3 ms·
Definitely not my experience. I'm sitting miles away from Walnut Creek, a town i the East Bay, and I have LTE on AT&T. I certainly have it anywhere closer to ci
by lnanek2 14y ago
Definitely not my experience. I'm sitting miles away from Walnut Creek, a town i the East Bay, and I have LTE on AT&T. I certainly have it anywhere closer to civilization, like SF itself or NYC. I wouldn't call AT&T coverage limited at all.
- w1ntermute 14y agoWell, your anecdotal data doesn't line up with the facts. There's a Verge article from a month ago[0] that contains LTE coverage information for Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint. There's simply no comparison - Verizon is leaps and bounds ahead of AT&T. Just because you have AT&T LTE in your neck of the woods doesn't mean that the vast majority of Americans do. 0: http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/21/3367602/iphone-5-lte-markets-cities http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/21/3367602/iphone-5-lte-marke...
- JumpCrisscross 14y agoThe valid metric to observe in asserting AT&T's LTE coverage's uselessness is not relative standing. We should measure the number of people who can be reasonably expected to have LTE coverage a reasonable percent of the time.
- RobAtticus 14y agoMaybe he misinterpreted it like I did. It read a bit like you were saying AT&T's coverage was not only worse than Verizon, but also Sprint.
- ssmoot 14y agoThat's a pretty useless chart. It appears to be just charting carrier claims. I'm not saying you're wrong, but yeah, the chart is flawed. Dallas, TX shows Sprint for example, but Sprint's LTE in Dallas is notoriously bad. As in, many people never see it, and I've never seen one single person claim to get it regularly. I think I've seen it mentioned that the maps are "4 to 5 year" projections, but today's actual coverage is something like 4% of DFW.