dslreports logo
 story category
AT&T Wireless Is Simply Exploding
Carrier is very quickly catching up to Verizon Wireless

AT&T has announced their fourth quarter earnings, indicating that they saw $3.02 billion in net income on the quarter, up from $2.4 billion last year. As with Verizon, wireless growth continues to explode, the carrier adding 2.7 million wireless subscribers on the quarter, bringing AT&T's wireless subscriber total to 85.1 million. Despite consistently falling toward the bottom of most wireless customer satisfaction surveys, AT&T continues to see the lowest churn (customer defection) rates in the industry, which may speak more to iPhone exclusivity and long term contracts than it does to service and support quality.

Click for full size
Still, AT&T's wireless growth is very impressive, and the carrier is quickly catching up to Verizon (91.2 million subscribers, 1.2 million new customers last quarter). Last year saw AT&T add 7.3 million net subscribers, compared to Verizon's 4.6 million. More subscribers means more money, and AT&T's wireless data revenue blossomed 26.3 percent in the fourth quarter to $3.9 billion.

As for complaints of AT&T's 3G network performance, the carrier continues to insist they're doing everything in their power to resolve congestion and coverage issues. "Our leadership in mobile broadband will continue to set us apart as we roll out even faster 3G speeds this year and begin deploying 4G capabilities in 2011," insists AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson.

The carrier's investor presentation included slides (above) claiming they've made huge quality progress in markets like New York and San Francisco. After taking heat in 2009 for not putting enough of their surging revenues back into the network, the carrier says they'll boost CAPEX for 2010 (to between $18 billion and $19 billion), including $2 billion for additional backhaul.

On the wireline front, AT&T says they've added 248,000 U-Verse TV subscribers, and now serve 2.1 million U-Verse customers. Like Verizon, AT&T is slowly bleeding traditional DSL subscribers and copper-based phone customers, many of whom are in un-upgraded markets and are flocking to cable bundles. Still, U-Verse's growth offset these losses. Including Laptop Connect, 3G, DSL and U-Verse customers, AT&T serves 17.3 million broadband subscribers.
view:
topics flat nest 
page: 1 · 2 · next

Jim Gurd
Premium Member
join:2000-07-08
Livonia, MI

Jim Gurd

Premium Member

Happy with service

I have been a customer since 2003 and am quite happy with my service. I'm grandfathered on a great rate plan and have no desire to change. The service works wherever I go with no problem. Verizon is horribly expensive compared to everyone else. Why would I switch to them?

I also just switched to AT&T for DSL from Comcast. I'm paying $35 per month for a dry loop 6 Mb DSL service. That's over $10 less than Comcast was charging and doesn't include the savings I get from dropping TV service entirely and going OTA only.

In this economy I need to save money wherever I can and so far AT&T has been offering more value to me than their competitors.

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT

ptrowski

Premium Member

Re: Happy with service

Same here. I have been with them from the Southwestern Bell days when I lived in TX, then Cingular now AT&T. Recently I learned that I can get a 6% discount from work for Verizon. I called up the cancellation laine to inquire about by ETF's. The lady was very polite, asked me why I was leaving. I explained to her that something similar with VZ would be about $20 cheaper. We lowered my plan down to the next tier down and she then added 100 bonus minutes per line that got me very close to the other tier. She also added 1000 rollover minutes into the bank for me.

Z80A
Premium Member
join:2009-11-23

Z80A to Jim Gurd

Premium Member

to Jim Gurd
Ditto. After going through horrible coverage with Sprint/Netxtel and then an endless billing nightmare with VW I've been very content with Cingular/ATTW.

