PDA

View Full Version : Verizon v. ATT (again) att: Noski



notorious
01-12-2011, 12:59 PM
Now that Verizon will provide iphone usage, it's time to revisit the eternal question of which carrier is most functional in the valley. Neither is great, but I believe ATT still has the best voice coverage, despite the gaps. Verizon is adding facilities on the west of 100, but remains inferior to ATT. Without getting into the quagmire of how each company's facilities are remnants of the prior Cingular and Unicell arrangements, each of which was gobbled by ATT and Verizon respectively, my understanding is that neither company has any plans to provide 3G service in VT, much less the 4G service which is becoming the norm in the civilized world. Like many others, I must pay-to-play. The great DSL service provided by Waitsfield Telecom was a factor in my buying a home in the Valley, as it enabled me to keep tabs on office and clients from afar. The Wall Street Journal featured this service as an enabler of telecommuting and thus economic stimulus to the area. Waitsfield telecom was ahead of the telecom curve. Now that we are captive to these two behemoth conglomerates, we seem hopelessly behind the telecom curve. The world has moved to wireless, but being dependent on Verizon and ATT our wireless coverage and capacity are two generations behind the curve. This is an important economic growth/survival issue. Can our new friend Gov. Shumlin assist? Can consumers bring regulatory pressure through the state? The comparisons of ATT v. Verizon regarding the iphone are meaningless to the Valley users since the features are dependent on 4G availability.

(please forgive any typos)

noski
01-12-2011, 01:18 PM
Trotting this around....after I shovel the walk again....

edit: It just occurred to me that Win has mentioned something to me this fall about upcoming Verizon expansion. I'll track him down and ask him about it again.

HowieT2
01-12-2011, 01:40 PM
Now that Verizon will provide iphone usage, it's time to revisit the eternal question of which carrier is most functional in the valley. Neither is great, but I believe ATT still has the best voice coverage, despite the gaps. Verizon is adding facilities on the west of 100, but remains inferior to ATT. Without getting into the quagmire of how each company's facilities are remnants of the prior Cingular and Unicell arrangements, each of which was gobbled by ATT and Verizon respectively, my understanding is that neither company has any plans to provide 3G service in VT, much less the 4G service which is becoming the norm in the civilized world. Like many others, I must pay-to-play. The great DSL service provided by Waitsfield Telecom was a factor in my buying a home in the Valley, as it enabled me to keep tabs on office and clients from afar. The Wall Street Journal featured this service as an enabler of telecommuting and thus economic stimulus to the area. Waitsfield telecom was ahead of the telecom curve. Now that we are captive to these two behemoth conglomerates, we seem hopelessly behind the telecom curve. The world has moved to wireless, but being dependent on Verizon and ATT our wireless coverage and capacity are two generations behind the curve. This is an important economic growth/survival issue. Can our new friend Gov. Shumlin assist? Can consumers bring regulatory pressure through the state? The comparisons of ATT v. Verizon regarding the iphone are meaningless to the Valley users since the features are dependent on 4G availability.

(please forgive any typos)

ATT has been 3G at SB for at least a couple of years. The service is great on the mtn, but warren village is a dead spot. I get a strong 3G signal inside the house about a half mile from LP.
and neither the ATT nor verizon Iphone is 4G.
The carriers are just starting to roll out 4G. Its not even available in NYC yet. Patience.

notorious
01-12-2011, 02:16 PM
ATT has been 3G at SB for at least a couple of years. The service is great on the mtn, but warren village is a dead spot. I get a strong 3G signal inside the house about a half mile from LP.
and neither the ATT nor verizon Iphone is 4G.
The carriers are just starting to roll out 4G. Its not even available in NYC yet. Patience.[/quote]

Respectfully, and without any claim to technical knowledge, I question your 3G service statement. Yes, a 3G capable phone works in the Valley, but I believe it is operating on a 2G signal. That is why the battery drains so much faster in the Valley than outside on a true 3G signal, particularly when using non-voice functions which need the higher capacity. Further, T-mobile claims 4G nationwide, and WSJ reports both Verizon and ATT are largely 4G in metro areas. The designations are really a layman's term anyway, because their signals are based on different technical protocols, but they indicate larger capacity for the enhanced functions of smartphones.
My recollection is that one of this board's regular participants was/is a cell tower technician, well versed in the signal status and related issues, and it was he who stated there were no plans to go 3G in VT, much less 4G. Not sure if he still participates. Anyone who can clarify?

noski
01-12-2011, 02:30 PM
My recollection is that one of this board's regular participants was/is a cell tower technician, well versed in the signal status and related issues, and it was he who stated there were no plans to go 3G in VT, much less 4G. Not sure if he still participates. Anyone who can clarify?

