att posts

You may remember that Verizon started running ads a while ago showing AT&T's anemic 3G coverage map. AT&T responded by saying "Our coverage includes 97% of the country!" In the small print on Verizon's ads they make it clear that AT&T does have coverage outside of 3G. In the small print on AT&T's ads they make it clear 3G isn't available everywhere.

What kind of difference does 3G really make? For American wireless users, the FCC is interested in knowing how fast your mobile broadband really is. The agency has released a free iPhone app, made by Ookla, who also made the free Speedtest.net Speed Test app for iPhone (there is also an Android version).

In case you're concerned about your personal information ending up in the servers of the Feds, note the app disclaimer: "Results may be pooled to analyze the quality and coverage of mobile broadband connections across the United States as part of a larger effort by the FCC to identify areas with insufficient or nonexistent access to broadband." More details can be found on the FCC's page here.

I downloaded the app and ran three sets of tests: on Wi-Fi (connected to DSL), on 3G, and on Edge. I ran each set three time: i.e. 3 times on Wi-Fi, 3 times on 3G, and 3 times on Edge, and then averaged the results to try to offset any temporary network glitches that would throw off the results. I also made sure I was using the same server for each test. (You can either let it select the best server based on your location or choose one manually from a list.)

Read on for the results...

If I ran AT&T, I would leave the subject of whether or not the network could handle the iPad's extra 3G traffic demands completely out of the picture, saying something like "we hope so," or "we'll wait and see on how popular it is." But Randall Stephenson, AT&T CEO, seems to be tempting fate.

First, he promised that AT&T could handle any demand placed on its network by Apple's iPad, and now he's suggesting that it won't be that bad anyway. In a Reuters article, Stephenson suggests that the iPad will be a "Wi-Fi driven product," and that "there's not going to be a lot of people out there looking for another subscription."

That may in fact be true, and while I'm almost willing to offer him the benefit of the doubt that the majority of browsing on the iPad will be done via Wi-Fi, I also doubt that those who elect to go with 3G won't be using the heck out of it. Maybe AT&T thinks the extra charges from the non-subscription usage will shore up the network, but it certainly sounds to me like Stephenson isn't too worried about AT&T's 3G networks, and from both our experiences with them on the iPhone and the expected popularity of the iPad, he probably should be.

Then again, maybe he's got to say that it won't be a problem -- suggesting that AT&T might not be able to keep up with service demands probably isn't the best thing for the CEO of the company to do. But it sounds like AT&T is underestimating, publicly at least, the kind of 3G network traffic the iPad will bring.

Happy March! The super hip and trendy South-by-Southwest music and tech festival is coming up this month, and like many tech conventions these days, AT&T is working on a plan to keep their network up and running as thousands of iPhones descend on Austin, Texas to send around voice, texts, and data.

GigaOM has a little insight into how they're planning to do it this year, and if you're interested in the nuts-and-bolts of keeping a cell phone network up and running (or at least trying to -- this is AT&T, after all), it's worth a read. They're beefing up the cell towers in the city's vicinity, setting up a whole new system around the convention center itself, and putting money into the backend as well, to try and increase bandwidth coming into the region. I don't know if they've done anything like this before (I can't really judge with Macworld -- while my iPhone worked fine most of the time, I still only have a 1G, and I was using Sprint MiFi on my Macbook most of the time), but it sounds like a pretty comprehensive setup.

Of course, the other reason AT&T is pushing to get ready for SXSW is that the convention has become sort of an unofficial testing ground for the next big social apps. A few years ago, Twitter made its first big push around SXSW, and last year, Foursquare was the app to use (which has since spawned a brand new genre of app, the "check-in" network). So what's going to be the app pushing data through the AT&T network this year? The buzz so far is around Twitter's coming ad platform, though it's hard to think that an ad platform could be a killer app. My money's on some sort of location-based social game -- while Foursquare has gaming elements, I think an app like MyTown could take the concept even farther, and we still haven't really seen an actual GPS-based RPG or MMO break out. Even those of us who aren't at SXSW this year will be paying attention to what people are doing on their iPhones there, because odds are good that the app that clicks with attendees there will be what we're all playing with in a few months.

