AT&T Confesses: It Can't Handle iPhone, iPad

[hellwig]

[citation][nom]TheRabidDeer[/nom]Good job AT&T. Imagine if that $39 billion you spent on buying a competitor was used instead to improve your service. Sure you can use their network, but that doesnt actually make anything better because they still have customers too![/citation]
Exactly, what happens to T-Mobiles millions of customers? Oh, that's right, our phones will stop connecting at 3g/4g speeds the second AT&T switches T-Mobile's 3G/HSPA+ spectrum over to their own 4G network. Presto-chango, better service to AT&T customers. Then, a couple months later, when T-Mobile customers have been forced to re-sign new AT&T contracts for the free phone upgrade that actually lets them browse the internet at reasonable speeds, the network will be bogged down again, AT&T will claim they need a bailout from the government to upgrade their infrastructure, or that brand new 4G network might collapse, and the government surely doesn't want that, do they?

 

[acadia11]

Utter bs' thesis to male there tmobile purchase sound more palpable.

 

[xrodney]

[citation][nom]rohitbaran[/nom]You really believe that they are going to upgrade their infrastructure? They will simply introduce data plans of 20 MB, 50MB and so on to keep data usage in check.[/citation]
I am starting to get sick from all those providers quietly sitting on their cash instead of investing it in infrastructure upgrades.
If I order unlimited dataplan and and they change it later i would consider it breach of contract from their side.

Perhaps there is time for country/state to step in and give them offer, either fix infrastructure or revoke license for frequency band and offer it to someone else who will be willing and able to maintain it. Evidently AT&T is one of those who think that you can just sit on your ass for years as long as your network is working and only start to act when consumers are starting to get fed off with excuses.

There is no problem with network infrastructure being overloaded, its their towers and local network, that was ignored for long time.

 

[nebun]

[citation][nom]cadder[/nom]ATT just posted record profits. You would think they could spend a little of that money to fix their network.[/citation]
why on earth would they upgrade their infrastructure when they can use the money for personal things, lol.....greed will destroy this company

 

[1smartperson]

2.2 million less off their network, which means verizon only has 2.2 million iphone users...AT&T has almost 60 Million Iphone users and added 3.9 million more smartphones in the same quarter. So how would they feel any network relief exactly?

 

[K2N hater]

[citation][nom]hellwig[/nom]Exactly, what happens to T-Mobiles millions of customers? Oh, that's right, our phones will stop connecting at 3g/4g speeds the second AT&T switches T-Mobile's 3G/HSPA+ spectrum over to their own 4G network. Presto-chango, better service to AT&T customers. Then, a couple months later, when T-Mobile customers have been forced to re-sign new AT&T contracts for the free phone upgrade that actually lets them browse the internet at reasonable speeds, the network will be bogged down again, AT&T will claim they need a bailout from the government to upgrade their infrastructure, or that brand new 4G network might collapse, and the government surely doesn't want that, do they?[/citation]
Exactly.

It's time to break these huge companies into smaller parts which wouldn't screw up the entire country once they crash.

 

[mister g]

[citation][nom]vigorvermin[/nom]verizon bought out alltel, not at&t[/citation]
There was a comment exactly like yours in another article, and to sum up the answer to that same comment from another user (who didn't respond here); Verizon bought 70% and AT&T bought the other 30.

 

[fayzaan]

[citation][nom]cadder[/nom]ATT just posted record profits. You would think they could spend a little of that money to fix their network.[/citation]

Lol that is how capitalism works. The corporations main concern is making profits! and they'll do whatever it takes to make more monies. And the more they make, the higher increase in salary for the stupid management, Greedy bastards

 

[bv90andy]

If they keep at it like this... putting all the profit in the shareholders pockets and don't update their seriously outdated network, then one day we'll read how they'we gone bankrupt.

 

[Guest]

No one on this board understands much about how mobile networks work. That is for sure.

1. All carriers are facing a spectrum crunch (you know those magical waves your signal rides on) - spectrum is finite, and you can't simply create more to meet the growing demand of mobile broadband.

2. The amount of red tape that goes into "fixing" a network is unreal. Even Steve Jobs quoted during the iPhone 4 keynote that whereas in some states it takes a few months to get approval to put up a new tower, it takes YEARS in San Fransisco to do it. It's probably safe to assume cities like New York are similar. And that is just for putting a tower up, that doesn't include laying fiber (time consuming in and of itself), powering said equipment, etc. Lets not even get in to local, state, and federal compliance guidelines, that might make some of your heads explode.

To say they should spend 39 billion on improving their network...you are missing the point...because that is exactly what they are trying to do. In buying T-Mobile they have instant access to their spectrum holdings, their towers, their fiber, licensing, etc. Like it or not all this stuff takes time, and consumers expect everything at the blink of an eye. Buying T-Mobile (who wants out of the US market since really they have made no money in it), is the best way to improve their network quickly bar none.

 

[whatisupthere]

I think this is ridiculous. AT@T is selling customers an expensive (300 extra a month minimum per phone + about 600$ for basic) service then complaining that the customers use it. They want customers to pay them but dont want to pay for the network upgrades. Strange how other companies are happy to take our $$$ and provide us with better coverage for the same price.

 

[memadmax]

So, you start laying fiber like mad?

 

[ThisIsMe]

[citation][nom]jerreece[/nom]Yeah, then you become Cell Phone Company of NY. The rest of the country hates you, because your tiny network in B.F.E. can only handle 3 calls at once, and you lose your foothold everywhere except NY.AT&T admitted (by a huge TV/Marketing campaign) that it's week point is in the rural areas. That's why they did the huge TV commercial campaign claiming to have service in Bozeman, Montana (they specifically mentioned this city). Frankly, I live there and can tell you they did NOT have service in Bozeman, Montana until they bought out Alltell. Very few people here have AT&T phones (except all the former Alltell customers).[/citation]
Why do so many folks on here talk about how it was at&t who bought Alltel??? Seriously, you guys need to get your facts straight before you start rambling on about stuff.

