How Exactly Will AT&T Remain Competitive?

[ilvla2]

Durp.................

Burp, burp, burp.

[fraydog]

Now now now, there are those on here who will swear on a stack of Bibles that AT&T will have every bit of that EDGE up there converted to 3G/HSPA+EB by the end of THIS year! And the rest of the country too. What a crock! LOL

Well, they did promise it to the FCC, maybe not in a binding matter, but there's enough of this left that the FCC can use this against AT&T in future mergers.

No one was on here swearing it, that was AT&T themselves doing this. They almost seem to be doing this as a political gambit. It's almost as if they are trying to prove the FCC Staff Report wrong, which stated that AT&T would do a footprint wide upgrade to LTE in order to compete with Verizon, even though they don't possess the spectrum.

It's almost as if they want to cannibalize their business in a grudge against the FCC. I can't begin to comprehend the strategy.

Maybe they would be better leaping straight to LTE after all, with a single HSPA+ channel for continuity's sake.

[ggore]

Well, they did promise it to the FCC, maybe not in a binding matter, but there's enough of this left that the FCC can use this against AT&T in future mergers.

No one was on here swearing it, that was AT&T themselves doing this. They almost seem to be doing this as a political gambit. It's almost as if they are trying to prove the FCC Staff Report wrong, which stated that AT&T would do a footprint wide upgrade to LTE in order to compete with Verizon, even though they don't possess the spectrum.

It's almost as if they want to cannibalize their business in a grudge against the FCC. I can't begin to comprehend the strategy.

Maybe they would be better leaping straight to LTE after all, with a single HSPA+ channel for continuity's sake.

I don't see them doing it. They are losing the LTE battle daily, Verizon will probably light up more territory on June 25 than AT&T has in their entire LTE system, but they have many defenders who think they don't need LTE and should just forget that battle, EDGE is fine, 3G is fine, HSPA+ is fine, or buy their way to full LTE coverage. But who is there to buy that will get them there? The FCC and SEC would probably take a dim view of them starting to buy up all the little regional GSM carriers.

As I said in another post (and I think this is key to the way AT&T does business and is a point that no one seems to have an answer for): "AT&T launched 3G/UMTS in 2005. Seven years later AT&T still does not cover their entire native footprint with that basic 3G. There is some 3G, a smaller area of upgraded-3G they call "4G" which is HSPA+, and a smaller yet (very small, only 39 major cities) area that has LTE. Seven years, and they still can't completely roll out ONE technology beyond analog!"

Little piecemeal tech upgrades don't get you anywhere in the long run. It just ties your hands when it comes time to ditch something and use those scarce resources you have available to you to make upgrades later on.

[ilvla2]

There is some 3G, a smaller area of upgraded-3G they call "4G" which is HSPA+, and a smaller yet (very small, only 39 major cities) area that has LTE. .

Actually, there is quite a bit of AT&T 3G, and a good amount of HSPA+ w/EB, just not in your area. We both live in rural areas, AT&T serves mine well (with 3G and Faux G), as do U.S. Cellular and Verizon with 3G, while T-Mobile and Metro PCS just give us glancing interest and only have 2G here, in your area Pioneer is obviously the strong carrier, it really does vary by area. We are still waiting on LTE though from AT&T, Verizon and U.S. Cellular.

[zephxiii]

lol "some" 3g...there is more 3g than what Sprint has....quite being ridiculous, we all know your whole motive behind everything you write is because you are mad or something....

No one was on here swearing it, that was AT&T themselves doing this. They almost seem to be doing this as a political gambit. It's almost as if they are trying to prove the FCC Staff Report wrong, which stated that AT&T would do a footprint wide upgrade to LTE in order to compete with Verizon, even though they don't possess the spectrum.

It wasn't even AT&T swearing it, they just said it was their internal intent/want to. Now that this merger attempt screwed things up it is probably set it back a year from all the money spent (and not just what was paid to T-mobile). And no they shouldn't go straight to LTE, that is foolish.

The only LTE battle there is...is the one in your mind.

[bigsnake49]

Actually, there is quite a bit of AT&T 3G, and a good amount of HSPA+ w/EB, just not in your area. We both live in rural areas, AT&T serves mine well (with 3G and Faux G), as do U.S. Cellular and Verizon with 3G, while T-Mobile and Metro PCS just give us glancing interest and only have 2G here, in your area Pioneer is obviously the strong carrier, it really does vary by area. We are still waiting on LTE though from AT&T, Verizon and U.S. Cellular.

For all the blustering and bragging, our area (Melbourne, FL) will probably get LTE from Sprint first later on this year.

[jseah]

The only LTE battle there is...is the one in your mind.

