AT&T to BEGIN Deploying 4G in 2011?
Right out of Mr. Stephenson's mouth. BEGIN in 2011.
Verizon began deploying 4G is 2009.
Why the delay AT&T?
Verizon began deploying 4G is 2009.
Why the delay AT&T?
...
Perhaps because there is no pressure upon them to build out a 4G network? Their metrics are tops in the industry. Despite all the negative press, they still added a half million more customers than Verizon did in 4Q 2009. Business is good. It might be a good idea to let Verizon pioneer LTE to learn from their mistakes. They did the same thing with FloTV. AT&T likes to peek at Verizon's test and keep the answers it knows are correct and copy the ones it did not know. The strategy has worked so far. Why fix what is not broken?
...
FloTV was from Qualcomm, not Verizon.
And when you have to answer questions about your network all the time business is not good. There is a reason it is a concern. The reason is capacity is the key to growth. Capacity is the key to keeping customers happy.
You don't see people saying "once AT&T gets the Droid I am leaving Verizon in a heartbeat." You do hear, every single day, "as soon as Verizon gets an iPhone I am leaving AT&T in a heartbeat."
The question is about planning for the future.
And when you have to answer questions about your network all the time business is not good. There is a reason it is a concern. The reason is capacity is the key to growth. Capacity is the key to keeping customers happy.
You don't see people saying "once AT&T gets the Droid I am leaving Verizon in a heartbeat." You do hear, every single day, "as soon as Verizon gets an iPhone I am leaving AT&T in a heartbeat."
The question is about planning for the future.
...
Yes FLO IS Qualcomm and Verizon launched it branded as VCAST Mobie TV...first. AT&T watched for a while and then launched FLO (I forget what it was branded as) but the point is that being first does not guarantee a win.
...
I would have to agree with Azeron, the first dose not guarantee a win. Sprint has been advertising thier 4G network for a while. Yet at&t's 3G network is still faster then that. Seeing how at&t has the fastest 3G network, why waste the money. They are doing the right thing by waiting. When Verizon launches 4G they will advertise how they have 4G and at&t dosent...blah, blah, blah. Then when at&t launches 4G it will still be fater then Verizons. Not to mention at&t added 7.3 million new wireless customers in 2009 despite Verizons at&t bashing adds. When a company can have growth like that, and be hit with negative adds all year long, why rush out something like 4G when so much grown can take place on thier existing network.
...
Revising history much?
First, AT&T and Verizon are deploying the SAME technology for 4G so when AT&T deploys its 4G it wont then be faster than Verizon. Not sure where you get your information but that was really a reach.
Second, Verizon started the "there's a map for that" campaign in the 4th quarter and then rolled off a pretty awesome quarter. AT&T had a great one too and good for them. I hate a personal hatred for some of AT&T's policies because of how they altered my business plans (and altered promises they made to me) but I am glad when they do well. Strong competition creates more opportunity for sales which is good for me as a Verizon agent and good for my friends who still sell AT&T.
My worry is the continued lack of i...
(continues)
First, AT&T and Verizon are deploying the SAME technology for 4G so when AT&T deploys its 4G it wont then be faster than Verizon. Not sure where you get your information but that was really a reach.
Second, Verizon started the "there's a map for that" campaign in the 4th quarter and then rolled off a pretty awesome quarter. AT&T had a great one too and good for them. I hate a personal hatred for some of AT&T's policies because of how they altered my business plans (and altered promises they made to me) but I am glad when they do well. Strong competition creates more opportunity for sales which is good for me as a Verizon agent and good for my friends who still sell AT&T.
My worry is the continued lack of i...
(continues)
...
If at&t's 3G network is fater then Verizons then why wouldnt you automaticaly think it will be the same for the 4G network. To me it only makes sense to think like that. I guess we wont really know untill both carriers have it.
...
