Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'iPhone' started by mpossoff, Jan 3, 2012.
Poll about AT&T deployment of LTE.
Isn't AT&T's LTE average speed already faster then the average speed of Verizon's LTE?
At least one shootout found that to be the case, I believe. I wonder how much this is an effect of small deployment (e.g., when T-Mobile first launched 3G, their speeds were really quite good by virtue of no one having a 3G T-Mobile device). Just wait till the iPhone gets LTE and then watch the huge bandwidth sucking that is the data consumption of the average iPhone user.
AT&T's implementation has tested faster than VZW in lab conditions.
I haven't seen any real world test results.
AT&T already is faster than Verizon.
AT&T might be faster, but what about coverage?
VZW has bought a lot of spectrum while AT&T was waiting for the merger.
Will AT&T have a weaker network not in regards to speeds but coverage?
I think they're referring to the test in the bgr link below. Even ignoring the huge discrepancy in coverage it's still a highly flawed test.
1) There have been plenty of anecdotal reports of Verizon's network slowing down as more users were added.
2) It's not fair to compare download speeds of brand new hardware to 7+ month old LTE phones on Verizon. Look at the d/l speed differences between the iphone 4 and iphone 4s on the same network.
How confident are you in AT&T deployment of LTE compared to VZW although AT&T is off to a slower start?
I believe the latest figures are Verizon has 200 million Americans covered with LTE versus AT&T's 70 million. Both companies say they'll have the entire country covered with LTE by the end of 2013.
No... Verizon bought the bulk of the spectrum back in the 700 MHz spectrum auction.
I trust that AT&T will get LTE out as soon a possible. It is all about money to AT&T and what other incentive do you need?
How will VZW buying the bulk of 700 affect AT&T in expansion, deployment etc of a quality LTE network?
Depends... you see Verizon bought the bulk of the C block (which is the coveted one) of the 700 MHz spectrum. AT&T went after the A block in bulk and also bought some spectrum from Qualcomm.
So how does this boil down? Well, it will depend how much spectrum each carrier has per market.
I think the lowest per market is like 5 MHz chunks, (actual 1.4 MHz, 3 MHz, 5 MHz, 10 MHz, 15 MHz and 20 MHz wide cells are standardized).
The quality will depend entirely on how much spectrum each one has, the more the better. However, block positioning also can affect. That's why C block was so coveted it was, in engineering terms very appealing.
I know I can't compare the size of Puerto Rico with the U.S, but here at&t's deployment of LTE is moving pretty fast.
Right now most if not all of the metro area is covered and they are moving into the inner towns and some of them are already covered.
They said that by Jan 1, 50% to 75% of their subscribers should have LTE. Not sure if they achieved it.
So far, that the only company with LTE already deploy as we don't have vzw.
So AT&T isn't necessarily dead in the water in the LTE game although they don't have a lot of C block?
7months isn't all that much difference generationally speaking for mobile devices.
4 and 4S is a complex comparison... And I'm not sure what you're pointing out.
4 = 3G/HSPA 7.2mbps theoretical
4S = 4G/HSPA+ 14.4mbps theoretical
4 & 4S = 3G/1xEVDO RevA 3.1mbps theoretical
Bandwidths given are for theoretical maximum fir physical link OSI layer, typical bandwidth seen by users at upper application layer will only be 40-60% lower due to protocol overhead.
Users report measuring 3-5mbps, 6-10mbps, and 1-1.4mbps respectively.
No... not at all. Just because they didn't get Block C, doesn't mean they are out. It just means they'll have a bigger engineering problem to deal with (different Block spectrum). That'll probably slow them down and might make signal a tad weaker, but nothing unexpected.
AT&T is just going slow because I believe they are going to rollout both HSPA+ and LTE hand in hand and just upgrade to HSPA+ in places LTE isn't viable yet. That way, they have a great network to fall back.
For example, here in New Orleans, AT&T upgrade all of their towers in the metro and surrounding area (even as far as Larose and rural areas of Houma to HSPA+). However, they are announcing LTE rollout along I-10 between Baton Rouge and N.O. and in NOLA metro area. All other areas will be HSPA+ for the moment. Which is nice because we won't loose speed boosts.
Isn't the main component of getting HSPA+ the back haul? Isn't AT&T HSPA+ like the lowest anyway?
Yes and No. HSDPA 7.2 was meant to be the one that boosted backhaul. The other iterations are just like the confirmation a better backhaul is needed and going to be deployed.
It isn't possible to draw meaningful conclusions comparing older single core LTE phones to much newer dual core phones. If you want to compare network performance you would ideally use the same phone. I admit that's not really possible right now but they could've at least used the latest generation LTE phones on Verizon.
Reason I bring this up is because I'm in a position to switch to VZW.
I don't mind paying premium rates for cellular. I'm not sure if my concern about AT&T future in LTE is justifiable or not. Since it looks like the next iPhone is more than likely to be LTE compatible I want to be confident that AT&T will be able to be as good as VZW. Or will AT&T LTE be a weaker LTE network in regards to coverage and 'quality' I'm thinking. I'm not sure if I'm getting hooked into the VZW hype that says AT&T will be a distant #2 in the LTE game and VZW king. Is this true? My money that's going to AT&T will it be going to a 'second rate' #2 carrier?
If AT&T's LTE deployment in the rest of the U.S. is like what they've done in Phoenix, Verizon better worry.
I've already tested a Skyrocket (AT&T) against a Bionic (Verizon) here in Phoenix and AT&T wins hands down.
Better ping times and faster upload and download.
Will that change with more users? Who knows.
AT&T has invested millions in AZ upgrading it's backhaul.
Even AT&T's HSPA+ is fast here.
I can't believe you got down voted for mentioning spectrum first.
Because the government intervened in the AT&T- T-Mobile merger, AT&T is in a weak spectrum position, even with the Qualcomm spectrum. They will either have limited LTE capacity in a lot of areas, with a much later deployment, or they are going to have to sacrifice some of their spectrum from HSPA+, which would be really bad. Verizon, OTOH, has a boatload of greenfield spectrum that they can roll out LTE nationwide on without re-farming anything.
I think they will be similar in metro areas, but Verizon will win in terms of nationwide LTE coverage.
I'm not an expert but try to be a smart consumer/layman but what I've been reading/studying I would agree. I think in metro areas they'll be the same.
I'm in a top metro area Philly in which I spend most time. Even when we vacation it's in a populated area like the Jersey shore or Florida.
So since I think LTE will be similar or close in metro areas and I live and spend most time in our metro area, I'll have to make an informed decision.
I think the disapproval of the T-Mobile merger will make AT&T do something they haven't done in awhile... wait for it...
Innovate, be creative, proactive and those other wonderful superlatives that mean the iPhone nor T-Mobile can be your saving grace this time around.
I'm excited, it's sink or swim time for Big Blue. I have the utmost confidence they'll swim.