4G? Or not 4G?

[navychop]

See link for a discussion on what is coming. And here. Or not really here.

 

[tigerfan33]

I want AT&T to get 3G more stable and in a wider area. I am 15 miles from 3G and have been for several years. They need to work on getting that map a lot more blue.

 

[grydlok]

"Carriers already have razor-thin margins after spending billions of dollars building out their 3G networks"

I read this earlier today and my BS meter went off

 

[TheForce]

"Carriers already have razor-thin margins after spending billions of dollars building out their 3G networks"

I read this earlier today and my BS meter went off

Agreed! Yesterday the CEO of Verizon was on TV and said they are doing fine and have ample cash flow and margins to continue to grow the stock holder dividend. He also said he would welcome an opportunity to have a Verizon version of the ipad and iphone as their network can handle it. I'll believe that if and when it happens.

 

[JonE]

AT&T has already upgraded in my area, where I can get a consistent 3G signal pretty much everywhere. And now are upgrading and building towers in the rural areas of the state to include them in the 3G service area. I have no complaints.

 

[mike123abc]

VZ is very serious about 4G Q&A: Verizon's LTE road map for 2010 and beyond

Then by the end of 2013 we're going to have our entire current 3G footprint covered by 4G. So in other words, everywhere we have 3G coverage today we'll have 4G coverage. And we'll also have places where we don't have 3G coverage today that we'll have 4G.

 

[TheForce]

The big thing for us is that 100% of the 700MHz spectrum we won in the FCC auction a couple years back will be used for 4G services.

Just so there's no confusion as to what he said, Verizon didn't win 100% of the auctions in the 700 Mhz band. They will be using 100% of what they won (about 40% of the band) for LTE. AT&T also won about 40% and they plan to use that for LTE as well) and the remainder is being used for emergency and civil services.

What I read in this is that with both companies having equal foothold on the spectrum for LTE, we should not be seeing a huge difference in signal footprint, UNLESS one company simply chooses not to fully utilize their licensed frequencies. This is what we now have with 3G when you compare AT&T and Verizon. Verizon is simply more aggressive in supplying a larger footprint to its customer base than AT&T. BTW- AT&T has stated they will not be ready to deploy LTE until sometime in 2011.

And there's always a rebuttal- AT&T is continuing to upgrade it's 3G service for the balance of the year as it claims it's 3G is technically superior and can theoretically supply 3-6 times the speed as the 3G on competitive services.

 

[mike123abc]

AT&T has stated that all the work they are doing to roll out 3G will contribute to 4G. They are using a single vendor for both. So, all the backhaul work they are doing and box upgrading they are doing will be useful for 4G. They claim they will just have to add a new box at each tower for 4G. The fiber connection to the tower is the hardest part of the upgrade that they are doing now.

But, somehow I think the VZ commercials are working on me. I have more confidence that VZ will have 4G in more areas than AT&T. AT&T has just too much uncovered areas without the needed backhauls to cover their entire voice map with 4G. Some of the places I travel do not even have Edge yet, they are doing GPRS. You get a nice little circle on your iPhone for GPRS. It runs about 9600 baud.

 

[truckracer]

sometimes around here there is little difference in edge speed vs 3g speeds

 

[navychop]

From the article:

"...Still, Hays and Sharma both argued that Verizon and Sprint had less of a choice about upgrading, since their 3G networks are already running at maximum speeds.

T-Mobile and AT&T run their 3G networks on a different standard, which experts say has a maximum speed of about 21 megabits per second -- faster than the speeds LTE will likely be able to offer right off the bat...."

If we can believe that, it lends credence to AT&T's claim of faster 3G. And makes me have little interest in the first deployed versions of 4G.

I'm happy with AT&T because they cover well where I use it. But they certainly need to expand that coverage in a really big way over the next few years.

And why didn't Verizon notice the coverage difference earlier, and advertise such years ago? Were they able to greatly expand coverage in just a year or two?

 

[TheForce]

The biggest error people and marketing types will make is assume that a theoretical maximum is the same as a sustained average throughout the system footprint. The numbers I like to use are AT&T 3G - 1.5-2.0 Mbs and LTE will be 12-15 Mbs. Verizon has a sustained average on 3G of 756 kbps to 1.5 Mbs and will be 12-15 Mbs on LTE.

These assume little to average traffic and lower numbers when traffic increases rapidly.

Probably Sprint's wimax will offer higher speed experiences but suffer a much smaller footprint.

At the end of the day, all of us will have to select a mobile provider that gives us what's best for our usage style. If that style changes, as mine will these next few years, you should be ready to change your carrier to one more appropriate.