Article in NYT about 3G service (esp AT&T and iPhone)

[eneisch]

Read this article this morning and thought it would be of interest to the forum.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/14/technology/14phone.html?_r=1

The article basically acknowledges that 3G service is lacking in alot of the country and specifically mentions that 3G speeds on the AT&T and the iPhone are not as advertised. I live in NYC and the article talks about how bad the 3G network is here.

More fire for the class actions suits?

 

[bruinsrme]

That article confirms what I have experienced with ATT since switching from verizon

 

[mik34]

Yeah, big difference from Verizon. I have to use Skype in my house because the ATT reception sucks and all my calls are dropped. And I live in Surburban Chicago! Verizon was much better.

 

[ratbatblue]

The article also fits my iPhone 3G experience to a T. It's so frustrating here in Killeen/Austin, TX, that I just leave 3G turned off. The problem is illustrative, IMHO, of what happens when the profit motive trumps the desire to provide good service. Why do I keep paying for the data plan? Why do I keep using the iPhone? Because I like it, and I'm able to do without 3G for the most part. And that is exactly what AT&T counts on. It doesn't make me fond of them for what I consider a pretty big rip off, but...what do they care? They're not in business to be liked. But I'll be interested to see what happens when, or if, they lose the exclusive iPhone provider contract.

 

[Small White Car]

The problem is illustrative, IMHO, of what happens when the profit motive trumps the desire to provide good service.

Really? To me the article showed that they've spent billions of dollars and still can't get it working they way they want it. If what you said here is true, why wouldn't they just keep those billions in the bank? Why waste the money?

I think AT&T deserves all the criticism it's getting and they DO need to improve. But to say that 'profit' is their only motive doesn't seem like a realistic conclusion. They sure are wasting a lot of money if it is true.

 

[ratbatblue]

Really? To me the article showed that they've spent billions of dollars and still can't get it working they way they want it. If what you said here is true, why wouldn't they just keep those billions in the bank? Why waste the money?

I think AT&T deserves all the criticism it's getting and they DO need to improve. But to say that 'profit' is their only motive doesn't seem like a realistic conclusion. They sure are wasting a lot of money if it is true.

That's a valid point, and the only reply I can make is to say that if they're indeed investing all money, it isn't in any way or area that is making my own experience any better. Also, while I understand that they may not be in a hurry to spend tons of cash in my area, which is pretty small comparatively...if they're sinking BILLIONS into infrastructure, how come they can't improve performance in a place like NYC?

 

[deimos256]

gotta love how at&t declines comment on the iphone not being able to handle 3g well, and apple basically saying "what are ya crazy our phone is the best! Simply top $h1t!!!"

 

[Small White Car]

...if they're sinking BILLIONS into infrastructure, how come they can't improve performance in a place like NYC?

It certainly seems like sales of all smartphone has exploded over the past 3 years. My guess is (and this is just a guess) that AT&T has improved 400% but smartphone sales in NYC are up 1200%. Or something like that.

Again, I'm not apologizing for them. In a situation like this it's still AT&T's fault since they're the ones pushing the more advanced phones and then advertising the network as being able to handle it. I'm just saying that I think their faults are different than a simple 'they're too cheap to do anything about it and just want to keep their money.'

EDIT: Forgot to say, I'm basing this opinion on traveling I did last year. In 4 months I was in 18 different U.S. cities from cost to coast and found AT&T coverage to vary widely. The biggest factor? The larger the population, the worse the coverage. This really leads me to believe that they're simply overwhelmed by all these new smartphones that are out there and which sell better in places like New York than they do in places like Alabama. The best, fastest coverage I got? (And I mean FAST.) Why, right here!

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou....414276&spn=0.988398,1.521606&z=10&iwloc=addr

Funny, huh?

 

[bruinsrme]

The article also fits my iPhone 3G experience to a T. It's so frustrating here in Killeen/Austin, TX, that I just leave 3G turned off. .

Same here.

At work 3G is spotty and seems to eat up my battery much faster than the E network. I don't get 3G at my house although their maps show me in a 3G area. (must teach ATT coverage engineers to not color outside the acutaly coverage lines)

Disappointing service but at least ATT is so on the ball that they don't miss charging me for internet access if my wife accidentally hit the wrong button on her phone.

 

[markym07931]

Well, the 3G network speed in Manhattan / Brooklyn leaves a lot to be desired, Plenty of time outs, and generally not working (this is on a go phone, with the $20 for 100mb pack), but the same phone, sim etc, worked flawlessly in Washington DC.

And then comparing that to o2 in the UK, I have to say, although in areas, i don't get 3g, where i do, it is flawless and a lot lot faster than AT&T.

So, it's not the iPhone at fault here, IMO it is the network