7 Comments

Summary:

AT&T has produced a coverage map indicating where it has 4G service, with cities such as Dallas, San Francisco and Boston showing faster wireless. But while the map is a step forward for transparency, it has the potential to mislead users about 4G down the road.

dallas4gthumb

What are you doing Ma Bell? AT&T has produced a coverage map indicating where it has 4G coverage, with cities such as Dallas, San Francisco, Boston and Chicago showing faster “4G” wireless speeds. Paul Kapustka explains over at Sidecut Reports that the carrier has been pretty coy about its coming 4G launch using the HSPA+ technology, and I think AT&T is still being coy.

My issue is that while AT&T should be applauded for offering customers a detailed coverage map showing where they can and cannot expect service, the map could also be used to confuse customers about what kind of 4G services are on offer. Pardon me, while I get kind of acronym heavy.

AT&T is calling HSPA+ 4G, but that standard only delivers maximum speeds of up to 14 Mbps based on how AT&T is deploying it. Those are also theoretical speeds, so in the real world, users might see much lower speeds. However, AT&T is also planning to start deploying LTE later this year, which is also 4G wireless broadband, and delivers speeds in the real world that range from 5-12 Mbps according to Verizon. (Verizon has deployed an LTE network that covers 100 million people). On the right device, LTE could be much faster than HSPA+, but subscribers looking at that map may not know what type of service they have. AT&T said via a spokesman that the company will talk about differentiating LTE when it gets closer to launch.

For example, in a speed test this morning performed by Om in San Francisco (which shows 4G coverage) he received 2.10 Mbps down and 1.06 Mbps up. A second test in another area of the city saw much higher download speeds of 4 Mbps, but lower upload speeds of 370 kbps. Both these tests were performed on an iPhone, which has a radio that only can handle 7.2 Mbps speeds, which means that they couldn’t show off the faster HSPA+ speeds AT&T is offering.

Sure, most people won’t care if they are on HSPA+ or LTE networks unless there is a large speed differential, but there could be such a large speed differential. Plus, the coverage map may also determine what kind of device a customer buys as LTE handsets and dongles hit AT&T’s network. So perhaps as it rolls out LTE, maybe AT&T will be the first to market 4G-plus.

Related content from GigaOM Pro (sub req’d):

  1. Try a speed test on an Atrix or Inspire (the supposed 4G phones), both downloads and uploads are slower than the 7.2 mbps capable iPhone 4 and Captivate…

    There is a petition on groubal about this, everyone should sign it…

    Share
  2. The real problem is that the radio connection from the tower to the computer may be upgraded to support higher speeds, but the tower is still connected to the network by a bendy straw, not backhaul that can support the higher wireless connection speed. ATT says that they will only get to 60% fiber backhaul by the end of 2011.

    It is the same situation as having a wi-fi access point in your house that can support over 100 Megabit speed, but is only connected to a 10 Megabit or less broadband connection. Your computer will tell you it’s connected at 100 Meg, but you’ll only be able to get 10 Meg.

    This obviously leads to a mismatch of customer expectation and customer experience.

    Share
  3. Did I read this right? Stacey Higginbotham tried to test AT&T’s “4G” HSPA+ or LTE networks on an iPhone that DOESN’T WORK on HSPA+? Isn’t that like testing the Chevy Camaro by driving a Malibu?

    People really want to know what the newer HSPA+ network can do versus a real-world LTE network. This article doesn’t help at all.

    Share
  4. I don’t understand why you are confused. There is no LTE right now so they don’t show it, simple enough. Second, stop writing, for ever. Why even bring an iPhone into the mix when you are talking about 4G.

    Share
  5. 4G, 5G… 10G.. they’ll still find a way to say you’re outside coverage areas and pump up your bill.

    Share
  6. A coverage map is useless if you can be in a 5 bar area and still dropping phone calls constantly.

    Share
  7. I think putting so much technologies and including features in a coverage map is useless because these new features will confuse the drivers instead providing additional information. Include what is really needed.

    Share

Comments have been disabled for this post