AT&T Optimizing EDGE Network Ahead Of iPhone

[QCassidy352]

I freely admit that I don't know that much about cell phones and data plans, so let me just ask:

Is this EDGE vs. 3G difference something that average people are likely to care about (or even notice), or is it something that will only make a difference to the 1% of people who think like a typical macrumors user?

I don't ask that to be snide or anything - I really don't know. What is going to be the real-world difference in the average user's experience based on it having EDGE vs. 3G?

 

[bradlauster]

getting 137 kbps right now

At this very moment, I'm traveling from San Francisco to Palo Alto, California on Caltrain (one of our regional transit trains).

Using my Treo 650 (EDGE) connected to my MacBook via bluetooth dial-up networking, I'm getting 137 kbps.

I wonder if most of the readers in the forum realize that this is only about 17 kilobytes per second?

Upload speed is a paltry 10 kbps.

 

[jhedges3]

Yes, WTF indeed! I believe one could point to profit maximization. It makes more sense for telecom companies to wring as much cash out of the old systems as possible before investing in new ones. We're still being wrung here in the US. Bogus.

It's not bogus though. It's just how it is.

What is the alternative?! Should our government, for example, regulate things and demand that they give us 4G by say next week?

 

[aLoC]

40 or 80kbps. LOL. It sure is a small "i" in iPhone.

 

[WestonHarvey1]

It will be noticed... but its not all bad

I freely admit that I don't know that much about cell phones and data plans, so let me just ask:

Is this EDGE vs. 3G difference something that average people are likely to care about (or even notice), or is it something that will only make a difference to the 1% of people who think like a typical macrumors user?

I don't ask that to be snide or anything - I really don't know. What is going to be the real-world difference in the average user's experience based on it having EDGE vs. 3G?

It is significantly slower, and people would notice compared to their home networks. But, your average user hasn't done a lot of web browsing on smartphones, and if they have, they probably found it to be a miserable experience, speed or no speed.

For surfing, which is what this device is going to be used for, it should be about as good as an ISDN connection, which is perfectly decent. Most people will be delighted at how good the experience is in general. When I surf on my phone, I may get bursts of 500kbps, but they're punctuated by long waits to reboot when the network connection permanently dies or the phone locks up.

 

[asterizk]

Yes, with these blazing speeds, you too will be able to enjoy the tubes of the internet with Netscape 2.0!

Maybe you'll be able to hook it up to a 56k modem to upgrade the speed....

Wahahaha.... So does the "b" definitely stand for "bit" and not "byte"?

Update - nevermind, just saw heffeque's post about the speeds in Spain -- guess it's "bit" after all. Man.

 

[stainlessliquid]

Ive used "edge" before and its pathetic, it makes 56k seem like 10mbit broadband. 8k menu pages take around 10 seconds to load. My friend hooked up a phone to his laptop and couldnt even break 3k/s for downloads.

Unless you live in a major metropolitan city where "edge" will actually be upgraded to usable, it might be the smartest move to wait for a 3g iphone.

 

[fixyourthinking]

Very acceptable speed

I currently use a USB data EDGE modem with my MacBook and I find that it works very acceptably. It's no G but I can imagine on the small screen of the iPhone things will actually be quite fast.

 

[asterizk]

AT&T is reportedly optimizing its EDGE network ahead of the iPhone, according to Gizmodo.

I gotta say... I'm pretty impressed they're doing this. I think of cell phone carriers and the first thought that comes to mind generally isn't "please the phone maker".

 

[jhedges3]

It does seem weird to me that at&t are investing in Edge and 3G simultaneously. If they know that all of these devices will eventually go to 3G and beyond why not just invest in 3G right away?

I guess we've seen partial answers to this in suggestions that they will go to Edge first to capture some portion of the market with that first and use a subsequent step to 3G to capture additional customers.

To the constraint that 3G is at present only available in certain locations, why not make it 3G where it can get it and Edge where it can't? I'm not even sure whether that's possible.

