Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

AT&T Promises To Expand LTE To More US Markets

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the lte-us-pray dept.

AT&T 105

WIn5t0n writes "Even though AT&T has now promoted itself to the 'Largest 4G Network' (HSPA+), it is still lagging far behind in advancing its LTE Coverage. AT&T's largest competitor, Verizon, has turned up the heat on the company now that it claims to cover 75 percent of US population with LTE, while AT&T's network only fully covers a few cities. However, AT&T has recognized consumer unrest and has planned to expand its 4G LTE coverage into '48 new markets' by the end of the year. With the iPhone 5 (rumored to have LTE capabilities) likely to be in consumers hands by the end of this month, AT&T is now feeling the pressure to make sure its customers can take full advantage of their new phones on a faster network. The company's full rollout of 4G LTE coverage is not scheduled to be complete until at least 2013."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wonder if they'll offer it to MVNOs (4, Insightful)

macromorgan (2020426) | more than 2 years ago | (#41249297)

I want to use AT&T's LTE network, I just don't want to deal with AT&T (or pay their ridiculous markup).

Re:Wonder if they'll offer it to MVNOs (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 2 years ago | (#41255315)

Don't expect much. MVNOs typically only have rights to sell ancient tech... eg. 2G phones when 3G was new, and now 3G phones while LTE is rolling out.

That's why it was such a huge deal that Sprint recently allowed MVNOs to use their LTE network... Imagine cheap, pre-paid 4G LTE ala Boost / Virgin Mobile. It could have a huge impact in driving down consumer costs, and driving more customers to Sprint, potentially growing them to the point that they aren't disadvantaged when competing with AT&T and Verizon.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-09-03/tings-lte-victory-could-the-iphone-be-next [businessweek.com]

YAAA Reach those data caps FAAASTER!!!! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41249343)

Nothing matters from AT&T until they remove all data caps and follow Sprint and T-Mobile's lead.

Re:YAAA Reach those data caps FAAASTER!!!! (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#41249361)

Has T-Mobile gotten rid of the 5GB cap where after you get throttled?

Re:YAAA Reach those data caps FAAASTER!!!! (1)

CMYKjunkie (1594319) | more than 2 years ago | (#41249451)

Yes, or as I recall they will soon. In the last few weeks they announced going back to unlimited "unlimited" data (no caps).

Re:YAAA Reach those data caps FAAASTER!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41249523)

You can pay extra for a 10GB cap, or less for a 2GB cap.

I still prefer a throttling-based system to an overage-fee-based system.

Re:YAAA Reach those data caps FAAASTER!!!! (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 2 years ago | (#41256649)

No, I just got throttled last month after 5GB.

Re:YAAA Reach those data caps FAAASTER!!!! (1)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#41249963)

too bad sprint has the slowest LTE and their 3G is slightly faster than dial up

Re:YAAA Reach those data caps FAAASTER!!!! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41250003)

I just switched to T-Mobile yesterday on their new unlimited (and non-throttled) plan. T-mob is SUPER fast around here. Time for AT&T (and Verizon) to catch up with T-Mobile and Sprint.

Re:YAAA Reach those data caps FAAASTER!!!! (1)

Miamicanes (730264) | more than 2 years ago | (#41256681)

I can't speak for AT&T's non-LTE markets, but they rock in South Florida... especially compared to Sprint. Sprint has sucked beyond belief here for months, and we're still at least a few months away from the point where Sprint's LTE coverage will be at least as good as their current Wimax coverage. IActually, think we're still at least another month or two away from the first LTE towers even getting officially lit up.

Half the reason I left Sprint was because I hated my old phone (a crippled, bootloader-locked Motorola Photon) with a passion, and any new phone I could have possibly bought from Sprint would have been LTE-only and had no meaningful data service to speak of here. Around these parts, Sprint's 3G EVDO speeds are 80-120kbps when you're lucky, 40-60kbps in most places, and dip down into single-digit kbps rates at least a few times per week. Sprint's wimax speeds here aren't terrible (~4-6mbps down, 3-4mbps up), but most of the towers are too far apart to work properly if you're in a moving vehicle, and Sprint's management idiotically refused to give us at least one generation of top-tier Android phones with dual-mode wimax+LTE radios to smooth over the transiton.

Truth be told, I would have happily paid $249 for a Sprint Galaxy S3 with more expensive dual-mode wimax+LTE radio, especially if they stuck a real SIM card in it and enabled it to use GSM overseas as well. Instead, I ended up walking away from Sprint for at least the next two years, because I just couldn't live with them anymore.

Sprint should be very afraid right now. I wasn't the first in my circle of friends to leave. Over the past 3 months, 5 of my friends and coworkers upgraded to new Sprint LTE phones, got frustrated by their dysfunctional EVDO, and ended up returning their phones and leaving Sprint before it was too late to walk away without paying an ETF. I'm sure I won't be the last. Half my family members are ready to follow me to AT&T, especially after they found out how fast my data service is now.

Sure, Sprint might be 25-30mbps in scattered places once in while a few months from now, but I can *guarantee* that it's going to be AT LEAST a year, probably two, before somebody can get into his car in western Dade or Broward county, then drive downtown while enjoying 6-20mbps service every inch of the way like AT&T customers can in most parts of South Florida now.