Well right now Verizon has a Honda Accord (EVDO)for most all of their network and a Honda Civic for a very small portion. AT&T has a Chevy Cobalt for most of theirs (EDGE) a Chevy Camaro for a small portion (HSDPA) and a Corvette for a extremely small portion (HSPA). Verizon is going out and buying a Ferrari for their new network. AT&T is going to go out and buy the SAME Ferrari for their new network except they are going to buy the same 2009 model in 2011.
While there are differences now it is because we use different technology now. We will be using the SAME technolgy in the future. Nothing about using the same technology indicated one or the other will be faster.
While there are differences now it is because we use different technology now. We will be using the SAME technolgy in the future. Nothing about using the same technology indicated one or the other will be faster.
...
hahahahaha 🤣 that was a good comparison. I will have to use that with my customers
...
Most all customers can relate to cars. No matter how non-technical they may be they almost always get a car comparison.
...
AT&T can continue to market their network being the fastest, but they hate it that Verizon pointed out that they lack 3G coverage, and Verizon has it on nearly their entire network.
Now as for waiting until 2011 (earliest) to launch LTE; I've heard that the current 3G can continue to be upgraded without sacrificing spectrum (unlike EVDO on the CDMA side). Even T-Mobile isn't going with LTE as early as Verizon is. Verizon had no choice on that one, since they decided not to go with EVDO Rev B & C, due to EVDO requiring more spectrum with each upgrade.
Now as for waiting until 2011 (earliest) to launch LTE; I've heard that the current 3G can continue to be upgraded without sacrificing spectrum (unlike EVDO on the CDMA side). Even T-Mobile isn't going with LTE as early as Verizon is. Verizon had no choice on that one, since they decided not to go with EVDO Rev B & C, due to EVDO requiring more spectrum with each upgrade.
...
...and ATT is STILL making more money than they are. If it is true that Apple brought them a sketch or idea of an iphone and they laughed them out the door... I would say AT&T is giggling all the way to the bank now.
...
Azeron said:
...and ATT is STILL making more money than they are. If it is true that Apple brought them a sketch or idea of an iphone and they laughed them out the door... I would say AT&T is giggling all the way to the bank now.
Maybe laughing all the way to the bank with the money they're making on the iPhone. It however has come at the expense of a poorly maintained 3G network, and probably in some areas, poor EDGE coverage.
...
There is currently no commercial deployment of LTE by Verizon. They are testing in Seattle and Boston and SUPPOSEDLY plan to "commercially launch its LTE 4G network in up to 30 markets in 2010, covering 100 million people. In subsequent years, an equally aggressive growth plan will result in full nationwide coverage in 2013."
I'll never see it in my market so it is a pipe dream to me. PLUS that *bleepard*, Dick Lynch has already hinted at tiered pricing so it is a no go for me.
I'll never see it in my market so it is a pipe dream to me. PLUS that *bleepard*, Dick Lynch has already hinted at tiered pricing so it is a no go for me.
...
The reason AT&T can hold off on deploying LTE is there is still room to expand it's 3G technology. They are updating the 3G speeds now to 7.2 MBPS and could go higher than that if they choose. Verizon is moving away from it's existing 3G technology and has no room for growth using CDMA, so they are being forced to deploy 4G / LTE. AT&T will be testing in 2010 with deployments in 2011. That is the main reason for the delay.
...
Incorrect. They have room for growth. EV-Do is upgradeable but what would be the point when they have already committed to LTE? Once that decision was made upgrades to Rev B or SV-DO became a non-issue. Just because the American CDMA carriers are migrating to other technology does not mean CDMA is dead. Americans... *SMH*
...
Azeron said:
...EV-Do is upgradeable but what would be the point when they have already committed to LTE... Just because the American CDMA carriers are migrating to other technology does not mean CDMA is dead. Americans... *SMH*
Half true on the first count, totally wrong on the second count.