Given I only travel to major cities, I don't have any problems of 3G coverage. Frankly I couldn't care less if I could get 3G in Montana (or course MT residents would).
nitrous9200
join:2007-11-29
Rye, NY

nitrous9200 to Jim Gurd

Member

to Jim Gurd
I acknowledge that everyone has a different monthly rate plan and lives in a different area meaning YMMV, but for my family plan, ATT and Verizon's prices are within a cent of each other but the VZW service is simply superior (plus a discount bundling it with fios). I can't even make phone calls indoors on ATT phones with 5 bars of 3G, yet my phone can. I also love looking at the iPhone's signal strength meter in this area too - without moving the phone, it will stay at 3 bars of 3G, drop down to no bars, lose the 3G icon and then switch between Searching and No Service for a minute before starting the process all over again. More bars in more places? Doesn't matter if those bars don't mean a thing when actually trying to make a call. It may very well be because the NYC metro area is very highly populated, but that doesn't mean the network shouldn't actually work. Many other people that I know have switched from iPhones to VZW Blackberries for the same reason, the ATT service is simply terrible.
BlakePaulson
join:2008-08-06
Alexandria, MN

BlakePaulson

Member

Re: Happy with service

said by nitrous9200:

I acknowledge that everyone has a different monthly rate plan and lives in a different area meaning YMMV, but for my family plan, ATT and Verizon's prices are within a cent of each other but the VZW service is simply superior (plus a discount bundling it with fios). I can't even make phone calls indoors on ATT phones with 5 bars of 3G, yet my phone can. I also love looking at the iPhone's signal strength meter in this area too - without moving the phone, it will stay at 3 bars of 3G, drop down to no bars, lose the 3G icon and then switch between Searching and No Service for a minute before starting the process all over again. More bars in more places? Doesn't matter if those bars don't mean a thing when actually trying to make a call. It may very well be because the NYC metro area is very highly populated, but that doesn't mean the network shouldn't actually work. Many other people that I know have switched from iPhones to VZW Blackberries for the same reason, the ATT service is simply terrible.
It all depends on the area. My cell service is amazing when I'm at home or go to the Twin Cities (in MN) as I've got 3G all along the interstate, however if I head to my parents home I have no service in a 30 mile radius.

Verizon does a much better job of covering large areas whereas AT&T covers only highly populated areas.
nitrous9200
join:2007-11-29
Rye, NY

nitrous9200

Member

Re: Happy with service

So there's the problem, ATT's coverage is fine in big cities but not out in less populated places (not to say VZW has perfect coverage but overall it covers more area than att - at least 3g). Even if there's coverage, ATT's service still seems overloaded in New York with all the dropped calls.

george999
@rcn.com

george999

Anon

att catching up sorta

vzw has 91 million users not 87.5 million
budone
join:2002-09-07
Coopersville, MI

budone

Member

Re: att catching up sorta

The article states Verizon has 91.2 million subs
bdon78
I didn't do it
join:2009-05-18
Decatur, GA

bdon78

Member

Happy as well

I too am a happy AT&T customer for the last 4 years. I consistently see issues others encounter with their service, but this differs greatly from my experience. I have the full AT&T suite, Uverse (voice,internet,tv) and mobile.

Despite all the news about AT&T network, I personally wonder if Verizon's network would perform as well if they had a 5000% (not a typo) increase in data usage on their wireless network. Of course, I am fortunate and live in a major metro area, so "the map" arguement doesn't in anyway affect me. I always have access to 3G signal.

Gbcue
Premium Member
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA

Gbcue

Premium Member

With that $3.02....

With that $3.02 billion, how much did they spend on CAPEX?
93388818 (banned)
It's cool, I'm takin it back
join:2000-03-14
Dallas, TX

93388818 (banned)

Member

Re: With that $3.02....

said by Gbcue:

With that $3.02 billion, how much did they spend on CAPEX?
Revenue != Profit.

