AT&T blessing the skies of 6 more cities with LTE today
The addition of these six new markets brings AT&T’s grand total to 15. However that pales in comparison to the number of cities Verizon has blanketed with their own LTE network as their totals creep towards 179. Don’t expect any more cities to get the LTE treatment from AT&T this year unfortunately because the company’s goal from the beginning was to have 15 markets covered by the end of the year.
The six new markets getting their serving of LTE today are Las Vegas, NV, Oklahoma City, OK, Kansas City, MO, Charlotte, NC, Indianapolis, IN and San Juan, Puerto Rico. Although their goal was only 15 by the end of the year maybe AT&T will surprise us and add some more markets to the mix before the end of 2011.
Even though AT&T is adding a few 4G LTE markets here and there, they still have a long way to go to catch up to Verizon. They had to start somewhere though and with the launch of devices such as the Samsung Galaxy S II Skyrocket and the HTC Vivid to accompany their 4G LTE network they were able to hit the ground running. Will AT&T ever catch up to Verizon? Tell us what you think.
source: Mobile Burn
1. darkkjedii (Posts: 8878; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
I live n Vegas. I have an iPhone 4S,but skyrocket here I come.
3. willardcw4 (Posts: 169; Member since: 01 Oct 2011)
I live in Vegas too.. I think I'll wait for a better LTE phone to come out on AT&T..
27. nexusISbleh (Posts: 8; Member since: 20 Nov 2011)
It's not even about speed what I really care about is dependability. Why don't these companies invest in coverage over speed, like a full signal strength of even sprint can stream netflix just fine but most of the time the coverage just bounces...WTF??
2. Tre-Nitty (Posts: 458; Member since: 16 Nov 2010)
Att wont catch Verizon anytime soon. Verizon invests heavily in their network, Att not so much. I have Att and its fast but they could light up LTE alot faster than they currently are.
4. Mojobobo (Posts: 12; Member since: 04 Nov 2011)
you are definitely right, but there are some markets like up in minnesota where its snows about this season, so its gonna be a little tough to have them light up the LTE out there faster than what you would want
32. ardent1 (Posts: 1968; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
After ATT acquires T-mobile, it will be a different ball game.
41. The_Miz (Posts: 1496; Member since: 06 Apr 2011)
Riight, because Verizon has to do something with the money they scre...I mean make off their suc...I mean customers with their high priced plans. They totally updated their network with tiered data lol.
44. Goldeneye (Posts: 344; Member since: 22 Jan 2011)
well at&t isn't exactly cheaper either, they spend more on Apple and buying small carriers than on its network.
46. remixfa (Posts: 13901; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
yet, ATT charges the same and has a crappier network than Tmobile. So if VZW customers are suckers.. what are ATT customers?? lol.
5. omarc26 (Posts: 357; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
Yay san juan puerto rico is on the list my second home.. my sister that lives over there will be happy cuz she on at&t, puerto rico is one of the places at&t got LTE and verizon doesn't cuz verizon doesn't exist in PR or US virgin islands. Kinda sukz cuz everytime I would go to puerto rico my wifes droid charge used to say roaming in the screen and had a triangle next to the signal and she only had a 1X signal and only calling and texting worked data services didn't work at all while at&t has 3G all over the island and data works.
6. CX3NT3_713 (Posts: 1176; Member since: 18 Apr 2011)
LTE is faster.. I have the skyrocket :) FTW
7. Carlitos (Posts: 236; Member since: 23 Oct 2011)
I know they will eventually, speed things up, at a faster rate. But let them iron out all the bugs, that verizon got during the year.
8. Skyrim (Posts: 35; Member since: 16 Nov 2011)
I really hope they put LTE in Minnesota that'd be cool
9. twenti7 (Posts: 152; Member since: 09 Jul 2011)
I'm still waiting for ATT to get 3G coverage in my part of Wisconsin.
19. Skyrim (Posts: 35; Member since: 16 Nov 2011)
Me too i live kind of in up north minnesota so i only get like 1 to 2 bars of signal but go into minneapolis a lot in the summer so im hoping they expand LTE there
21. bigdawg23 (Posts: 295; Member since: 25 May 2011)
Yeah, I go to Rock Falls a few times a year and 94 outside of Hudson until Menominee rolls to Edge.
Two different Corp. Stores in the Twin Cities claim LTE will be active by Summer 2012. Luckily I get 7-15MB with my Skyrocket, so a little longer is no big deal. I blows away Sprint WiMax and hangs with VZW LTE on Download. .
30. Mojobobo (Posts: 12; Member since: 04 Nov 2011)
ATT Store Manager told me MPLS/TWIN CITIES will get LTE first half of 2012.
10. remixfa (Posts: 13901; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
They are hurting their "we cant have LTE without the Tmobile merger" complaints. Hey, maybe I'll get to keep my job after all!!
17. nickjjay (Posts: 79; Member since: 10 Oct 2011)
Or maybe if the ATT merger doesn't go thru, you guys can merge with sprint instead. At least that would get approved by the FCC.
45. theoak (Posts: 318; Member since: 16 Nov 2011)
I am not sure if the argument is they can't have LTE. I think the argument is that AT&T will not be competitive. By adding T-Mobile, they will have greater market penetration.
If anything ... adding LTE now may help them to the point of "see ... we WOULD add LTE to this market or that market ... but we can't ... unless we had T-Mobile of course ..."
47. remixfa (Posts: 13901; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
the biggest argument in the merger is that they cant have enough spectrum to have an LTE rollout without the merger. Tmo has lots of usable LTE spectrum.
Of course, those pesky real internal documents showed that ATT has been trying to hide pieces of unused spectrum to make themselves look more dire than they were.
