Is our wireless infrastructure a house of high-speed cards?

Granted, the comparison isn't entirely fair. Upgraded cellular networks have more to do with high-speed data than they do with voice quality -- which is pretty much the only thing POTS is responsible for these days, outside the occasional fax machine or rural modem user. But the fact remains that we rely on our cellphones day in and day out to place and receive calls, and for many of us, they've become only form of telecommunication readily available.
Therein lies the rub. AT&T's landline division, the Baby Bells, and old-school telecommunication infrastructure providers have long been famous for making insanely high availability a priority -- and that's a goal they've largely been able to achieve on account of the fact that the underlying technology has been maturing for well over a hundred years. As a rule of thumb, landlines are developed and operated under the policy that they need to be operational 99.999 percent of the time, which works out to less than nine-tenths of a second of downtime per day. As this weekend's AT&T outage reminded us, wireless carriers aren't there yet -- not by a country mile, in fact -- and they likely won't be for a long time to come.
Yes, we can levy blame on AT&T. We can pitch a fit that this never should've happened in the first place, and let's face it, it shouldn't have. But to an extent, carriers and their hardware partners are hogtied by the reality that they're operating in a fluid space where neither standards nor devices stand still for very long, and that leads to shortened development cycles, shortened testing phases, and a general lack of that "battle tested" label that we can comfortably slap on commodities like electric power, running water, landline telephone service, and taxes.
As of Monday, AT&T had announced that the massive Midwest outage had been fully restored to normal operation, and we've no doubt that they'll fully identify the failure mode and how to prevent it from happening again. Problem is, with an immature technology, there are ten unidentified failure modes for every identified one -- and that's a growing pain POTS more or less went through back when alcohol was illegal.
So give it forty, fifty years, folks. Until then, we'll be glancing at our phones merely hoping for a signal, not expecting one.














Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
NKT @ Dec 29th 2008 8:51PM
I think most people realize the trade off between landline and wireless.
Sure, landline is quite reliable and mature. But in today's world, people are willing to trade that reliability for mobility. Factor in cost and it's a no brainer to ditch the landline.
I haven't had a landline for over 9 years. The last time I did, it cost me over $45 per month just for local access with no long distance. For that price I can get 450 mintues, free long distance, voicemail, caller ID, texting, and 24/7 mobile access.
Warbrain @ Dec 29th 2008 9:36PM
Yes, immature technology that was developed 30 years ago and if they had put the proper amount of cash towards building a strong network then there wouldn't be as big of an issue.
Epsilon-Not @ Dec 29th 2008 11:36PM
You're confused- modern (digital) wireless technologies are nothing like 30-year old (analog) early wireless technology. 2G GSM (pre-EDGE, even) only came into wide use in the early 1990s, 2G CDMA (pre 1xRTT) a bit after that.
ducky @ Dec 29th 2008 10:10PM
"When's the last time your POTS provider waxed poetic about a next-generation network?"
I lol'd. Engadget's writing does not disappoint.
Eric @ Dec 29th 2008 10:54PM
The last time a POTS carrier waxed about their nex gen network was the Sprint "You Can Hear A Pin Drop" ads from the mid 80's
Duran Dujam @ Dec 29th 2008 11:06PM
Francis Urquhart!
Sorry, that will seem out of place to many of you.
Henry @ Dec 29th 2008 11:19PM
"shortened testing phases"
AT&T is on the retarded side... (what's at&t's hsdpa speed, again?).... The whole thing has been tested over and over again. Blame the provider, not the technology.
Jason @ Dec 29th 2008 11:55PM
Just because there isn't a never-ending barrage of PR doesn't mean landline technologies aren't improving. A lot of households are being offered or are already using a carrier-bundled voip for their landlines (particularly cable internet providers).
acme @ Dec 30th 2008 12:17AM
great, so when is the price dropping on such unreliable technology? I can't be expected to pay these extortionist prices for service thats not up 99.999% of the time.
Chris B. @ Dec 30th 2008 12:19AM
My Qwest landline was a POS for the entire 4 years I had it at my house - static, crossed lines, weeks of DSL downtime - but the never missed a billing...
I have both ATTWS and VZW wireless service - VZ's got fewer issues with connectivity, but their phones suck the big, fat, hairy wet one. Hard. I own an ATTWS broadband card - their HS network (where available) blows away VZ - I owned their service before telling them what they could do with their contract.
I'll take the heartache, because I can walk out the door with their product. But I want my investment to get better service - they'd better get their sh*t together, or the State's AG is going to hear from a bunch of us pretty soon.