It just seems strange to me that Steve would have mentioned 3G as early as Macworld and at the recent D5, but that they'd go Edge on this release. It's obvious that if this release is with Edge they've calculated that the sum of the plusses are greater than the sum of the minuses.

If everyone already knows that 3G is in the works and if it turns out that Edge detracts from the overall experience of the phone how many people will be waiting the few short months for second generation to show up?

 

[QCassidy352]

Ive used "edge" before and its pathetic, it makes 56k seem like 10mbit broadband. 8k menu pages take around 10 seconds to load. My friend hooked up a phone to his laptop and couldnt even break 3k/s for downloads.

I currently use a USB data EDGE modem with my MacBook and I find that it works very acceptably. It's no G but I can imagine on the small screen of the iPhone things will actually be quite fast.

perhaps you can see why I'm confused...

 

[jhedges3]

the internet is now truly in your pocket, not just theoretically in your pocket.

The internet is now in my pocket and was only theoretically there before.

I had no idea!

 

[Thanatoast]

Could it not be a combination of factors, some good and some bad and some just how it is? Are you suggesting, for example, that the disparity has nothing at all to do with simply being at this point in the progression of this market in the US and the various factors that have gotten us to this point?

What he's saying, I believe, is that the "various factors" that have gotten us to this point (behind Europe and Asia in overall broadband adoption and speed) were short-sighted and profit-driven decisions made by our government in favor of the telecoms and not in the best interests of the consumers.

In Europe and Asia, (correct me if I'm wrong) government took on the responsibility of promoting, even pushing broadband. It required a large capital outlay that private industry was not willing to risk. In the US, the telecoms argued that they could roll out broadband much more quickly and efficiently than if the feds stepped in, like when we electrified the country. They tooks billions in subsidies, pocketed it, and we the consumers are stuck with technological marvels that sip data through drink stirrers.

 

[odHbo]

I currently have a Nokia N73 in NJ which has 3G. I don't use it... ever.

I understand that the phone not being 3G is bummer but it makes having the phone a lot cheaper. Thanks Apple.

 

[stainlessliquid]

perhaps you can see why I'm confused...

Whats there to be confused about? different area, different view of whats acceptable? The fact is that edge is slower than 56k, when they do their "upgrades" it will be just a bit faster than 56k. Some people are lucky and get faster than 56k speeds. These days I wouldnt even want to check my email on 56k, mailbox sites definately arent the same they were 5 years ago, and with all the huge flash ads having to use 56k is a hellish experience.

 

[Earendil]

Wow... EDGE is really slow :-S
Spain has got 3.6 Mbps availability via HSDPA for more than 70% of the population (not territory). *snip*

Pink is were there's 64 Kbps speeds, Yellow is were there's no connection at all:

Orange is were there's 12.2 Kbps speeds, Beige is were there's no connection at all:

There seems to be something really wrong with USA's broadband policies. Sure the US has less population density but... either way... WTF?

To put those equal sized maps in perspective:

USA has a and area of l9 million square kilometers (9,161,923 sq km)
And a population of 301 million (301,139,947 pop)
Putting the average pop density at 32 people per square km.

Spain on the other hand is only about 5 hundred thousand square kilometers (499,542 sq km), or about 1/18 the size of the USA.
And a population of about 40.5 million (40,448,191), or about 1/7 the pop of the USA.
Spains Pop density is about 80 people per square kilometer.

So now can we imagine a company trying to serve all those people over the entire area, how large that network has to be to cover that area, and the cost of upgrading such a network? Not to mention that we have 3 mountain ranges crossing our country.

Yes, US companies can do far better, and I expect them to. But let's not bring Spain or any other tiny country into the matter as if they compare to a country almost 20 times their size. The US has twice the land area of the European Union!

But it's okay, even I underestimate the size of the US sometimes, or forget that most European countries are half the size of my home state

~Tyler

Note: I am not belittling the important of European countries, just relating their land area to the idea of service coverage be erecting towers.

*information from The World Factbook.

