The folks over at Computerworld just ran the current 3G providers in America through their paces, only to discover that AT&T came out on top in almost every category. Well, it appears the monolithic telco plans to keep its edge (er...) on the competition -- by upping its HSPA service to a whopping 20Mbps come 2009. Our main man
Ralph de la Vega said that the process wouldn't require a major overhaul to the provider's infrastructure, and that they're already working on punching up the current 3.6Mbps speeds to 7.2Mbps "in the labs." Apparently, this won't stall plans for forthcoming 4G / 700MHz / LTE service from the company -- it'll just be icing on the cake.
Read - Which 3G network is the best?
Read - AT&T plans 20-megabit 3G by 2009
posted May 15th 2008 10:10AM
No, thank all of you for highly ranking me. I mean, we are all gadget-nerds here, but we don't have to pick apart some pointless detail in an attempt to get a rise out of the author. Perhaps stern is just upset that no one reads his blog.
And I thought the blur was awesome.
I just hope I can bring a bit of mindless gumph into someones life now and then.
Oh and Jeff - I don't have a Blog, but I'm thinking about starting one about blog headline images and their relation to their respective content.
It would be a place where we can discuss the importance of what photoshop technique should be used on the headline image of Blog posts to convey the theme of the story.
Until then fans of this subject will be picked on by people who only care about what actually matters in the world.
Speed, once you get past a certain point, isn't nearly as big of a deal to me as widespread /coverage/. I want at least a working (which is often much lower than maximum) ~300kbs. More is great, but for non-entertainment purposes, that's usually enough.
But I need it everywhere.
AT&T's HSDPA is great...where you have 3G coverage (and good coverage, not the crap you get on the fringes).
With AT&T right now, if your "mobile" life keeps you downtown (or close to it), you're fine, but go too far from the city, or travel to a small-ish city, and you're back on EDGE.
Verizon is evil, but they have the right priorities (after profits): network first. Yes, their phone line-up is positively depressing sometimes, but you can't beat their EV-DO coverage, with more markets, and wider coverage in those markets than anyone else -- even though it'll cost you your first-born child if you want a phone with tethering and all that jazz.
If AT&T followed that model, they'd be #1 by a huge margin rather than a sliver.
It very much depends where!
I.e. in Southern california, around irvine, it is blistering fast, same as LA...
However in Fullerton/Mid Orange County it is as crap as edge even with full signal!
The "Folks at Computerworld" need to get out of the big city and use their card where us Verizon and Sprint users have been using ours for over 9 months...make an equal playing field. The reason why I did not purchase an AT&T card is I will not have the available network to use my product in a "broadband" environment. AT&T can call their product 3G all it wants, but if I am using it in a fringe area outside of a city where my Verizon or Sprint works, I get EDGE or worse speeds...
AT&T, you need to stop the deception...if it looks like a pig, smells like a pig and tastes like a pig...it is a PIG! When you all finally get your 3G network together, then you can put a coverage map on your web site like Verizon and Sprint instead of hiding behind a coverage map that is non-interactive and precise for your 3G network. Your product is not ready for primetime when you can only get the speeds you are advertising in the cities. That is the problem with voice people running a data product...and then charging people for their bandwidth usage which Verizon and AT&T are doing...go and raid Earthlink for some real data managers and marketing people and you will learn what to do and what your customers really want.
To charge 49 or 99 cents per MB for overages is absolutely fraudulent since most people cannot monitor their data usage. It is simple to count minutes but data is a different animal. The industry is being very irresponsible on this one and Sprint is the only company doing it correctly. Hopefully, WiMax and LTE will change my opinion of this but with the state of the industry today, I would be very surprised.
WOW this might be the most rational E-comments ive seen in a while.
These test dont really matter when you ONLY test one area in a major city. Its great to know that if iam standing where they are testing these speeds AT&T is the fastest...WOOOOOOPY DOOODAAA..
How about if i go a couple miles down the road or travel ANYWHERE else not in that area.. Take a guess where AT&T will land in that test.... probably not 1st.