Bob @ Dec 30th 2008 12:21AM
Hey guys, you act like you never heard of Verizon FiOS, AT&T U-Verse, or any of the other countless IPTV/IP buildouts taking place not just in the USA, but worldwide. Face it, copper as we know it is dead. Fiber and wireless are the future.
max @ Dec 30th 2008 1:35AM
Umm. Landlines DID change. For example, the entire long distance backbone is run on voip now (as opposed to mechanical switching 30 years ago). The difference with wireless is that the pace of change is slower, simply because the service provided to the end-user does not change at all. And AT&T did spend crapload of money on reliability when they built the network. Which is why landlines cost as much as they do -- reliability is expensive.
To the other commenters comparing cable/FIOS-based voip to the POTS. Dudes, these things have NOTHING in common. Erm, correction -- there is one common thing -- both have a jack where you can plug your good old dumbphone.
oakie @ Dec 30th 2008 3:14AM
"and that's a goal they've largely been able to achieve on account of the fact that the underlying technology has been maturing for well over a hundred years"
sorry, but testing methodology as well as deployment and maintenance have also been upgraded over time. it's really no excuse. back during the monopoly days, Bell was able to stockpile enough cash from price gouging to create a bullet-proof system. considering the price-gouging for mobile services in today's age, there's no excuse for not having a near flawless system now if they spent it on maintaining the system instead of ad campaigns plastering their logo on every stationary and moving object with the death star and "more bars in more places".
besides, it's not necessarily a network issue as it was simply a preventable maintenance issue had they paid to provide backup power to their switching stations, towers, and data centers: http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08%2F12%2F29%2F146227&from=rss
it CAN be reliable. they just refuse to spend the money without risking their profit margin as the customer gets left in the lurch. the nation's largest provider with some of the most expensive rates will only use the excuse of "you're paying too little for us to make a reliable system" is the only thing you'll hear from them.
Dave @ Dec 30th 2008 4:08AM
Our landline providers are changing the cables to fibre-optic to the tune of more than US$4 billion over the next 2 years.
They need to - my area, 4 kms from the Petronas Twin Towers can't be upgraded from 1 MBps to 2 MBps as the "lines are no good".
squiggleslash @ Dec 30th 2008 7:56AM
I don't know if they're still doing it, but when I lived in Britain (I left ten years ago), BT was pretty much ALWAYS going on about having a "Next Generation Network". Still, considering the majority of switches in the early 1980s were Strowger designs, this was a big thing for them, as they rolled out System X and then more recently started talking about all-IP networks.
The infuriating part was that BT never actually did it right. They pretty much invented ISDN (albeit in a one data + one control channel form), but then ignored the technology, until the Internet came along at which point they started pushing it as a great way to connect to the Internet (Home Highway anyone?) just as everyone else was talking about cable modems and DSL.
Useless gits.
kimberly @ Dec 30th 2008 5:10PM
People can complain all they want about unreliable service but the cell phone companies protect themselves with that little contract you sign before walking out the door. If you read it through it states that they can not guarentee service at all times. At at&t we are taught that cell phones are luxury items and should not be used to replace reliable landline service. I personally only have cell phones but that's because I'm not home much and this is the only way to call me.
"Service Availability and Access/Coverage: ___AT&T does not guarantee availability of wireless network.___ Services may be subject to certain equipment and compatibility/limitations including memory, storage, network availability, coverage, accessibility and data conversion limitations. Services (including without limitation, eligibility requirements, plans, pricing, features and/or service areas) are subject to change without notice. When outside coverage area, access will be limited to information and applications previously downloaded to or resident on your device. Coverage areas vary between AT&T BroadbandConnect, EDGE and GRPS. AT&T BroadbandConnect only available in select markets. See coverage map(s), available at store or from your sales representative, for details. AT&T BroadbandConnect download speeds only available on the AT&T BroadbandConnect network. Actual download speeds depend upon device characteristics, network, network availability and coverage levels, tasks, file characteristics, applications and other factors. Performance may be impacted by transmission limitations, terrain, in-building/in-vehicle use and capacity constraints."