We've previously written about AT&T's MicroCell device and service here at TUAW. It's a tiny cell tower that you plug into your home cable or DSL connection to boost your phone reception. This is particularly handy for those with home offices who may currently be plagued with poor reception on their iPhones.

WMExperts is reporting that AT&T is adding five more markets to the short list of trial areas. If you live in Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Las Vegas, or San Diego, you can have the opportunity to spend an additional US$19.99 per month on top of your existing iPhone service plan to get 5 bar service in an area up to 5,000 square feet around your MicroCell.

To determine whether or not you're currently in one of the target zones for the service, visit the AT&T 3G MicroCell website and enter your zip code into the appropriate spot. If you're one of the lucky ones, a list of retail locations where you can purchase the MicroCell will appear. You'll also have to pony up $150 for the device in addition to the monthly charge, but for those who really need perfect 3G phone service in their homes or offices, it's worth the cost.

[via TiPb]

Dear Auntie T,

I was hoping you could help me decide something since I think many people will be trying to figure out the same thing. Namely, is the 3G on the iPad worth it for my purposes?

I live in NYC, which has lots of available Wi-Fi. I have a laptop and I also have a Sprint mobile broadband for those rare occasions when I can't pick up Wi-Fi somewhere. I noticed in the last few months that I haven't used it at all. The places I use my laptop (library, cafes, graduate school classes) all have Wi-Fi. These are the same types of places I'm planning on using my iPad (with one exception: Beth Israel hospital doesn't have Wi-Fi, although I've yet to need my computer there)

Is the 3G price tag, coupled with the AT&T price tag, worth it? Should I get the Wi-Fi only version now and wait for the price drop and hardware bump sure to come in version two?

I would greatly appreciate your opinions on the matter. I've read your blog for years and highly respect the articles and advice you produce.

Love,

Your niece Trish

Here's an interesting rumor I hadn't considered yet: sources inside AT&T are telling Boy Genius Report that AT&T's retail stores are planning to carry the 3G versions of the iPad. It's not unexplainable, given that AT&T is the partner for the 3G service, and so I guess they have a vested interest in selling the devices. Still, when you think of "tablet computer designed for consumption of media and minor household tasks," you don't really think of AT&T. In fact, without a phone on it at all, it's just strange to think that the iPad would have a place in AT&T stores anywhere.

But if the 3G versions will make money for the phone company (and we'll bet they will), they might as well sell them. If the rumor is true, and the AT&T store is closer to you than the Apple store, you might as well check there on release day (remembering that 3G iPads will be released after their WiFi-only cousins). In the meantime, let's all hope their 3G network holds up under the increased strain.

[via MacRumors]

We all knew it was coming, and it's here. Yes, Apple has finally approved, with the belated blessing of AT&T, a version of the SlingPlayer Mobile app that now works on the 3G network.

The original release of SlingPlayer Mobile [iTunes link] was WiFi only, and was one of the great disappointments of the whole iPhone experience. The folks at Sling Media worked hard to get the app approved, and AT&T finally relented, probably because the FCC has been breathing down the necks of the cellular providers who seem a bit, shall we say, arbitrary about what gets on the network. AT&T had no problem with streaming MLB games, but kept giving the Sling developers a big honking rejection.

Whatever the reason, it's good to see the SlingPlayer app working as it was designed. I just ran out to the front yard to test it and it worked as advertised. I had 3 bars of signal strength, and the picture was acceptable with good sync between audio and video. Channel changes were a bit slow, but tolerable.

So if you're in a downloading mood, and have the hardware to support it, go to it. The upgrade is free to all who have the crippled WiFi version, as it darn well should be.

[Thanks Jim for the tip!]

Sometimes I feel sorry for you poor iPhone users in the US. Sure, the telecommunications landscape in New Zealand isn't exactly perfect, but our small nation has the US beat on at least one very significant point: unlike AT&T, our wireless providers let us tether our iPhones as much as we want (within our monthly broadband limits, anyway). Sure, there are workarounds that let you do iPhone tethering in the States, but nothing beats the pure simplicity of officially supported tethering: flip a couple switches in your iPhone's settings, then either pair over Bluetooth or dock your iPhone, and boom, your Mac runs off your iPhone's data connection.

