AT&T LTE

AT&T announced this morning that its blazing fast LTE network is now live in 11 new markets, joining the likes of Las Vegas, Chicago, Boston, and other cities currently reaping the benefits. The new members of the club include:

  • New York City (officially, this time)
  • Austin, TX
  • Chapel Hill, NC
  • Los Angeles, CA
  • Oakland, CA
  • Orlando, FL
  • Phoenix, AZ
  • Raleigh, NC
  • San Diego, CA
  • San Francisco, CA
  • San Jose, CA

If you're in one of these fine cities and have been holding onto your upgrade, now might be the time to take an LG Nitro HD, HTC Vivid, or Galaxy S II Skyrocket for a spin. Hit the source link for AT&T's full presser.

Source: AT&T

 
There are 34 comments

Glenuendo says:

Dear Sprint, AAAAAAAAUUUUUGGGGHHHHH!!!! Thankyouverymuch.

Not that I care because I'm loving my Verizon LTE Galaxy Nexus, but I'm surprised they haven't included Saint Louis yet. It's a very large AT&T market and they are losing customers to Verizon because Verizon's LTE network here is among the best networks in the country.

icebike says:

Well your answer was implicit in your question.

Very Large market means lots of towers to upgrade.

Besides, you don't really know if they are losing customers, you just made that up. Most people are locked into a plan, and paying the ETF, plus buying a new phone just to hop on a carrier that nickel and dimes you to death is probably not high on most customer's list of priorities this time of year.

No I know they are losing customers. Just in my circle of friends 5 families (not people, families) have switched from AT&T to Verizon.

Is switching carriers for LTE really that important?? Everyone relax.....AT&T and sprint will both have all the LTE you can handle then we can all quit worrying about the wonderful nickel and diming Verizon.

El Jefe says:

Yes...eventually.

The problem AT&T & Sprint subscribers will see though is that Verizon will have all of the kinks worked out of theirs & approaching full coverage of their 3G market by the time that they are still seeing problems.

I'll take a company that nickel & dimes me but has a rock solid network over one that is cheaper & has a history of cutting corners anyday, but that's just me.

jarobusa says:

Rock solid? Except for the 3 blackouts in December.

icebike says:

Nobody else has as many kinks to work out as Verizon.

T-Mo and At&t are GSM, and the switch to LTE is way easier with GSM. Its a natural progression.

LTE has the advantage of being backwards compatible with existing GSM and HSPA networks, enabling mobile operators deploying LTE to continue to provide a seamless service across LTE and existing deployed networks. Not so with CDMA. They need two radios.

Verizon has clung (clinged?) to CDMA too long, and their LTE hansets end up being very expensive dual radio phones, and their conversion to LTE is costing them big time, and the hand-off between CDMA to LTE is clunky at best.

So even if Verizon coverage is greater, you are still stuck with expensive problem prone handsets until they drop CDMA, which they won't be able to do for 10 years.

Are you the same person as icebike? I've had Verizon for 9 years so I haven't switched. What in the world are you talking about with nickel and diming? I pay $10 a month for unlimited LTE data and I will continue to pay that for life unless I change my plan. AT&T's plans are pretty much the same as Verizon except Verizon has better coverage overall.

SlimJ87D says:

That's nice, most of us don't have a time machine to travel back 9 years to get the plan that you have.

Seriously, why does this have to be a war between AT&T and Verizon? Why do you guys want one company to do better than the other? Why can't we all be happy for each other and be glad that if one company does well then we just have more options to swing to if our contract ends.

That being said, both companies had different strategies. Verizon wanted to focus on 4G LTE from the get go, while ATT wanted to focus on making it's service more widely available and push out a nice 4G HSPA+ around the globe almost in every major city before they began to focus on their 4G LTE.

I didn't get that deal until a year ago so I haven't always had it.

Also, what in the world are you talking about? Most cities don't even have HSPA+ yet. So much for that "around the globe", I don't even think you know what you are talking about.

jbrandonf says:

Proof? At least with at&t I have hspa+ to fall back on when I'm not on LTE.

SlimJ87D says:

I don't think you know how to read. I said most major cities, and when I said around the globe I was hoping that you could put two and two together and realize that ATT is mostly located in USA.

With that said, look at this coverage map of their HSPA+, and it's not even updated.

http://www.dailytech.com/ATT+Offers+4G+Coverage+Maps/article20960.htm

Is this NOT most major cities? Second, the purpose of my post was not to continue in this pointless war between ATT and Verizon customers. Can't people understand that other people choose the services that they have for different reasons? Work, reception, better school discount, better coverage in their area?