How can you truthfully say there is no LTE battle? Years ago, the marketing was all about "more bars in more places". Look at all of the marketing now.......it is all about speed. Verizon uses "America's Fastest 4G Network", T-Mobile has the girl on a motorcycle whipping past the AT&T motorcycle, AT&T has the "Nation's Largest 4G Network" with a 4G logo with flames, or the AT&T commercials "so 30 seconds ago", where the people with AT&T phones are finding out stuff faster than everyone else. The average person unfortunately is very susceptible to advertising, so they see all the commercials about speed and they "just know" that speed is the almighty goal now. If there is no LTE battle, then why is AT&T even bothering with rolling out LTE at all? Since their HSPA+ with EB is so fast, they should save the billions they're spending on rolling out LTE and just be happy with HSPA+ with EB then.

[ggore]

Actually, there is quite a bit of AT&T 3G, and a good amount of HSPA+ w/EB, just not in your area. We both live in rural areas, AT&T serves mine well (with 3G and Faux G), as do U.S. Cellular and Verizon with 3G, while T-Mobile and Metro PCS just give us glancing interest and only have 2G here, in your area Pioneer is obviously the strong carrier, it really does vary by area. We are still waiting on LTE though from AT&T, Verizon and U.S. Cellular.

You completely missed the point of my statement. I'm talking about their entire native footprint across the US. Is the 3G area as big as the EDGE area? No Is the 3G/HSPA+/EB("4G") area as big as the 3G area? No Is the LTE area as big as the 3G/HSPA+/EB("4G") area? No Has AT&T rolled out any successor technology across their licensed area to the extent analog was? No. What they have now is a mishmash of formats and technologies, none of which has ever been fully rolled out, and that they are trapped with, unable to do away with any of them so that they can use a resource they have very little of (spectrum) to fully roll out the latest technology, and which, by its very name, "LONG Term Evolution", is supposed to be useful for many years.

[ggore]

lol "some" 3g...there is more 3g than what Sprint has....quite being ridiculous, we all know your whole motive behind everything you write is because you are mad or something....



It wasn't even AT&T swearing it, they just said it was their internal intent/want to. Now that this merger attempt screwed things up it is probably set it back a year from all the money spent (and not just what was paid to T-mobile). And no they shouldn't go straight to LTE, that is foolish.

The only LTE battle there is...is the one in your mind.

Is this thread about Sprint? This thread is about AT&T, so that's who I'm talking about. Did I say anything non-factual? Is it not a fact that AT&T's 3G area is smaller than AT&T's EDGE area? And on down the line? If you are disputing that fact, if so please give us some evidence to the contrary rather than a personal attack about my motives. My motive has always been clear, I'm not hiding anything, I'm taking AT&T to task for lying all these years about upgrading their system here, both before and after the merger attempt. They sold me a 3G-capable phone with the promise that their entire territory here would be upgraded to 3G within 6 months. That was in 2007 and it is STILL only EDGE! Is it wrong to be upset about that? I would hope they would get their act together and be some decent competition both here and around the country. A lack of competition leads to complacency, and evidently that has led to this situation where AT&T is stuck in the past while Verizon snuck up on them and has left them in the dust.

[zephxiii]

Is this thread about Sprint? This thread is about AT&T, so that's who I'm talking about. Did I say anything non-factual? Is it not a fact that AT&T's 3G area is smaller than AT&T's EDGE area? And on down the line? If you are disputing that fact, if so please give us some evidence to the contrary rather than a personal attack about my motives. My motive has always been clear, I'm not hiding anything, I'm taking AT&T to task for lying all these years about upgrading their system here, both before and after the merger attempt. They sold me a 3G-capable phone with the promise that their entire territory here would be upgraded to 3G within 6 months. That was in 2007 and it is STILL only EDGE! Is it wrong to be upset about that? I would hope they would get their act together and be some decent competition both here and around the country. A lack of competition leads to complacency, and evidently that has led to this situation where AT&T is stuck in the past while Verizon snuck up on them and has left them in the dust.

lol the problem is that you care wayyy too much and you are getting all caught up in a bind about it and acting it out saying silly things all the time....which in turn is going to have some dirt thrown at ya when u throw things a little out of proportion. If you'd stop caring so much about it so much you could move on and be happier in life... I mean u have a damn carrier to be happy with so WTF? I mostly only care about the technical aspects of it for the most part.

The other thing is when I look at the coverage map, i don't think like u do about it...I actually see quite a bit of 3G coverage....quite a lot compared to when I first started making the national 3G map...and I just saw quite a bit more get lit up. Yes they still need to keep going though.

And yea, they got more 3G than Sprint so I would call that more than "some" lol.

And yes i find it rather humorous that u get all mad about it...but u kinda bring it on yourself you know.

