AT&T Logo

There are still major markets in the U.S. that have yet to be touched by AT&T's LTE, but the number is dwindling further as the carrier adds several more markets this week. This group is mostly located in the Southeastern portion of the country:

  • Augusta, Georgia
  • Macon, Georgia
  • Cleveland, Tennessee
  • Dryersburg, Tennessee
  • Ripley, Tennessee
  • Sebring, Florida
  • Waterbury, Connecticut
  • Meriden, Connecticut

AT&T always likes to use these network launches to remind people of how much money it has been spending to keep the rollout going. This time around the carrier points out that it has spent several billion dollars across just this handful of states on its LTE launch. Network infrastructure isn't cheap, folks.

Source: AT&T(2); (3); (4); (5); (6)

 
There are 18 comments

bevcraw says:

That's probably Dyersburg, TN, about 25 miles north of Ripley, TN. But good news for me as I drive all around west Tennessee.

Came here to tell them the same. Dyersburg is about 45 minutes from me.

tim242 says:

Yep, they made a typo.

Jon_Doh says:

The article makes the point that AT&T still doesn't have LTE in some major markets. What they fail to mention is that AT&T has virtually every market covered with their fast HSPA+ 4G. So when you aren't in one of their LTE markets you still get fast 4G. Unlike Verizon. If you aren't in a Verizon LTE market you fall back to 3G or 2G.

ajac09 says:

yeah 4g HSPA + isnt all that wonderful neve in an area I've gotten it that it worked well. Now LTE.. yup but HSPA+ no

Superguy25 says:

The problem with that is that I'm rarely on 3G on Verizon - it pretty much has LTE wherever I go. LTE is available on the vast majority of its network.

AT&T, on the other hand barely has the major cities covered, and even while they were rolling it out to major cities, there were were still a lot of areas lit up that most people could care less about. Who cares if podunk Tennessee is lit up yet, when you had major cities like Salt Lake City, Denver and Pittsburgh not lit?

Yes, AT&T's HSPA+ is better than Verizon's 3G - it had better be because you're going to be on it a lot more than you would on Verizon.

tim242 says:

@Jon_Doh: That's complete BS. I just finished testing an at&t SIM in 3 states. I got 1-3 Mbps down on HSPA+, right under a tower. That is not 4G, nor anything to brag about.

geoff5093 says:

That's odd, I tested out AT&T too (but using an AT&T phone, not just their SIM) and I got 4-6Mbps down in various areas of NH. When I tried a T-Mobile SIM in my unlocked Note 2 I got horrible speeds, but using a T-Mobile phone I got 18Mbps down, so..

tim242 says:

Also, Verizon's LTE covers 90% of their 3G network, will be 100% in 3 months.

craigdolson says:

And yet Rockford, IL, 60 miles from Chicago, the 2nd largest city in the state is still without......."shaking my head"

1jaxstate1 says:

WTF. Does AT&T hate Huntsville, AL!

tim242 says:

We have to go through this, "OMG does______hate______?" for every LTE announcement. WHY???

I swear AC does these LTE market announcements just for the multiple site clicks. Although to be honest I fall for it and really do enjoy reading the Sprint LTE comments - those are the ones that are really vicious and rather funny.

a2Squard says:

That's all fine and dandy AT&T, but can you also add some extra juice to your HSPA+ network?

1jaxstate1 says:

Amen. I wouldn't give a care about the LTE coming up if they had decent HSPA+ speeds.

balagiwithak says:

Just in time for the Master's. I cannot wait!!

Patsfan123 says:

I don't think that is a coincidence. AT&T is a big sponsor for it.

wow i live in Jackson tn barely any distance from these areas but jackson is a much larger market...everything around us but our city has LTE