"Service may be interrupted, delayed, or otherwise limited for a variety of reasons, including environmental conditions, unavailability of radio frequency channels, system capacity, priority access by National Security and Emergency Preparedness personnel in the event of a disaster or emergency, coordination with other systems, equipment modifications and repairs, and problems with the facilities of interconnecting carriers. We may block access to certain categories of numbers (e.g. 976, 900, and international destinations) or certain websites at our sole discretion. We may, but do not have the obligation to, refuse to transmit any information through the service and may screen and delete information prior to delivery of that information to you. There are gaps in service within the service areas shown on coverage maps, which, by their nature, are only approximations of actual coverage. WE DO NOT GUARANTEE YOU UNINTERRUPTED SERVICE OR COVERAGE. WE CANNOT ASSURE YOU THAT IF YOU PLACE A 911 CALL YOU WILL BE FOUND. Airtime and other service charges apply to all calls, including involuntarily terminated calls. AT&T MAKES NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, SUITABILITY, OR PERFORMANCE REGARDING ANY SERVICES OR GOODS, AND IN NO EVENT SHALL AT&T BE LIABLE, WHETHER OR NOT DUE TO ITS OWN NEGLIGENCE, for any: (a) act or omission of a third party; (b) mistakes, omissions, interruptions, errors, failures to transmit, delays, or defects in the service provided by or through us; (c) damage or injury caused by the use of service or Device, including use in a vehicle; (d) claims against you by third parties; (e) damage or injury caused by a suspension or termination of service by AT&T; or (f) damage or injury caused by failure or delay in connecting a call to 911 or any other emergency service. ____Notwithstanding the foregoing, if your service is interrupted for 24 or more continuous hours by a cause within our control, we will issue you, upon request, a credit equal to a pro-rata adjustment of the monthly service fee for the time period your service was unavailable, not to exceed the monthly service fee.___ Our liability to you for service failures is limited solely to the credit set forth above. Unless applicable law precludes parties from contracting to so limit liability, and provided such law does not discriminate against arbitration clauses, AT&T shall not be liable for any indirect, special, punitive, incidental or consequential losses or damages you or any third party may suffer by use of, or inability to use, service or Equipment provided by or through AT&T, including loss of business or goodwill, revenue or profits, or claims of personal injuries. To the full extent allowed by law, you hereby release, indemnify, and hold AT&T and its officers, directors, employees and agents harmless from and against any and all claims of any person or entity for damages of any nature arising in any way from or relating to, directly or indirectly, service provided by AT&T or any person's use thereof (including, but not limited to, vehicular damage and personal injury), INCLUDING CLAIMS ARISING IN WHOLE OR IN PART FROM THE ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OF AT&T, or any violation by you of this Agreement. This obligation shall survive termination of your service with AT&T. AT&T is not liable to you for changes in operation, equipment, or technology that cause your Device or software to be rendered obsolete or require modification."
ATTROCKS @ Dec 30th 2008 8:18PM
ATT sucks, I have had CDMA and GSM phone (ATT sprint ATT and now back to sprint) and I really feel like CDMA is a better "solution" GSM just feels like a collection of parts cobbled together.
Sure ATT has a higher theortical speed, but real world sprint is better. I had an ATT card and a Sprint one and I always used the sprint. ATT speed was better. but latency and quality of the connect was far worse. Which made browsing the web terrible on ATT. On ATT connections continuosly time out..
If you want to feel this browse to a web site on a Spring or Verizon phone and on ATT 3G and see which one loads faster.
I kinda wish ATT was better so I wasnt limited to american phones... But expensive and sucking is a bad combo for me. *sigh*
??? @ Jan 1st 2009 12:07AM
Here's a big question: Is it like this in other nations? I think the answer's no. Seriously, while (admittedly) the majority of the developed nations have a smaller area to work with, the fact that most nations had already adopted the GSM/GPRS/HSPDA/HSPOA standards (as well as other data networks standard, such as fiber optics and OC3) WELL before we did says a lot about our priorities. And to say that it is the telcos' responsibility to fix this problem is a bit of a stretch: Their responsibility is to make profits, first and foremost. They don't HAVE to make any improvements if they don't think it's a profitable measure. The only way they even massively improve infrastructure is if the government itself pushes them to. The government SEVERELY needs to focus on infrastructure development (and not just in tech...other things need a hell of a lot of work done too). It hasn't been the case since the Interstate Highway Act FIFTY YEARS AGO, so that says a lot of things right there.
Of course, with the economy in the dumps, that wouldn't be a bad idea now
jesse @ Jan 4th 2009 9:13PM
But cell phones still use the land line infrastructure. So it is also important to note all the combination of technologies involved in what appears to be a simple "call". For example, you could make a cell phone call at your house, the signal gets sent to a cell tower - but the cell tower is too remote so it is sent over microwave to another cell tower that is hard wired, all which runs through either land line or fiber/other data lines, maybe some more microwave to a switch center to where ever the call is headed back up to a cell tower and maybe through microwave a few more times and out over the airwaves again. Land lines used the same process, just minus the cell towers on either end,... and it would seem adding that last step (plus also the huge amounts of data that is sent now compared to the 3 calls you used to make to your grandma a week) seem to hinder the 99.999999% uptime.
So I think it's good to look at things in perspective.