 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / ATT Wireless / July 2008Ultimate iPhone dis is against ATT
http://www.slate.com/id/2195289/ This is a review from an Apple true believer whose argument cuts right through all the others about the proprietary software, associated plan costs, deficient hardware functions, etc. etc. The writer simply can't make calls on the network because the network apparently blows like a hurricane. I'm not necessarily taking sides - I've never had an iPhone and never been on AT&T. I know only one, maybe two people using their network and not well enough to get a status report on whether things have improved. But in the past I've heard lots of complaints. This writer, like I am, is in NYC (where you'd think the company would try to establish a solid presence). Ultimately, what it comes down to is whether one can connect to others via voice. That's what a phone is for. AT&T apparently has truly grievous problems in that department. According to this writer, they might have surmounted them in the past year, but didn't. I'd heard reports about (the lack of) AT&T network quality, but assumed that with the sale of so many iPhones they'd plow their profits back into the architecture. It looks like they prefer to coast. This, to me, is the most discouraging thing about the iPhone, and completely negates whatever promise it offers. I realize I'm not saying anything new here, but I did find reading the piece edifying. DGI > http://www.slate.com/id/2195289/ Absolutely zero specifics on where he had what problems with the network. 4 Years ago when I first signed on with Cingular I had some difficulty in New York City and Cingular roamed alot with T-Mobile, but in May when I was in New York City I had zero problems in midtown New York City or the Bronx, so without specifics, I have no idea what the man's problems were. >> http://www.slate.com/id/2195289/ > >Absolutely zero specifics on where he had what problems with the >network. You're right. And I've heard similar complaints about Sprint that made the service sound awful, but I've been with them for nine years and don't have a single, not one, complaint about the coverage. (there are complaints, but not those) But while I could be wrong about this, the one thing I know is that the writer is in New York City. And I can't see how reception can be spotty anywhere in New York City. It's really not reasonable that they'd, at this point, still be struggling to build out the network in a major metropolitan area. I have to ask myself, without any long knowledge or insight into the subject why, if both Apple and AT&T called the sale of the original iPhone a "success", and Apple spent the past year working on improving their product to some extent, they wouldn't DEMAND that AT&T do its job and take the year to prepare for the launch of the next phase iPhone, which was bound to increase the user base. Unless both companies feel that its enough to just coast on the perceived must-have quality of the handset. DGI Previously on alt.cellular.attws, David G. Imber said: > I have to ask myself, without any long knowledge or insight > into the subject why, if both Apple and AT&T called the sale of the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > companies feel that its enough to just coast on the perceived > must-have quality of the handset. From what I saw myself and read elsewhere, all of the problems with the launch of the iPhone2 last Friday were caused by Apple, not AT&T. It was Apple that hyped the release. It was Apple that understocked the stores. It was iTunes that caused activation problems by being slow and/or crashing. Due to the marketing agreement, AT&T had to abide by Apple's rules for the release. The local store manager went so far as to tell me that "Apple [effectively] owns the store for the duration" (until the line went away). Since then, all of the service complaints for using features like push email/MobileMe, downloading/installing the new software on older phones, etc, are also all Apple and have nothing to do with AT&T.  SignatureJeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org The from userid is killfiled Send personal mail to gordol "My children," he stood gazing out past the refinery into the depths of space, a seer taken by a vision, "we're going to hit them in the payroll." (Miles Vorkosigan [Lois McMaster Bujold, "The Warriors Apprentice"]) >Previously on alt.cellular.attws, David G. Imber said: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >From what I saw myself and read elsewhere, all of the problems with the >launch of the iPhone2 last Friday were caused by Apple, not AT&T. Understand that I'm not talking about the activation mess. I can understand that as an isolated situation. I'm talking about what would concern me in the long run, and even if I got another phone on AT&T's network, which is general connectivity. >Since then, all of the service complaints for using features like push >email/MobileMe, downloading/installing the new software on older >phones, etc, are also all Apple and have nothing to do with AT&T. Thanks for your reply, but again, I'm talking about making calls, IOW, about getting and holding a signal in the air. Everything else comes after that. DGI > Thanks for your reply, but again, I'm talking about making >calls, IOW, about getting and holding a signal in the air. Everything >else comes after that. Anybody can make that claim, but it has no value of validity without specifics. Previously on alt.cellular.attws, David G. Imber said: > Understand that I'm not talking about the activation mess. I > can understand that as an isolated situation. I'm talking about what > would concern me in the long run, and even if I got another phone on > AT&T's network, which is general connectivity. I have no problems with AT&T's network. I've been with AT&T/Cingular for about three years. The only persistent dead spots I've found are where no one has coverage due to topography or locals not