[Chaldo]

AT&T Completes Nationwide 7.2 HSPA 3G Upgrade - hspa - Gizmodo

AT&T has completed the software upgrade that prepares 3G cell sites across the nation for the 7.2 HSPA upgrade. The 3G speed bump will come as an enhanced cell site backhaul is deployed over the course of 2010 and 2011.

After full testing of HSPA 7.2 software, AT&T decided to expedite deployment of this initial upgrade, which will result in a better overall customer experience by generally improving consistency in accessing data sessions. The software upgrade also prepares the network for faster speeds and increases network efficiency.

The backhaul process has already begun in the initial test markets of Charlotte, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, and Miami, and AT&T expects to have the majority of their 3G data traffic running on the 7.2 network by the end of the year.

Now all they need is the backhaul come on!!!

[bartman0531]

Awesome. It's good to see Houston getting some love. I'm assuming the 9700 is compatible with HSPA, right?

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[noaim]

awesome thanks for the post this is good news

[jcastilloalonso]

Awesome. It's good to see Houston getting some love. I'm assuming the 9700 is compatible with HSPA, right?

I think the 9700 does not support the new 7.2 HSPA But maybe Im wrong.

[joemecu]

Even though the 9000 maxes out at 3.6, I'm excited for the backhaul upgrades. It'd help in the tethering arena sometimes, especially if the network is loaded with data users at the time.

[MobileMadness002]

I would love for nothing more than to see this get completed. I hear too many stories of slow connections, dropped calls when handing off from 3g to 2g. I wonder if they will revamp all 2g towers to be 3g?

[MrShawn]

meh, Verizon will have LTE out probably over halfs its network before AT&T even gets started on it, I mean its good that AT&T is finally starting to get with the program and realize their overall 3G coverage is fail, but why upgrade everything to HSPA 7.2 first, then to LTE, seems like it would be cheaper to just jump to LTE.

[joemecu]

meh, Verizon will have LTE out probably over halfs its network before AT&T even gets started on it, I mean its good that AT&T is finally starting to get with the program and realize their overall 3G coverage is fail, but why upgrade everything to HSPA 7.2 first, then to LTE, seems like it would be cheaper to just jump to LTE.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but LTE would probably require more equipment replacement. 7.2 is seemingly a lot easier, by a software upgrade. The biggest thing is that they're trying to upgrade TDM backhauls (T1s, etc) to fiber. Fiber is a lot more scalable in the amount of bandwidth it can bring to AT&T, thus being somewhat future proof. Upgrading to LTE, without backhaul upgrades is pointless.

Either way, backhaul upgrades are going to take quite a bit of time, especially if you have a tower that just runs off of T1s (HDSL2/4) straight from a telephone central office, and not a fiber fed multiplexer, at the tower equipment hut.

[sedalia066]

For us ATT customers this can be nothing but good news. With the rapid expansion of wireless use we better hope for even more good news in the future.

[cavingjan]

LTE will also require new phones. Have any LTE phones released yet? I think the first ones were due this year.

[jahoobob]

When I first read the title I thought that that was pretty quick in addressing the Verizon's coverage challenge. Alas, it ain't so. Appears the true upgrade that customers will see is a ways off. Also, notice that the "You are here" tested speed is the same as EVDO Rev A which adds proof to the BS that ATT 3G is the fastest 3G.

[SevereDeceit]

If I used AT&T for service I would drop them like a bad habit. Their network is so jammed and smartphone users are being pushed to sub 2G levels, even EDGE. If you cannot perform for what I'm paying you to do, bye bye...

[Chaldo]

meh, Verizon will have LTE out probably over halfs its network before AT&T even gets started on it, I mean its good that AT&T is finally starting to get with the program and realize their overall 3G coverage is fail, but why upgrade everything to HSPA 7.2 first, then to LTE, seems like it would be cheaper to just jump to LTE.

