Analyst Estimates AT&T Needs To Spend $5B To Catch Up 187
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.'"
Re:Sprint? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sprint? (Score:5, Informative)
Have you used the Sprint network lately?
My guess is that you have not.
Sprint used to be bashed because of customer support and rightly so but they have made a lot of effort to improve in that area.
Sprint used to have a not great selection of phones. Right now they have a few really good phones like the Blackberry Tour, the Samsung Moment, the HTC Hero, the Palm Pre, and Palm Pixie.
Their prices are cheaper than Verizon and AT&T and the didn't cripple their phones like Verizon did as far as Bluetooth, WiFI, and even loading software.
They are CDMA which is a downer if you are going to travel outside the US but so is Verizon.
Oh and you get to roam on the Verizon network. I have never been without service on my phone for more than five minutes anywhere in the US.
I would say that unless you MUST have an iPhone or you really want a Droid that Sprint is a really good choice.
The crappy old Sprint has been gone for a while but then you will find people that hate every carrier.
Re:5600 (Score:3, Informative)
I do my best. And yes, I've been doing it for a while...
Re:Sprint? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Sprint? (Score:2, Informative)
Sprint purchased/"merged" with Nextel. Nextel has always been the bottom-feeder network when it came to infrastructure. Sure, they are in more places, but that's because they snatched up all the "going under" real estate from failing telco's before they went away. It's a cheap way to build (or have others build) your network, but the quality was inconsistent, in disrepair and only really looked good on paper. The only real reason why Nextel did as well as they did is because they had that all-important "Push To Talk" button, which was a very simple interface for specialized marketplaces. Fleet vehicles, remote staff, servicemen, etc. relied on that feature, so the network was basically a non-consideration as long as it worked "most of the time". Both Sprint and Nextel had very strong and secure reputations in the marketplace, but for VERY different underlying reasons.
Sprint needed to invest quite a lot to upgrade the equipment from Nextel's acquisitions, but now that they have, they have an amazing, demonstrable footprint of coverage. To say that Sprint gets bashed, they bought that reputation honestly through acquiring Nextel. Both companies ultimately benefited from the merger, but it was and is a long and expensive road for them both.
Re:Sprint? (Score:4, Informative)
No, let me clarify here.
Nextel's network was *necessarily* built from the ground up, because *it is not Cellular*. It's not licensed as cellular by the FCC. It's on frequencies completely disparate from cellular.
Nextel was created and expanded by buying out Specialized Mobile Radio licensees in the mid 80s, and using their freqs to build what is, effectively, a digital trunking radio system (iDen) with autopatch capabilities.
> Sure, they are in more places, but that's because they snatched up all the "going under" real estate from failing telco's before they went away.
That? Just didn't happen. Nor anything that remotely resembles it.
> Both companies ultimately benefited from the merger, but it was and is a long and expensive road for them both.
And they're not done walking it. While I disagree with you on the technical points of how they came to be, it is in fact the case that they out-expanded themselves, growing their footprint without expanding their backbone to match.
At least, that's my diagnosis, and until someone with facts steps up to contradict me, I'll continue to tell people that.
On reflection, I guess I'm saying they have to take *even more* of the blame for their current state -- and it's not just me; I have 8 customers who've ditched Nextel in the last 10 years; big ones; some 25 radios -- than your "cobbled together from people's leavings" assertion would justify.
Hear hear! (Score:3, Informative)
Anyway, I bit the bullet and bought an iPhone. In the Financial District in downtown SF I couldn't make a call consistently much less anything else! I was livid.
To make matters worse, my work gave me a Blackberry. A SPRINT Blackberry, and it had better coverage in SF, Denver, and DC. sigh...Unreal.
I still can't believe I pay MORE to AT&T for this honor...
Re:efficiency (Score:3, Informative)
It's the other way around.
CDMA's air interface is quite efficient, actually.
So efficient, in fact, that the 3GPP's 4G standard (you know, LTE, Long-Term Evolution) is much, much more CDMA-like than TDMA-based GSM. (CDMA and LTE are both spread-spectrum technologies -- GSM/TDMA divide signals on a carrier frequency based on timing.)