The merger will go through. politicians are easily bought off, and they already were. But i think it has more to do with staying ahead of VZW in customers than trying to build a better network than VZW. just my 2 cents anyways.
11. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5149; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
Well, when you have to go out and buy one of your competitors, it doesn't leave as much $ available for infrastructure investment. VZW, OTOH, can invest its $ in its LTE network. 26 Mb/s down on the S.F. Peninsula; the slowest I have observed since I received my RAZR has been 12 Mb/s down. This is faster than my Comcast cable modem service.
23. networkdood (Posts: 5228; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)
Verizon does not keep all of it profits as approx 45% go to VODAPHONE...
28. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5149; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
Ummm. Profits are what is left over after everything is said and done (including deduction of amortized capital investment in LTE network). Vodaphone only gets 45% of whatever is left after VZW's business operation gets first call on the cash.
34. ardent1 (Posts: 1968; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
Under US GAAP, they don't "amortize" PPE (i.e. plant, property, equipment).
I have no idea where you get your answers from.
37. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5149; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
So, are you saying that under GAAP, they get to expense PPE? Either way (expense vs. amortize), the cost of the LTE infrastructure gets covered before 'profits' are paid to shareholders.
42. ardent1 (Posts: 1968; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
> So, are you saying that under GAAP, they get to expense PPE?
I am not saying it; FASB is saying it. Amortizing refers to "killing off" such as a loan balance, etc. Before, FASB allowed companies to amortize Goodwill, Intangibles, etc. as these are subject to impairment charges.
12. ap1989 (Posts: 143; Member since: 12 Oct 2011)
First At&t needs to get more 3g coverage before getting LTE. i think At&t is scared because verizon is advancing more in coverage
13. biophone (Posts: 1879; Member since: 15 Jun 2011)
Verizon is a lot better then at&t and doesn't cost much more. I don't know why anyone gets at&t unless they for some reason get good coverage in their area but thats rare and once you get out of that area that coverage is gone. If you want to save money get t-mobile or sprint the coverage is almost as good as at&t for a lot less money.
15. Jyakotu (Posts: 813; Member since: 12 Dec 2008)
Verizon and AT&T has the same prices, expect their data plans are different. There is nothing wrong with AT&T at all because I was able to travel in different states with solid coverage. I have Sprint now and I'm lucky to pull 2-3 bars in my own house.
35. biophone (Posts: 1879; Member since: 15 Jun 2011)
The problem with at&t is there insane prices considering they offer similar coverage to sprint and t-mobile. They are a joke. The coverage maps prove it.
36. biophone (Posts: 1879; Member since: 15 Jun 2011)
Notice at&t mostly just has 2g coverage.
25. alpinejason (Posts: 249; Member since: 06 Sep 2011)
sprint better coverage for alot less money BETTER COVERAGE HA HA HA YEAH RIGHT WHAT PLANET ARE YOU LIVING ON!!!!!
33. biophone (Posts: 1879; Member since: 15 Jun 2011)
Lol learn how to read. I said almost as good coverage and its true its a fact look at a coverage map.
14. Netolic (Posts: 139; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
I live in the los angeles area.. thats why skyrocket and vivid here are discounted because they are not planning to release an LTE service here anytime soon.
16. Jyakotu (Posts: 813; Member since: 12 Dec 2008)
Charlotte, NC is one the list.! Woo-hoo.! However, I'm going to need them to get an 4G LTE phone with a physical keyboard. Got to have my keyboard.
18. Netolic (Posts: 139; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
Which one are you talking abt... its only vivid and skyrocket
20. Sniggly (Posts: 6400; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
Are you f**king serious, AT&T? You'll give Kansas City LTE coverage but not St Louis? What the hell? Not only is St Louis bigger, but it's also your f**king backyard. What gives?
24. remixfa (Posts: 13901; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
might be a spectrum issue. they also gave it to puerto rico over LA and other markets.
29. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5149; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
More likely it is an implementation complexity issue. AT&T doesn't want to have any f*ck-ups right now to get in the way of their attempt to get approval of their purchase of T-Mo. A replay of the network failure that AT&T incurred when the iPhone was exclusive to AT&T is NOT what they want right now. L.A. is a wee bit more complex of an implementation than Puerto RIco.
38. remixfa (Posts: 13901; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
Xdoug, now that you mention it, that would be EXACTLY what they would want. They keep telling the FCC that they cant get good LTE without the Tmo spectrum from the merger. The worse their network looks as they build it out, the better their case.. n vice versa.
39. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5149; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
Reverse psychology can back-fire on you. Especially when the intended audience doesn't trust you to begin with. U.S. DOJ and FCC don't seem to be buying what AT&T is a sellin. Your job at T-Mo may be secure for the moment.
48. remixfa (Posts: 13901; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
they were already caught bribing 90 democrat politicians involved in the merger approval. Its going through. Dont let a little bad press fool ya. my job is less secure than Obama's.
26. aztaxia12295 (Posts: 263; Member since: 22 Nov 2009)
YEAH AND THEY WON THE WORLD SERIES WTFBBQ???
31. Sniggly (Posts: 6400; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
That was actually pretty f**king awesome to watch. I'm a proud owner of a world series hat now. :D
50. Goldeneye (Posts: 344; Member since: 22 Jan 2011)
well Kansas City is MO biggest city, metro area wise? yes St Louis is the biggest
43. nelsonl21 (Posts: 18; Member since: 17 Jul 2011)
Oh yeahhhhhhh Go Puerto Rico !!!!!!!!! We are blazing at 23mbps :-)
49. t_shyguy (Posts: 1; Member since: 21 Nov 2011)
LTE in Oklahoma city is a joke and then some. I have the Skyrocket and the max I can get download is 7.4, and upload 3.1.. it's crap when other cities are average of 14-18!!!!