AT&T vs. Verizon: LTE, Head-to-Head -- PCMag
- Thread starter asleep
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
iamthedudeman
macrumors 65816
I own and operate a marketing firm. And yes those speeds are crucial to getting my work done. E'mailing entire presentations requires those speeds or greater. Try uploading 3GB of files from the office to your laptop at the airport and then tell me those speeds are not important.
----------
Actually I haven't' seen EDGE in quite a long time. EDGE isn't considered 3G. And a drop from Verizons LTE to their 2G offering would be even worse.
iamthedudeman
macrumors 65816
Yes but that coverage is mostly covered with Verizons outdated and much, much slower 3G network. Which do you choose, door A with a fast LTE network which covers some of the country and a 3G network that is slower than molasses.
Or door B with a even faster LTE network which covers even fewer people but with a much, much faster 3G network that is almost as fast as Verizons current LTE network.
I'll take door B.
----------
Lol. Yeah I am uploading movies while I am working.
Real world.
Geckotek
macrumors G3
Gotta love it when people with no idea of the history get on and argue this stuff. AT&T was running TDMA and had an expensive W-CDMA upgrade. And they did this while rolling out the iPhone and iPhone 3G which screwed things up for all the new iPhone users. AT&T was stuck and had to spend a crapload to get their network in shape and still never finished upgrading the rural areas.
Verizon on the other hand was sitting on a newly rolled out CDMA network and had all the advantages over AT&T. They had faster data and were able to more easily cover the rural areas with 3G.
Eventually W-CDMA overtook CDMA speed-wise. This is where we stand now and how AT&T got the edge over Verizon in the 3G areas. Yet they still refuse to invest in rural areas.
NOW, both carriers have to upgrade to LTE. And this means major capital expenditures for both. Don't kid yourself in thinking either carrier has an easier upgrade than the other. LTE is entirely new. But Verizon realized they didn't have the luxury of jumping to HSPA+ like AT&T so they jumped ahead on LTE. Best decision for them at the time.
And from what I understand, AT&T is the one hurting for bandwidth, not Verizon. It's their entire reason for buying T-Mobile.
As it stands now, looking at history, I would expect to see Verizon move rapidly with their expansion of LTE including rural areas.
If history tells us anything, AT&T will ignore rural areas because the cost per population coverage is too high.
This makes me continue to lean Verizon.
Edit: And anybody calling 1 Mbps slow as molasses must be smoking something. Please share.
That or they never used a 14.4 Kbps modem.
Edit2: Admittedly I could see it being very painful for large file uploads as you described. But this is not the norm for most ppl.
----------
I see Edge all the time. Especially when I travel and visit family. On occasion in my office.
----------
Think of it this way, does it take more money to upgrade/fix a beater car or a fairly new car?
Last edited:
iamthedudeman
macrumors 65816
Gotta love it when people with no idea of the history get on and argue this stuff. AT&T was running TDMA and had an expensive W-CDMA upgrade. And they did this while rolling out the iPhone and iPhone 3G which screwed things up for all the new iPhone users. AT&T was stuck and had to spend a crapload to get their network in shape and still never finished upgrading the rural areas.
Verizon on the other hand was sitting on a newly rolled out CDMA network and had all the advantages over AT&T. They had faster data and were able to more easily cover the rural areas with 3G.
Eventually W-CDMA overtook CDMA speed-wise. This is where we stand now and how AT&T got the edge over Verizon in the 3G areas. Yet they still refuse to invest in rural areas.
NOW, both carriers have to upgrade to LTE. And this means major capital expenditures for both. Don't kid yourself in thinking either carrier has an easier upgrade than the other. LTE is entirely new. But Verizon realized they didn't have the luxury of jumping to HSPA+ like AT&T so they jumped ahead on LTE. Best decision for them at the time.
And from what I understand, AT&T is the one hurting for bandwidth, not Verizon. It's their entire reason for buying T-Mobile.
As it stands now, looking at history, I would expect to see Verizon move rapidly with their expansion of LTE including rural areas.