HSPA 7.2 is just a software upgrade. There is also a great set of wireless devices out with a 7.2 HSPA supported chip in it. LTE devices right now are too expensive and not yet developed ( I believe there is like 2-3 for testing purposes ). Also Verizon Wireless is tricking a lot of people in saying oh they are going 4G first were the better "guys" when all they are doing is trying to save there *** from what could have been putting them into deep ****. Why I say this? VZW is CDMA, that technology has nothing to support against the rapid wireless data demand carriers are noticing from new devices such as the iPhone. Yes the iPhone did reshape the way carriers need to build networks now. Wireless data demand is only going to get bigger way bigger. So that means VZW is stuck on a whole big CDMA network they built that has EVDO Rev.A which stops at around 3.1mbps. They need way more higher speeds then that and can't support it with CDMA. So they are ditching CDMA now and building a LTE network (GSM based) because they need to get with the data demand. Also do you see how slow AT&T's UMTS upgrades are doing? How do you expect Verizon to do any better? Maybe a little better because 700Mhz freq (the old freq that the analog DTV channels were using and got replaced with digital) reaches almost as far as CDMA does I believe,and that's what mostly LTE will be on. It will also take a long time to get tower approvals, the backhaul in place etc. It's not easy to build a whole brand new network from scratch which is what AT&T is doing with their 3G.

Now AT&T is already HSPA 7.2 upgraded on the towers basically the software upgrade is done, the backhaul still needs to be put in place they need a lot more fiber connections which they are deploying as of right now. You say why doesn't AT&T go to 4G before Verizon beats them? Well to my understanding AT&T's new 3G technology supports upgrades to LTE so that means they might just need to software upgrade, or add a couple new stuff and there on the go. It sure will be easier then Verizon wireless I hear HSPA 7.2 leads to a very nice transition to LTE, while Verizon has to build their whole network from scratch.

I hope I explained everything clear so you can understand, I kind of suck at explaining stuff sorry if you didn't understand some things.

I would love for nothing more than to see this get completed. I hear too many stories of slow connections, dropped calls when handing off from 3g to 2g. I wonder if they will revamp all 2g towers to be 3g?

3G towers require new antennas. The 2G towers do not support 3G UMTS Antennas.

[Chaldo]

If I used AT&T for service I would drop them like a bad habit. Their network is so jammed and smartphone users are being pushed to sub 2G levels, even EDGE. If you cannot perform for what I'm paying you to do, bye bye...

I agree AT&T was not ready for the demand of the iPhone and took some wrong steps in their network upgrades, but if you had the iPhone start off with Verizon. They would be in a worse position today. The iPhone uses so much data that AT&T's 3G network which is 5Mhz wide is having issues.

Verizon's evdo network which is slower then AT&T's 3G network first of all is 1.25Mhz wide. That is way smaller and would just be destroyed with the iPhones data intense. AT&T's network had a way more better chance of being successful with the iPhone then VZW's network did. A big part of that is the upgrades their HSPA network can make to support a lot more wireless traffic with higher speeds.

[jahoobob]

Verizon's evdo network which is slower then AT&T's 3G network first of all is 1.25Mhz wide.

Not according to the graph that leads off this thread. If anything the EVDO is slightly faster in use than the HSPA.
The Acela Amtrak trains can go 150mph but rarely reach that speed in use and most of the time are limited to about 75mph because of rail system (network) that is not built for the higher speeds. Same thing with HSPA.

[Chaldo]

Not according to the graph that leads off this thread. If anything the EVDO is slightly faster in use than the HSPA.
The Acela Amtrak trains can go 150mph but rarely reach that speed in use and most of the time are limited to about 75mph because of rail system (network) that is not built for the higher speeds. Same thing with HSPA.

Look at the graph. Evdo Rev A. is where Verizon is at and most likely stop until LTE. HSDPA is where AT&T is at. How is Evdo any faster?

Let me show you some AT&T 3G speed tests done lately in some areas with 7.2 towers with the backhaul put in.

This is done with the iPhone 3GS which has the HSPA 7.2 chip in it.

This is from one user in California



This is from someone in DC



This is from someone in NC (very impressive and look at the latency very well)



There is no Verizon Wireless speed test on EVDO that has ever gotten that fast for download speeds.

[Gawain]

I agree AT&T was not ready for the demand of the iPhone and took some wrong steps in their network upgrades, but if you had the iPhone start off with Verizon. They would be in a worse position today. The iPhone uses so much data that AT&T's 3G network which is 5Mhz wide is having issues.

Verizon's evdo network which is slower then AT&T's 3G network first of all is 1.25Mhz wide. That is way smaller and would just be destroyed with the iPhones data intense. AT&T's network had a way more better chance of being successful with the iPhone then VZW's network did. A big part of that is the upgrades their HSPA network can make to support a lot more wireless traffic with higher speeds.