Just because Verizon is freaking awesome for you doesn't mean it's going to be for everyone else. What's wrong with just saying "Hey congrats ATT customers for finally getting your LTE network up?" What's wrong with that? Can you tell me?

Ummmmm, no I'm my own person thank you. I left Verizon because they got too expensive for me. And let's not forget, Verizon only has the great coverage because of taking over alltel. When I was with them, 9 years myself, their coverage sucked. Not to mention a lot of dropped calls too.

briankurtz79 says:

Dude the length of the contract means nothing. A half million android phones are activated DAILY. if there is a choice between Verizon and att lte is the first thing most people will probably look at unless they're buying an iPhone.

jbrandonf says:

Oh, so your five friends is indicative of an entire city? How about those people who are tired of having to opt-out of privacy issues with Verizon (remember they're looking at your data to present you personalized ads)? Or are tired with higher prices or slow speeds or bad battery life (you get CDMA speeds or LTE with bad battery life)?

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence.

jbrandonf says:

Oh, so your five friends is indicative of an entire city? How about those people who are tired of having to opt-out of privacy issues with Verizon (remember they're looking at your data to present you personalized ads)? Or are tired with higher prices or slow speeds or bad battery life (you get CDMA speeds or LTE with bad battery life)?

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence.

jbrandonf says:

Doblé post.

briankurtz79 says:

Why do you guys always have to say double post? I would have never known without you!!

keith2k1 says:

Out of those five families, 2 will switch back.

planoman says:

5 families switched from At&t to verizon LTE in St. Louis? They are about to get shown some piss poor battery life in the show me state!

XavierMatt says:

Although your statement holds truth, like most it can not speak for everyone. When the Sensation came out I joined TMo signed for a 2 year and 6 moths later had a ETF. I jumped on with Sprint for the Evo 3d and better coverage the phone was way faster (RAM) and the coverage was a little better.

2 weeks after signing a sprint contract they announce the Galaxy Nexus. So naturally I wanted a pure Google Phone and ETF with sprint which was $350 unlike TMo which was like $200.

I got the Galaxy Nexus after 1 one week. I was tossing and turning and dreaming about it lusting over it and VZW. WHY? Because you pay for what you get. I wanted coverage EVERYWHERE. I GOT IT. If not in LTE its 3G. Never just nothing. I wanted to get my updates and ICS is amazinggggg (Still has a few annoying bugs and could have used a better processor) Still fast none the less. I can never see my being with anyone but VZW, they take very good care of me.

So yeah I was willing to ETF my ass until it go through my head VZW and Pure Google was the only way.

elibohnert says:

I live 70 miles south of St Louis and around here for about 50 miles its 99% Att. When service goes down its like the world ends.. They do have HPSA+ everywhere here tho, which caused even more people to get smartphone which made the network always congested..

kurioskurion says:

What I'd really love is AT&T to at least launch HSPA+ in Wichita.... >.>

MarkPharaoh says:

Here's to hoping there's an GSM LTE Gnexus in the near future.

jgav71 says:

While not listed officially by AT&T, LTE is working in New Orleans!

keith2k1 says:

GEAUX TIGERS!!!!!!!

radgatt says:

I will stick with my verizon lte when i go see my tarheels the next time im in chapel hill

jldoom says:

I could of sworn NYC was already in the list...LOL in fact I'm sure. I don't know what they mean by (officially this time).

The only complaint I have is my LTE service blows inside my apartment, and causes my Skyrocket to hangup and not even switch to 3G for better connectivity. I'll test check to see if my connections improved at home, my only other option was to purchase a Microcell from ATT -_-

Floss82 says:

That has to be the ugliest and worst 4G logo yet smh

Any word on LTE service for the Tampa,FL market?

galafael5814 says:

Maybe AT&T should worry about getting as much 3G coverage as Verizon before they focus on 4G. I live in NEPA and work for a Verizon retailer, and we get quite a few AT&T customers who come in to switch because they can't get 3G anywhere in the area. It's not a remote area, either...it's a fairly decent sized city.

That's what I'm hoping Sprint does. Worry about 3G before 4g.

butters619 says:

Woo!!!!!! San Diego finally! First phone from Moto or Samsung with LTE and ICS will be my next phone.