Your logic that rev B was feasible only holds in the 2G/3G world where global interoperability and price leveraging are irrelevant. That age is dead. EVDO is not worthless *just* because Verizon wanted to move toward LTE, it's dead because the rest of the world CAN'T go to EVDO rev B, so EVDO is dead and will be decommissioned in less then 5 years to make room for more LTE spectrum by my estimations.
Your ar...
(continues)
...
...
I was aware of the one lone wolf going rev B in an isolated market.
That changes nothing with the rest of my analysis. Widespread global interoperability on rev B is hopeless, and therefore a lost cause from the word go. One start-up in Bali has absolutely zero relevance when AT&T, Vodafone, China and every other major player in the industry has selected LTE or (to a lesser extent) WiMAX as the evolution path.
EVDO is terminally ill. It's going to hang around plugging up spectrum for a few more years in North America, but it's a dead-end.
That changes nothing with the rest of my analysis. Widespread global interoperability on rev B is hopeless, and therefore a lost cause from the word go. One start-up in Bali has absolutely zero relevance when AT&T, Vodafone, China and every other major player in the industry has selected LTE or (to a lesser extent) WiMAX as the evolution path.
EVDO is terminally ill. It's going to hang around plugging up spectrum for a few more years in North America, but it's a dead-end.
...
Okay. Let's revisit your attempt at schooling me.
Azeron said:
"...EV-Do is upgradeable but what would be the point when they have already committed to LTE... Just because the American CDMA carriers are migrating to other technology does not mean CDMA is dead."
YOU said: "EVDO is not worthless *just* because Verizon wanted to move toward LTE, it's dead because the rest of the world CAN'T go to EVDO rev B, so EVDO is dead and will be decommissioned in less then 5 years to make room for more LTE spectrum by my estimations."
Then you come back with: "One start-up in Bali has absolutely zero relevance when AT&T, Vodafone, China and every other major player in the industry has selected LTE or (to a lesser extent) WiMAX as the evoluti...
(continues)
Azeron said:
"...EV-Do is upgradeable but what would be the point when they have already committed to LTE... Just because the American CDMA carriers are migrating to other technology does not mean CDMA is dead."
YOU said: "EVDO is not worthless *just* because Verizon wanted to move toward LTE, it's dead because the rest of the world CAN'T go to EVDO rev B, so EVDO is dead and will be decommissioned in less then 5 years to make room for more LTE spectrum by my estimations."
Then you come back with: "One start-up in Bali has absolutely zero relevance when AT&T, Vodafone, China and every other major player in the industry has selected LTE or (to a lesser extent) WiMAX as the evoluti...
(continues)
...
I believe the reason Verizon jumped on LTE had more to do with spectrum. Rev B & C require more spectrum than W-CDMA does. Rev C UMB requires 20mhz of spectrum, and Verizon doesn't have that much in some markets. Prior to Verizon buying out Alltel, Verizon was only a PCS carrier in Tulsa, OK, and only held a 10mhz license. They barely launched EVDO on a 10mhz license alongside CDMA. They now have 850 for additional capacity.
I also believe Vodafone had a lot of influence in Verizon going with LTE. I just hope when AT&T does get LTE running, that it's better than GSM & 3G has ever been.
I also believe Vodafone had a lot of influence in Verizon going with LTE. I just hope when AT&T does get LTE running, that it's better than GSM & 3G has ever been.
...
Can't help but point out that Sprint has publicly stated that they will be using Wimax for Data and EVDO for VoiP... doesn't sound dead to me.
...
No that IS correct. CDMA is capped out and they do have to go to LTE to improve speeds. CDMA has already been upgraded to its peek speeds. I heard this from a service tech that stopped in my store yesterday.
...
Bartonic said:
The reason AT&T can hold off on deploying LTE is there is still room to expand it's 3G technology. They are updating the 3G speeds now to 7.2 MBPS and could go higher than that if they choose. Verizon is moving away from it's existing 3G technology and has no room for growth using CDMA, so they are being forced to deploy 4G / LTE. AT&T will be testing in 2010 with deployments in 2011. That is the main reason for the delay.