If history tells us anything, AT&T will ignore rural areas because the cost per population coverage is too high.
This makes me continue to lean Verizon.
Edit: And anybody calling 1 Mbps slow as molasses must be smoking something. Please share.
That or they never used a 14.4 Kbps modem.
Edit2: Admittedly I could see it being very painful for large file uploads as you described. But this is not the norm for most ppl.
----------
I see Edge all the time. Especially when I travel and visit family. On occasion in my office.
----------
Think of it this way, does it take more money to upgrade/fix a beater car or a fairly new car?
No idea of what they are talking about? know their history, oh brother.
My marketing firm deals specifically in mobile networks, infrastructure, I deal directly with Verizon, ATT, Sprint, Samsung, Nortel, Nokia so I know the technology quite well. Better than most because I have too.
There is literally no fact or truth to what you are saying. None, zero.
Let me educate you.
First of all TDMA or Time division multiple access is totally different than WCDMA, or Wide band CDMA. And it isn't a upgrade from TDMA. Lol.
ATT had 3G up and running on WCDMA since 2005 which was UMTS.
They had EDGE before that in 2004 but that is only 2.5G. GSM was rolled out on the ATT network and Cingular which both are now the same company back in 2004. ATT wireless was acquired by Cingular wireless and rebranded to ATT mobility.
In 2004 GSM was the network for ATT and Cingular, not TDMA. TDMA was mostly phased out in 2004-2005. No new phones were sold as TDMA phones.
They were GSM,EDGE,UMTS phones. TDMA was basically non-extistant in 2007 when the iPhone was rolled out and had nothing to do with the original iPhone not having 3G. TDMA was completely phased out in early 2008 with people on 'legacy' phones. The network could not legally get rid of those people on that outdated network because of contracts.
The upgrade bath to 3G on GSM networks is GSM=GPRS=EDGE=UMTS=HSPA=HSUPA=HSPA+=LTE. In that order. TDMA has nothing to do with any one of those technologies.
Verizon when they rolled out their 3G network they rolled out CDMA2000 because it was available at the time and superior to UMTS which was out around the same time. Instead of waiting for the upgrade to UMTS which was WCDMA. Which is a superior technology and more advanced.
CDMA is not 3G CDMA2000 is the 3G version of CDMA. The upgrade path is UMB or (Ultra Mobile Broadband). Which is inferior to LTE, which is why Verizon upgraded to LTE which is a GSM technology.
More importantly ATT waited because they looked at the long term health of GSM vs CDMA. CDMA and GSM are not compatible networks. WCDMA and CDMA are not the same and not interchangeable. You are confused. Judgeing by your post. LTE is not I repeat not entirely 'new'. LTE has been around for more than a few years.
CDMA is not a GSM technology, LTE is. Verizon is essentially building a advanced GSM network from the ground up. ATT is not, they are upgrading to LTE from HSPA+ which both are a GSM technology.
LTE was developed by NTT Docomo way back in 2007 and commercially available in Sweden in 2009.
Apple left out 3G because the 3G chips at the time were large and drained a lot of battery life. A 3.5 screen and a 1st gen 3G chip meant the battery life of the original iPhone would be literally not existent or not up to Apple's standards. Not for the fantasy reasons you mentioned.
Apple's stance is that the iPhone gives you a slower than 3G solution with EDGE, that doesn't consume a lot of power,
http://www.anandtech.com/print/2274
ATT is investing more in big cities where Verizon actually has more spectrum. ATT is investing more in rural areas as the link I posted previously earlier in the thread would attest to.
Yes I used a 14.4 k modem, and yes in this day and age 1mps is molasses. And those speeds are real world 500Kps to 1Mps at best. Where as ATT is seeing with HSPA+ 5Mps to 10Mps real world speeds on their HSPA+ network right now. So yes, Verizons 3G network is slow in comparison.
