AT&T in San Francisco

**The Mac Ace** · 06-16-2012, 02:35 AM

the bay is att.'s worst spot.... definitely unusable 90% of the time they are having HUGE capacity issues

**fraydog** · 06-16-2012, 02:49 AM

The iPhone is going to be pain there with no LTE. Verizon is definitely 100x better in the city of San Francisco though.

**GSMinCT** · 06-16-2012, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by ilvla2

Nice! The best I've been able to hit up here in the Ukiah area on the download is just over 10 Mbps, uploads max out at 1 Mbps.

Edit-I meant you'll do better on AT&T's Faux G network up here than in the Bay Area though.

WOW. I would say, though that anything under 1mbps is atrocious for an HSPA+ network. It should be doing more like 3mbps, even in the city. It does in many places, like Anchorage, Detroit, and Boston.

Originally Posted by drummer07

I was at concert a couple weeks ago, and AT&T was completely useless. Started with 5 bars of HSPA+, then data crashed. No texts or phone calls would work. It then went from no service to G. About ~15000 people were there. What I don't understand is why at&t would not put LTE on that tower knowing that massive crowds would be there. It is in an LTE area, just not quite. Verizon LTE seemed to be the only service working.

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using HowardForums

It will be interesting to see if Verizon LTE is still that good when it's fully loaded a year or two down the road...

**GSMinCT** · 06-16-2012, 08:27 AM

What I also don't understand is how it gets this bad. You would think if it got to that point, so many people would be fed up and leave that it would then get better with so many fewer users. Why would people subscribe to a service that clearly doesn't work properly in their area?

**ilvla2** · 06-16-2012, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by GSMinCT

What I also don't understand is how it gets this bad. You would think if it got to that point, so many people would be fed up and leave that it would then get better with so many fewer users. Why would people subscribe to a service that clearly doesn't work properly in their area?

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.

**wlo8** · 06-16-2012, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by GSMinCT

What I also don't understand is how it gets this bad. You would think if it got to that point, so many people would be fed up and leave that it would then get better with so many fewer users. Why would people subscribe to a service that clearly doesn't work properly in their area?

I think AT&T is ok outside of SF. Geographically, SF is a small portion of the San Francisco Bay Area.

**ilvla2** · 06-16-2012, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by wlo8

I think AT&T is ok outside of SF. Geographically, SF is a small portion of the San Francisco Bay Area.

That's true, but what they lack in size they more than make up for in being LOUDLY vocal, woe be to the person who dares challenge the SF way.

lol

**silentjudge** · 06-16-2012, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by wlo8

I think AT&T is ok outside of SF. Geographically, SF is a small portion of the San Francisco Bay Area.

It may be small but there is a lot of people who live and/or work in the city. In many of the large companies/buildings, they have repeaters for Verizon and AT&T or possibly DAS. So coverage deep inside the building is a non-issue. Venture away though and things turn to sh*t pretty quickly.

I will say though call quality is pretty good, I have no complaints there.

Sent from my LG Nitro HD

**wlo8** · 06-16-2012, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by ilvla2

That's true, but what they lack in size they more than make up for in being LOUDLY vocal, woe be to the person who dares challenge the SF way.

lol

The City is about 8 miles by 8 miles, almost a square. I actually think the really bad area is only about 1 mile by 1 mile centered around the financial district.

**wesmaniam** · 06-16-2012, 12:54 PM

Here is one at 21st and Church street. This is 2 block from Delores park. It is going to be a warm day so this will do down a lot by 2 or 3 pm. They have a new tower at Delores and Market that helps as well as another at 14th and Market but there will be way too many phones to keep up.

Name: IMG_1472.jpg
Views: 150
Size: 18.1 KB

Name: IMG_1472.jpg
Views: 150
Size: 18.1 KB

**wesmaniam** · 06-16-2012, 01:15 PM

Here is one while connected to the antenna at 24th and Noe. This one was upgraded last fall but already overloaded. The latency is decent though.

Name: IMG_1473.jpg
Views: 197
Size: 18.2 KB

Name: IMG_1473.jpg
Views: 197
Size: 18.2 KB

**silentjudge** · 06-16-2012, 04:17 PM

Anyone know how much 850 and 1900mhz spectrum AT&T has in the city? They should be refarming 2G and putting up as many 3G/HSPA carriers as possible not to mention adding more sectors to each cell tower.

**DRC72** · 06-16-2012, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by ilvla2

That's true, but what they lack in size they more than make up for in being LOUDLY vocal, woe be to the person who dares challenge the SF way.

lol

At 46.9 square miles, it's still a pretty descent size city.

**GSMinCT** · 06-16-2012, 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

"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.

Originally Posted by wlo8

The City is about 8 miles by 8 miles, almost a square. I actually think the really bad area is only about 1 mile by 1 mile centered around the financial district.

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.

Originally Posted by silentjudge

Anyone know how much 850 and 1900mhz spectrum AT&T has in the city? They should be refarming 2G and putting up as many 3G/HSPA carriers as possible not to mention adding more sectors to each cell tower.

Try the Spectrum Dashboard.

**silentjudge** · 06-16-2012, 08:39 PM

Originally Posted by GSMinCT

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

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