How Exactly Will AT&T Remain Competitive?

**johnhere** · 05-30-2012, 10:45 PM

AT&T can easily remain competitive but they can't slack on lte. We all on here know that they have fast 3g speeds but the average consumer most likely goes by what the ads tell them and right now the ads are saying that vz has a lot more lte coverage and that can draw customers in.

**ilvla2** · 05-30-2012, 11:01 PM

Originally Posted by johnhere

AT&T can easily remain competitive but they can't slack on lte. We all on here know that they have fast 3g speeds but the average consumer most likely goes by what the ads tell them and right now the ads are saying that vz has a lot more lte coverage and that can draw customers in.

If they know what LTE is.

lol

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-li...zon-ad/1384573

If you watch carefully, LTE is simply a nice, cold glass of Orange Juice. LOL

**mush10** · 05-31-2012, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by johnhere

AT&T can easily remain competitive but they can't slack on lte.

To me this is key. I have been testing both Verizon's and AT&T's networks like crazy over the past month and they both have their positives and negatives. Where AT&T has LTE it holds up very admirably and in many places bests Verizon's LTE. That being said, AT&T's HSPA network is wildly inconsistent.

AT&T will not be able to compete if they decide they are sticking to a smaller LTE footprint and relying on HSPA in areas that are further out from the more populous ones. Once Verizon blankets the USA with LTE, which they are well on their way to doing, the gap between the two will be more noticeable. Perhaps HSPA will improve once GSM is shut down, but until then I need to see more. AT&T's HSPA network absolutely does not provide a consistent experience as it stands today. As a consumer, I will not settle for LTE in some places on AT&T and HSPA in others if Verizon is all LTE. Even on AT&T's network you can notice the consistency difference between their LTE and HSPA areas.

Obviously from reading people's opinions, different areas create different experiences. AT&T will remain a viable competitor regardless, but I do think they need to get ahead of the network curve at some point. If I had the speeds DRC posts all the time, I would probably be switching my main line over, but I just don't see it. So for now I am stuck with Verizon and slow updates, but better network consistency and speed in my area.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

**GSMinCT** · 06-01-2012, 09:03 AM

AT&T can compete with HSPA+ 21 with EB farther out, but they can't compete using EDGE like they have now.

**fraydog** · 06-01-2012, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by GSMinCT

AT&T can compete with HSPA+ 21 with EB farther out, but they can't compete using EDGE like they have now.

If capacity becomes an issue in any of the rural areas they need to be able to turn around to LTE quick, IMO.

**GSMinCT** · 06-01-2012, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by fraydog

If capacity becomes an issue in any of the rural areas they need to be able to turn around to LTE quick, IMO.

In areas that capacity is an issue, fine, but I've found some areas where EDGE is fine. At that point, HSPA+ will be more than enough, everyone on the site would be pulling 6+mbps if they put the backhaul in place.

**Trocks797** · 06-01-2012, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by GSMinCT

In areas that capacity is an issue, fine, but I've found some areas where EDGE is fine. At that point, HSPA+ will be more than enough, everyone on the site would be pulling 6+mbps if they put the backhaul in place.

But if they are going to sites that are currently EDGE, why not go ahead and do the LTE thing? They can kill 2 birds with one stone. They can't complain about not having enough backhaul because chances are Verizon has or wil soon have LTE there.

**fraydog** · 06-01-2012, 01:56 PM

There are so few people on AT&T where I live that EDGE is a pretty constant 200 Kbps. Capacity will not be an issue here. Coverage is. It has already been revealed a new tower for my area coming online soon. I'm guessing that's when they flip the switch to 4G for all of Chester.

I think of all the places I usually go here in town and there may be 1 or 2 that aren't yet filled in with HSPA+. I'd rather AT&T and Verizon work together to get another tower so that the coverage holes all carriers have here are filled in completely.

Out by the high school and Wal-Mart where they sell AT&T and Verizon devices, it's still EDGE, but most of the places tourists go like the Popeye Statue, the welcome center, the courthouse, and the other places on the river are all HSPA+.

Now with everyone on Verizon here EV-DO can, and does, slow down. I'm hoping for a move up on LTE upgrades by the end of 2012. For this to happen, VZ wants to run their own fiber and take everything off Frontier as Frontier here has set a deal to resell AT&T starting in a few months. I sense that's why VZ wants their own fiber run here.

**GSMinCT** · 06-01-2012, 06:06 PM

Trocks, LTE costs a lot more, and AT&T can market HSPA+21 as "4G". They need to work on coverage, not LTE everywhere, although that would be nice too.