Yes Version has to upgrade to LTE and fast or be left behind. ATT can take their time since LTE is backward compatible with GSM networks and ATT towers can be upgraded. Verizon has to set up new towers, so yes it is more expensive for them and will take more capital for them to upgrade their network to LTE than ATT. Don't kid yourself is right.
That is why ATT's LTE network is faster than Verizons almost twice as fast because they can use the data backhaul of their HSPA+ network. Verizon has no such backhaul.
Designed to be backwards-compatible with GSM and HSPA
http://www.gsmworld.com/technology/lte.htm
What Verizon is trying to do is fix up a old car, ATT is trying to fix up a newer car, so your analogy is accurate.
Last edited:
Geckotek
macrumors G3
Ok, I made assumptions I shouldn't have about your knowledge level and used some terms interchangeably that I shouldn't have. I did this because it was 2am here and it's now 3am and I should be asleep.
However, there is still a lot of truth in what I said. AND I never sais CDMA and W-CDMA were the same. Not sure where you got that. Also, while LTE was born put of the same labs as GSM, this does not make the upgrade any easier. Although it allows backwards compatible hand-offs to GSM systems, those hand-offs are now also capable with CDMA networks as well. There is NO upgrade from GSM to LTE. You need to go research "backwards compatible" and what it really means where GSM and LTE are concerned. All it really refers to is handoffs.
Point being, everyone keeps ignoring the progression. Now I see that you knew it but ignored it as well.
And my analogy wasn't based on today going forward, we are talking about AT&T vs Veizon's past investments where AT&T had the old beater for a while (and still does in very large portion of their network....see their proposal on how much it will cost them to upgrade...part of the T-Mobile acquisition documents.)
Oh, and why do you say Verizon needs new towers. I've not seen anything stating such. And why do you think Verizon has no backhaul? Both AT&T AND Verizon have been madly upgrading their backhauls. In fact, Verizon had the advantage being able to leverage their extensive fiber network.
I'm going to sleep now, thanks for the wireless refresher. (no need for education, I used to work in the industry....just rusty/lazy). Networks and the companies that own them change in phases over time. Often these phases happen in a leap-frog fashion. Based on this I find the arguments of how one is so much better than the other rather stupid. From time to time one will be in the lead and often one will work better than another based on each individuals needs.
Ok, I swear i'm sleeping now.
However, there is still a lot of truth in what I said. AND I never sais CDMA and W-CDMA were the same. Not sure where you got that. Also, while LTE was born put of the same labs as GSM, this does not make the upgrade any easier. Although it allows backwards compatible hand-offs to GSM systems, those hand-offs are now also capable with CDMA networks as well. There is NO upgrade from GSM to LTE. You need to go research "backwards compatible" and what it really means where GSM and LTE are concerned. All it really refers to is handoffs.
Point being, everyone keeps ignoring the progression. Now I see that you knew it but ignored it as well.
And my analogy wasn't based on today going forward, we are talking about AT&T vs Veizon's past investments where AT&T had the old beater for a while (and still does in very large portion of their network....see their proposal on how much it will cost them to upgrade...part of the T-Mobile acquisition documents.)
Oh, and why do you say Verizon needs new towers. I've not seen anything stating such. And why do you think Verizon has no backhaul? Both AT&T AND Verizon have been madly upgrading their backhauls. In fact, Verizon had the advantage being able to leverage their extensive fiber network.
I'm going to sleep now, thanks for the wireless refresher. (no need for education, I used to work in the industry....just rusty/lazy). Networks and the companies that own them change in phases over time. Often these phases happen in a leap-frog fashion. Based on this I find the arguments of how one is so much better than the other rather stupid. From time to time one will be in the lead and often one will work better than another based on each individuals needs.
Ok, I swear i'm sleeping now.
Last edited:
iamthedudeman
macrumors 65816
Quite the opposite is true. Verizons CDMA network is the old beater network. WCDMA is more advanced.
I don't have to research anything, I deal with this on a day to day basis. I know what I am talking about as i market this technology to ATT, Verizon on behalf of Nortel, Nokia Siemens, Qualcomm, etc.