I can't speak for other parts of the county, but with specific respect to Broward County, Florida, here's a pretty thorough analysis (compiled with lots of help from my friends over the past 3 weeks):

T-mobile: pretty consistently 6-15mbps just about everywhere. The worst speedtest scores I saw twice in a row were around 4mbps, but I did see 1-2mbps scores followed by 4-6mbps on a fairly regular basis. Most places were above 10mbps. They aren't "fast", but I'd say they're solidly usable. I really came close to going with Tmo, but AT&T's 26mbps speeds were just too intoxicating after years of Sprint famine. Plus, T-Mobile has poor coverage in my parents' neighborhood on the west coast of Florida, and didn't look very inspiring along Alligator Alley or the Turnpike between West Palm Beach and Orlando.

In terms of max speeds, AT&T and Verizon are both in a dead heat -- 26-28mbps.

Verizon's New York heritage shows... their coverage in downtown Fort Lauderdale & other dense areas east of I-95 is second to none, and usually 5-10mbps faster than AT&T. On the other hand, AT&T generally spanks Verizon out in suburbia, especially west of I-75 (where Verizon is almost totally still EVDO) and places like Coral Springs, Weston, Sunrise, Pembroke Pines, and Miramar. Both AT&T and Verizon seem to have pretty solid LTE coverage along I-75 and 595.

Re:YAAA Reach those data caps FAAASTER!!!! (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#41251427)

I have an LTE phone with AT&T. I hit the 5 gb cap and was throttled for a week until the next billing cycle. Speeds went from around 13000 kbps to 500 kbps. Now they're back up to normal speeds.

I did some tethering without paying for it, but it was only three light sessions on my ipad. I've been using google plus a lot, that could be it. LTE is a lot faster than my home wifi, so I left wifi off

AT&T says the caps will only affect the top 5% of data users. If I'm in the top 5%, nearly everyone else with an LTE phone is just wasting it. Or else AT&T is just making stuff up.

LTE compatablity between major carriers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41249351)

This is a somewhat US-Centric question given the braindead and stupid nature of our wireless market.

Is "LTE" a standard that is compatible between different carriers? In the future will we see "LTE" phones that could, in theory, be used with any provider? (Assuming LTE becomes the de facto standard) .. Would it not be great if there was one standard, and all carriers had roaming agreement so your devices worked everywhere?

Re:LTE compatablity between major carriers. (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#41249511)

Yes, but your phone would have to have an chip that supports all the frequency bands.

Re:LTE compatablity between major carriers. (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 2 years ago | (#41249741)

So yes...but no?

If it the different providers use different frequencies then it isn't compatible is it?

Re:LTE compatablity between major carriers. (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#41249987)

It's no less compatible than GSM which requires your chip to support the bands used by the telecom. It's more compatible than the CDMA/GSM divide which require separate chips. LTE just needs one but obviously must have wide frequency band support to be useful just like world phones have to support multiple GSM bands.

Re:LTE compatablity between major carriers. (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 2 years ago | (#41250285)

Hmm, I guess I always thought that GSM meant a certain set of frequencies that all GSM phones could use; i.e. the 'GSM' chip was capable of working all GSM frequencies. (I don't know)

Likewise I would assume that any phone labeled as a particular tech would be able to handle that 'entire' techs frequency allocation, such as LTE, but then again I don't know if LTE is analogous to 'GSM' in this way. Is LTE an agreed standard to be implemented by all networks claiming to be LTE or is more the '4G' type of labeling that has no meaning beyond marketing?

Re:LTE compatablity between major carriers. (3, Informative)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#41250441)

Frequency bands for GSM are different between what European carriers generally use and what US/Candian carriers use because of previus spectrum allocation. Hence why GSM phones have to support mutilple bands if they want to be useful. This is no different with LTE. There are sets of bands that can be used but an LTE chip is not necessarily required to support them all just as a GSM chip doesn't necessarily have to support all bands. Finally, yes, LTE is an ITU standard.

Re:LTE compatablity between major carriers. (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 2 years ago | (#41250901)

Please resign your Slashdot account. You've been entirely too informative and polite to be seen around here. It might catch on and then what would we be? ;-)

Thanks for the explanation!

Re:LTE compatablity between major carriers. (1)

Githaron (2462596) | more than 2 years ago | (#41251017)

They should just have modular antennas. If you go to another country or carrier that doesn't support your frequencies/protocols, you can purchase a cheap and standardized antenna module, pop out the old one, and put the new one in. Plug-and-play.

Re:LTE compatablity between major carriers. (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 2 years ago | (#41249719)

Your rainbow pooping unicorn order has been delayed...

So (2)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#41249399)

Any chance they'll raise the data caps high enough to make LTE actually useful?

A water pipe that can fill a football stadium in 1 minute flat does no good if it will only dispense half a glass of water a month.

Re:So (1)

WIn5t0n (2723409) | more than 2 years ago | (#41249481)

Any chance they'll raise the data caps high enough to make LTE actually useful?

A water pipe that can fill a football stadium in 1 minute flat does no good if it will only dispense half a glass of water a month.