 

[uneek]

Wirelessly posted (SAMSUNG-SGH-I607/I607FG1 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows CE; Smartphone; 320x240) UP.Link/6.3.1.17.0)

everyone complaining about the lack of 3G on the iPhone needs to get over it. please just remember the benefits and start being optimistic. 3G would drain the battery more than EDGE. the iPhone will automatically switch from WIFI to EDGE (no hassle like on other phones! etc. HTC and Treos). plus i dont see anyone complaing about the lack of 3G on blacberry devices.

 

[Laglorden]

For surfing, which is what this device is going to be used for, it should be about as good as an ISDN connection,

ISDN I remember that was quite popular around -99 or something, nowadays you can't even order it... Has the whole US gone completly Amish when it comes to internet connections or what? *teasing*

I have 3.6 Mbit on the phone (don't use it) and 100/100Mbit for 199 SEK (~$28) where I live... 80 kbps... well, It's better than nothing and when you get to hotspots you can surf "for real" but why??? 3G is actually _lower_ power than GSM, the parts are as small, as cheap and so on... my guess is some patent problems they wanted to avoid.

Downloading Google images over 40 kbps are going to be painful, or songs 3 MB = 30000kbits / 40 = 12 minutes! *ouch* 3 Mbit ~ 10 seconds. much less painful. And with people sending attachments often > 5MB and so on... 3G is necessary for a fully functioning smartphone as I see it.

 

[jhedges3]

What he's saying, I believe, is that the "various factors" that have gotten us to this point (behind Europe and Asia in overall broadband adoption and speed) were short-sighted and profit-driven decisions made by our government in favor of the telecoms and not in the best interests of the consumers.

In Europe and Asia, (correct me if I'm wrong) government took on the responsibility of promoting, even pushing broadband. It required a large capital outlay that private industry was not willing to risk. In the US, the telecoms argued that they could roll out broadband much more quickly and efficiently than if the feds stepped in, like when we electrified the country. They took billions in subsidies, pocketed it, and we the consumers are stuck with technological marvels that sip data through drink stirrers.

Ok, but wait. Any good references for the first paragraph (books, reviews, articles, researchers)? Is Wikipedia enough? What were the steps? Who were they made by? What makes those steps the primary factor in getting us to this point?

I'm confused about the end of your second paragraph. So the telecoms argue to the feds (which feds and when?) that they can do just fine getting broadband out by themselves? Then what happens. If they got what they wanted how does that get us to your last point. They argue they'll do it by themselves and then they get "billions in subsidies?" I thought by themselves meant sans subsidies. Plus if they could get the subsidies for not going at it alone why would they asking for going at it alone?

 

[heffeque]

It's clear that there is a disparity. But why is it that you assume the disparity is attributable to "USA's broadband policies?"

Could it not be a combination of factors, some good and some bad and some just how it is? Are you suggesting, for example, that the disparity has nothing at all to do with simply being at this point in the progression of this market in the US and the various factors that have gotten us to this point?

In addition, why restrict your comparison to the US and Spain? Even though most of us already know the take home message (the one you and so many others like to remind us of, the US has in some respects lagged technology) you might as well give us some numbers or figures that compare the US to other European nations or other Western nations or the rest of the world.

I guess for you, though, the problem with opening the comparison up in that respect is that doing so might, regardless of the result, dilute some of the unspoken satisfaction that we can assume you derive from pointing out that your country in particular has faster networks. This pride, and the faster transmission of wireless data, has me yearning to leave New York for Spain as soon as possible. I just have to find a nice Spanish girl to make it happen, assuming that Homeland Security still allows for that sort of thing.

I'm actually American too, you know ;-) I compared them speeds with Spain because that's where I'm living right now and it's where I have some objective data. Next year I'll be living in Slovenia... (yes, the one that got independence from Yugoslavia just several years ago, in 1991) and the 3.5G panorama is still very favorable towards Slovenia (EDGE = 2.75G, HSDPA = 3.5G). Even wired broadband is looking good in Slovenia were they have VDSL all over the country and they've started deploying FTTH this year. Not bad.