**ggore** · 06-01-2012, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by GSMinCT

Trocks, LTE costs a lot more, and AT&T can market HSPA+21 as "4G". They need to work on coverage, not LTE everywhere, although that would be nice too.

Spending their time and money on deploying 700 and 800 Mhz LTE would do a LOT more towards expanding coverage area than putting in all new radios and antennas to upgrade from EDGE to 3G on 1800 or 2100 or whatever short-range frequencies they are using right now, letting that sit for 10 years and coming back to upgrade the 3G to HSPA+, letting that sit for another 10 years, then replacing all the radios and antennas to install LTE. By that time Verizon will have had the entire country covered with LTE for years and have moved on to LTE-AdvancedExcello10G. lol

**johnhere** · 06-01-2012, 07:27 PM

Yeah AT&T seems to be doing too much at the same time which slows things down

**fraydog** · 06-01-2012, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by ggore

Spending their time and money on deploying 700 and 800 Mhz LTE would do a LOT more towards expanding coverage area than putting in all new radios and antennas to upgrade from EDGE to 3G on 1800 or 2100 or whatever short-range frequencies they are using right now, letting that sit for 10 years and coming back to upgrade the 3G to HSPA+, letting that sit for another 10 years, then replacing all the radios and antennas to install LTE. By that time Verizon will have had the entire country covered with LTE for years and have moved on to LTE-AdvancedExcello10G. lol

Most rural areas where they deployed 3G they're using 850 for WCDMA. Most of the places in SE Missouri they're running that for HSPA+. Service works fine over there. I have tested it extensively. They can refarm 850 for LTE. 5x5 to start then 10x10. They're running HSPA+ 70 to 80 miles off the Interstate there. I've seen AT&T run things fine. They just need to spend the money to do what they did in SE Missouri everywhere.

I haven't played with it for a year but I may set up a One X and play around over there while keeping my primary line on VZW (still the iPhone, I dumped the Nexus.)

**ggore** · 06-02-2012, 08:50 AM

Originally Posted by fraydog

Most rural areas where they deployed 3G they're using 850 for WCDMA. Most of the places in SE Missouri they're running that for HSPA+. Service works fine over there. I have tested it extensively. They can refarm 850 for LTE. 5x5 to start then 10x10. They're running HSPA+ 70 to 80 miles off the Interstate there. I've seen AT&T run things fine. They just need to spend the money to do what they did in SE Missouri everywhere.

I haven't played with it for a year but I may set up a One X and play around over there while keeping my primary line on VZW (still the iPhone, I dumped the Nexus.)

Trouble is, in most rural areas, they haven't deployed 3G, and that's what I'm talking about. Therefore those areas don't benefit from the increased range and effectiveness of the lower frequencies, meaning more territory covered. At this point in the game, they'd be better off to just skip the 3G-HSPA+ upgrade step and just go straight to LTE if the spectrum is available to use for that in those areas. They only need the EDGE for voice anyway, so why not just leave it going and use LTE for data instead of changing out all the equipment for 3G only to have to come back and change it out again for LTE? Voice for phone calls is available everywhere, it's data that's the problem, and AT&T has way too many steps in their upgrade process, which is the reason they have been a complete failure thus far.

**Morphling27** · 06-02-2012, 09:13 AM

I recently switched to Straight Talk, but it obviously uses ATT's network so I'm always curious about how well they're doing with their network.

I guess from reading this and many things, why doesn't ATT take more of a Network Vision ala Sprint on their buildout. Put all the different tech's in one site and since a lot of ATT's different stuff is in roughly the same bands, the LTE and some HSPA is in 700-800 and then their higher up stuff in 1900, it seems logical with the spacing and all of that.

I guess I just find it odd that ATT being one of the largest companies in the world doesn't just bust this out. I know they like keeping their money or buying out competitors, but they can do that AND build a network to brag about.

**GSMinCT** · 06-02-2012, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by ggore

Trouble is, in most rural areas, they haven't deployed 3G, and that's what I'm talking about. Therefore those areas don't benefit from the increased range and effectiveness of the lower frequencies, meaning more territory covered. At this point in the game, they'd be better off to just skip the 3G-HSPA+ upgrade step and just go straight to LTE if the spectrum is available to use for that in those areas. They only need the EDGE for voice anyway, so why not just leave it going and use LTE for data instead of changing out all the equipment for 3G only to have to come back and change it out again for LTE? Voice for phone calls is available everywhere, it's data that's the problem, and AT&T has way too many steps in their upgrade process, which is the reason they have been a complete failure thus far.

Once you put the gear in for LTE, you may as well put in 3G gear. Also, I don't want to have EDGE that barely works while someone else is cruising along on LTE just because I don't get a new phone every year.