Gbcue
Premium Member
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA

Gbcue

Premium Member

Re: With that $3.02....

said by 93388818:

said by Gbcue:

With that $3.02 billion, how much did they spend on CAPEX?
Revenue != Profit.
Well, they sure as heck didn't lose money.
93388818 (banned)
It's cool, I'm takin it back
join:2000-03-14
Dallas, TX

93388818 (banned)

Member

Re: With that $3.02....

said by Gbcue:
said by 93388818:
said by Gbcue:

With that $3.02 billion, how much did they spend on CAPEX?
Revenue != Profit.
Well, they sure as heck didn't lose money.
No, I didn't mean to insinuate they did, but it's not like they had $3.02 billion come in and just added it to a stockpile of cash.
Zoder
join:2002-04-16
Miami, FL

Zoder

Member

Re: With that $3.02....

Actually that is the profit. Revenue was $30.9 billion
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

sonicmerlin to 93388818

Member

to 93388818
said by 93388818:

No, I didn't mean to insinuate they did, but it's not like they had $3.02 billion come in and just added it to a stockpile of cash.
Lol you nitwit. $3.02 billion is exactly how much profit they made. They made $12 billion in profit in 2008, triple the amount they made in 2005. They heavily scaled back on network investment out of pure greed.
93388818 (banned)
It's cool, I'm takin it back
join:2000-03-14
Dallas, TX

93388818 (banned)

Member

Re: With that $3.02....

said by sonicmerlin:
said by 93388818:

No, I didn't mean to insinuate they did, but it's not like they had $3.02 billion come in and just added it to a stockpile of cash.
Lol you nitwit. $3.02 billion is exactly how much profit they made. They made $12 billion in profit in 2008, triple the amount they made in 2005. They heavily scaled back on network investment out of pure greed.
Sorry all. Reading is fundamental. Mostly Mental.

What I was referring to was this blurb from the article.
said by Blurb:

More subscribers means more money, and AT&T's wireless data revenue blossomed 26.3 percent in the fourth quarter to $3.9 billion.
I mistook the original comment by Gbcue See Profile referencing $3.02 billion and mixed it up with the blurb saying 4th qtr wireless data revenue was $3.9 billion.

My mistake.
Platinum0
join:2003-05-23
Knoxville, TN

Platinum0

Member

Just force them to have data

I have AT&T but their monthly prices and network performance is terrible. I love how they force data on smartphones then they wonder why they have data congestion problems. I'm sure verizon will catch up with data subscribers since they recently started forcing data packages on smartphones also.
MRCUR
join:2007-03-09
Lancaster, PA

MRCUR

Member

Re: Just force them to have data

Keep in mind every carrier requires data at this point (I think). I'm positive VZW and AT&T do, but I'm pretty sure Sprint and T-Mo do as well.

heh
@sbc.com

1 recommendation

heh to Platinum0

Anon

to Platinum0
Because some moron would buy a smartphone without a data plan, and get a bill for $12301789. Then AT&T would get roasted for not forcing the customers into a data plan.

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

2 recommendations

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: Just force them to have data

said by heh :

Because some moron would buy a smartphone without a data plan, and get a bill for $12301789. Then AT&T would get roasted for not forcing the customers into a data plan.
You are right - that is the reason. But with almost all smartphones now supporting WiFi, the providers should let people buy voice only plans and disable data access over the 3G networks. All the smartphones with WiFi that I have seen have an option to turn OFF data access thru the cell network.

As a compromise, I would let them refuse to provide this voice only plan option to SUBSIDIZED smartphones. That is, bring your own unsubsidized full cost smartphone to the deal if you want a voice only plan.

Sabre
Di relung hatiku bernyanyi bidadari
join:2005-05-17

Sabre

Member

Re: Just force them to have data

That sounds like a pretty fair compromise. Shame I doubt it'll ever happen.
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

sonicmerlin to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

said by heh :

Because some moron would buy a smartphone without a data plan, and get a bill for $12301789. Then AT&T would get roasted for not forcing the customers into a data plan.
You are right - that is the reason. But with almost all smartphones now supporting WiFi, the providers should let people buy voice only plans and disable data access over the 3G networks. All the smartphones with WiFi that I have seen have an option to turn OFF data access thru the cell network.