It was Verizon that bought out the whole of Alltel wireless along with almost the entire Alltel customer base. However there was a deal that was struck with at&t to buy certain portions of the company where it had resources that were compatible with at&t and not with Verizon's network. Since the areas were not compatible Verizon's apparently didn't mind letting at&t have them since it only lightened their own bill for the purchase of the whole of Alltel. Most of these places where in some small cities around the US and the vast majority were in South Dakota.

Now with that said, again it was Verizon that bought Alltel and it's customers. That's how Verizon was able to become the #1 carrier in the US. They had the benefit of adding virtually all of Alltel's resources to their own to allow for the increase in usage and since the extra customers they acquired came from that carrier there was no real load increase at the time. In contrast, at&t had a break through product called the iPhone that was released to the public causing a huge surge in customers over the course of a few years and even if they were to double or triple their network capacity each year it still wouldn't compare to the fact that these new customers didn't some with their own complete telecoms resources ready to go.

And to all you iPhone haters out there, at the time of release there was no "real" product around that could truly compare with the functionality with out the added cost of being clumsy, complicated, and difficult to learn how to use it. I know that it was Microsoft that coined the term "smart phone" back when it came out with Windows Mobile for Phones and when they were experimenting with "smart watches" also, but it was obviously geared only towards those that were either adventurous or had a necessity for the functionality. Oh, and at the time Palm-OS was losing and Blackberry was awful, except for email, but then Microsoft started it's push email for Exchange and that was that. So, before you start babbling about how you got Android now, just sit there for a minute and calmly contemplate how many design features, OS navigation methods, and overall usability brought forth by iOS. After this remind yourself that Android is the "newest thing" and that it showed up long after iOS was already dominating. Then before you type, try and form your words carefully so that they are based on reality. Then you will realize what all the hype was about, because you'll see that Android is really just trying to be like iOS with some differences to set it apart.

Oh and seriously tom's, do you always have to post negative things about at&t with the urgent "red" lettering in the link? It's like you think at&t is sending messages straight into your brain telling you to kill your self, or you think the co-founders killed your great great grand pappy or something.

 

[Kryan]

I still am amazed at how backwards and outdated your celullar systems are in the US...over here in Europe, carriers are LAUGHING at you. for 10$ a month i get TRUE unlimited data...no cap, nothing. Sucks to be you guys 🙁

 

[figgus]

[citation][nom]hoofhearted[/nom]Other telcos charge alot less for alot more bandwidth in other countries, and they seem to survive and make money.[/citation]

Those other telcos in other countries aren't paying their line technicians $75/hour (or more) after bennies are factored in. Labor is one of the biggest costs in business, and high labor rates = high product costs. Pretty simple, really.

 

[bhaberle]

If only Sprint acquired them... yes I know it is different technologies but a man can dream of having the option for cdma and gsm. =P

 

[Guest]

I drove from STL, MO to KC, MO (clear across the state) and through areas of our state that represent one of the few large white 'no coverage' blots on the verizon coverage redmap. I was able to successfully surf the entire 4hr car ride on my droid and hold two phone calls w/o anything different in quality outside the norm. My road warrior buddy on at&t couldn't get a signal until we were in KC and only because our hotel was by the airport.(everyone knows wireless carriers have stations at airports)
Four months ago my sister drove all the way to Vegas through colorado and only had one dropped call going up into the mountains, also droid(buy one get one free deal). My brother-in-law served as a contractor for tower repairs/upgrades and agrees, at least in the midwest that AT&T's equipment is weak and they didn't get as many contracts for repairs/upgrades as they did from verizon.

 

[Skippy27]

Right?!?!? Up until recently they were fine, or at least said they were. Now all of a sudden they can't handle it? Gee what changed? Oh that's right... they want to buy a competitor.

We can't handle the bandwidth! BooHoo! Can we buy T-Mobile now? Pretty please?

 

[dalethepcman]

@ThisIsMe

After this remind yourself that Android is the "newest thing" and that it showed up long after iOS was already dominating... try and form your words carefully so that they are based on reality.

Speaking of being based in reality, you should really check back into planet earth sometime, unless you already drank too much of Jobs Kool-Aid to ever return to sanity. I suppose next your going to say Apple invented the tablet, and video calling too. Here are some simple facts for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_%28operating_system%29
Android, Inc. was founded in Palo Alto, California, United States in October, 2003. Android Inc. operated secretively... but many assumed that Google was planning to enter the mobile phone market.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_%28Apple%29
The operating system was unveiled with the iPhone at the Macworld Conference & Expo on January 9, 2007

 

[NapoleonDK]

[citation][nom]dalethepcman[/nom]@ThisIsMe... ...Here are some simple facts for you... "founded in Palo Alto, California, United States in October, 2003." VS "unveiled with the iPhone at the Macworld Conference & Expo on January 9, 2007[/citation]Those dates are accurate. However you also need to take into account that Apple needed to actually build and test iOS before it came out, comparing the 2003 Palo Alto date to Apple's press release of iOS is a bit harsh. Google bought Android in August 2005, and showed their finished (sic) project off November 5th 2007. If iOS came out Jan 9th, and Android Nov 5th, then iOS technically beat Android to the consumer right? Who knows how long Apple worked on getting the first iPhone ready for release! Basically I see two operating systems that were released the same year, (4 years ago) and are competing to this day.