AT&T to invest up to $19 billion on network upgrades

AT&T said that they are prepared to invest an extra $2 billion on network upgrades to $18 or $19 billion, up from $17.3 billion last year.  AT&T said its primary focus is to help improve their wireless network around 26 of the major cities in the U.S. for customers.

AT&T mentioned that they will be spending the upgrade costs on more cell phone towers around the nation with fiber-optic connections to increase overall speed.  AT&T’s primary focus will be on struggling cities such as San Francisco and New York, which is facing an increase of subscribers and network issues because of the overwhelming number of users.

AT&T will be adding the new Apple iPad to their network in the coming weeks, adding more strain to the already struggling network.  It appears that Verizon’s attack ads against AT&T have started to hurt the company’s reputation, but still managed to gain 2.7 million wireless subscribers in the fourth quarter of 2009.  However, 1 million of those customers were non-phone related devices.

AT&T said it activated 3.1 million iPhone’s in the fourth quarter, a continued growth for the company and second highest quarter total so far.  With an arrival of another iPhone rumored to be coming this summer, AT&T will need to work fast to improve their network in the U.S. to keep up with the consumer demand for wireless data.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

New redsn0w 0.9.2 jailbreaks any iPhone or iPod touch

Next Story

Network attacks on Facebook, Twitter tripled in 2009

29 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Angel Blue01 said,
Hrmph, what about their DSL?

Are there problems with their DSL too? I hadn't heard anything. In any event, that's probably run by a separate division so they'll probably handle that separately...

este said,
Thats a ton of money

Not really, look at my comments above... this just means they're investing more than they did last year by a hair, while their profit from Data has gone through the roof. This isn't really impressive at all, it's just AT&T's "Save Face" PR move after all the bad press recently.

vaximily said,

Not really, look at my comments above... this just means they're investing more than they did last year by a hair, while their profit from Data has gone through the roof. This isn't really impressive at all, it's just AT&T's "Save Face" PR move after all the bad press recently.

Exactly. They should be spending a heck of a lot more than that...

people might not agree with me but i seriously feel its an iphone problem. I have both an iphone 3gs and an att fuze.

I never have any data problems with my fuze but my iphone constantly doesnt look for a new signal. The iphone will report no signal and i have to either reset the phone for it to find a signal or goin and out of airplane mode. again my att fuze doesnt have that problem.

I think the blame is being put on att when it shouldnt be.

majortom1981 said,
people might not agree with me but i seriously feel its an iphone problem. I have both an iphone 3gs and an att fuze.

I never have any data problems with my fuze but my iphone constantly doesnt look for a new signal. The iphone will report no signal and i have to either reset the phone for it to find a signal or goin and out of airplane mode. again my att fuze doesnt have that problem.

I think the blame is being put on att when it shouldnt be.

I started out with Cellular One, then it became Cingular, then AT&T. Over the course of those years I have had a problem with the signal - getting messages without the phone even ringing, seeing that I didn't have a signal until I moved the phone a little closer to a window, etc. Though it didn't really become a huge problem until I moved to San Diego and every time I went to someone's home (including my own) I had connection issues. At that point AT&T had just come in to the picture and I switched to T-Mobile. I got the iPhone in the hopes that the network had gotten better, but it was just the opposite. The iPhone may be at fault to a degree, but I also know that any of my friends and co-workers that have AT&T have issues with their phones - flip phones, sliders, etc.

Whether or not their signal will be able to travel through apartment building walls and single family homes will be what I'm interested in. The signal right outside my door (and all of my friends' homes) is strong whereas inside my place is another story. People can always guess when I've walked through my front door because they can't hear me any longer.

tylershaw said,
Whether or not their signal will be able to travel through apartment building walls and single family homes will be what I'm interested in. The signal right outside my door (and all of my friends' homes) is strong whereas inside my place is another story. People can always guess when I've walked through my front door because they can't hear me any longer.

Are you sure you live in an apartment and not a dorm? Most apartments have traditional building materials (wood etc), while dorms and the like are usually very dense concrete and multiple stories as opposed to 1 or 2. It makes a huge difference for signal strength.

Then again, could just be because AT&T's network sucks... wouldn't surprise me a bit.

vaximily said,

Are you sure you live in an apartment and not a dorm? Most apartments have traditional building materials (wood etc), while dorms and the like are usually very dense concrete and multiple stories as opposed to 1 or 2. It makes a huge difference for signal strength.

Then again, could just be because AT&T's network sucks... wouldn't surprise me a bit.