LTE is being deployed on the same towers as ATTs current HSPA+ network to provide a 'third service overlay'. Yes they are both based on GSM and yes they both use much of the same ' data network' hardware. Meaning LTE on ATT is using existing infrastructure(cell towers data hardware) and not putting up entirely new hardware(LTE base station) meaning towers just for LTE. You have to ask your self where the technology comes from to provide the 'handoff's in the first place.
It occurs at the towers and the data hardware required are backward compatible. This is why LTE and HSPA+ and GSM is back ward compatible in the first place. It uses much of the same hardware at the cell tower level. ATT only needs to put the required LTE equipment on it's existing towers and use the same network data hardware to provide handoffs.
Verizon does not have that luxury. The CDMA technology that they employ is not backward compatible with LTE and their cell phone towers cannot use their existing network hardware for handoffs, hence new towers are required.
This white paper my company put together on behalf of Tessco explains it in greater detail than I even could.
http://www.tessco.com/yts/partner/manufacturer_list/vendors/rfs/pdfs/700_mhz_white_paper.pdf
Att is buying Tmobile for their spectrum nothing else. Has nothing to do with towers and their cost. What good are towers if you have no spectram to run them on? Att already have the most spectrum and are trying to acquire more of the precious 700Mhz spectrum. ATT and Verizon have about equal amounts currently, buying Tmobile will put them is a distinct advantage.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20058494-266.html
Sleep who needs sleep.
I only work Mon thru Thur.
Last edited:
Geckotek
macrumors G3
I'm talking about AT&T's upgrade TO WCDMA. And their continuation of that. That is why they have to invest so much.
Sleeping. Will read rest tomorrow.
iamthedudeman
macrumors 65816
This is where you are confused. There is no TDMA to WCDMA upgrade. Never existed. There investment of WCDMA ended years ago. TDMA was phased out for GSM which was GPRS.
The upgrade to WCDMA ended years ago. There is no more EDGE to WCDMA upgrades taking place. That ended in 2006. Now there might be some odd areas to go from EDGE to HSDPA but I doubt it.
Their 3G network is as big as it's going to get for WCDMA. WCDMA is not the same as HSDPA. WCDMA is UMTS. They are upgrading their HSDPA network to HSPA+. And adding new LTE towers to their existing HSDPA and HSPA+ network. WCDMA is being phased out not being built out. HSPA will replace EDGE and where theres isn't HSDPA there will HSPA+ or LTE. Where there is EDGE you will go from EDGE to HSPA+ or LTE.
GSM Progression is as follows.
GPRS=EDGE=WCDMA(UMTS)=HSPA which is HSDPA+HSUPA=HSPA+=LTE.
If you are getting EDGE now, you will be getting HSPA+ or LTE later.
Verizon is also doing the same as ATT. They both are expanding.
Verizon is at a distance disadvantage and they know it. Trust me.
Reaper0bot0
macrumors regular
If the LTE buildout is done by the publicly stated date (end of 2013) none of this matters, at all.
peteypab2133
macrumors member
Being employeed by Verizon I can tell you the LTE service is amazing. I currently got out of my iphone to get into a bionic. The speeds when the thunderbolt came out were around 29mpbs down and 30+mbps upload. We were all impressed. But like all things, it changed. As more and more 4G phones were sold, including hotspots I could see a noticable change in the network speeds in the 30 mile radius that we have it in. I have been doing several tests a week and not averaging around 17mbps down and 6mbps up.
People once said traffic couldnt slow it down. I still dont think thats true.
After doing all the training modules and reading our blogs I can tell you that the LTE from verizon will cover any major population by mid/end of 2012. over 2/3 of the pop will have it. I wish the iPhone had it, but till then I will just use my iphone 4 as an ipod.
People once said traffic couldnt slow it down. I still dont think thats true.
After doing all the training modules and reading our blogs I can tell you that the LTE from verizon will cover any major population by mid/end of 2012. over 2/3 of the pop will have it. I wish the iPhone had it, but till then I will just use my iphone 4 as an ipod.