Analyst Estimates AT&T Needs To Spend $5B To Catch Up

itwbennett writes "The public's perception of AT&T's network is poor and declining, apparently because of real shortcomings when compared with Verizon Wireless and Sprint Nextel,' says Gerard Hallaren, director of research at TownHall Investment Research. 'AT&T's capital expenditures on its wireless network from 2006 through September 2009 totaled about $21.6 billion, compared with $25.4 billion for Verizon and $16 billion for Sprint (including Sprint's investments in WiMax operator Clearwire). Over that time, Verizon has spent far more per subscriber: $353, compared with $308 for AT&T,' Hallaren said. 'Even Sprint has outspent AT&T per subscriber, laying out $310 for network capital expenditure.' All this means AT&T has a choice, says Hallaren: 'spend or suffer.'"

efficiency

[drougie]

These numbers are misleading. AT&T doesn't need to spend as much money to be as productive in infrastructure expansion as its CDMA competitors because their engineers can talk and surf at the same time.

Re:I don't get it

[Rogerborg]

Bell and Telus collectively spent about $1 billion rolling out 7.2 Mbps GSM across Canada

For certain patchy values of Canada.

I would call to complain

[elrous0]

But my iPhone would probably just drop the call.

Re:efficiency

[elrous0]

I'll tell you what my grandfather said on his deathbed 20 years ago. "Kid," he said. "Never trust a Wilson brother to give you advice on your telecommunications needs." I've heeded those words ever since.

Website needs clue injection to catch up

[argent]

<title>Analyst: AT&amp;amp;T needs to spend US$5B to catch up | ITworld</title>

That title is so &amped it goes to 11.