wanting towers in their towns. I've run into one or two places where I had poor or no coverage but Verizon users have service and those have been fixed. I have not yet received my iPhone, my experience so far has been with Treos. SignatureJeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org The from userid is killfiled Send personal mail to gordol Peter's Top 100 Things I'd Do If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord, #183. Before using any device which transfers energy directly into my body, I will install a surge suppressor. >>> http://www.slate.com/id/2195289/ >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >years and don't have a single, not one, complaint about the coverage. >(there are complaints, but not those) One son left Sprint cause coverage was spotty in and near parts of Culver City, CA and was non existant indoors where he lived. He liked not having to step otdoors to make a phone call when he switched to Cingular. Another son left Sprint years ago when Sprint didnt have any Blue Tooth phones. I left because of spotty coverage and dropped calls in Houston, TX. i.e. poor coverage at Hillcroft & Bellaire, or near Lamar High School, or along SW Freeway and Buffalo Speedway. And of course their overheating biodegradable 1900 MHz phones. A friend in Austin, TX is, despite a big business discount is considering leaving Sprint because they can't get his free roaming correct in his family billing, and he's tiring of long calls monthly to get a correct bill. I'd go on, but dont know anyone else with Sprint. All my other friends are already with Cingular/ATT, are with Verizon, or recently came to AT&T to get an iPhone. >>>On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:56:26 -0400, David G. Imber >> You're right. And I've heard similar complaints about Sprint >>that made the service sound awful, but I've been with them for nine >>years and don't have a single, not one, complaint about the coverage. >>(there are complaints, but not those) >One son left Sprint cause [SNIP] >Another son [SNIP] >I left because [SNIP] >A friend in Austin, TX is, despite a big business discount is >considering leaving Sprint because [SNIP] >I'd go on, but dont know anyone else with Sprint. Thanks for your reply, but as you can read above, I explained in a single sentence at the beginning of my note: * I have heard complaints about coverage but I (that would be me) have not had problems with it, ever, anywhere I've traveled. * I also have complaints about other aspects of Sprint's operation (eg: customer service), but not with connectivity. So I'm afraid your note did not respond to the issue I raised. DGI >>>>On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:56:26 -0400, David G. Imber > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > DGI You'll have to excuse Ron- his hatred for Sprint has spawned many rants, mistruths and outright lies over the years. It is well documented. > Apple spent the past year working on > improving their product to some extent, they wouldn't DEMAND that AT&T > do its job and take the year to prepare for the launch of the next > phase iPhone, which was bound to increase the user base. Y'all boys are SO funny..... Look at the Sun....pretend that is the size of ATT. Look at the moon....that would be Apple. Can the moon move the sun to do anything differently? Is any movement the moon does to the sun perceptable without some very fine instruments? I doubt it. Iphone isn't ATT's main business....it's a SIDELINE and a most insignificant sideline at that shipping only 60 phones to our main store from Friday until tomorrow. Hell, any ATT store sold more accounts during lunch last Wednesday than the combined total of all the iphones it ever connected to itself. iPhone is NOT the center of the ATT Universe!.....and it never will be as long as the fools at Apple are holding back product like this. Boy there were some pissed off people trying to buy iPhones while I was there Monday afternoon.... >> Apple spent the past year working on >> improving their product to some extent, they wouldn't DEMAND that AT&T [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >I doubt it. Iphone isn't ATT's main business.. I see where you're going, but are you saying that the iPhone, which was what the article was about, is just particularly bad at finding and holding a signal? I was going on the assumption that the problems that the writer had with connectivity were system problems, not problems with the handset. DGI >>> Apple spent the past year working on >>> improving their product to some extent, they wouldn't DEMAND that [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > DGI You'll probably find it to be a little bit of both. For all of the noise the Apple fanbois make about the iPhone, the telephone portion of the device is conveniently left out. It is a so-so phone on a so-so network. > I see where you're going, but are you saying that the iPhone, > which was what the article was about, is just particularly bad at [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > writer had with connectivity were system problems, not problems with > the handset. As much as everyone thinks I hate the FruitFone for pointing out its faults and deficiencies, it's not the phone's fault ATT isn't providing a great level of service to support it, even as just a sellphone. ATT is a renamed Cingular, a name so hated where I live in Charleston, SC, that ATT obliterated everything Cingular the day they took over, cancelling all the Cingular kiosks at all the malls, taking down all the signs they could lay their hands on. Changing the name of the company didn't change the tower placement and RF footprint of the company one iota....even before Iphone got here. ATT is also PCS where we live. PCS means you have service within 2 miles of the tower unless there is dense foliage which just eats its 1900 Mhz RF signal into the noise floor. PCS has nothing to do with it. 1900 Mhz propagation sucks compared