Currently AT&T has no plans to increase data caps for those using their 4G network. 3rd Gen iPad users have been running into this problem al lot.

Re:So (1)

gv250 (897841) | more than 2 years ago | (#41249989)

A water pipe that can fill a football stadium in 1 minute flat does no good if it will only dispense half a glass of water a month.

Could you phrase that in the form of an automobile analogy?

Re:So (2)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#41250161)

How about a top fuel dragster that can top out at 500MPH but only has enough fuel for 20 feet? So during the big race it is easily beaten by the ancient man driving a tuk-tuk.

Re:So (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#41251491)

Except that there is no unlimited slow option on AT&T. There's still a limit to how much you can download, even if you're using edge (which I guess would be the tuk-tuk option)

Re:So (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#41252781)

Without the illusion of massive capability from the dragster, you will tend to use less data and get better 'mileage' like the tuk-tuk.

Re:So (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#41251447)

It is higher with LTE phones. 3GB for other phones, 5gb for LTE phones, including the grandfathered unlimited plan (for now at least.)

Re:So (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#41252739)

So a month's worth will last for nearly 7 minutes at full speed.

Re:So (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 2 years ago | (#41253403)

This is why I don't really care about 4G. The move from Edge to 3G was necessary because it converted a phone from a glorified mobile email device to a true internet device. Right now on my 3G iPhone, without even full bars, I have at least 1 Mbps connectivity, sometime approaching 3 mps. The ping time always sucks, sometime approaching half a second, but data transfer. Just like when I am a WIFi connection the problem seems to be bloated pages and Google Analytics. I might see a page spend several seconds looking for analytics. Slashdot for instance will require a bit extra time to find and render on my phone, but from what I can tell it is the rendering, and the need to get to multiple sources that take the very long time load. Even on a computer it can take 10 seconds, and that is with speeds in excess of 50 Mbps.

So in the first approximation, I have no idea if 4G is going to make the ping time any shorter. If ping time is 250ms, and there are 20 different sites that have to be polled for ads, then that is 5 seconds right there. Then of course is the data limits. Double the speed means double the amount of bloat that a web page can use. Just look at what happened when most people had broadband. Web developers decided it was ok to put twice as many ads with twice as much data each.

Re:So (1)

Randle_Revar (229304) | more than 2 years ago | (#41254049)

> have no idea if 4G is going to make the ping time any shorter.

It will be much shorter. Theoretically HSPA is ~100ms (plain UMTS is even longer), LTE should be about ~5ms

Also, IPv6 and Mobile IPv6 (much better story than Mobile IPv4).

And yes, the ads and analytics are terrible. I have adblock on my phone, I wonder if there is a usable noscript?

False Advertising (0)

CMYKjunkie (1594319) | more than 2 years ago | (#41249419)

How is "Largest 4G Network" when it is 3G (HSPA+) NOT false advertising?? I know that the carriers got the standards bodies to relax the definition of "4G" but it still galls me. The only intent is to deceived consumers! When I bought my HSPA+ Android phone in 2011, they salesman kept calling it a "4G phone" to me (though I know better) however my less-techie relatives have gotten similar devices and when they have seen a Verizon LTE commercial happily tell me "I already have a 4G phone!" *facepalm* While not illegal, it is at least immoral to call it the largest 4G network.

Re:False Advertising (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#41249469)

First, they were using the term 4G before ITU. Secondly, ITU revised things just last year once again such that even LTE is not 4G according to them. Only LTE-Advanced and WirelessMAN-Advanced are now officially 4G.

Re:False Advertising (2)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#41249547)

And here [mybroadband.co.za] is the source since I forgot the link.

4G LTE is 4G Lite (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#41249699)

Secondly, ITU revised things just last year once again such that even LTE is not 4G according to them. Only LTE-Advanced and WirelessMAN-Advanced are now officially 4G.

A lot of people misread "4G LTE" as "4G Lite". I guess they're right.

Re:False Advertising (1)

Randle_Revar (229304) | more than 2 years ago | (#41254105)

So they reverted to the very first definition? Pretty sure it was 100MB/s theoretical DL to be true 4G, then they allowed LTE, which at least still has other cool advantages (latency, IPv6), then they allowed HSPA+ (aka crap) to be called 4G, cause the phone companies where calling it that anyway.

Re:False Advertising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41255991)

The definition of 4G was originally 1Gbit/s. Phone companies complained that the tiny 20Mhz government spectrum allocations they had been given could not possibly allow for 1Gbit to be delivered, and spectrum would at no time in the foreseeable future be allocated into wide anti-competitive chunks that 4G requires.

4G was then changed to LTE delivered over any frequency block. HSPA+ proponents rightly said their technology was just as fast as LTE over these blocks and they should be 4G too.

Re:False Advertising (1)

Chemisor (97276) | more than 2 years ago | (#41249831)

If this is false advertising, what is true advertising? Can you think of a single ad out there where the company told the complete and clear truth about a product? Anybody?

Re:False Advertising (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#41249943)

The thing is that the same people whining about HSPA+ being called 4G will now have to say that calling LTE as 4G is false advertising due to ITU's final standardization. Only LTE-Advanced is officially 4G. In the end this all just useless pedantry.

