admob cell phone usage with a Verizon iPhone bent.

[flyingember]

In the endless AT&T vs Verizon fight I decided to note some data I found. Admob makes their available and it's all actual users which I think is a better data set than total number of devices.

This is from September 2007 based on number of loads of admob ads, not total usage or number of devices.

The iPhone had 25% of the US market
RIM had 3%

AT&T had over half of their hits from iPhones.
Verizon has over half of their hits from Blackberries.

So basically half of Verizon's total data hits to admob was ~1/8 the number of what half of AT&Ts was. It does not tell total data usage per device. heavy email users with rim are likely countered by media users with an iphone.

So the info means one or both of two things
1. RIM users don't visit websites often
2. Verizon has much lower real data usage on their network

Given the differences I bet Verizon will get hammered worse than AT&T in the big cities if they get the iPhone and have the same surge in users AT&T has had.

the reason for this is simple. most of AT&Ts problems have been blamed for not enough channels, too many connections too often, etc. Unless Verizon has tons more slots per tower with the overall slower data speeds Verizon has this means it will take longer to download the same thing on a Verizon iPhone. This ties up a tower slot for longer than it does with AT&T causing congestion quicker.

 

[whmurray]

.........he reason for this is simple. most of AT&Ts problems have been blamed for not enough channels, too many connections too often, etc. Unless Verizon has tons more slots per tower with the overall slower data speeds Verizon has this means it will take longer to download the same thing on a Verizon iPhone. This ties up a tower slot for longer than it does with AT&T causing congestion quicker.

You may be right if AT&T's problem is a wire-side problem rather than an air-side problem. Connections may be the problem on the voice side but, on the air side, data is connectionless. I could make voice calls in SF and NYC but could not get data.

I was in a meeting in NYC this week where none of us were able to download a page or a document. One application, Safari, kept reporting that the "server stopped responding." Right; dozens of servers stopped responding. If we had not had one piece of copper, the meeting would have been ineffective rather than simply inefficient.

No, AT&T's problem on the data side is inadequate bandwidth. Can you say "cells?" They are taking revenues from SF and investing them in Vermont.

In fairness to AT&T, it is easier and cheaper to put new cells in Vermont than in NYC. On the other hand, the cows do not have iPhones. AT&T is like the drunk who looks for his keys where the light is good rather than where he dropped them. AT&T is putting cells where it is easy rather than where its business is. At that, they still do not have 3G in Vermont; the cows are very patient.

I will be returning to SF the first week in March, one year since I was there last. I look forward to reporting to you that they have made progress in a year. Not to worry, I will take my Verizon MIFI for backup and comparison.

Incidentally, one of the claims made for CDMA is that it uses both power and bandwidth more efficiently than GSM. While Verizon may have a lighter data load that AT&T, it also carries the data better.

It seems unlikely to me that the future belongs to one carrier over another. If AT&T can be believed, that the problem is iPhone data usage rather than inadequate investment, then demand is likely to exceed capacity for years, no matter the number of carriers.

I think that having all carriers on LTE and with freedom of users to follow the best service is the strategy most likely to give us the best service. I think that the best service will come from the carrier that is investing for the future; I do not think that is AT&T.

 

[flyingember]

You must not have understood what I wrote because you backed up what I said in several places while implying I'm wrong

 

[whmurray]

You must not have understood what I wrote because you backed up what I said in several places while implying I'm wrong

Sorry....I understood you to say that AT&T's problem was backhaul, not air-side, and that they would win out in a head-to-head with any other iPhone carrier.

I think that AT&T's problem is air-side and that any other iPhone carrier will eat their lunch.

It is really kind of sad that AT&T got exactly what they thought they wanted in the iPhone deal and then could not handle it .