AT&T in San Francisco

[GSMinCT]

No, the rest of the Silicon Valley is fine on AT&T. The voice quality is much much better than just a few years ago and its on par with T-Mobile at this point. The data speeds are good in the suburbs for the most part; its not as fast HSPA+ as Tmo but very acceptable.

Sent from my LG Nitro HD

I've heard multiple accounts of it being a train wreck in any of the towns in the Valley.

[silentjudge]

I've heard multiple accounts of it being a train wreck in any of the towns in the Valley.

Thankfully its not all doom and gloom. I get 5-7mbps fairly easily in the silicon valley. The exceptions of course are the busy areas like downtown, some malls, etc but I still can pull 1-3mbps in most busy areas.

Surprising thing is at home, I get good speeds but call quality isn't as good as in the city (SF). I only get HSPA at home versus HSPA+ in the city, so that may have something to do with it.

[GSMinCT]

Thankfully its not all doom and gloom. I get 5-7mbps fairly easily in the silicon valley. The exceptions of course are the busy areas like downtown, some malls, etc but I still can pull 1-3mbps in most busy areas.

Surprising thing is at home, I get good speeds but call quality isn't as good as in the city (SF). I only get HSPA at home versus HSPA+ in the city, so that may have something to do with it.

Interesting, it must be getting better in some areas.

[ilvla2]

"Didn't have a choice of carriers". BS. Verizon is there, and even Sprint and T-Mobile have coverage in the bay area, T-Mobile actually having significant coverage in CA, unlike other carriers. No one forced anyone to have an iPhone.



I've heard the whole valley is a disaster for AT&T. They have fewer towers then T-Mo in the valley, but more in the city.



Try the Spectrum Dashboard.

You didn't read what I wrote, or did and completely spaced

[ilvla2]

In the Bay Area, a lot of it was due to the AT&T exclusivity on the iPhone. People didn't have a choice of carriers until recently with it, and the Bay Area being so tech heavy and home to Apple (and Google, but this was before Android really took off), it just flooded the network. I think AT&T is still feeling the effects today in the Bay Area, even with the choice of carriers people have with the iPhone. Even with the iPhone being available for pre paid, and on VZ and Sprint too, I think many people still see the iPhone as an AT&T thing.

Edit-AT&T also failed to prepare for the data flood, while Verizon and others did and that's why AT&T is still trying to bring their network down there up to snuff. They have made a lot of progress, but they have a ways to go yet.

So you can read it more carefully. I never said they didn't have a choice of carriers or phones, just a lack of choice with the iPhone, I'm not sure why you thought otherwise.

[ilvla2]

I've heard multiple accounts of it being a train wreck in any of the towns in the Valley.

Aka the Santa Clara Valley.

[wlo8]

Does any remember exactly when Att turned on LTE in the Bay Area? Was it late last year or early this year? Thanks.

[silentjudge]

Try the Spectrum Dashboard.

Nice resource, I'm surprised the FCC can even produce such a quality tool
AT&T has:
1870 - 1885
1950 - 1965

1865 - 1870
1945 - 1950

1850 - 1865
1930 - 1945

824 - 835
845 - 846.5
869 - 880
890 - 891.5

So I know that PCS band is paired, so they have 35mhz of 1900
How does the 800 pairing work?

[wesmaniam]

Here is the recent PC Mag review of the networks in SF. I haven't used most of the networks but the data for the ATT 3G network is similar to what I have experienced around here. Good to hear they have a solid LTE network but I think they have only a couple of phones available for it.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2405628,00.asp

[zephxiii]

Here is the recent PC Mag review of the networks in SF. I haven't used most of the networks but the data for the ATT 3G network is similar to what I have experienced around here. Good to hear they have a solid LTE network but I think they have only a couple of phones available for it.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2405628,00.asp

They have like 10 LTE phones....

[formercanuck]

Nice resource, I'm surprised the FCC can even produce such a quality tool
AT&T has:
1870 - 1885
1950 - 1965

1865 - 1870
1945 - 1950

1850 - 1865
1930 - 1945

824 - 835
845 - 846.5
869 - 880
890 - 891.5

So I know that PCS band is paired, so they have 35mhz of 1900
How does the 800 pairing work?

800/850 is a bit of a mess...
While its 12.5 + 12.5 on cell A or B, its closer to 11+1.5 down, 11+1.5 up. This works ok for 2 channels of HPSA+ and some GSM channels.

Down here in Hell, Eh (LA), its similar:


710 - 716 Down
740 - 746 Up

722 - 728 Down
716 - 722 Down

1710 - 1720 Down
2110 - 2120 Up

1740 - 1745 Down
2140 - 2145 Up

1870 - 1885 Down
1950 - 1965 Up

1865 - 1870 Down
1945 - 1950 Up

824 - 835 Down
845 - 846.5 Down
869 - 880 Up
890 - 891.5 Up

Cellular = 12.5MHz x 2 = 25MHz paired
PCS = 20MHz x 2 = 40MHz paired
AWS = 15MHz x 2 = 30MHz paired
700MHz = 18MHz down, 6MHzup = 12MHz paired - 18MHz 'usable' on downlink.

[GSMinCT]

So you can read it more carefully. I never said they didn't have a choice of carriers or phones, just a lack of choice with the iPhone, I'm not sure why you thought otherwise.

I know you mentioned AT&T exclusivity. That doesn't mean anything though. Verizon, T-Mobile and Sprint had Android phones. The answer I guess then, is that people were iSheep, and made a crappy choice of carrier for their area based on a shiny phone that didn't do much of anything compared to it's competitiors at the time.

[silentjudge]

They have like 10 LTE phones....

And everyone has iPhones in the city so it doesn't make a difference

Sent from my LG Nitro HD

[kilovolt]

If you guys would all just stop clogging the airwaves by downloading a bunch of useless data on the stupid speed test app, then maybe the network might actually BE fast.

[silentjudge]

If you guys would all just stop clogging the airwaves by turning off data, then maybe the network might actually BE fast.

Here, I fixed it for you ^^