[zephxiii]

How can you truthfully say there is no LTE battle? Years ago, the marketing was all about "more bars in more places". Look at all of the marketing now.......it is all about speed. Verizon uses "America's Fastest 4G Network", T-Mobile has the girl on a motorcycle whipping past the AT&T motorcycle, AT&T has the "Nation's Largest 4G Network" with a 4G logo with flames, or the AT&T commercials "so 30 seconds ago", where the people with AT&T phones are finding out stuff faster than everyone else. The average person unfortunately is very susceptible to advertising, so they see all the commercials about speed and they "just know" that speed is the almighty goal now. If there is no LTE battle, then why is AT&T even bothering with rolling out LTE at all? Since their HSPA+ with EB is so fast, they should save the billions they're spending on rolling out LTE and just be happy with HSPA+ with EB then.

Because i don't give a **** enough about some silly battle between carriers that you like to hype up. And if you've noticed, at&t, sprint, Tmobile probably don't give that much of a **** either....but what they do know is that LTE adds capacity and all will do it their own rates as they want/need....and to be honest Sprint needs it the most. I'll just let competition have its hand and not worry about it...but I like seeing the networks grow...however it isn't some damn battle to me as in the end isn't going to make any difference who finishes in what place.

Also why are you caring so much about marketing? All marketing is a crock of ****. You are wasting your time. I don't buy into any of it from any carrier or company and quite frankly i am not going to get all caught up giving a **** about what the average joe may think.

[zephxiii]

For all the blustering and bragging, our area (Melbourne, FL) will probably get LTE from Sprint first later on this year.

I don't have any hope of sprint doing anything inspiring anytime soon. Still waiting on EVDO in some areas that AT&T just launched HSPA in. And my friends are still struggling with Sprint's lackluster network in my area.

[ggore]

lol the problem is that you care wayyy too much and you are getting all caught up in a bind about it and acting it out saying silly things all the time....which in turn is going to have some dirt thrown at ya when u throw things a little out of proportion. If you'd stop caring so much about it so much you could move on and be happier in life... I mean u have a damn carrier to be happy with so WTF? I mostly only care about the technical aspects of it for the most part.

The other thing is when I look at the coverage map, i don't think like u do about it...I actually see quite a bit of 3G coverage....quite a lot compared to when I first started making the national 3G map...and I just saw quite a bit more get lit up. Yes they still need to keep going though.

And yea, they got more 3G than Sprint so I would call that more than "some" lol.

And yes i find it rather humorous that u get all mad about it...but u kinda bring it on yourself you know.

I'm not in a bind at all, I don't know where that one came from. As for saying "silly things", that's in the eye of the beholder so water off my back. I am quite happy in life, thank you, I've got great 3G Verizon service with LTE only 15 miles away, probably be here with the next round of expansions Pioneer does. Yes it's Pioneer doing it, not Verizon, but Verizon is completely involved in the process, providing engineers and support. Maybe AT&T could take note and come up with some sort of program like LTEiRA, but for some odd reason (experience) I doubt they will. I actually think something like that could be their saving grace in the end, but I doubt it will happen.

There is quite a bit of 3G coverage on AT&T's map. But I, like everyone else who complains in these forums, am upset that that area does not cover their entire native footprint 7 years after it was launched. I don't think there is anything wrong with complaining about that, especially when they continue to promise upgrades every year for those 7 years and are still doing so! They are promising these upgrades to customers and potential customers in stores, which to me is far more egregious than promising it to the FCC or in some PR statement.

Again, this discussion is not about Sprint, so that is immaterial.

Lastly I'm not mad, I enjoy a good lively discussion. One suggestion, if you are only interested in the technical aspects of the cellphone industry, I might suggest concentrating on those related threads on HoFo and leave the complaining about service and coverage to those who are affected by those problems.

[zephxiii]

I'm not in a bind at all, I don't know where that one came from. As for saying "silly things", that's in the eye of the beholder so water off my back. I am quite happy in life, thank you, I've got great 3G Verizon service with LTE only 15 miles away, probably be here with the next round of expansions Pioneer does. Yes it's Pioneer doing it, not Verizon, but Verizon is completely involved in the process, providing engineers and support. Maybe AT&T could take note and come up with some sort of program like LTEiRA, but for some odd reason (experience) I doubt they will. I actually think something like that could be their saving grace in the end, but I doubt it will happen.

There is quite a bit of 3G coverage on AT&T's map. But I, like everyone else who complains in these forums, am upset that that area does not cover their entire native footprint 7 years after it was launched. I don't think there is anything wrong with complaining about that, especially when they continue to promise upgrades every year for those 7 years and are still doing so! They are promising these upgrades to customers and potential customers in stores, which to me is far more egregious than promising it to the FCC or in some PR statement.