Re:False Advertising (1)

Githaron (2462596) | more than 2 years ago | (#41251095)

They really should just advertise the theoretical speed (or at least the average speed) like wired internet. Why do I care what frequencies and protocols they are using if they have wide coverage and fast speeds.

Re:False Advertising (1)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 2 years ago | (#41250429)

If this is false advertising, what is true advertising? Can you think of a single ad out there where the company told the complete and clear truth about a product? Anybody?

Buy Volvos. They’re Boxy (But They’re Good). [warriorforum.com]

Metamucil: We help you go to the toilet so you won’t get cancer and die.

AT&T: You may think phone service stinks since deregulation, but don’t mess with us, because we’re all you’ve got. In fact, if we fold, you’ll have no damn phones. AT&T - We’re tired of taking your crap!

Paramount Pictures: Paramount Pictures presents The Freak. This movie won’t just scare you, it will #$%@ you up for life.

Ahhh...Crazy People [imdb.com]

Re:False Advertising (1)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 2 years ago | (#41250565)

4G is any wireless service that provides speeds in the 10+mb range. Regardless of standards bodies or advertising.

Basis...

3G was a 1+ mb service

2G was 100K+ mb service

1st Generation was a 9600bps service.

***

Each generation has been an order of magnitude higher in base speed.

5G should theoretically be in the 100mb range. But I wager that we'll see 4G pushed to about 20-30mb, and 5G will be claimed with a 50mbs. (But at least that will be a 1/2 a magnitude increase).

Re:False Advertising (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#41250981)

Why would 5G only be 100mbps? That's 1/3 of LTE's theoretical peak download rate. LTE-Advanced, actual 4G by ITU's standard, has theoretical peak down rate of 1gbps.

Re:False Advertising (1)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 2 years ago | (#41252099)

Did you read what I said. ITUs standard is meaningless. Theoretical peak is meaningless. ITU decided on a whim to make 4G = 1gps. But if you look at the history, in context to the data rate from 1x on word. The base speed was usually around 10x the old generation.

Thus 4G should be 10mbs, and 5G will be 100mbs. The fact that LTE technology could theoretically hit 300mbs is irrelevant. The role out of a 5th generation data service should be 100mbs. And 6th generation should be 1000mbs (or 1gbs).

Upgrading the system (1)

internerdj (1319281) | more than 2 years ago | (#41249431)

How long till they have a network fast enough to pass a voice call to my cell at my house in one of their "excellent" reception areas?

STATE RUN HEALTHCARE KILLS (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41249461)

http://www.thelocal.se/43048/20120906/

"The incident, which took place at the Lidköping hospital, has prompted stinging criticism from Sweden's National Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen).

The 72-year-old went under anesthetic at 10.45am on the day of the operation, which took place in January 2011.

At noon sharp, the head anesthetist left the operating room to go for lunch. Fifteen minutes later, the head nurse anesthetist also left the patient and went for lunch.

No other anesthetist was called in to take over responsibility for the doctor who was on his lunch break.

And while another nurse was brought in to cover for the nurse anesthetist, the nurse who arrived came from the orthopedic ward and wasn't familiar with the respirator to which the 72-year-old was attached.

Suddenly, the patient started hemorrhaging and his blood pressure started to drop, sparking a "chaotic" situation.

As the patient's condition became critical shortly before 1pm, the substitute nurse tried desperately to reach the lunching anesthetist, but to no avail.

When the doctor and the primary nurse anesthetist returned to the operating room, they discovered that the patient's respirator had been turned off, leaving him without oxygen for approximately eight minutes.

Despite immediately starting resuscitation efforts, doctors were unable to revive the man, who had suffered irreparable brain damage and died several weeks later."

Coming soon to you thanks to his imperial lordness, the Obama.

VOTE ROMNEY

Funnily enough (-1, Offtopic)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 2 years ago | (#41249541)

This is also almost exactly how my mother in law died in a private hospital in the UK, except that at the "chaotic" situation she was rushed to a State hospital which had better facilities, but got there too late and was DOA.

Only a bonkers libertarian could seriously believe that private systems don't have screwups. Oh, and by the way, what exactly is the difference between "Obamacare" and what Romney approved for Mass? Without handwaving?

Yes, I do have karma to burn.

Re:Funnily enough (-1, Offtopic)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 2 years ago | (#41249809)

While private corps screw up all the time there are a few differences.
1) You are not forced to deal with a particular private company. If one gets a bad rep people can avoid it.
2) It almost has to be a public employee to get the right to go to lunch at a time like that. Yay Public Employee unions.
3) The upside is it will be free to some people. (Not free though. overall costs will go up for a specific level of service.)

  The difference between Obamacare and Romneycare?
The US is supposed to be about States. The Federal government was to be there to give a unified face to the outside and to ensure freedom of travel and commerce between the States. Different states could be wildly different and if you did not like it you could just move. With Obamacare if you do not like it you must renounce your US citizenship and move to a foreign country.

You can still like or dislike the federal health care mandate if you want to, those are just some facts about the differences to chew on.

Re:Funnily enough (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41250039)

Just have to add, first nothing is free, someone pays. I know this isn't your point but it needs to be understood.