As a compromise, I would let them refuse to provide this voice only plan option to SUBSIDIZED smartphones. That is, bring your own unsubsidized full cost smartphone to the deal if you want a voice only plan.
Or, how about they simply lower their absurdly high per MB charges to something more in line with reality? How about they also make the terms of their loans to people who go on 2 year contracts clear, and thus lower monthly rates for people who bring their own phone? You know, like the rest of the world does.

cousintim
join:2004-10-10
Dallas, TX

cousintim to Platinum0

Member

to Platinum0
said by Platinum0:

I have AT&T but their [...] network performance is terrible. [...] they have data congestion problems.
What kind of network congestion problems does AT&T have in Clarksville, TN?
Platinum0
join:2003-05-23
Knoxville, TN

Platinum0

Member

Re: Just force them to have data

At my college or everytime I travel to Nashville yo watch a game, since Nashville is only an hour away. Also you folks make it sound like AT&T cannot make money by charging me $65 plus taxes for voice and texting when boost and cricket somehow make money on $40-50 everything Included plans.
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

sonicmerlin

Member

Re: Just force them to have data

said by Platinum0:

At my college or everytime I travel to Nashville yo watch a game, since Nashville is only an hour away. Also you folks make it sound like AT&T cannot make money by charging me $65 plus taxes for voice and texting when boost and cricket somehow make money on $40-50 everything Included plans.
And boost and cricket pay AT&T and Verizon inasnely marked up prices for middle mile bandwidth.
Chaldo
join:2008-03-18
West Bloomfield, MI

Chaldo to Platinum0

Member

to Platinum0
said by Platinum0:

I have AT&T but their monthly prices and network performance is terrible. I love how they force data on smartphones then they wonder why they have data congestion problems. I'm sure verizon will catch up with data subscribers since they recently started forcing data packages on smartphones also.
AT&T was the last provider to require data on smartphones, verizon wireless did way in the beginning. Verizon just went a further step and required a data package with low caps on 99% of all their 3G devices (pretty much the only cool phones).
Sbin4Life
join:2009-01-17
Rogers, MN

Sbin4Life to Platinum0

Member

to Platinum0
You realize that verizon has been forcing customers into a data package for over a year now. Att just recently started a few months ago (execpt the iphone) you could get any smart phone with out data.
Chaldo
join:2008-03-18
West Bloomfield, MI

Chaldo

Member

Been with AT&T since 99, very satisfied.

The subject says it all, I rarely have issues, 3G here is great. When I do have issues there usually fixed within a day or two and that's rarely. I can always depend on my cell phone almost anywhere I go.

djrobx
Premium Member
join:2000-05-31
Reno, NV

djrobx

Premium Member

I'm generally happy with my AT&T service also.

Nobody else has coverage at my home. I've seen huge improvements in their network over the last couple years. The family voice plan we're on is a great value.

On the flipside, they're a company with deep pockets, they can afford to invest more of this "exploding" revenue back into their network. I'm happy to see them getting a collective kick in the pants from their competitors and customers.

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

en102

Member

Re: I'm generally happy with my AT&T service also.

Service is decent over on the other side of Valencia too.
They added a colo on Bouquet/Plum Canyon (AT&T CO) for coverage. No sure 'when' they'll have better service on Seco, but its supposed to be at that new Church on Copper Hill/Seco area.

XBL2009
------
join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL

XBL2009

Member

You guys are all shills for the company.

You guys are all shills for the company.

AT&T is overpriced and slow.

•••••••••••••••

rbrussell82
join:2003-04-19
Elgin, IL

rbrussell82

Member

Another happy customer

I've also been happy with them over the past 2 years. I know their 3G network isn't as big as Verizon's or Sprint's, but they're expanding it pretty fast. They finally got it where I live, although it doesn't usually work in my house unless I'm on the 3rd floor. I get full EDGE coverage though.