Whats counts is on average AT&T has the slowest coverage.. VZ and Sprint (which i have MOGUL) are much faster..
And Engadget please be more responsible with your stories.. How about you point out some of the ovbious problems with that test..
Instead of drinking the ROOFYCOLADA bullshit these guys fed you.
But of course this story if taken on word looks great for sales of a certain DEVICE....Hmmmmmm
I wouldn't be surprised if that laptop was plugged into the ethernet at a 'test' base station, whereas Sprints and Verizons towers were miles away!
What for if Engadget is just biased towards ATT and the Iphone
Wow this sucks...always said I wouldnt need a 3g iPhone when it came out (have a current iPhone) but it sounds like my city is getting 3g in a few months they say.
There goes my wallet....getting smaller again
Might you want to update the title and story to note that this testing was only in NYC, New Jersey, and Connecticut
I have found that nationwide is not the same as a few big cities and over very short distances.
Verizon still working on the Amtrak...I am now between Madera, CA and Fresno, CA...AT&T? Can you say EDGE? The guy sitting a row up from me with the AT&T card is thinking about purchasing a VZ card now...and I just have a few with me...I should have him sold by Bakersfield!
Nice article...the words look pretty
Expired -> Tired -> Wired
Ditching your party line -> Ditching your land line -> Ditching Optimum Online
How about the next "test" takes into account the 3G coverage area. Lets see how good ol' AT&T does there...
did no one notice that the story headline from source says 20 megaBIT? like, as in, a lot slower than 20 megabytes per second. of course that could have been a mistake in itself, but it doesn't make sense considering that 20MB/s would be significantly faster than most consumer cable/fiber optic internet connection.
I have only seen those speeds in a lab. Let's see it in the real world with thousands of real customers. When I see that, I will believe it. I have heard so many claims of vaporware over the years in this industry, only to be disappointed by the real product. The claims made by AT&T are bringing me back to the old adage of "been there, done that."
Let's see it first before we tout the product...that way we will not build ourselves up for the big let down.
7.2Mbps HSDPA?
NTT Docomo's customers have already been using it for a year.
all the line-up of 905i series already support 7.2Mbps.
Now they are working on Super 3G which have 250Mbps, to be launched in 2009 sth...
The AT&T 3G network is an utter crap, compared to both Sprint and Verizon.
First, when you insert the card into your laptop, it might take up to 3 minutes for it to finally find the network, whereas with Sprint and Verizon it takes just a couple of seconds.
Second, average ping time over AT&T 3G is about 150-300ms, when with Sprint and Verizon it's about 70-100ms.
Third, I could barely squeeze about 700 kbps (approx. 70 kilobytes per second) download speeds out of AT&T 3G card (Option GT Ultra Express), when with Sprint and Verizon I'm getting 1.5 megabit from both, give or take.
Fourth, if you're a Mac user - you're screwed. GlobeThrotter Connect utility, when started, switches your "Location" to its own one, so if you, say, have an L2TP or PPTP VPN configured - you will no longer be able to use it, as the location changed and you'll have to set it all up from scratch.
I live in New York and am online pretty much all the time, from all over the place, and AT&T is the worst of all. At this time I'm mostly using Sprint: even though they offer no support for Macs whatsoever, Mac OS X 10.5.x supports all laptop cards they offer natively, so you don't need to install any drivers whatsoever (I use Novatel Merlin 720 - Express Card version). The only problem with Sprint is their customer service is completely dumb and useless, with gazillions of phone numbers without any logic and clear explanation what numbers you need to call in what cases, and customer service, even if you manage to get in touch with the right department, is mostly clueless and useless.
Verizon, on the other hand, while offers speeds as fast as Sprint, have A LOT better customer support, but unlike Sprint, they don't offer unlimited data plans - only 5 gigabytes per month for $60/month. So if you're fine with this limitation and have a Mac and don't want to waste your time with customer service - go with Verizon. If you, like me, want to have an unlimited plan - go with Sprint. As far as AT&T is concerned at this time - I personally wouldn't recommend it to anyone.