More importantly, when you are wronged by a private organization you can sue, and the state will serve to adjudicate. Yes when wronged by the state you can also sue, but you do so on the terms of the state. Good luck with that.

Re:Funnily enough (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41249903)

Paul Ryan’s List

* Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy (Self-flagellation fund)– $445 million annual savings.
* Save America’s Treasures Program (Starving artist fund) — $25 million annual savings.
* International Fund for Ireland (Guinness fund)– $17 million annual savings.
* Legal Services Corporation (Obstruction fund) — $420 million annual savings.
* National Endowment for the Arts (elitist crony fund)– $167.5 million annual savings.
* National Endowment for the Humanities (atheism fund)– $167.5 million annual savings.
* Hope VI Program (commn’ty organizing)– $250 million annual savings.
* Amtrak Subsidies (Black Hole) — $1.565 billion annual savings.
* Eliminate duplicating education programs (futility fund)– eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.
* U.S. Trade Development Agency (foreign vacation fund)– $55 million annual savings.
* Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy (I hate that guy!)– $20 million annual savings.
* Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding (Luddite memorial) — $47 million annual savings.
* John C. Stennis Center Subsidy (Self-aggrandizement fund)– $430,000 annual savings.
* Community Development Fund (comm’ty organizing)– $4.5 billion annual savings.
* Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid (slum fund)– $24 million annual savings.
* Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half (vacation funds)– $7.5 billion annual savings
* Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20% (limo fund)– $600 million annual savings.
* Essential Air Service (as in “thin air”)– $150 million annual savings.
* Technology Innovation Program (from the Gov’t? Seriously?) — $70 million annual savings.
* Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program (Crony fund) — $125 million annual savings.
* Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization (hidden fuel tax)– $530 million annual savings.
* Beach Replenishment (insanity)– $95 million annual savings.
* New Starts Transit (vote buying)– $2 billion annual savings.
* Exchange Programs for Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts (WTF Fund)– $9 million annual savings
* Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants (“air movers”)– $2.5 billion annual savings.
* Title X Family Planning (We know what causes it) — $318 million annual savings.
* Appalachian Regional Commission (Vote buying)– $76 million annual savings.
* Economic Development Administration (Slush fund)– $293 million annual savings.
* Programs under the National and Community Services Act (commt’y organizing) — $1.15 billion annual savings.
* Applied Research at Department of Energy (Slush fund)– $1.27 billion annual savings.
* Freedom CAR and Fuel Partnership (Slush fund) — $200 million annual savings.
* Energy Star Program (Slush fund)– $52 million annual savings.
* Economic Assistance to Egypt (Hush fund)– $250 million annually.
* U.S. Agency for International Development (vacation fund) — $1.39 billion annual savings.
* General Assistance to District of Columbia (choom fund)– $210 million annual savings..
* Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (crony fund) — $150 million annual savings.
* Presidential Campaign Fund (eff this!)– $775 million savings over ten years.
* No funding for federal office space acquisition (mistress fund)– $864 million annual savings.
* End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services. (protection racket)
* Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act — More than $1 billion annually. (job-killer act)
* IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget — $1.8 billion savings over ten years. (incest fund)
* Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees (Perks Fund)– $1 billion total savings.
* Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees (Pest Control)– $1.2 billion savings over ten years.
* Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of (Capitol Hill?)– $15 billion total savings.
* Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress. (I say we make it an incentive.)
* Eliminate Mohair Subsidies (Llama-farm Subsidy to follow) — $1 million annual savings.
* Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Al Gore Subsidy)– $12.5 million annual savings
* Eliminate Market Access Program (They don’t believe in it anyway) — $200 million annual savings.
* USDA Sugar Program (mistress fund) — $14 million annual savings.
* Subsidy to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (Circle-jerk fund) — $93 million annual savings.
* Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program (Granola Payola) — $56.2 million annual savings.
* Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs (dacha fund) — $900 million savings.
* Ready to Learn TV Program (we need a Ready To Teach program) — $27 million savings.
* HUD Ph.D. Program. (Valerie Jarrett Clone fund)
* Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act.(make-work fund)

TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years

Re:Funnily enough (1)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 2 years ago | (#41250585)

Not much, in fact, there is almost zero difference between Obama and Romney.

Or "Robamneya"

Re:STATE RUN HEALTHCARE KILLS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41249567)

VOTE ROMNEY

who voted for state run healthcare in Massachusetts.

Re:STATE RUN HEALTHCARE KILLS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41249637)

So bloody what?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/romney-says-he-will-repeal-obamacare-if-elected/

"Mitt Romney declared Thursday that he would “act to repeal Obamacare” if he was elected president, saying that he agreed with the dissenting justices in the Supreme Court ruling on Thursday.

With the Capitol over his shoulder and standing in front of a podium with a sign that read “Repeal and Replace Obamacare,” Mr. Romney said the health of the American economy depended on getting rid of the health care law.

“Our mission is clear: if we want to get rid of Obamacare, we are going to have to replace President Obama,” Mr. Romney said. “That is my mission. That is our work. And I’m asking the American people to join me.”

This is not about healthcare and you people know it. This is a power grab and a theft of your money. Vote Romney and vote conservative wherever you have the choice.