I don't like how they charge more for smartphone internet with no benefits. You have to pay even more if you want tethering, so why charge so much more for the same internet just because you have a smartphone? Hopefully once they fix the capacity issues that will change. I know everyone is doing it now, but hopefully someone will change that.

I have not gone anywhere where I've had 0 coverage. There's only a few known locations where I've dropped calls, so its a dead spot, and every carrier has those. Otherwise I haven't dropped any.

jeffro
join:2007-04-20
Cordova, TN

jeffro

Member

I'm happy too

I've had AT&T since 2007 and haven't really had any issues with them. I had Sprint before and they were just awful here. Also compared to Verizon in my area, AT&T wins. I just got my first phone with 3G (Blackberry Bold 9700). I've used a RAZR, BB Curve 8310 and my wifes phone which is the Nokia something or other and neither of us have ever had any coverage issues or dropped calls. We use the web on them a lot and have never had any problems.
Josimars
join:2001-04-24
Port Chester, NY

Josimars

Member

Roll over minutes

Roll over minutes is the one feature that keeps me with ATT. From att to cingular and back to ATT. Untill the other phone companies beat that. I won't switch why should I.

••••

huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ

huntml

Member

Add numbers are somewhat inflated.

The post fails to mention that a big portion of ATTM's adds for the quarter was prepaid, mostly their version of the Kindle, which brings in much lower unit revenue than a regular postpaid cellular line.

Actually, I think only about 900,000 of the 2.7M net adds were postpaid full-service lines.

Impressive numbers overall, but somewhat inflated by their introduction of the Kindle.

bent
and Inga
Premium Member
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO

bent

Premium Member

Regulation

It is a conflicted libertarian that calls for more regulation, but I think it's needed.

With wireless connections replacing landlines for most intents and purposes there needs to be more accountability for companies that offer these services that most of us have come to depend on. Things like collusion and price gouging (SMS rates?) are pretty apparent in the industry and benefit only the shareholders and execs, never the customer.
milkman82
join:2006-06-19
Cleveland, OH

milkman82

Member

Yeah... I must say AT&T has not been bad for me.

Their service has has always been good with the DSL. As for the wireless, it has started improving. Ever since they added that "Mark the Spot" app. I have been working at a house in Lakewood for six months. At first I was getting maybe 1 dropped call every two days. Once I started using that App about a month ago. My calls have been stable ever since!
hnd4me1
join:2009-02-14
Colton, NY

hnd4me1

Member

Att service is horrid!

had At&t for 2 years (long enough for my contract) and I ditched it running. I live in upstate NY Adirondack region. Coverage is spotty but At&t was just dead zone after dead zone. No 3g coverage till just a couple months ago and at that the outskirt towers have no 3g. Jumped to verizon and we pay approx. 20$ more for a total of 4 lines but it is so worth it. We get a bigger discount, at the time had 10 friends and family till att decided they should start adding it because their rollover mins are a joke, and coverage has never been better. Verizon has put up 3 towers in just the past two years, att NONE. I have coverage everywhere and phone calls are crystal clear even with 1x. Att drops calls with 1 bar and the calls sound like crap. The only reason att added all the new ppl is for their Iphone deal.
3g is a tad slower with verizon (~200k) but its nothing you will notice. What good is a cell phone anyways if you cant use it because of the stupid dead zones?! Verizon network is 3g everywhere and its a premium price but you will have coverage!
Ive also had my share of billing problems with both but it was easily taken care of. Service and support was great for both carriers but i have noticed ATT phones are heaps of crap and break all the time. I went through about 7 Razr v3i's. I also noticed that their phones will hang and only way to reset is pulling out the battery. Verizon phones work very well and if it hangs it will auto restart. plus Verizon offers backup assistant so all my contacts are stored in a remote location. Stupid sim cards are junk and Att would always tell me that's the problem with my phone and at times i would have to pay for it. Verizon is just much more secure, has best coverage, and it has tops in ratings for a reason!
majortom1029
join:2006-10-19
Medford, NY

majortom1029

Member

att actually lets apple manage

I think it all has to do with how att lets apple have a say.