Thanks for pointing this out, Bartonic. I'm very sure Texas knows this very well already. He just wanted to post something here of this caliber to contrast negatively AT&T's Q4 results. Maybe he regrets switching his store from AT&T to, you know, that other company...
...
People love to bash AT&T every chance they get. I was happy to see an article on Foxnews.com this morning regarding the Apple event last week and they said the Verizon network crashed. If AT&T had that problem it would have been headline news.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/02/exclusive- ... »
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/02/exclusive- ... »
...
I seriously doubt it'll be the 1st half of next year.
Btw, where did ynu hear this? Got a link?
Btw, where did ynu hear this? Got a link?
...
It was in the interview with Randall Stephenson for their Q4 earnings.
...
I liked you more as an ATT dealer before you drank the koolaid.
ATT doesn't need to move to 4g. Network speeds are not maxed out. CDMA rev A is maxed at 3.1 mbps. (not talking about lab speeds)
GSM HSPA can hit over 7 mbps (real world) and is launched in test markets now with devices capable of that already in market. Currently no LTE devices exist and will most likely launch with 2 or 3 devices..
ATT doesn't need to move to 4g. Network speeds are not maxed out. CDMA rev A is maxed at 3.1 mbps. (not talking about lab speeds)
GSM HSPA can hit over 7 mbps (real world) and is launched in test markets now with devices capable of that already in market. Currently no LTE devices exist and will most likely launch with 2 or 3 devices..
...
AT&T's backhaul problems, combined with parasitic iPhone users and unusually inexpensive plans for the iPad which will drive up congestion are a far bigger problem then you make them out to be.
AT&T announced just recently that almost all their 3G towers have already been upgraded to 7.2 Mbps capability, so where are the increased speeds? Very few people are even pulling 2.0Mbps out of the 3G network.
The problem is that a good number of all those upgrade sites are still being fed out of something archaic like a T-3 connection, capable of about 45 Mbps on a good day...
Once you get more then SIX people on the site trying to watch HD youtube, you're going to have problems. AT&T's problem is the towers, it's the wires and the...
(continues)
AT&T announced just recently that almost all their 3G towers have already been upgraded to 7.2 Mbps capability, so where are the increased speeds? Very few people are even pulling 2.0Mbps out of the 3G network.
The problem is that a good number of all those upgrade sites are still being fed out of something archaic like a T-3 connection, capable of about 45 Mbps on a good day...
Once you get more then SIX people on the site trying to watch HD youtube, you're going to have problems. AT&T's problem is the towers, it's the wires and the...
(continues)
...
Jayshmay said:
How does anybody know how much backhaul a carrier has?
I have know knowledge of actual backhaul capacity at AT&T cell arrays. As I said, the numbers I gave were just an easy-to-read example. AT&T has already moved all their sites to 7.2 Mbps tech, but it's sitting idle waiting for enough piping to feed it.
Here's the skinny in case you missed it earlier this month:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/05/atandt-kicks-it-i ... »
...
AT&T kicks it into overdrive, rolls out 7.2Mbps EVERYWHERE -- but there's a catch
"AT&T was quick to steal a smidge of T-Mobile's thunder today with the announcement at an investor's conference that has sp
(continues)
...
Well guess what, they are forcing these $30 data plans on people, I read on BGR that txt is now going to be forced to "feature phones" So ATT has plenty, plenty of $$$. Plus they have 85.1m customers, so ATT definetly has the means to upgrade backhaul, but do they have the will???
...
Wonder which law firm out there will be the beneficiary of a multi million fee from THIS class action lawsuit?
...
None. AT&T and Verizon are too smart to force those plans on existing customers Those customers are safe...until they try to upgrade their phone.
...
It will happen, and it's just a matter of time. There are too many people out there who may need to upgrade their phone or plan who do not want a data plan or a messaging plan.