I've been using iPhone tethering since it became available in iPhone OS 3.0, and it's saved my geek bacon many times. On a recent monthlong vacation where my wife, my mother-in-law, and I hopped all over both the North and South Islands of New Zealand, using my iPhone's data connection on my MacBook Pro was often the only feasible way of connecting to the world beyond our campsite.

Many of the places we stayed had Wi-Fi available, but the prices were pretty astonishing; some places wanted $10 for 20 minutes of internet access. In towns where we had a decent 3G connection, we were able to watch videos in Safari (No Flash? No problem), look up tourist information, get access to Google Maps, download music and apps from the iTunes Store, and keep an eye on the notoriously fickle weather. All these things are possible to an extent using the iPhone by itself, but things went much faster and more smoothly on my MacBook Pro, where multitasking, multiple downloads, and a 17" screen are all big improvements over the browsing experience on the iPhone.

Read on to find out what else iPhone tethering can do for you, and why AT&T's excuses for not letting you have it are totally disingenuous.

Those among you hoping for an impending dissolution of AT&T's exclusive hold (or testicular constriction, if you will) on the iPhone may want to sit down before reading the following words. According to AppleInsider, two separate analysts are making similar predictions that the iPhone will remain shackled to AT&T's network, offering the iPad-AT&T partnership as evidence. It's ok, I wept too.

Vijay Jayant, of Barclays Capital, was quoted as saying "(The) launch of Apple's iPad on AT&T's network is a vote of confidence in AT&T's network by the equipment maker." I don't know which part of that statement I find more shocking and disturbing. The possibility of his prediction being accurate, or the notion that someone has confidence in AT&T's network? That's infreakingsane! Jayant, however, sees this pact lasting only through the remainder of 2010, as do the folks at Credit Suisse who echoed similar projections last week. I suppose we can hold out hope for another 10 months.

Personally, I'm going to deny this rumor exists in hopes of preventing its materialization. I cast thee out, demon, and unhear your blasphemy!

Hutchison Austria is following in the wake of the iPhone and is offering a subsidized iPad to users willing to commit to a 2-year data contract, Engadget reports. When you sign up for a €29.90, 5GB monthly contract, you'll get a €333 markdown on the iPad -- which may or may not be all that much since we still don't know how much an iPad is going to cost overseas. Instead of built-in 3G service, a Huawei i-Mo 3G modem will be provided.

It's not a bad idea, and we're likely to see more carriers jump on this particular bandwagon as the iPad gets closer to release. What I would love to see from carriers is a way to extend existing service for iPhone customers to those who want an iPad plus iPhone. AT&T already gets close to $100 a month from me for basic cell service, plus iPhone data and a text messaging plan. I wouldn't mind paying an additional $5-10 a month for my iPhone contract to cover an iPad as well.

The thought of having to pay another $15 or $30 a month for extra 3G service to an iPad, on top of the charges already being paid for an iPhone, leaves a bitter taste in my mouth and if the decision is made to have an iPad join my family, I'm most likely sticking with Wi-Fi only.

Fox News writer Clayton Morris was also wondering just why Apple went with AT&T yet again for the iPad data plan, but it turns out things between the two companies weren't quite so cut and dry as Jobs made us believe on stage. He says that inside sources at Verizon still insist that they've been talking with Apple about handling some of the data service, and he even says that they've mentioned not only an iPhone set up to work with Verizon later this year, but an iPad as well.

Rumor also has it that AT&T simply outbid the other cellphone providers for becoming the official iPad data service, and that makes sense: that $29.99 unlimited plan is a heck of a deal for consumers, but then again, it'll bring in a heck of a lot of business for AT&T (who should have already been in hot water for their service outages, and will probably end up in more, despite their promises that their network can handle the data).

Of course, Verizon is really the only source saying they're still in the game at the moment -- most analysts believe Verizon won't see Apple hardware until they bring out their next-generation LTE service, and even then having a bunch of different plans to choose from doesn't really sound like Apple's kind of thing. But it is interesting to hear that AT&T is willing to take a dive in price to keep Apple's business. Wonder what might happen if their network dives as well.

[via Apple Insider]

Well, that took a while. AppleInsider is reporting that AT&T has now agreed to let SlingPlayer for iPhone [US$30, iTunes link] stream over the 3G network.