Re:STATE RUN HEALTHCARE KILLS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41249731)

"Mitt Romney declared Thursday that he would “act to repeal Obamacare”

Stop spreading false hope. Romney is a pig, just like the rest. Vote for Ron Paul. Write his name in on the ballot if you really care. Otherwise, fuck off!

Re:STATE RUN HEALTHCARE KILLS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41250165)

"Otherwise, fuck off!"

Ah yes the intellectual integrity of the Paulian. Any wonder why RP will not ever be president? You are supporting a loser. Keep it up chump.

Re:STATE RUN HEALTHCARE KILLS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41249745)

What money do you think the 'conservatives' are not going to take?

Go look at the percentage growth of the national debt under Republican presidents. It might surprise you. A lot.

Re:STATE RUN HEALTHCARE KILLS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41250091)

Republican != conservative.

You drones are such geniuses.

Re:STATE RUN HEALTHCARE KILLS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41250335)

Ah, so someone who's not actually going to be elected.

I'm sure that will help. Somehow.

Re:STATE RUN HEALTHCARE KILLS (-1, Offtopic)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#41249623)

So malpractice only exists in socialized health care systems? Otherwise I don't see what point your trying to make.

No, zero bars kills (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#41249735)

As the patient's condition became critical shortly before 1pm, the substitute nurse tried desperately to reach the lunching anesthetist, but to no avail.

(desperate attempt to swing it back on topic) Perhaps the point isn't that socialized health care kills as much as that loss of the cellular signal kills.

Re:STATE RUN HEALTHCARE KILLS (0)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#41249767)

I *think* he's trying to say all malpractice in socialized systems is Obama's fault.

Re:STATE RUN HEALTHCARE KILLS (1)

incongruency (1683022) | more than 2 years ago | (#41256535)

I agree this a sad story but I fail see how you reach your conclusion from it.

LTE coming to your area. Film at 11:00. (1)

marbike (35297) | more than 2 years ago | (#41249533)

I've been told by AT&T reps for months that LTE is coming to the Salt Lake City area Real Soon Now. I didn't know what I was missing till a recent trip to a few LTE cities. I would love to have LTE, but I am not holding my breath. It was scheduled for Spring, then Some Time over the Summer, and now Maybe By the End Of the Year.

Re:LTE coming to your area. Film at 11:00. (1)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 2 years ago | (#41250621)

Comcast told me for about 7 years that broadband was coming to my area (one of the three biggest cities in Connecticut). It finally came, the year I left the state.

Re:LTE coming to your area. Film at 11:00. (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#41251523)

They brought LTE to Davis, CA, but not the much larger Sacramento, a mere 15 minutes away. I can only conclude that someone at AT&T is throwing darts at a map to decide where they'll upgrade that week.

Uh-huh (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#41249689)

No doubt, AT&T also promises a 10% increase in your bill to pay for these expansions.

Re:Uh-huh (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#41249793)

No, you pay no extra for 4G. Their data plans don't discriminate between whether your data usage is 3G or 4G. You jst buy a block of data amount. AT&T has plenty of things it can be ragged on for so there is no need to make shit up.

Re:Uh-huh (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#41250209)

AT&T has fought tooth and nail to prevent expanding/improving their services in any shape, form, or fashion because it doesn't profit them.
Hence why I'm joking around about it.

Can't Wait To Dump ATT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41249771)

ATT's coverage here in New Orleans is woefully poor. I can get a voice mail notice, but not the original call, all while my phone is laying on a table and not moving. During Isaac, all of my Verizon friends were able to make and receive calls, and surf the net on the cell network while the power and wired connections were down. Not so on ATT's network. While no doubt in a market by market comparison, ATT may be better, what really counts for me is what their service is like here where I live, and it's horrible.

During large pubic events like Mardi Gras and the Jazz Fest, service is non-existant.... These events are not some "flash mob" unexpected affairs, ATT has plenty of warning and time to roll in some cows to take up the slack, but whatever they are doing, it isn't nearly enough.

When I bought my iPhone 4, ATT was the only carrier available. Now, 2 years later and under no contract, for the first time I have other choices in carriers for the iPhone, and intend to switch. Look for a LOT of customer bleed off from ATT when everyone who bought the iPhone 4 finally have a chance to switch.

bi73h (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41249805)

brain. I7 is the im4aired its

is LTE really that much better? (1)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#41249871)

i have an iphone 4S on AT&T. i was at the store playing with a Samsung Galaxy Note yesterday. it benches at almost 12Mbps but in normal use it doesn't seem that much faster than my iphone

could it be that most phones today are still hardware limited and higher bandwidth speeds are just marketing hype?

Re:is LTE really that much better? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41250045)

Web usage is going to be largely limited by latency rather than throughput. That's why the web browser on my phone is more-or-less usable even after T-Mobile starts throttling me for going over my 5GB/month cap.

Re:is LTE really that much better? (1)

randallman (605329) | more than 2 years ago | (#41250397)

Yes. It has much lower latency, which is better for real time applications.