I am probably a good example. I have an older phone, and sometimes I may need to check the weather on the golf course during the golf season, maybe once or twice a month for eight or nine months. I also get text messages from my nieces in Ireland, again maybe two or three a month. I just pay the "by use" cost for this now. If I have to upgrade my phone or plan, why should I have to pay $30-45 a month for this infrequent use?
As Paul Harvey used to say; "Stand by for NEWS!"
I am probably a good example. I have an older phone, and sometimes I may need to check the weather on the golf course during the golf season, maybe once or twice a month for eight or nine months. I also get text messages from my nieces in Ireland, again maybe two or three a month. I just pay the "by use" cost for this now. If I have to upgrade my phone or plan, why should I have to pay $30-45 a month for this infrequent use?
As Paul Harvey used to say; "Stand by for NEWS!"
...
So you think you can sue them because they will require a data plan on a new handset with a new contract? Do you really think you would have a legitimate case?
...
Not me personnaly, but yes, I think there is a case there. Remember the old Cingular lost the "rounding to the next minute" case, and they are getting ready to pay out millions (albeit most of it to lawyers) in the ETF case. The FCC is still looking into their text messaging charges, so keep an eye on that issue also.
I'm not a lawyer hugger or a lawsuit looking for a place to happen, I'm just saying watch out for developments.
I'm not a lawyer hugger or a lawsuit looking for a place to happen, I'm just saying watch out for developments.
...
You can still get a basic phone and not add any features with ATT which sounds like that would be good for you anyways. But if you want a QWERTY keyboard or smartphone, you have to add the features. Just like anything in life, if you want something nicer, you have to pay for it. As far as taking ATT to court, you really dont have a case because you have a choice. The judge would say if you dont like the way they do business, go else where and good luck finding a lawyer to take that case to begin with. And also, the FCC dropped that case with the texting charges.
...
Exactly. Instead of complaining about it DO SOMETHING about it and I DON"T mean run to a lawyer.
...
Well we talk about it in our network meetings and they disclose it in their quarterly filings. Helps boost stock price which keep investors happy when you show where you are investing money.
...
CDMA isn't maxed out (Revb approaches 10mb/s and allows Data and Voice at the same time)
The idea that CDMA is "capped" is pretty much the same coolaid you are telling others they are drinking. Verizon is switching to the new tech for many reasons. Yes, they could continue developing CDMA, but in the end they would switch to LTE anyway (just like ATT will have to) so they didn't see the point in investing billions in short term gains when they could just leap frog the competition.
The idea that CDMA is "capped" is pretty much the same coolaid you are telling others they are drinking. Verizon is switching to the new tech for many reasons. Yes, they could continue developing CDMA, but in the end they would switch to LTE anyway (just like ATT will have to) so they didn't see the point in investing billions in short term gains when they could just leap frog the competition.
...
Who is drinking cool-aid? I was asking what people think. When AT&T has 7 Mbps speeds in a relevant amount of markets Verizon will have 10 Mbps in most likely the same amount with a swath of spectrum to support it.
I was disappointed with AT&T WHEN I WAS AN AT&T DEALER for failing to have the forsight that Verizon had when they made the commitment to launch 3G nationwide instead of in select markets. I hated the fact that I had to explain daily that Lubbock had no 3G but this cool device will work better when you visit Dallas. Luckily Alltel sucked and Sprint had a dial-up speed network they bought from Alamosa.
After all the bad press and potentially lost sales they STILL are choosing to delay.
I don't get it. I just have a un...
(continues)
I was disappointed with AT&T WHEN I WAS AN AT&T DEALER for failing to have the forsight that Verizon had when they made the commitment to launch 3G nationwide instead of in select markets. I hated the fact that I had to explain daily that Lubbock had no 3G but this cool device will work better when you visit Dallas. Luckily Alltel sucked and Sprint had a dial-up speed network they bought from Alamosa.
After all the bad press and potentially lost sales they STILL are choosing to delay.
I don't get it. I just have a un...
(continues)
...