to 850 Mhz propagation, irregardless of the modulation scheme. The higher in frequency you go, too, the worse the multipath propagation caused by the signal bouncing off conductive objects like bridges, towers, buildings, mountains, overhead monstrous aluminum clouds (USAF C-17 transports have a big base here). You can see the change in this effect on an old analog TV on rabbit ears. VHF TV, especially the low channels, has very little "ghosts" caused by reflected signals arriving "later" by a few microseconds than the main signal. Ghosts are always to the right because TV scans from left to right on each line. Switch to a UHF channel, especially a high up UHF channel, and the ghosts are terrible! This same effect causes terrible fading and cancelling on PCS 1900 Mhz sellphones, whether the fanbois like it or not. It's PHYSICS, not advertising. So, at this frequency band, you need a dense tower cluster to fill in the holes and shadows and have a good, strong signal. Add to this problem high speed data transmissions, irregardless of correction schemes, and range drops further...a mile or so from the tower in a canyoned city, for instance. This isn't about iPhone, it's about ATT's coverage. 3G Iphone is a new problem, except for the voice call drops. Our 3G footprint on ATT is a joke!.... http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer//maps/Charleston_SC.pdf ATT is FAR from "ready" to provide good 3G coverage to these iphone customers. It's a kluged up mess on a few towers in each market to get something on the air to support it but a LONG way from providing real service like the local EVDO carriers, Alltel and Verizon do on 800 Mhz mature systems. I can stand in the sanctuary of Greeleyville United Methodist Church, Greeleyville, SC, a tiny town way up in the boondocks, 54 miles almost due N from Charleston and get 900Kbps on Alltel EVDO, which was playing my cowboy radio station KSEY-FM in Seymour, TX on the tablet all the way up there without a hitch. ATT sucks in comparison. It has no rural coverage at all, even on the phones. ATT is a great reason NOT to buy a FruitFone....2G or otherwise. Previously on alt.cellular.attws, David G. Imber said: > The writer simply can't make calls on the network because the > network apparently blows like a hurricane. I cannot speak for anyone but myself. I've been with AT&T/Cingular for about three years. I switched from Verizon because where I was living at that time was in a CDMA dead spot (no Verizon, no Sprint and poor Nextel), but excellent GSM coverage. About a year and a half ago, I moved to another market area. Since I've had Cingular, now AT&T, I have zero complaints about the coverage in my home or where I work. In my travels, the only problem areas I found are either places where all carriers have problems due to local topography or the locals saying "no cellular towers here". The only place I've gone where I had no coverage but Verizon users did was the basement of my brother's house, but AT&T must've activated a new tower as that problem only lasted a couple of months. Where I am now does not currently have 3G access, but according to AT&T, it will by the end of this November. As a matter of fact, the only problem I have with AT&T is due to one specific CSR screwing up my phone upgrade availability, and she is apparently under suspension now anyway. SignatureJeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org The from userid is killfiled Send personal mail to gordol "Mr. Morden and his associates worry me." (Amb. Mollari, B5 "Ceremonies of Light And Dark") > Where I am now does not currently have 3G access, but according to > AT&T, it will by the end of this November. > www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer//maps/Charleston_SC.pdf Pitiful.....horribly pitiful. 70% of the population of our city lives in EDGE COUNTRY, here. Why are they buying 3G FruitFones and paying 33% more for it?? > I'm not necessarily taking sides - I've never had an iPhone > and never been on AT&T. I know only one, maybe two people using their > network and not well enough to get a status report on whether things > have improved. But in the past I've heard lots of complaints. This > writer, like I am, is in NYC (where you'd think the company would try > to establish a solid presence). The writer doesn't live in NYC, he lives in Washington, DC (where the store where he first attempted to buy an iPhone was). AT&T's service is famously wretched in DC for reasons I don't understand; if you want decent coverage there you buy service from Verizon. AT&T's coverage in New York, on the other hand, isn't too bad. Dennis Ferguson >The writer doesn't live in NYC, he lives in Washington, DC (where the >store where he first attempted to buy an iPhone was). AT&T's >service is famously wretched in DC for reasons I don't understand; You are absolutely right and I stand corrected. I should have realized he's likely in DC, as that's where Slate's offices are. What threw me is that he starts talking about network quality on the second page, where he also informs us he's come to NYC to purchase the phone. That shoots my argument about major metropolitan areas about 1/2 to hell, because despite the fact that it's the nation's capital, it's not a congested metropolis in the manner of NYC. It still causes me concern, however. I write for a living, and while I do most of my work in New York, I travel to different cities around the country frequently. I have found Sprint's service to be extremely reliable, and as it can be critical to my work, I'm reluctant to leave the devil I know. I can imagine landing in DC (or Denver, or Ft. Worth, etc.) and being in real trouble if I can't use my phone. Sprint always has me breathing a sigh of relief in that dept. FYI, I am considering the iPhone solely because I need to communicate in Japanese, and must carry a sub-notebook and look for wifi to do that now. Sorry for the confusion. DGI |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.