Re:is LTE really that much better? (1)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 2 years ago | (#41250547)

On of the major benefits is spectral efficiency: LTE can deliver reasonable good service to more people on the same frequency allocation. This is why Verizon is so keen on getting as many data-heavy users off their overloaded EVDO network and onto LTE. Now, the extent to which a technology can provide consistent service to more people in a given geographical area within a given chunk of spectrum is a tricky thing to benchmark. Ultimately, however, user experience is going to be determined much more by such average numbers than by the maximum burst capacity of the network in a non-overloaded case.

So yeah, to be a big win, LTE doesn't need to be faster in the fastest case (although that's a cool benefit) but more consistent and more forgiving under load. Hard to benchmark, hard to quote in an ad ("Up to 15 Bits / Hz on the amazing new phone!" just doesn't sell), hard to quantify to a user ("this phone is not just much faster, but will disappoint you less and ultimately let us provide service for more users in the 700Mhz band).

Are any speed test results to be believed? (1)

swb (14022) | more than 2 years ago | (#41251529)

Does anybody believe any of the so-called "benchmarking" speed test web sites?

I almost believe there's a full time team at every major provider of consumer internet access whose job it is to packet shape and/or outright fake every benchmark web site. Even if the motivation isn't to fool people outright (ie, not provide the service level they're charging people) but to just keep every ignoramus out there from hammering customer service about how their speed tests aren't living up to their expectations.

The only speed test I think I trust anymore is an scp of some decently large block of data output from /dev/random and then run through bdes and gzip to eliminate as much compressibility as possible. This just might be enough anti-snooping/anti-shaping to keep you from getting a false result.

Of course, you're not immune from the shaper from identifying you as ssh traffic and dumping you into whatever bucket that traffic goes into, but it least its what kind of throughput you're actually likely to get with run of the mill ssh tunneled traffic. Maybe a real implementation of this would use a home-rolled protocol on random, encrypted-negotiated ports to prevent anything but the "everything else, unknown traffic" shaper bucket.

Crazy bandwidth in DC area (2)

CowTipperGore (1081903) | more than 2 years ago | (#41249895)

I was in the DC metro area recently and took a screenshot of a speedtest because I couldn't believe it. A Samsung SIII on AT&T registered 45M down. Unfortunately, we can't touch that at home because there is no AT&T LTE coverage anywhere in our state.

Re:Crazy bandwidth in DC area (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41250337)

Just wait, 10 million iPhone 5's on AT&T network will bring it back to a grinding halt.

In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41249907)

Apple and Microsoft promise to continue releasing new OS versions.
Obama and Romney promise to continue campaigning for White House.

And my area still does not make the list. (1)

heezer7 (708308) | more than 2 years ago | (#41249949)

:-( Maybe next year.

Don't forget about us... (1)

AmeerCB (1222468) | more than 2 years ago | (#41250025)

Hopefully they remember to upgrade my area to 3G first... Paying the same price for everyone else for edge speeds is getting old.

How about percentage of the LAND AREA? (2)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 2 years ago | (#41250181)

"75% of the population"? How about a percentage of the LAND AREA. Like 99+%?

The whole POINT of wireless is that you can use it when you're ON THE ROAD, somewhere OUT OF A CITY, or otherwise anywhere but parked at home or the office. The carriers seem to have lost track of that.

Perhaps it's a side-effect of the FCC's abandonment of access requirements to the legacy, subsidized, landline infrastructure, leaving landlines to a duality of incumbent Tellcos and Cable companies, which only have to incrementally upgrade while their no-longer-existent competition must wire the world from scratch? That ends up with wireless data carriage repurposed as a cheaper-to-install alternative to landlines, driving mobile service into secondary status in corporate mindshare. Of course, in such a market the incumbents (like AT&T), with their existing landline structure, have less incentive to roll out service than their wireless-only and wireless-mainly competition.

Re:How about percentage of the LAND AREA? (4, Insightful)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#41250271)

Because it's stupid to have cell coverage in vast swathes of uninhabited areas? Most people don't want to pay more just so the peaks of the Rocky Mountains and the entire Death valley desert can have LTE coverage.

Re:How about percentage of the LAND AREA? (1)

Fishbulb (32296) | more than 2 years ago | (#41250919)

The peaks of the Rockies have decent coverage, actually. As long as you can see a road, you'll probably get some signal. Much better line-of-sight from the top.

The valleys, on the other hand...

Re:How about percentage of the LAND AREA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41251265)

I wonder if you'd feel the same way if you were lost in the middle of Death Valley or stranded in the Rockeys?

Re:How about percentage of the LAND AREA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41252495)

Hell, the peaks of the Rockies don't have 1G coverage (as in NO "bars"...) unless you get an LOS fix on a tower down in the valleys. (It *is* rather annoying that Estes Park seems to have gotten 4G before Longmont, which is all of 3-10 miles off of the 4G coverage plats in the area...).

I'd buy the line if you weren't talking about highway corridors, etc.- which it seems NONE of the LTE players are doing right at the moment. As it stands, they've covered QUITE a bit of the "vast swathes of uninhabited areas" with 2G and 3G service. Not buying the line because of those two details.

Re:How about percentage of the LAND AREA? (1)

joelsanda (619660) | more than 2 years ago | (#41253351)

Because it's stupid to have cell coverage in vast swathes of uninhabited areas?

