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
You've just lost all credibility with such an idiotic statement. Rogers/Fido had a year and a half of iPhone exclusivity. They were sold out for most of it as the units that came in were barely enough to fill the demand for it.
There are plenty of iPhone users on Rogers.
My iPod Touch has proved to be pretty much all I really need sans a phone.(No AT&T coverage in my state.) Free wireless can be found everywhere these days.
Protip: Coverflow murders battery life.
Lilo - I follow this stuff pretty closely - and this is the first time I have heard the "interference" argument.
Which given the age of the iPhone is surprising. If iPhone is a bad team player, then engineers would have discovered it long ago, and Apple would have been very motivated to resolve the issue. It certainly does not help Apple if the iPhone experience is less than good.
This sounds like a rumor generated to deflect criticism away from AT&T.
So we have a "who is telling the truth" question. The best way to resolve it is to produce a named engineer who can demonstrate this interference is a reality. Is there a named source for this rumor?
My view is that AT&T are simply a victim of their own business model. They have no direct financial incentive to upgrade their network to cope with the demands of a device like the iPhone.
They are happy to sign-up contracts, the more the better, - because that generates regular predictable revenue. But where is the benefit in spending the money to upgrade their network to cope with it?
AT&T offer no quality-of-service guarantees, and if customers are not happy, there is absolutely nothing they can do about it!
C.
When you have free time, try to master the concept of sarcasm. My point is that there is no way that Rogers has the same concentration of iPhones as AT&T does in NY and San Francisco. So, why to bring up your experience with Rogers in a first place? AT&T does not have problems with iPhones in many places in US either. For example, so far, nobody from Nebraska complained about AT&T in this thread. So what?
Really ? I was in Reston VA/Washington DC last week and about the only free Wifi I could find was at Dulles airport, and only because Google decided to pay Boingo to open it up for the holidays.
You must only hang out in Starbucks or something.
So now you're saying the problem is the network, not the phone ? Backtracking much ? This very article is trying to alude the iPhone is the reason for AT&T's woes, because of some hardware flaw. I think most people responding that they haven't had the problems AT&T users face is very much on topic and shows how much this article is a bunch of crap.
So let me ask you this, why not bring up our experience with Rogers ? It is very on-topic.
(and protip : trying to pass your comments as sarcasm after people have responded to them showing you how wrong you are doesn't help your now 0 credibility).
Quoted for truth.
They're not worrying, they're trying to defend their abysmal network with lame excuses. That's pretty freaking obvious at this point.
What planet have you been on?
Personally I am so disappointed with the performance of the phone on the O2 network and I know many colleagues are in a similar boat. Not sure if I can point the blame at the phone or the network yet, but I have to say that the performance here in central London is pretty dismal to say the least.
Perhaps those of you in the regions are less likely to experience issues?
Starbucks doesn't offer free wifi here. It is paid only.
Most of our local businesses like the malls, restaurants and local coffee houses do. The university also offers free wifi to surrounding businesses.Your part of town must simply be behind the times?
And I'm not even in a big city.I actually do not disagree with you
The article actually has an explanation as to why AT&T might have kept (and still is) the information about iPhone flaws under wraps - because they do not want to alienate Apple. This article is not about AT&T's official complaints either.
And yes, if iPhone has interference problems (and we do not really know this yet) it does not mean that AT&T is off the hook with their inadequate infrastructure (although Apple seemingly is defending them - what an irony).
The article actually has an explanation as to why AT&T might have kept (and still is) the information about iPhone flaws under wraps - because they do not want to alienate Apple. This article is not about AT&T's official complaints either.
And yes, if iPhone has interference problems (and we do not really know this yet) it does not mean that AT&T is off the hook with their inadequate infrastructure (although Apple seemingly is defending them - what an irony).
Starbucks doesn't offer free wifi here. It is paid only.
Your part of town must simply be behind the times?
Reston VA is one of the big centers for technology with companies like Microsoft, Oracle, VMWare, Unisys, etc.. all having a big presence. I'd doubt it was "my part of town" (I was there on business).
Most restaurants didn't and I didn't try the starbucks. Same in Washington DC, right near Capitol Hill/Downtown.
Starbucks doesn't offer free wifi here. It is paid only.
Your part of town must simply be behind the times?