Again, this discussion is not about Sprint, so that is immaterial.

Lastly I'm not mad, I enjoy a good lively discussion. One suggestion, if you are only interested in the technical aspects of the cellphone industry, I might suggest concentrating on those related threads on HoFo and leave the complaining about service and coverage to those who are affected by those problems.

Given that you were trying to indicate AT&T little 3G by calling it only "some", the comparison to Sprint's 3G foot print was in context. So given that this is a discussion, I can bring Sprint in for comparison in this situation.

And yes, you often show that you are in a bind or angry at the whole situation.

[GSMinCT]

I don't see them doing it. They are losing the LTE battle daily, Verizon will probably light up more territory on June 25 than AT&T has in their entire LTE system, but they have many defenders who think they don't need LTE and should just forget that battle, EDGE is fine, 3G is fine, HSPA+ is fine, or buy their way to full LTE coverage. But who is there to buy that will get them there? The FCC and SEC would probably take a dim view of them starting to buy up all the little regional GSM carriers.

As I said in another post (and I think this is key to the way AT&T does business and is a point that no one seems to have an answer for): "AT&T launched 3G/UMTS in 2005. Seven years later AT&T still does not cover their entire native footprint with that basic 3G. There is some 3G, a smaller area of upgraded-3G they call "4G" which is HSPA+, and a smaller yet (very small, only 39 major cities) area that has LTE. Seven years, and they still can't completely roll out ONE technology beyond analog!"

Little piecemeal tech upgrades don't get you anywhere in the long run. It just ties your hands when it comes time to ditch something and use those scarce resources you have available to you to make upgrades later on.

US Cellular is basically the only other company out there (with the except of a few tiny players like CSpire) who actually own A, B, and C licenses legitimately. The rest of the companies are just squatting on them, which means that they are up for grabs by AT&T if AT&T is willing to pay the right price. If AT&T bought out USCC, and/or started slurping up the rest of the A, B, and C block licenses, combined with a move to quad-band LTE, they would be all set, at least in terms of spectrum coverage. Spectrum depth isn't an issue in the middle of nowhere, just in the cities.

So apparently AT&T's strategy is to get fake 4G up to the whole country...... never?!?!, while Verizon does the whole country in real 4G? That's a winner.

How can you truthfully say there is no LTE battle? Years ago, the marketing was all about "more bars in more places". Look at all of the marketing now.......it is all about speed. Verizon uses "America's Fastest 4G Network", T-Mobile has the girl on a motorcycle whipping past the AT&T motorcycle, AT&T has the "Nation's Largest 4G Network" with a 4G logo with flames, or the AT&T commercials "so 30 seconds ago", where the people with AT&T phones are finding out stuff faster than everyone else. The average person unfortunately is very susceptible to advertising, so they see all the commercials about speed and they "just know" that speed is the almighty goal now. If there is no LTE battle, then why is AT&T even bothering with rolling out LTE at all? Since their HSPA+ with EB is so fast, they should save the billions they're spending on rolling out LTE and just be happy with HSPA+ with EB then.

They should go back to more bars in more places, since they actually have that, due to the coverage about equivalent to Verizon with a denser tower spacing.

T-Mobile is just sad, as they are blatantly lying about the largest 4G network. At least AT&T and Verizon each tell the truth according to their own definition.

AT&T is doing LTE because their network in some markets is so overloaded on the 3G/FauxG side that it's crumbling. I.e. Manhattan. It's sad that they didn't invest in Faux G to make it work at the time though. If they had 100% HSPA+/EB by the end of the year, they would be competing well with Verizon, and could even market "two types of 4G", which doesn't mean much, but sounds good to average Joe who doesn't know anything about wireless.

You completely missed the point of my statement. I'm talking about their entire native footprint across the US. Is the 3G area as big as the EDGE area? No Is the 3G/HSPA+/EB("4G") area as big as the 3G area? No Is the LTE area as big as the 3G/HSPA+/EB("4G") area? No Has AT&T rolled out any successor technology across their licensed area to the extent analog was? No. What they have now is a mishmash of formats and technologies, none of which has ever been fully rolled out, and that they are trapped with, unable to do away with any of them so that they can use a resource they have very little of (spectrum) to fully roll out the latest technology, and which, by its very name, "LONG Term Evolution", is supposed to be useful for many years.

I don't think being trapped on old technologies has anything to do with rollout. Even when they have 850mhz LTE, they have to keep 5mhz of GSM for compatibility with MVNO and M2M traffic, and people who haven't upgraded their phones in eons, but your point about inconsistent coverage is correct. They should establish HSPA+ with EB as the baseline for the whole network.