Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 16 to 20 of 20

Thread: LTE Coverage Surpasses 2.61M sq miles to Support AT&T and FirstNet Subscribers

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    4,609
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by anthonyjones View Post
    Att will probably be the number 3 network speed wise. Both new T-Mobile and Verizon will cream them until they catch up
    There is a lot more to the cell service market than just a Rootmetrics, etc. best data speed. Most cell users have no idea what their data speed is and wouldn't understand what the number means if you told them. What they understand is if their phone works when they use it. Working at home, work, in between, and where they travel is the metric that counts. T-Mo is still weak there and will continue to be for some time to come.

    T-Mo has come a long way from being worse than Sprint to being an adequate choice for many people. The future looks bright for them, but they are not as good as Verizon or AT&T yet when it comes to more signal in more places yet.

    T-Mobile seems to already have more lte than att so att has some catching up to do
    Only if you don't count the areas between metro centers. It's T-Mo that has catching up to do and they are working on it. It will take massive investment to put Sprint's band 41 in a significant portion of the country where Sprint was never able to do.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    993
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T, Google Fi, Red Pocket (VZ)
    Feedback Score
    0
    This is really awesome! I saw another report that AT&T's goal with FirstNet is 2.74 million square miles, which would be well in excess of what Verizon currently has for LTE coverage. This is really good for AT&T, and I'm glad we're finally seeing coverage expansions.

    Quote Originally Posted by VVivian View Post
    AT&T’s decision to invest in spectrum instead of densification is going to come back to bite them once Verizon’s millimeter wave speeds and New T-Mobile’s 2.5 GHz 5G speeds raise customer expectations. Verizon has the density to deliver consistent gigabit speeds and New T-Mobile will have the midband spectrum to do the same, but AT&T has neither.
    It depends on the market. Here in CT, Verizon has significantly more customers than AT&T, a less dense macro grid, and quite a bit less spectrum. If Verizon is lucky, their small cell deployments will put them on par with what AT&T has now. Sure, you can pull 100mbps+ off of the small cells, but when you're at 2mbps on some macros, they still have a ways to go. AT&T consistently pulls double and often triple digit speeds without any small cell infrastructure.

    Quote Originally Posted by VVivian View Post
    Not for long. I’ve read estimates that Verizon will reach 55% population coverage of millimeter wave by 2030.

    https://www.fiercewireless.com/5g/hi...-2030-mckinsey
    The thing is, 55% POPS is still a tiny amount of coverage. Yes, there's where roughly 55% of the business is, but in terms of coverage, it's only major metro areas and core areas of some smaller cities.

    Quote Originally Posted by bobdevnul View Post
    There is a lot more to the cell service market than just a Rootmetrics, etc. best data speed. Most cell users have no idea what their data speed is and wouldn't understand what the number means if you told them. What they understand is if their phone works when they use it. Working at home, work, in between, and where they travel is the metric that counts. T-Mo is still weak there and will continue to be for some time to come.

    T-Mo has come a long way from being worse than Sprint to being an adequate choice for many people. The future looks bright for them, but they are not as good as Verizon or AT&T yet when it comes to more signal in more places yet.
    Precisely. T-Mo just doesn't have service in a lot of places where AT&T and Verizon do. I had Mint for quite a while and I was underwhelmed with their service in terms of where they had coverage. They've got a long way to go in order to rival the big two, and with all the merger activity, I think they've got a decade worth of work ahead of them if they ever want to compete, as AT&T has been building out FirstNet in the meantime.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    993
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T, Google Fi, Red Pocket (VZ)
    Feedback Score
    0
    FirstNet could actually have some big benefits for public safety and public safety agencies due to the massive expansion of rural coverage where reliable coverage didn't exist before. However, the whole prioritization of FirstNet is still a bunch of BS. It looks like AT&T is playing along with the government boondoggle that was FirstNet and B14, but in exchange they've gotten that nice juicy 10x10 of low band, so in the end the boondoggle will be put to good use for AT&T customers even if it's original purpose is ridiculous and nonsensical.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Gulf Coast
    Posts
    16,118
    Device(s)
    Moto G7 Power, Nexus 5X
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile, PagePlus
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by bobdevnul View Post
    .....Most cell users have no idea what their data speed is and wouldn't understand what the number means if you told them. What they understand is if their phone works when they use it. ......
    I've been jumped on for saying that it really doesn't matter if you have HSPA+ or LTE service out in the countryside where there are just a few customers. What's important is that you have adequate service. If AT&T wanted to slow-walk rural LTE deployments, that's fine. They had the option because HSPA+ was "good enough". Verizon didn't have that option because EV-DO was not good enough. They had to deploy LTE. In some ways, T-Mobile didn't have the option because the had so little 850 MHz. Their new low-band deployments had to be LTE. They had to deploy low-band LTE when only a few phones had VoLTE. They didn't have the option. Sprint's situation was similar to Verizon's with a touch of T-Mobile's. They had so little low-band that they had to deploy LTE for data.
    Donald Newcomb

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    993
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T, Google Fi, Red Pocket (VZ)
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by DRNewcomb View Post
    I've been jumped on for saying that it really doesn't matter if you have HSPA+ or LTE service out in the countryside where there are just a few customers. What's important is that you have adequate service. If AT&T wanted to slow-walk rural LTE deployments, that's fine. They had the option because HSPA+ was "good enough". Verizon didn't have that option because EV-DO was not good enough. They had to deploy LTE. In some ways, T-Mobile didn't have the option because the had so little 850 MHz. Their new low-band deployments had to be LTE. They had to deploy low-band LTE when only a few phones had VoLTE. They didn't have the option. Sprint's situation was similar to Verizon's with a touch of T-Mobile's. They had so little low-band that they had to deploy LTE for data.
    The problem is that AT&T's HSPA+ often doesn't work very well. It was the same situation during the end of EDGE. It should have gotten ~150kbps, but often it didn't work at all. At this point, I'm glad they're going ahead and going all-in on LTE.

    EDIT: Also, HSPA+ degrades a lot when you're on the very fringe of a tower, whereas LTE will usually provide a few mbps right until it drops, which is perfectly usable, so even though LTE doesn't reach as far as HSPA+, it covers more areas with usable data service.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 24
    Last Post: 01-12-2019, 10:25 PM
  2. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09-14-2006, 10:21 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-12-2005, 10:30 PM
  4. convince me to get AT&T Wireless and NOKIA 6200.
    By i hate verizon in forum AT&T
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-05-2003, 07:18 AM
  5. Replies: 68
    Last Post: 12-16-2002, 01:08 AM

Bookmarks