It's a studio - I'm on the top floor of a 2 level, 2 studio building with windows on all 4 sides, composed of drywall, wood, etc. Not concrete. At friends' houses (single family homes) the issue is the same thing. Out side the signal is fine, but inside there can be a super strong signal and then suddenly nothing. Something about the signal is weak.

tylershaw said,
It's a studio - I'm on the top floor of a 2 level, 2 studio building with windows on all 4 sides, composed of drywall, wood, etc. Not concrete. At friends' houses (single family homes) the issue is the same thing. Out side the signal is fine, but inside there can be a super strong signal and then suddenly nothing. Something about the signal is weak.

It doesn't surprise me. It's been a while since I looked into it, but I seem to remember AT&T (GSM) having something about it that made it difficult to penetrate buildings. Too high or low of a frequency or something along those lines.

vaximily said,

It doesn't surprise me. It's been a while since I looked into it, but I seem to remember AT&T (GSM) having something about it that made it difficult to penetrate buildings. Too high or low of a frequency or something along those lines.

Yeah, I remember a friend of mine that had AT&T and he almost never had service in ANY building... Very rarely did he ever... It must be rather annoying...

In fact, if you look in the fine print of AT&T ads below their map it says that even "foliage" can interfere with coverage... "Foliage"?? So now a leaf is going to cause me to not have coverage? LMAO No thanks...

Edited by M_Lyons10, Feb 3 2010, 1:51am :

Hmmm, I get unlimited data and texting and 450 talk minutes a month for $69.99 a month with Sprint, and all mobile-to mobile calls are free too. AT&T should certainly be able to match that.

lightstar said,
Hmmm, I get unlimited data and texting and 450 talk minutes a month for $69.99 a month with Sprint, and all mobile-to mobile calls are free too. AT&T should certainly be able to match that.

+1, and I get it for $55 because of my corporate discount!

Also, to clarify, it's mobile to mobile to subscribers on any carrier, not just M2M to Sprint customers.

And our nights and weekends start at 9pm instead of 7pm. So it's a win all around =)

vaximily said,

+1, and I get it for $55 because of my corporate discount!

Also, to clarify, it's mobile to mobile to subscribers on any carrier, not just M2M to Sprint customers.

And our nights and weekends start at 9pm instead of 7pm. So it's a win all around =)


I'm guessing you meant 7pm instead of 9pm?

lightstar said,
Hmmm, I get unlimited data and texting and 450 talk minutes a month for $69.99 a month with Sprint, and all mobile-to mobile calls are free too. AT&T should certainly be able to match that.

Hm... I had Sprint sell us a plan for work a couple of years ago. When I switched to Verizon I got more minutes, better coverage, more texting, data, etc., Friends and Family, etc... For about HALF of what we were paying Sprint...

By $19 billion they really mean about 19 cents and by network they mean more pointless ads that incorrectly attack Verizon.

Hurmoth said,
By $19 billion they really mean about 19 cents and by network they mean more pointless ads that incorrectly attack Verizon.

Business as usual.

Hurmoth said,
By $19 billion they really mean about 19 cents and by network they mean more pointless ads that incorrectly attack Verizon.

Oh, you mean like when Verizon incorrectly posted statistics about AT&T? gg

Alladaskill said,

Oh, you mean like when Verizon incorrectly posted statistics about AT&T? gg

What did they post incorrectly in their "There's a map for that" ads? They seemed pretty damn accurate to me.

Hurmoth said,
What did they post incorrectly in their "There's a map for that" ads? They seemed pretty damn accurate to me.

Exactly.

On the flip side, let's discuss all of the inaccuracies in AT&T's ads... How about how they talk about surfing the net while on a call (Which you can ONLY do in their 3G coverage areas), and then showing a map of their entire network coverage area (The vast majority of which is NOT 3G)...

All in all, Verizon's ads have been accurate. Whereas AT&T's have not...

Edited by M_Lyons10, Feb 3 2010, 1:08am :

dimithrak said,
Finally!.. everyone at that company finally woke up on the right side of the bed.. Lets see how well they do..

Woopy, an extra 2 billion... so basically, instead of investing LESS than they did last year (we see how much that helped), they'll be investing slightly more than they did last year.

Somehow I don't see this making any substantial dent in their reliability, they'd need to more than double their investment from last year to make a noticeable difference.

vaximily said,

Woopy, an extra 2 billion... so basically, instead of investing LESS than they did last year (we see how much that helped), they'll be investing slightly more than they did last year.

Somehow I don't see this making any substantial dent in their reliability, they'd need to more than double their investment from last year to make a noticeable difference.

I agree. But the focus seems to be on particular cites, so the money may show an improvement in those areas... I think that their issues go well beyond those cities though. Overall I really don't think they're doing anywhere near enough...