AT&T slowing EDGE to force customers to switch to 3G?
by Jacob Schulman 
posted Jan 7th 2009 at 3:10AM
Been holding on to that now-antique EDGE device to keep from extending your contract with AT&T? Well, if you've been experiencing some sluggishness -- and not just general EDGE sluggishness, mind you -- you might have more to blame than just those recent outages. Open for Business reports that AT&T has been quietly lowering EDGE signal strength to give more 3G love to all you iPhone 3G and Bold users. To add to the shadiness of the situation, AT&T reps are all offering up the same solution -- buy a 3G device. Unsurprisingly, AT&T's Mark Siegel has denied Open for Business's claims, and says that the mega-carrier is not requiring anyone to switch to a 3G phone. We'll put on our Sherlock Holmes outfits and try to do some digging, but it's not like we actually expect these guys to admit to a move that would definitely lead to a lot of backlash.[Via MobileBurn]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
SPOKE @ Jan 7th 2009 7:43AM
Its funny - a day before the original iphone was released, ATT put forth the StraightEDGE initiative - which increase the through-put of the standard. Now, they are slowing it down far below what original edge speeds are?
I believe they will have to update their website to reflect that the speeds of edge is "more shittier" than it was previously.
000000 @ Jan 7th 2009 11:06AM
Well I have a 3G phone but a lot of the time I'm only getting an EDGE signal. WTF ATT!? This "news" makes me mad.
Scott @ Jan 7th 2009 8:08AM
This is ironic considering their abysmal 3G coverage. I would say fair enough if 80 to 90 percent of their network coverage was 3G enabled but this is clearly not the case. Heck, it is quite the norm to see my phone go from 3G to Edge in Metro cities let alone when in other parts of the country. When looking at their coverage maps, I would estimate that not even 20% of their network is 3G enabled.
The AT&T execs needs to take a trip overseas and look at how to successfully launch and run a national 3G network. Telstra in Australia is a good one to look at considering how large the country is yet how fast their similar 3G 850mz network runs. As well as the fact that their entire network and 98% of the population has 3G coverage.
Such moves by AT&T is why I cannot wait for LTE to come in. Up until now AT&T has not had any real competitor with WCDMA/GSM. Hence their slow rollout and slow 3G performance. Whereas Verizon will give them a run for their money on LTE.
Dan @ Jan 7th 2009 9:11AM
Having recently switched to ATT specifically for FUNCTIONING 3G (on a BB) So far the 3G coverage hasn't been too bad. Everywhere I've tethered or done something data intensive its been available. Having said that, yesterday in Manhattan I found a few spots where I could only get EDGE (15th and 9th) and GPRS (17th and 6th)... ironically WiFi was available at both locations so it didn't matter.
Scott @ Jan 7th 2009 9:26AM
AT&T's 3.5G network has a lot of potential but they are stalling on both speed and coverage. Manhattan is one place where I have a number of 3G to edge issues myself. I am guessing they have a capacity issue there. Maybe it is time they start migrating everyone to 3G handset in such areas and use all of their frequencies for 3G services.
newendyke @ Jan 7th 2009 8:28AM
You know what. If you want to degrade my service that's fine, but you better reduce my monthly bill.
greenlight @ Jan 7th 2009 8:42AM
Well it makes sense, really. AT&T have to deploy UMTS in the same frequencies they have GSM/EDGE (unlike european operators who got brand new empty spectrum for the job). So now that they've sold a couple million UMTS iPhones and people are sucking up data there, you need more capacity in your network.
EDGE is much less spectrum-efficient than UMTS. So they have their 5 MHz slot of spectrum - should they keep using it to provide 20 kbit/s or EDGE, or replace it with 500 kbit of UMTS?
squiggleslash @ Jan 7th 2009 2:06PM
EDGE uses otherwise *unused* 2GSM capacity, as long as people are using GSM, EDGE will be efficient to deploy.
This article is, frankly, completely ridiculous. There is no benefit to AT&T at all to force people off of EDGE. UMTS phones are more expensive, requiring higher subsidies, and UMTS has horrible spectrum requirements. In many areas, if AT&T tried to increase the amount of spectrum it is using for UMTS, it would to shut down the 2GSM network in that area altogether.