The HSPA is indeed faster than EVDO, but the use of spectrum by GSM versus CDMA is completely different. Verizon's capacity with that 1.25MHz is about 8-10 times that of AT&T's GSM.

The reason being that GSM divides its spectrum into channels, then divides those channels into time slots. Those channels must be distinct. IIRC, a typical GSM "channel" is 200KHz.


My example isn't to any particular scale, it's just an illustration.

The way to counter the capacity for GSM isn't necessarily more spectrum, but more physical towers or antennas and base stations to manage the load, and facilitate more "channels" to be carried to the backhaul.

That's why I noted in my "solution" thread that AT&T may be ill equipped to build out to the density one finds in Europe or Japan. Part of that problem is that AT&T build most of it's GSM migration on top of its legacy TDMA network, which had smaller channels, didn't have a data infrastructure, and didn't need the density that GSM needs to be effective. This isn't universal though I don't think, because the real complaints seem to be in specific areas, though it's causing AT&T to play defense.

GSM forces a "physical" limit in the use of it's spectrum, through a literal division of spectrum and time. CDMA just uses code. Stack those users right on top of the other, it uses the whole spectrum. The challenges to CDMA capacity come in the area of power management under load, and the physical coverage can shrink under those conditions.

This upgrade will help with throughput once its implemented, which should help with the accessibility issues, since the data will be flowing faster, but it still amounts to having a high-speed circuit available only part time if you travel a lot outside of metro areas.

[Gawain]

There is no Verizon Wireless speed test on EVDO that has ever gotten that fast for download speeds.

This was on my 9530 Storm while driving down I-5:


I will admit right now that I have not been able to duplicate this test, nor do I know how accurate these tests are. I just did another one that came in at about 950Kbps. It averages around 1100-1500 most of the time.

Now, which would you rather have? 756kbps 99% of the time? Or 3Mbps 30% of the time?

[Chaldo]

You can't take tests on the blackberry because blackberry's show that test from you to RIM's servers I can do the same thing and pull up like 8mbps its all bull****. Blackberry's will not work for these kind of tests unless you tether them to your computer.

Just took one the max speed was 56937.5Kbits/s its the jump from the start to RIM's server. Its not accurate at all.

[Gawain]

You can't take tests on the blackberry because blackberry's show that test from you to RIM's servers I can do the same thing and pull up like 8mbps its all bull****. Blackberry's will not work for these kind of tests unless you tether them to your computer.

Just took one the max speed was 56937.5Kbits/s its the jump from the start to RIM's server. Its not accurate at all.

I easily agree that it's not necessarily accurate. Though, solely due to RIM I doubt strongly. If that were the case, the speed results would be far more consistent. The inconsistencies have to be given to carrier conditions.

[noaim]

Look at the graph. Evdo Rev A. is where Verizon is at and most likely stop until LTE. HSDPA is where AT&T is at. How is Evdo any faster?

Let me show you some AT&T 3G speed tests done lately in some areas with 7.2 towers with the backhaul put in.

This is done with the iPhone 3GS which has the HSPA 7.2 chip in it.

This is from one user in California



This is from someone in DC



This is from someone in NC (very impressive and look at the latency very well)



There is no Verizon Wireless speed test on EVDO that has ever gotten that fast for download speeds.

this is amazing speeds no doubt

[MrShawn]

Yeah, I would like you to do that same speed test on AT&T outside the city, Verizon would kick their *** then.

Yeah, I will take my vastly larger 3G over faster 3G. And Verizon will have LTE out first and will likely be finished first, though they have more equipment to put up, they seem to care about their customers more and they know how to build out a network. Verizon has had a much larger 3G network for years, AT&T is behind on that.

[Chaldo]

You obviously fall for the advertising tactics and have no idea between the two technologies that they put up.

I guess we just have to wait and see what happens.

[Xpimp]

Chaldo don't feed the trolls it isn't even worth it.

[MrShawn]

You obviously fall for the advertising tactics and have no idea between the two technologies that they put up.

I guess we just have to wait and see what happens.

no, I am pretty saavy with the cellular technologies and stuff and no, Verizon has a larger 3G network, you cannot deny that, as it is fact, the map Verizon uses on their ad is AT&T's own map

and I not only rely on maps, I have tested the two side by side in many areas or my state and on trips to other states