What does habitation have to do with anything? Some uninhabited areas have lots of travelers. Airports probably have a population of zero, yet those travellers I'll bet use a lot of the provided cell coverage. Same goes for the endless stretches of Interstate in places like Wyoming and Montana. Population zero but lots of people using the road.

Re:How about percentage of the LAND AREA? (2)

Shatrat (855151) | more than 2 years ago | (#41254003)

Next time you're driving out there in the middle of nowhere and you feel like you deserve 4G, look right, then look left. Did you see any fiber optic cable on poles? There's your answer. Rural towers are usually sitting on the end of a microwave link back to a 'hub' tower that's T1 or fiber-fed. Those microwave links and T1s aren't going to support LTE service.

Re:How about percentage of the LAND AREA? (1)

DanFelixPierce (2663805) | more than 2 years ago | (#41250579)

Actually, I would be more satisfied with AT&T if I could get a signal IN a city. Specifically, inside a building.

Re:How about percentage of the LAND AREA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41250747)

You realize that AT&T is constrained by this thing called "physics", right? Look up signal attenuation and absorption losses with respect to wireless signals.

Re:How about percentage of the LAND AREA? (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#41250793)

You realize that AT&T is constrained by this thing called "physics", right?

At a number of places I've seen my AT&T phone get really poor signal while Verizon owners have great signal.

Are you accusing Verizon of tampering with the laws of physics?

The truth is that you can work around things like thick walls with microcells inside walls... AT&T needs to do more as often even in a major city service will be crappy depending on where you are.

Re:How about percentage of the LAND AREA? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#41251667)

I recently drove across the country with an LTE phone. Most places didn't have LTE reception, but I was surprised at the HSPA+ or at least 3G coverage. That's enough for google maps.

How often do you find yourself driving through the wasteland of Nevada, absolutely needing the youtube video to stream smoothly? I'd wager not enough to justify paying more on your monthly bill.

Re:How about percentage of the LAND AREA? (1)

jfruh (300774) | more than 2 years ago | (#41251789)

The whole POINT of wireless is that you can use it when you're ON THE ROAD, somewhere OUT OF A CITY, or otherwise anywhere but parked at home or the office. The carriers seem to have lost track of that.

Er, you realize that the vast majority of people, even when they're on the road and out of their home/office, are going other places where people live, right? Usually in their own city? For most people, I'd wager that the huge majority of their cell phone calls are made within a half-hour drive from their house.

Maybe they could work out the "telephone" feature (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41250419)

I have AT&T, and quite honestly 3G is pretty fast. Its fine for mobile email and browsing, and even when I tether to a laptop, I can pull something like 1.3 Mb/sec. It isn't great for video, but that's not really what I want it for.

However, I can't go two days without dropping a cell phone call. I live in the Denver suburbs (aka not in the boonies), and I have 3 or more "bars" at almost all times. Somehow, I drop calls or get the other person saying "are you there, hello?" and finally hanging up after not hearing me for 10 seconds.

Fast data is great, but could they just make the "phone" part of my "mobile device" work too? It is kind of important to me.

Also, this is the third carrier, third location that I've lived, and fourth phone I've had in the past three years. Same problems with all (sprint, tmobile, AT&T) (Co springs, Parker, Littleton) (blackberry, droid, iPhone). So it isn't like I live in the rare dead spot, or have a lemon of a phone.

HSPA+ Uh guys this is only 3.5g not LTE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41250503)

Many companies are pushing HSPA+ before they go to LTE.

HSPA is 3G and HSPA is 3.5G NOT LTE!!

Re:HSPA+ Uh guys this is only 3.5g not LTE (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#41250913)

Of course HSPA+ is not LTE. Who said it was? This is clearly about AT&T expanding its LTE service not HSPA+. Maybe you should relearn how to read? Also, both LTE and HSPA+ are 'evolved 3G'. LTE-Advanced is actual 4G.

LTE Buildout (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | more than 2 years ago | (#41250555)

Knowing AT&T, the NSA will be underwriting their expenses.

AT&T LIE network (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41251111)

No one polices the lies of a company the size of AT&T, and their mission is to suck as much money out of their customer base as possible with the least cost. If they minimized their advert-lying and maximized their performance, it would go a long way to improving both customer service and competition.

The FCC doesn't give a rat's ass whether they offer a 4G network that conforms to the description of "largest" or not, as long as whatever 4G equipment they install meets the technical specifications so it doesn't interfere with that of other competing companies.

FCC is NOT a consumer protection oriented agency. It's mission is to foster so-called competition.

Don't Care (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#41251229)

AT&T put the 3 gig limit on my unlimited plan AFTER I renewed a contract.

Bye bye AT&T.

Re:Don't Care (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41252065)

3 gig would barely cover your inane posts to slashdot. Just shut the fuck up and you'll have plenty of bandwidth, you flaming asshole.

Re:Don't Care (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#41252157)

What'd I do?

Forget LTE... (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 2 years ago | (#41255349)

If I was in charge at AT&T, I would spend whatever money it took to improve the 2G/3G coverage of AT&T to the point where its better than Verizon. Lots of people have made "I hate Verizon but dont get coverage from anyone else so I have no choice" complaints, if AT&T fixed that, more people would switch over from Verizon and could move towards making AT&T the #1 carrier in America.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?