The most likely reason for slower EDGE, if, indeed, that's happening, is more people using the network, both for voice and data. That seems fairly probable: people are finally getting used to mobile data, and they're starting to use it seriously. I wouldn't doubt at all that AT&T is getting more data traffic than ever before.
daydalaus @ Jan 7th 2009 8:46AM
This is weird, there is not such thing as "lowering EDGE strenght", Edge signal it's the same as GSM voice, you can give less resources to 2G data and more to voice or modify the parameters to force the handover to 3G. I'm pretty sure you can't "lower" EDGE power, without severely affecting GSM voice service.
greggwsmith @ Jan 7th 2009 9:06AM
Well since I live in a former Dobson/CellOne area in NY they sure as hell better launch 3G before slowing down EDGE! Especially since I am using and paying for a iPhone 3G!!
chris17792 @ Jan 7th 2009 9:31AM
I live in the Little Rock, Arkansas area and I noticed then when I am in town where 3G is available, if I turn off my 3G signal (iPhone 3G) and use only edge - it is MUCH slower than it used to be in downtown Little Rock. However; when I'm in a more rural area where only edge is available the connection is much, much quicker.
Maybe they are weakening the edge signal only where they have a heavy 3G presence. I'm not sure, but overall in my area I can get a quick connection wherever I am.
Louis @ Jan 7th 2009 10:21AM
As I understand it, AT&T is migrating its 3G coverage to the 850 band and putting the EDGE data on the 1900. This is a move to improve coverage for 3G devices and is a direct response to the popularity of 3G devices and the criticism of the 3G network coverage. If you have a 3G phone, it's a good thing. If not, it's not terrible. 1900 stll has decent coverage, it just doesn't penetrate buildings as well.
Scott @ Jan 7th 2009 11:09AM
The interesting thing is that their 3G coverage should be superior to that of GSM. A WCDMA signal operating on 850mHz should have far superior coverage (20+ miles per base station) than a TDMA (GSM) 850mHz signal. Depending on how the base stations are configured and the equipment (boosters) used, other operators abroad achieve 60+ miles of coverage per base station on such frequencies. So I am always puzzled to see my phone have better GSM coverage than 3G in the same location.
From what I have read they are using both frequencies simultaneously (upstream/downstream) and allocating one to each. This is probably what is causing dropout issues. The frequencies are just too far apart. As you said, the 1900mHz has trouble penetrating buildings so it could cause problems if you cannot receive a (1900mhz) but can transmit at (850mHz).
If I was AT&T I would default all 3G users to 1900mhz, then switch them to 850mHz once the signal starts to weaken. Basically only using one frequency at a time per subscriber. 1900Mhz preferably for cell phones closer to the base station and in metro areas.
daydalaus @ Jan 7th 2009 1:34PM
@Scott
I think you have a slight misunderstanding. in GSM/UMTS The UL/DL are indeed separated frecuencies, but the frecuencies are close to each other. "850" realy uses a frequency in the following range: UL (824Mhz - 849Mhz) & DL (869Mhz - 894Mhz), this mode is commonly called 850 band (because the "850" frecuency it's in the middle).
So the 850 an 1900 bands actually are two separated ranges of frequencies and one terminal can only be connected to either one of those.
If the terminals are being attached to EDGE@1900 instead of EDGE@850 can ocurr a performance loss specialy in the indoor, because of the less penetration of the higher frequency
Bytes @ Jan 7th 2009 10:50AM
AT&T is not alone. TMobile is completely indifferent to the complete loss of Edge signal in my own neighborhood in NJ, which began the day 3g was implemented in the area. They deny the problem and the reps are of multiple different opinions about it. An actual lineman (so to speak) said there was nothing wrong with my local tower, though two reps have said that there are multiple reports.
Josta @ Jan 7th 2009 12:51PM
Why dont you all just switch to SPRINT, and you will have NO 3G issues, as the entire country is 3G, in fact Sprint has a 12x larger 3G footprint than AT&T...not to mention it cost about 3x less per month. Makes no sense why you all stick with AT&T!
squiggleslash @ Jan 12th 2009 8:00AM
Well, you know, I think some people want to be able to use their phones indoors, or at peak times of the day, and not get their calls dropped all the time. That's probably why they're not switching from a real operator like AT&T or T-Mobile to Sprint.
old bluetooth @ Jan 7th 2009 3:14PM
With all the EDGE Blackberries out there, I find it very hard to believe they are going to anger that many business customers.
Of course, no one ever said that the greedy corporate americans were very bright. Just look at all the turmoil they have brought
down upon themselves.