Lake Counties, CA.

Okay AT&T, push it north from Healdsburg into Mendocino and Lake Counties! We have LTE from Verizon, U.S. Cellular and Metro PCS now, we're just waiting on AT&T (HSPA and HSPA+ w/EB here), and of course T-Mobile (who is mostly EDGE here, with just a TINY bit of 3G/4G in Fort Bragg).