Keep in mind that the cdmaOne product family is what's not being evolved any further --- the actual air interfaces developed under the CDMA banner are really the path forward. What's being 'killed off' is the TDMA-type technology that underpins GSM.
Re:considering the 3g maps (Score:3, Informative)
You sir, are just plain wrong.
Wikipedia: Enhanced_Data_Rates_for_GSM_Evolution [wikipedia.org]
Wikipedia: Evolution-Data_Optimized [wikipedia.org]
In a survey (Gearlive [gearlive.com]) Verizon's 3G had an average download speed of 1,940 Kbits/sec (about 2Mbps/sec). Compare that to AT&T edge speed tests (Engadget [engadget.com]) where AT&T's edge network ran 264Kbits/sec.
Thus, as far as I can tell from a theoretical perspective (based on the technology) Verizon's 3G is three times faster (3Mbps compared to 1Mbps) than AT&T's EDGE. In the real world the difference is worse though, with Verizon showing over 7 times faster performance (1940 Kbits compared to 264 Kbits). As someone who has used both, let me say that matches with my own personal experience.
Re:considering the 3g maps (Score:5, Informative)
VZW is on EV-DO Rev. A which supports 3.1Mb transfer speeds NOT 2-300kbps and is MUCH faster than EDGE. HSDPA actually supports up to 18Mb not the 20 you claim. However as seen below you will never see anything close tot hat in the real world.
Also PC World did a piece in June comparing REAL world transfer speeds (http://www.pcworld.com/zoom?id=167391&page=1&zoomIdx=1)
AT&T averaged: 717 Kb/sec
Sprint averaged: 745 Kb/sec
VZW averaged: 890 Kb/sec
For reliability...
AT&T: 66%
Sprint: 84%
VZW: 83%
Please get out of here with your misinformation.
Re:Sprint? (Score:3, Informative)
What makes you think that Sprint didn't expand their backbone? They are one of the largest Tier 1 bandwidth providers in the U.S. and own the majority of long haul fiber.
Most people that bash Sprint and Nextel had it in rural areas or in areas that were fairly new. Sprint's biggest problem has always been that they move slowly so you get new phones only periodically and only periodically they expand coverage. When they do expand coverage they provide proper coverage. Also, if you move to an area that doesn't have coverage they will let you out of your contract.
Besides that Sprint has a tendency to cost a little bit more but over that last two years that has really dramatically improved. For the business side they are still very pricey though, so much so my company switched to AT&T and now we're battling with dropped calls and inconsistent reception. Good fun! Problems we never had with Sprint but we're saving a couple of grand a month on service.
Re:Sprint? (Score:4, Informative)
I was with sprint for 2 years. Half my calls dropped, My phone wouldnt even ring some of the time. the customer service was horrid, they tried to charge for over $250 in download services i never used (The said i used it when i was in denver when i have never been west of the mississippi, not to mention how i got from denver to making a call in new york in about 1 hour, I must have a concord availible to me!), it took over 8 hours on the phone to get the charge canceled even though it was obviously bogus. In my opinion sprint deserves every piece of its crappy reputation and more. I am with verizon now.
Re:considering the 3g maps (Score:4, Informative)
My 2 cents...
I'm a software consultant, averaging about 80% travel with a typical meantime of about 2 weeks before changing locations. I've been doing this for about 6 years. For the first two years I was desperate for a mobile data solution because (most of the time) hotel internet connections are absolutely horrendous.
For the last 4 years I've tried both AT&T and Verizon for mobile data, and I've got to say Verizon has beat AT&T into the ground in every respect. When I was on AT&T, I achieved an honest-to-god HSDPA connection for a grand total of three wonderful weeks. But three weeks out of a 2 year span do not make for a happy consultant.
With Verizon, I've consistently received a 3G connection time and again. The only time I didn't receive a 3G connection was when I was stuck for two weeks in the middle of northern Wisconsin.
Verizon's 3G IS slower than AT&T's 3G, that much is true. But unless you live in one of the very few areas that AT&T chooses to bless with its almost mythical HSDPA, its not worth it. Verizon's 3G has a vastly superior coverage and maintains about 800Kb/sec. AT&T's EDGE (2G) will get you about 100Kb/sec if you're lucky.