Verizon does not like freedom. They disable features on phones and want their software on every phone.

I think it has more to do with att allowing apple to have a say then anything else. ATT allowed a new plan just for the ipad. I doubt verizon would have done that.

NYCdude69
@microsoft.com

NYCdude69

Anon

Voice Quality

How come voice quality still sucks in the US compared to European countries, even Russia. I remember reading somwhere that all US networks set the phone to half duplex, that is the reason voice quality is so poor.
When i travel abroad the voice quality on the same GSM phone is crystal clear, like landline to landline.

•••••••
BlakePaulson
join:2008-08-06
Alexandria, MN

BlakePaulson

Member

So/So

I don't have many gripes about my iPhone or AT&T in general.

I originally didn't have 3G in my hometown of Alexandria MN but going to the Twin Cities and whatnot all long the way I had 3G service (made streaming pandora delightful.)

We now have 3G in Alexandria MN and for about the first 3 months of having 3G it was horrible (didn't work worth a damn) but they've ironed out the kinks and it works great.

THE PROBLEM I HAVE is that when I go home (Granite Falls MN) I have no service. Tmobile, Verizon, and Sprint all have service in that location. Furthermore I didn't realize I was roaming and off-network and used data and am now blocked from ever using off-network data while I keep my contract. So because AT&T didn't bother to let me know when I was off network I now can no longer use off network data (I can still make calls and send and receive texts but I can't use the maps functions or anything of that Nature.)

Service is VERY spotty... AT&T may cover 230 million people with 3G and 297 million with Edge/Voice but if you're traveling in a car on a route that AT&T doesn't find profitable be prepared to lose signal and lose it often. I've never had a service where I've lost signal so often and am thinking I'll go back to Verizon if they ever offer the iPhone or hope and pray AT&T becomes a better wireless company.

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

1 recommendation

FFH5

Premium Member

iPad data demands could push AT&T over the edge

»news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld ··· pleatt3g
it is hard to imagine how AT&T will handle any additional influx in data demand on its already-faltering network. AT&T's issues with data speeds and 3G availability, and the finger-pointing as to whether AT&T or the iPhone itself is to blame have been a point of contention for months.

Assuming the iPad is even marginally successful, the additional strain on the AT&T 3G network could cripple it completely. iPhone users have higher than average data demands, but the device is still, first and foremost, a phone. With the iPad, the primary function will be Web-surfing and data consumption--lots of it.

Whether it is truly a sign of Apple's faith in AT&T, or more a reflection of Apple's unwillingness to embrace CDMA, AT&T lives to fight another day. However, both Apple and AT&T will suffer if AT&T doesn't start filling in that map with some stable and robust 3G connectivity.

With free Wi-Fi available virtually anywhere--including McDonald's which you can find on just about any street corner, I personally don't see the value in the 3G iPad at all. I can't see any point in paying more money to buy a 3G capable version, then paying an additional $30 a month for service on a network that is sparse and flaky as it is.

Just hook me up with the $499 Wi-Fi iPad and I won't even have to concern myself with AT&T's network woes.
We will just have to wait and see if all the additional data pushes AT&T's network over the edge.

•••

TMMerlin
The Devil made me do it
join:2003-06-19
Oxford, MI

TMMerlin

Member

I hate them all ....!!!


I would really like to have a "sleek new phone" ! But I will not be forced into paying $30/mo for data that I don't use. Besides having a full touch screen and sleek new standalone features .. a smartphone is not availible for me to buy because of the "forced" data purchase..

•••••
page: 1 · 2 · next