AT&T might just have the best 3G network in the US | Hacker News Reader

AT&T might just have the best 3G network in the US

mobilecrunch.com

4 pointscwan8 comments

My anecdotal evidence is that in Dallas my AT&T iPhone drops about 50% of all calls I make that last longer than 5 minutes.

I am weary of AT&T's recent marketing barrage that boasts of impressive download speeds.

Seriously. When was the last time you heard anyone complain about downloads taking too long on AT&T? Even the above referenced study defines 'reliability' as 'the likelihood that a user can connect to the Internet at a reasonable speed.'

Like I give a crap.

AT&T's plain and simple problem is call reliability. Not download speeds. Not the ability to make or sustain a broadband connection.

It's there miserably voice service that has me contemplating to leave my beloved iPhone behind and run to pick up a Palm Pre on Verizon. For the record, I think the Palm Pre is an inferior phone. But I'd like to be able to make phone calls with some confidence that they will be completed.

AT&T San Francisco 'reliability': 55%

That's the lowest 'reliability' number in the chart for any carrier, any region. It's 23 points below AT&T's next-worse region, Denver, at 78%.

I was going to post the same thing. Those blazing fast speeds do absolutely no good for me in SF when I get dropped calls in my house.

What I don't understand is why AT&T doesn't just upgrade or build some towers in SF. As you point out, it's an absurd statistical outlier for their metro networks, and the peninsula isn't even all that big compared to some sprawling places like LA, from which I've never read any complaints about AT&T service.

It may not be all AT&T's fault. SF has some grassroots groups that reflexively oppose all new radio towers. See for example:

http://www.antennafreeunion.org/

http://www.no-celltower.com/

Not sure how it is in SF but in most of the US it's very difficult to get the permits/public approval required to build new towers. Existing towers have strict load limits for weight and wind resistance and often require structural testing/upgrades for any work to be done. Verizon seems to manage so I'm not acquitting AT&T of any responsibility here but it's another example of US laws & regulations being incredibly unfriendly to infrastructure development. Of course these towers should be safe so some of these regulations are completely valid. I'm more concerned about the privately owned towers whose owners simply don't want to spend the money on new construction or the communities where a small group of civic minded folks are able to stop the construction of new towers for the sole reason that their appearance offends them. We're going to get left behind in this world if we keep this mindset up.

It's bad in SF, but it's not much better in LA. No reception in the hills, no 3G on the sunset strip, and I constantly get spotty reception and dropped calls.

Verizon's reliability is better in SF but it's still the worst city for reliability.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com