How Exactly Will AT&T Remain Competitive?

[GSMinCT]

I suspect this is the beginning of minimizing GSM spectrum nationwide to either 5mhz (CLR markets) or 10mhz (PCS markets). I wonder if NYC area goes up to Fairfield County in Connecticut, as Stamford down has severe congestion.

My guess is they are pushing people who have EDGE smartphones off completely, since they are using a lot more spectrum capacity than voice/text users. A LOT of light usage voice/text users can fit on 5mhz, not so much for older Crackberries.

And what the heck is a 1900mhz-only phone? I'm pretty sure it would have to be an ex T-Mobile unlocked one or and import or something, as I'm pretty sure every phone they (Cingular) or AT&T Wireless (now unlocked??) has sold would have the 850mhz band in it. So that's like 5 people in NYC who will lose service, and millions who will get better 3G. Sounds like a deal to me.

They should also give deep discounts (with a new contract) to Android users who upgrade to an LTE device, as that would help them in NYC as well by moving people off of HSPA+ on the other end of things.

[zephxiii]

I think there may have been some really really early AT&T 1900mhz GSM phones. There were a number of international phones that didn't have 850mhz GSM as well.

AT&T kinda already provides a couple of discount LTE phones There is a Pantech Burst that goes for 50, the new Lumia is going to be 100 etc.

[GSMinCT]

I think there may have been some really really early AT&T 1900mhz GSM phones. There were a number of international phones that didn't have 850mhz GSM as well.

AT&T kinda already provides a couple of discount LTE phones There is a Pantech Burst that goes for 50, the new Lumia is going to be 100 etc.

I guess. I was just thinking of additional incentives like they did at first for the Vivid and the Skyrocket for markets where they are crunched.

Those much be freaking ancient. I'm assuming you mean Cingular, since the AT&T Wireless system was finally shut down last year?

[mpossoff]

I think there may have been some really really early AT&T 1900mhz GSM phones. There were a number of international phones that didn't have 850mhz GSM as well.

AT&T kinda already provides a couple of discount LTE phones There is a Pantech Burst that goes for 50, the new Lumia is going to be 100 etc.

Do you think AT&T can and will stay competitive with VZW in LTE? I'm getting a little impatient.

[Guest 214]

Do you think AT&T can and will stay competitive with VZW in LTE? I'm getting a little impatient.

Can they? Yes, if they really wanted too... They likely had a pretty comprehensive plan about what to do when they thought the T-Mobile deal was going through, but now they are having to start over again.

If you look at their LTE network now, and their expansion vs. Verizon's LTE then they clearly aren't competitive at all in that manner. Right now they are relying on marketing fluff and HSPA+ to stay competitive with Verizon and are not pushing LTE hard at all.

If HSPA+ is working for you then I wouldn't worry too much, but if you need or want a vast and competitive LTE network then Verizon is the only one expanding very quickly.

[ilvla2]

USCC is expanding LTE fairly rapidly in their markets as well, though we most likely won't see it from them here in NorCal until 2013.

[GSMinCT]

Do you think AT&T can and will stay competitive with VZW in LTE? I'm getting a little impatient.

With T-Mobile they had a shot, without I don't think so. In urban areas, yes I think they will stay competitive, at least until their network runs out of capacity again. At least they do have more sites than Verizon to make up for their spectrum position. I also suspect a Clearwire deal coming soon, as that's cheaper than building more sites, and Clearwire LTE in the urban core combined with AT&T's nationwide network would be absolutely killer.

I don't know if they need to have LTE nationwide. I think they need some sort of "4G". HSPA+ is plenty sufficient for a lot of places that aren't dense urban or suburban, even if the speed tests aren't quite as awesome.

What I'm really concerned about is their spectrum position, network congestion, reliability and their continued reliance on EDGE. Supposedly, they are going mostly- or all-3G this year, we'll see how that one pans out.

The marketing may also kill them on LTE, as they don't have the spectrum to match Verizon's LTE coverage, which by the end of 2013 will be over 100% of their network (LTE in Rural America), and in the upper 90's % POPs.

They are also running 3 networks, where Verizon is running 2. Verizon also has 100% greenfield spectrum to deploy on, whereas AT&T is going to have to re-farm sooner or later.