I'm just pointing out that there's something terribly wrong going on with broadband in the US. Where my grandma lives (near Lancaster, PA) the GSM coverage is average (definitely no EDGE available), Comcast isn't offering a good run for the money either, and DSL tops 768 Kbps download speeds (not all locations have access to the 3 Mbps DSL speeds). Something's not right :-S

 

[WildCowboy]

Yes, US companies can do far better, and I expect them to. But let's not bring Spain or any other tiny country into the matter as if they compare to a country almost 200 times their size. The US has twice the land area of the European Union! [/SIZE]

Check your math...Spain is more like 1/18 size of the US. You're off by a factor of ten. With a population 1/7 that of the US, that's how you arrive at a population density of about twice that (or so) of the US.

 

[sunstream]

Of course it will have 3G

Im fully confident that next week Steve Jobs will anounce a slew of additional features including 3G. There is no way that apple would really introduce a revolutionary device like this and have it run on old technology. It would be like introducing apple TV but only letting it run on dialup internet. That is the difference Dialup vs Broadband - for a "media phone". I cannot imagine that being the case because by its very nature it needs 3G, and if by some disfunction it is not implimented yet it will certainly be announced as a free upgrade once it is worked out. Otherwise the whole thing would be a massive letdown, and I cannot believe it to be. I intend to be in line for the iPhone and it will definately have 3G.

 

[Earendil]

Check your math...Spain is more like 1/18 size of the US. You're off by a factor of ten. With a population 1/7 that of the US, that's how you arrive at a population density of about twice that (or so) of the US.

Hum, yes, thank you. Some basic thinking would have avoided that math error. However that post was "supposed" to be a break from bug testing and QA write ups, so my brain was effectively off ;-)

I think my point still stands though.

 

[jhedges3]

I'm actually American too, you know ;-) I compared them speeds with Spain because that's where I'm living right now and it's where I have some objective data. Next year I'll be living in Slovenia... (yes, the one that got independence from Yugoslavia just several years ago, in 1991) and the 3.5G panorama is still very favorable towards Slovenia (EDGE = 2.75G, HSDPA = 3.5G). Even wired broadband is looking good in Slovenia were they have VDSL all over the country and they've started deploying FTTH this year. Not bad.

I'm just pointing out that there's something terribly wrong going on with broadband in the US. Where my grandma lives (near Lancaster, PA) the GSM coverage is average (definitely no EDGE available), Comcast isn't offering a good run for the money either, and DSL tops 768 Kbps download speeds (not all locations have access to the 3 Mbps DSL speeds). Something's not right :-S

Thanks for responding to my third and forth paragraphs. But why didn't you respond to the first or second ones?

I do not understand why the lack of a certain level or a certain kind of technology in some areas is evidence of a problem, let alone a problem with USA's policies.

It would be like pointing out that my theoretical uncle in Anchorage doesn't have access to the same subway system as a person living in Manhattan has.

Access to certain technologies, and it would seem countless other things, is not a right, it's not something that must be equivalent across all people. Providing for access is, it would seem, necessarily linked to profitability, among other things.

It would seem that those living near your grandmother, for example, will get the speeds that they deserve as you see it just as soon as someone (or some set of people) makes the gamble that they'll profit from people paying for those speeds.

 

[Earendil]

Im fully confident that next week Steve Jobs will anounce a slew of additional features including 3G. There is no way that apple would really introduce a revolutionary device like this and have it run on old technology. It would be like introducing apple TV but only letting it run on dialup internet. That is the difference Dialup vs Broadband - for a "media phone". I cannot imagine that being the case because by its very nature it needs 3G, and if by some disfunction it is not implimented yet it will certainly be announced as a free upgrade once it is worked out. Otherwise the whole thing would be a massive letdown, and I cannot believe it to be. I intend to be in line for the iPhone and it will definately have 3G.

People people. You're not looking at the entire puzzle.
Apple had to sign with one cell company to make this work well
Apple signed with the largest cell company in the US.
The largest cell company in the US does not use 3g.
Apple is giving the largest cell company exclusive rights to the iPhone for a number of years.
Why than, when considering the above, would Apple incorporate a technology that no one can (legally) use for at least a few years? Or until said largest cell company moves their network over to 3G.

~Tyler