Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Article Suggests iPhone is to Blame for AT&T's Network Failures
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Except it isn't a land mass issue to be having dropped calls on one network and not on another (competing networks are in the same land mass after all). In Australia Optus=dropped calls while telstra = high performance (and poverty if you use it)
It is a network capacity issue. I bet in Britain O2 has dropped calls and orange may not.
The only relevance of land mass it is that it would obviously cost a lot more to build out a network in bigger, geographically dispersed countries like the US. But then again you have the population to spread the cost.
Yes but Australia has such a large concentration of total population in just a few cities so it is easier, cheaper & quicker to provide services to the majority of the population than in the USA where you have a large number of very big cities, let alone 15-20 times the total population with a large land mass, masses of interstates criss crossing the country and all sorts of other issues. AT&T can only invest so much money per year on the network as they ony have so many people who can do the upgrades, even when calling in 3rd parties to help.
It would be interesting to see how many towers AT&T has in the USA, of course we seem to be ignoring the fact that getting cell towers installed is generally an epic pain in the butt as the NIMBY's run riot when one is planned but they are also the same ones complaining about crappy service.
If you compare Australia to the USA, look at the concentration of population, the relatively small number of major highways etc etc, I don't think AT&T is doing that bad, not saying they are doing great, but even if they can throw all the $$ in the world at the problem they can only do so much per year.
As to the question of is it the network or is it the device?
- AT&T will not throw Apple under the bus as they are the exclusive provider in the USA and with this up for review next year they aren't likely to do anything to hurt this agreement.
- Apple will not throw AT&T under the bus as they don't want their only US provider to stop selling their phones or promote other devices instead of the iPhone.
- AT&T seems to only have serious issues in a few locations, mainly 2 high density, high population areas, one with potentially challenging geography for 3G/GSM singals and the other with a challenging layout (tall buildings) for 3G/GSM signals.
- Either iPhone users complain the loudest or the other users of 3G smartphones on the AT&T network don't seem to be having the same level of issues with coverage.
Seems to be a 2-2 tie here, and to be honest, I don't think either party is really going to be willing to dump on the other unless their is some bad divorce and in which case one or the other would be willing to tell all at some point in the future.
Edit: I grew up in Sydney (24 years), I live in Denver (10 years). iPhone 3Gs owner.
The iPhone is a great device and a wonderful ecosystem, no doubt or debate.
The iPhone is a device made by a computer and software company that delves into the black art of radio transmission, phone network protocols and other issues worked on in great detail with high investment by phone handset manufacturers for years. On the iPhone it is but one of many applications, with an associated hardware component. It is not entirely surprising the phone layer is not the most efficient and sophisticated portion of the device.
Furthermore, the iPhone is as much a form factor statement as a functional device statement. A plastic back would provide much better radio performance but would uncheck two other boxes, ecological recycling of metal, and cosmetics that Apple is famous for.
IMHO the iPhone and the follow on devices need radio transparent enclosures even if a box gets unchecked.
Then we have the issue that for whatever reason we do not have the exact details of, not only do iPhone users use a lot more bandwidth and attach/detach calls to the network, there are imperfections in the Infineon chip and the Apple protocols that make each such handshake and transmission less efficient than the other guys. Multiply a small inefficiency by record usage and customer uptake and you make a big network, a big, bad, network hit.
That's what's happening.
But Apple, AT&T, customers, and developers, have shown by voting with their feet and their dollars, the small limitations caused by a less than perfectly evolved technology system, and less than optimal network interface, and less than optimum network deployment and provisioning, is not only good enough for them, but notably more desirable than any other alternative.
So Apple, their chip suppliers, their designers and engineers, their network partners, please all do a bit better each iteration of device. When the day comes you make a breakthrough performance that really calls for leaving older hardware behind, do us all a favor. Don't delegate that statement to Apple to make. Make a joint statement so even non-fanboys will see it, hear it, believe it, and solve the SYSTEM problem by upgrading to equipment, software, services, that solve a big portion of the problem.
Thank you.
Rocketman
The iPhone is a device made by a computer and software company that delves into the black art of radio transmission, phone network protocols and other issues worked on in great detail with high investment by phone handset manufacturers for years. On the iPhone it is but one of many applications, with an associated hardware component. It is not entirely surprising the phone layer is not the most efficient and sophisticated portion of the device.
Furthermore, the iPhone is as much a form factor statement as a functional device statement. A plastic back would provide much better radio performance but would uncheck two other boxes, ecological recycling of metal, and cosmetics that Apple is famous for.
IMHO the iPhone and the follow on devices need radio transparent enclosures even if a box gets unchecked.
Then we have the issue that for whatever reason we do not have the exact details of, not only do iPhone users use a lot more bandwidth and attach/detach calls to the network, there are imperfections in the Infineon chip and the Apple protocols that make each such handshake and transmission less efficient than the other guys. Multiply a small inefficiency by record usage and customer uptake and you make a big network, a big, bad, network hit.
That's what's happening.
But Apple, AT&T, customers, and developers, have shown by voting with their feet and their dollars, the small limitations caused by a less than perfectly evolved technology system, and less than optimal network interface, and less than optimum network deployment and provisioning, is not only good enough for them, but notably more desirable than any other alternative.
So Apple, their chip suppliers, their designers and engineers, their network partners, please all do a bit better each iteration of device. When the day comes you make a breakthrough performance that really calls for leaving older hardware behind, do us all a favor. Don't delegate that statement to Apple to make. Make a joint statement so even non-fanboys will see it, hear it, believe it, and solve the SYSTEM problem by upgrading to equipment, software, services, that solve a big portion of the problem.
Thank you.
Rocketman
After I wrote my reply talking about the paging (incoming call/data/sms) channel, I wasn't satisfied with my explanation, so I did some more looking into it.
I had based my response on the well known problem of paging overload, but it turns out this source was talking about a different signaling channel... the one that phones ORIGINATE calls with (RACH - Random Access CHannel).
He claims that the iPhone basically gives up its dedicated data transfer channel after only 30 seconds of unuse. So just about every single time an iPhone user clicks a web link, the phone has to reinitiate a transfer channel request over the RACH, along with all its attendant authentication and IP allocation network overhead.
He says it's almost like the phone is hooking up to a tower for the first time, each time you click a link or start any other data request.
More later. RACH is also important with E911 calls, which is another reason I got interested. Still not sure I believe any of this yet.
Thanks for educating us (or at least me if others already knew this
) I wonder if these parameters (30 second time out or whatever it is) can be changed with firmware update?
Thanks for educating us (or at least me if others already knew this
Yes, through baseband updates they can change parameters like that. It sounds like Apple was fairly agressive with power saving (especially since you can't just change batteries in the unit). They chose, if I am understanding kdarling correctly, power savings over holding on to an outbound channel for setup time.
I have been saying all along they need a BTO double battery option so this "feature" could be set to a less aggressive state during known heavy usage, especially if they want to position the device as a business tool.
If the iPhone were microcell aware it could have a less persistent disconnect since central wireless networks are not being taxed. It could have settings similar to wifi for microcell.
Rocketman