There is a big difference between being a student and ... not being one
Me, being a typical American (professional, living in the suburbs), I can get free WiFi maybe once a month when I go to a supermarket (not all of them have one) but then it would be stupid for me to do this would not it? Who goes to the supermarket to use WiFi 
So you are saying that the more iPhones any particular provider has the more troubles there is but ... this is definitely not an iPhone related problem. It might be a stretch
You clearly did not understand. I am using the *same* iphone on two Australian networks. On my main service (optus) which is saturated, I often lose data access. On the unsaturated, fully built out network (Telstra) I do not get any issues at all, but fast connections/downloads and never lose a call. I would use them all the time if they were not such price gougers.
Problems on one network (the saturated one), no problems on another (not saturated).
Therefore, my bet is that in the USA it is a network issue, not the iphone hardware.
I'm confused why everyone just doesn't admit that the iPhone is a horrible phone. It's a great small computing device (best ever so far), but it is by far the worst cell phone I've ever owned. I had the original iPhone and now have a 3GS for what it's worth. I'm about to the point of taking out my sim and using it in an old Sony/Ericsson phone I have lying around just so I can make calls and not get dropped.
My iPhone toting friends and I joke around that it's a miracle that we get connected if we try and call one another. Keep in mind this is with full 5 bars of signal. It really is that bad. I was trying to do a conference call the other day, sitting still in my house with 5 full bars and got dropped 4 times in the span of about 20 minutes. After the 3rd or 4th drop I got back on and someone said "you must have an iPhone, we had to get rid of ours because the voice was so bad."
IMHO, Apple cut corners either in the voice transmitter or antenna in order to get the iPhone to look the way they wanted. Most likely to make it as thin as SJ wanted because we all know his obsessiveness with thin.
My iPhone toting friends and I joke around that it's a miracle that we get connected if we try and call one another. Keep in mind this is with full 5 bars of signal. It really is that bad. I was trying to do a conference call the other day, sitting still in my house with 5 full bars and got dropped 4 times in the span of about 20 minutes. After the 3rd or 4th drop I got back on and someone said "you must have an iPhone, we had to get rid of ours because the voice was so bad."
IMHO, Apple cut corners either in the voice transmitter or antenna in order to get the iPhone to look the way they wanted. Most likely to make it as thin as SJ wanted because we all know his obsessiveness with thin.
That word....."blame" is a poor choice of words, sounds like a child who is ratting out on the kid down the street.
The iPhone is not the problem, it has provided more money to AT&T them they could've ever imagined......and some editor is "blaming" the iPhone?!?
That would be like someone giving me a 2 year, all inclusive trip to bora bora and my mom complaining to you that I got a sunburn.
Me = wear sunscreen, and why is my mom here anyway?
AT&T = boost your network capacity, put up more towers, whatever you have to do with ALL that money you got so these editors won't put you down
Get your act together, stop trying to compete with verizon, actually HAVE something to compete with......which may include stopping those commercials of yours which bashes on verizon, and putting your money where your mouth is.
sheeeeeeeesh
The iPhone is not the problem, it has provided more money to AT&T them they could've ever imagined......and some editor is "blaming" the iPhone?!?
That would be like someone giving me a 2 year, all inclusive trip to bora bora and my mom complaining to you that I got a sunburn.
Me = wear sunscreen, and why is my mom here anyway?
AT&T = boost your network capacity, put up more towers, whatever you have to do with ALL that money you got so these editors won't put you down
Get your act together, stop trying to compete with verizon, actually HAVE something to compete with......which may include stopping those commercials of yours which bashes on verizon, and putting your money where your mouth is.
sheeeeeeeesh
You can't compare the vast land mass of this country with other countries. I'll use Great Britain for example since I spend a lot of time there do to my family on my father's side being there. It's 93,278 square miles. The United States is 9,372,614 square miles. So that's 93 thousand, to 9 million. The US is approximately 100 times more land area than GB. I think you have to take this scale into account when you compare networks.
Here is the answer...
It might be so called "iPhone syndrome". Some people did a research and concluded that many iPhone users are delusional (read: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10414356-71.html?tag=rtcol;pop)
It might be so called "iPhone syndrome". Some people did a research and concluded that many iPhone users are delusional (read: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10414356-71.html?tag=rtcol;pop)
Did anyone even read the article?
"Global Wireless Solutions, one of the third-party services that run network tests for the major carriers, shared some of its current findings. The service dispatches drivers across the country with phones and laptops equipped with data cards. They have covered more than three million miles of roads this year, while running almost two million wireless data sessions and placing more than three million voice calls, said Paul Carter, the president.
The results place AT&Ts data network not just on top, but well ahead of everyone else. AT&Ts data throughput is 40 to 50 percent higher than the competition, including Verizon, Mr. Carter said. AT&T is a client and Verizon is not, he added.