When the app was released last May, there was great moaning that the SlingPlayer Mobile app only worked on a Wi-Fi connection. That was in contrast to other versions of the Sling app running on other phones like the BlackBerry, Windows Mobile and some Palm devices -- all of which were allowed on the AT&T network.

AT&T now says they have worked with the Sling Media developers, and found ways to reduce the bandwidth footprint. Getting it all up and running will require a new version of the Sling App, which should appear shortly. The app will be a free upgrade for current owners. The posted version was released in August of last year.

A source at Sling Media told me this morning they were glad AT&T "finally saw the light." We'll keep you posted on developments, and we'll test the new app when it's online.

Soon the iPad will be upon us, and the US government is worried about the congestion it will cause.

Phil Bellaria is a staffer in the Obama administration. Specifically, he's the director of scenario planning for the federal government's Omnibus Broadband Initiative. He published a blog post earlier this week describing his initial concerns about the future demands on our networks.

"With the iPad pointing to even greater demand for mobile broadband on the horizon, we must ensure that network congestion doesn't choke off a service that consumers clearly find so appealing or frustrate mobile broadband's ability to keep us competitive in the global broadband economy. "

He refers to the network-crippling outages that occurred when Aol* first introduced unlimited Internet access in 1996. For months customers could scarcely connect, and even when they finally did those connections were fragile due to the huge numbers of people trying to get on at once.

Just as Aol remedied the situation in the 90's with network upgrades, Mr. Bellaria explains, current Wi-Fi and 3G providers must prepare for the onslaught that iPad mania will bring. In the recent iPad press event, Scott Forstall mentioned the network upgrades that AT&T is currently working on. Hurry up, AT&T! The clock is ticking!

[Via International Business Times]


*Full disclosure: Aol is our parent company.

You probably had exactly the same response I did when you heard that AT&T would be handling the 3G data plan for the iPad: "Them again?" Sure, the deal is much better, and it's completely optional (you can get the iPad without 3G if you don't want it at all), but still: AT&T? Hasn't Apple heard enough complaining about their network without sending a bunch of tablet computers and all of that data downloading onto it?

It's cool, says AT&T, we got it. That's what they told the New York Times' Bits blog yesterday, saying that they planned to put another $2 billion into cell phone towers, connectivity upgrades, and other costs for their network. But, and this is the part that kind of scares me, they also say that they expect most iPad users to stay near Wi-Fi hot spots, since the iPad plan comes with a subscription to every AT&T hotspot out there. They say they hope that will lessen the blow.

Frankly, I doubt it -- if I'm paying $30 a month for "unlimited" on top of the $130 I paid for the option, I'm probably going to be using that 3G everywhere I can. And while AT&T says that they're getting better and better all the time, the worst case scenario is that the iPad's high data usage will knock out even longstanding iPhone customers. Hopefully this is all much ado over nothing, and that $2 billion will cover us as needed, but AT&T hasn't exactly earned the trust that Apple continues to put in them.

All in all, the iPad turned in a pretty exciting product debut. I don't think Apple will have any trouble selling these things, and it can't be a very good day in Amazon, Sony or Barnes and Noble's executive suites.

While all the final info is not out yet, there were a few major omissions from the iPad hardware. Here's the highly desireable stuff that came out missing :

• No camera, which means no video conferencing. No quick shots for blog posting. No videos.
• No Verizon. The AT&T pricing looks good, but is it really unlimited or is there a 5GB ceiling? Many users are pretty desperate to get away from AT&T, so it was surprising Apple went for another partnership with them.
• No notifications. Not a word was said about them. They might be in there, since the iPad clearly runs iPhone apps (and what iPhone app doesn't notify you these days?) but nothing was demoed.
• Enhanced multitouch. As far as we can tell, it works the same as the iPhone -- no dynamic tactile interface, no pressure sensitive screen, nothing special that we know about yet.
• No TV content. Of course there's the iTunes deals, but Apple has apparently been scrambling around to make so DVR deals as well. So far, nothing.
• No multitasking. Perhaps the biggest disappointment: no streaming media apps while punching out a document in Pages. No MLB video running in a corner while you read your mail, or pulling up a PDF while chatting with a friend.

I think the iPad will be a superior device, and will sell like the proverbial hotcakes. Apple will certainly extend and enhance the iPad over time, but it would have been great to see some of these things in the initial release.

Anything else we missed that they missed?