ShadyJay was one who worked for a sub-company for Verizon.

HowieT2
01-12-2011, 02:44 PM
ATT has been 3G at SB for at least a couple of years. The service is great on the mtn, but warren village is a dead spot. I get a strong 3G signal inside the house about a half mile from LP.
and neither the ATT nor verizon Iphone is 4G.
The carriers are just starting to roll out 4G. Its not even available in NYC yet. Patience.

Respectfully, and without any claim to technical knowledge, I question your 3G service statement. Yes, a 3G capable phone works in the Valley, but I believe it is operating on a 2G signal. That is why the battery drains so much faster in the Valley than outside on a true 3G signal, particularly when using non-voice functions which need the higher capacity. Further, T-mobile claims 4G nationwide, and WSJ reports both Verizon and ATT are largely 4G in metro areas. The designations are really a layman's term anyway, because their signals are based on different technical protocols, but they indicate larger capacity for the enhanced functions of smartphones.
My recollection is that one of this board's regular participants was/is a cell tower technician, well versed in the signal status and related issues, and it was he who stated there were no plans to go 3G in VT, much less 4G. Not sure if he still participates. Anyone who can clarify?[/quote]

I haven't inspected their equipment or anything but I have an iPhone and it displays the type of network it is connected to. So when it receives a 3G signal, it displays "3G". When it is not recieving 3G, but the older Edge network, it says "E". In the mrv it says 3G. And the difference in speed is noticeable. I am sure it is 3G.

You are correct that the one carriers 4g may not be significantly faster than others 3G network.
Also, technically verizon has 4g somewhat in NYC but only for data cards, not for phones. AT&T has no 4g in NYC.

flakeydog
01-12-2011, 02:51 PM
Forgive any technical ignorance here but... as far as i can tell, the valley is on 3G with att. You could actually see the transition happen about 12-18 months ago if you believe what the symbols on your iphone say. They went from "E" last october (2009) and gradually changed to "3G" over time throughout the state, and with a corresponding increase in speed on data stuff as well. Yes, there are dead spots but att (former unicel) is really the only viable cell phone alternative for the mad river valley. I would say that overall, vermont is a bit weak on the coverage front from all the carriers, there are dead spots in many areas, rural or otherwise.

Tin Woodsman
01-12-2011, 02:53 PM
If you have an iPhone, it won't matter anyway (at least on Verizon). They aren't offering 4G service with the iPhone anywhere. Also, it should be pretty easy to determine whether you are getting 3G on your ATT phone, right? If it says 3G on the screen, then it's 3G. If it says Edge, then you are 2G. Not sure I understand the confusion otherwise.

win
01-12-2011, 04:47 PM
ATT has had 3G service here for over a year. The Valley was one of the first place in Vermont to get it. I get very good coverage on my Blackberry with the exception of Warren Village and Rte 100 between Yestermorrow and Flatbread.

notorious
01-13-2011, 11:51 AM
OK. I accept that there must be ATT 3G. Now I have to find out why my iphone battery drains so quickly in the Valley, but not outside. The guys at Small Dog said it was due to the search for a 3G signal in a 2G environment. The voice coverage is OK, but internet functions are painfully slow, which I attributed to the 2G/3G explanation.

HowieT2
01-13-2011, 03:09 PM
OK. I accept that there must be ATT 3G. Now I have to find out why my iphone battery drains so quickly in the Valley, but not outside. The guys at Small Dog said it was due to the search for a 3G signal in a 2G environment. The voice coverage is OK, but internet functions are painfully slow, which I attributed to the 2G/3G explanation.

Go into Settings and then Network. Toggle off the 3G then turn it back on. Essentially you are rebooting the 3G chip. don't know if it will help but it can't hurt.

noski
01-14-2011, 12:44 PM
I contacted Waitsfield Telecom to get their take. My contact read thru the posts and said we/you are pretty much all on track. I did make one comment, though that is relevent:

"...4G deployment is expanding, but still mostly limited to the metro areas in most cases (obviously there are exceptions). I'm not currently aware of any 4G in Vermont and have seen articles eluding to Vermont being one of 10 states that doesn't currently have 4G service. Like anything, technology is expensive and the carriers haven't completely upgraded to 3G services yet. We have fiber to most of the cell sites in our service area (most people forget that the wireless network is all backhauled through our fiber-optic wireline network). Looks like there were a bunch of accurate responses so not sure if you even need to post anything else."

So I read this that we are fortunate to have the level of fiber optic that we do in the Valley, as that will move us closer to 4G and other next generation services as they become available.