"More evidence that AT&Ts data network is head-and-shoulders above Verizons comes from Root Wireless, a start-up in Bellevue, Wash., that is developing software for consumers to install on their smartphones to do continuous network tests. This generates empirical data for consumers who today are buried under opinions and advertising slogans, said Paul Griff, the chief executive. Root Wireless has no business relationship with any carrier.
This year, Root Wireless ran 4.7 million tests on smartphones for each of the four major carriers, spread across seven metropolitan areas: Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles/Orange County, New York, Seattle/Tacoma, the San Francisco Bay Area, and Washington. In every market, AT&T had faster average download speeds and had signal strength of 75 percent or better more frequently than did Verizon. (A Verizon spokesman declined to comment about these test results or those of Global Wireless Solutions.)"
I think that Verizon has more troubles than they want to admit.
"Global Wireless Solutions, one of the third-party services that run network tests for the major carriers, shared some of its current findings. The service dispatches drivers across the country with phones and laptops equipped with data cards. They have covered more than three million miles of roads this year, while running almost two million wireless data sessions and placing more than three million voice calls, said Paul Carter, the president.
The results place AT&Ts data network not just on top, but well ahead of everyone else. AT&Ts data throughput is 40 to 50 percent higher than the competition, including Verizon, Mr. Carter said. AT&T is a client and Verizon is not, he added.
"More evidence that AT&Ts data network is head-and-shoulders above Verizons comes from Root Wireless, a start-up in Bellevue, Wash., that is developing software for consumers to install on their smartphones to do continuous network tests. This generates empirical data for consumers who today are buried under opinions and advertising slogans, said Paul Griff, the chief executive. Root Wireless has no business relationship with any carrier.
This year, Root Wireless ran 4.7 million tests on smartphones for each of the four major carriers, spread across seven metropolitan areas: Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles/Orange County, New York, Seattle/Tacoma, the San Francisco Bay Area, and Washington. In every market, AT&T had faster average download speeds and had signal strength of 75 percent or better more frequently than did Verizon. (A Verizon spokesman declined to comment about these test results or those of Global Wireless Solutions.)"
I think that Verizon has more troubles than they want to admit.
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.
I wonder if anybody here has enough low level information and expertise to know if the majority of the problem is lower iPhone OS/firmware builds and/or older handset hardware. Or is even the latest hardware and OS/firmware builds also a culprit of inefficient cell access?
If it a simple matter of getting laggards to upgrade, that might be something worth propogating to popular media. If the problem is inherent or caused by a rash of jailbroken phones or some such, there may be no solution until user habits change.
Rocketman
If it a simple matter of getting laggards to upgrade, that might be something worth propogating to popular media. If the problem is inherent or caused by a rash of jailbroken phones or some such, there may be no solution until user habits change.
Rocketman
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.
You're correct. Part of my point is that due to the vast scale upgrading equipment to keep up with demand is certainly a huge undertaking.
To scale the example down a bit let's say you have a 802.11b network set up to work at every corner of your yard. Now you want to upgrade to 802.11n. Well, you buy yourself a new access point and 1 new repeater and you're all set. It's an afternoon project. Now your buddy across town is the head of the IT department for a University and he's tasked with upgrading their 802.11b to 802.11n. He'll obviously have a lot more equipment to take into account during his upgrade. It's going to take a lot longer than a weekend.
The point I'm trying to make is, this country has a lot of land area to cover and there fore there's a lot of places to upgrade equipment or add equipment. I believe ATT ran into a major scaling issue as a result of the popularity of the iphone and in part to the popularity of other similar devices. I remember reading somewhere that a typical mobile phone tower only covers a few miles or so... maybe the number was 8 miles. Regardless, that's a LOT of infrastructure to cover. I'm sure some mistakes were made along the way as well.... ATT probably supported cellular technology a bit too long and didn't concentrate all their resource into the newest technologies like Verizon did. The legacy stuff can really drain your resources.
Mike
No. Verizon deliberately keeps voice and data separate, so that they would NOT have the same problem as ATT does: with CDMA cell breathing dropping voice users because of an extra load of data users.
Plus ATT does not geographically cover anywhere close to the whole USA, not even a fifth of it. They're mostly concentrated in heavily populated areas. Still, it's a lot compared to other countries.
AT&T sucked for me when I had a WinMo phone, it sucked when I had a Treo, and it sucked when I had a Blackberry. No phone made any difference. I constantly had dropped calls.
So while that is all personal anecdote, I hardly sympathize with AT&T regardless.