AT&T is doing well now, but their longer-term success is rather shaky.

[Trocks797]

With T-Mobile they had a shot, without I don't think so. In urban areas, yes I think they will stay competitive, at least until their network runs out of capacity again. At least they do have more sites than Verizon to make up for their spectrum position. I also suspect a Clearwire deal coming soon, as that's cheaper than building more sites, and Clearwire LTE in the urban core combined with AT&T's nationwide network would be absolutely killer.

I don't know if they need to have LTE nationwide. I think they need some sort of "4G". HSPA+ is plenty sufficient for a lot of places that aren't dense urban or suburban, even if the speed tests aren't quite as awesome.

What I'm really concerned about is their spectrum position, network congestion, reliability and their continued reliance on EDGE. Supposedly, they are going mostly- or all-3G this year, we'll see how that one pans out.

The marketing may also kill them on LTE, as they don't have the spectrum to match Verizon's LTE coverage, which by the end of 2013 will be over 100% of their network (LTE in Rural America), and in the upper 90's % POPs.

They are also running 3 networks, where Verizon is running 2. Verizon also has 100% greenfield spectrum to deploy on, whereas AT&T is going to have to re-farm sooner or later.

AT&T is doing well now, but their longer-term success is rather shaky.

Agreed. AT&T needs to focus on what they have right now: congestion problems, reliability problems, and too much EDGE! I think a perfect 2012 for AT&T will be lighting up 20-30 more LTE cities, fixing existing problem areas and and finishing their HSPA+ rollout to 100% of their EDGE. If they can do that, then 2013 can be all about LTE, which also gives them more time to find spectrum/cut deals.

FWIW, according to Newyork4me, in Verizon's most recent FCC filing, they indicate they will have 100% of their EVDO covered by mid-2013, moving their original date up by ~6 months. Who knows...

[ilvla2]

Agreed. AT&T needs to focus on what they have right now: congestion problems, reliability problems, and too much EDGE! I think a perfect 2012 for AT&T will be lighting up 20-30 more LTE cities, fixing existing problem areas and and finishing their HSPA+ rollout to 100% of their EDGE. If they can do that, then 2013 can be all about LTE, which also gives them more time to find spectrum/cut deals.

FWIW, according to Newyork4me, in Verizon's most recent FCC filing, they indicate they will have 100% of their EVDO covered by mid-2013, moving their original date up by ~6 months. Who knows...

I'm not having any issues with AT&T here, in fact, I'm getting 8-10 Mbps down, calls are clear and no problems with drops. They have been very aggressive in their rollout of 3G and HSPA+ here, a HUGE turnaround from just a couple of years ago back to the Edge Wireless merger in 2008. However, I will admit they still have SERIOUS problems in places like the Bay Area and NYC.

[Guest 214]

I'm not having any issues with AT&T here, in fact, I'm getting 8-10 Mbps down, calls are clear and no problems with drops. They have been very aggressive in their rollout of 3G and HSPA+ here, a HUGE turnaround from just a couple of years ago back to the Edge Wireless merger in 2008. However, I will admit they still have SERIOUS problems in places like the Bay Area and NYC.

The majority of AT&T's problems are in hugely overpopulated area's, like Bay area and NYC and Atlanta, and so forth. I actually have great rural speeds like you, its only in the city where its slow and thats where LTE comes in the play for the urban areas.

[ilvla2]

The majority of AT&T's problems are in hugely overpopulated area's, like Bay area and NYC and Atlanta, and so forth. I actually have great rural speeds like you, its only in the city where its slow and thats where LTE comes in the play for the urban areas.

Agreed and agreed!

[Jordan T]

Here in Montana, AT&T's network performance and coverage is just light years ahead of Verizon. It's like comparing a Model T (Verizon) to a Ferrari (AT&T).

[ilvla2]

Here in Montana, AT&T's network performance and coverage is just light years ahead of Verizon. It's like comparing a Model T (Verizon) to a Ferrari (AT&T).

Not in all of Montana, no one carrier dominates an entire state.

[Jordan T]

True, there is the tiny portion where almost no one lives that Verizon had no service before and thus was allowed to keep Alltel.

[zephxiii]

Yea AT&T pretty much works pretty good where I have gone. There were some slow spots in the DC area...other than that I've been pleased.