Dear AT&T, Whatever You’re Doing AT SXSW, Do It In San Francisco
MG Siegler
Mar 15, 2010

We’re in the midst of full-on location war is raging this year at SXSW in Austin, Texas this year. But actually, someone has already won: AT&T.

Yes, despite my concerns, I’m happy to report that the network has been incredibly stable over the past several days. In fact, it’s the best I’ve ever seen AT&T’s network perform — anywhere. Over the past three days I haven’t dropped one call, haven’t missed one voicemail, haven’t been missed any text messages, and the data is flowing freely, allowing my iPhone to actually work.

The fact that AT&T is actually working like a network you pay $100-a-month for is notable because last year at the same conference, AT&T suffered a complete and utter meltdown. Strained to the point of pretty much continuous failure under the weight of smart phones (and yes, the iPhone in particular), AT&T had to hustle to bring in backup systems to get the network at least somewhat working over the last few days of the interactive part of the conference last year.

This year, as I detailed last week, they had an elaborate plan of action in place before the conference. And it appears to be working perfectly.

While I’m thrilled that I can actually use my iPhone this year, AT&T’s success in Austin also makes me wonder: why on Earth can’t they do this in San Francisco? Or New York City? Sure, those cities are much larger than the relatively small amount of ground they have to cover in Austin, but why not just bring in more of these Cells on Wheels (the so-called COWS), or do any of the other tweaks they’ve done here?

AT&T has said it has been doing things throughout the past year to try to fix the network in these cities, but despite some mild improvements here and there, most will agree, the overall network is still awful. Hell, even AT&T agrees. But whatever they’re doing in Austin is working to perfection. Yes, it’s a temporary solution, but who cares? Put this temporary solution in place in San Francisco and New York until you fix the underlying problems.

Obviously, AT&T has likely run through every scenario for fixing its network in these cities, so I can only guess it’s a question of money. The problem is that now that we know AT&T is capable of fixing its network, they’re going to have a much harder time saying something like, “we’re working on it.” Just do it.

AT&T, you done one hell of a job in Austin this week, shutting me up in the process. Now shut me up about the rest of the network too. Please.

[photo: flickr/dl the huntress]

Advertisement
  • Related Topics
Advertisement
  • http://zodah.com Sahil Gupta

    and New York!

  • NadjaB

    Glad to hear that AT&T worked so well in Austin, but wonder if it was at all to the detriment of the network in other places. I found reception in SF this weekend to be even worse than it typically is.

  • http://www.techretold.com Shan

    They are intent on making profits with lowest capital investment

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=646276828 Romain David

    I have been told that regulations prevent AT&T from adding more base stations in San Francisco. Money may not be the biggest issue.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1166812259 Bryan Lyle

    and in .

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1166812259 Bryan Lyle

    “insert any AT&T city here”

  • http://tedshelton.blogspot.com Ted Shelton

    Actually the network is pretty good in SF today with all the heavy data users out of town at SXSWi :-)

    but seriously, AT&T has admitted that they know how to fix the problems… It will just cost a few billion…

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=38600043 Dustin A Coates

    Area of San Francisco: 231.92 sq mi
    Area of Austin: 296.2 sq mi

    Population of San Francisco: 808,976
    Population of Austin: 757,688

    San Francisco isn’t “much larger” than Austin–and is in fact smaller in terms of area. So, yes, if it can be done in Austin, it can be done in San Francisco.

  • http://colinzerk.com Colin

    Does verizon have any cows or colts out there? And how’s the Data/Coverage for verizon there?

  • Jeff Andersen

    I heard that it was due to city specific regulations that they could only use X length antennas in SF rather than the larger Y length antennas in Austin.

    Also in Austin they are using tons of portable antennas which are a temp solution just for SXSW.

  • Aaron

    That is a little too simplistic of analysis.

    95+% of Austin is suburbia. ATT for this week is only concerned about the 1-2 sq miles (Downtown Austin) where most of SXSW is.

    There are also geographic (flatness) and regulation (less of it) advantages in Austin.

  • J

    Presumably, they’re not targeting all of Austin, but just the very downtown areas where SXSW is happening. That being said, they should target this at the “high value” parts of San Francisco.

    I was at the Moscone center for a conference a while back and the AT&T service was unusable. I use an AT&T data card and I could not get an IP address. My VZW Blackberry was working fine.

  • jimjerky

    Location Wars are only in your HEAD MG!

  • http://www.russellheimlich.com/blog Russell Heimlich

    The latest TWiT mentions AT&T using 6 inch satellites and the big cities only allow up to 3. I seriously doubt it’s a financial issue, sounds more like a political one.

  • http://securedba.com Kevin Sheehan

    And when are they going to get iPhone tethering working like it does in many other countries. I am tired of drolling over the Apple adverts for this feature: http://www.apple.com/iphone/iphone-3gs/tethering.html

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=516859481 Andrew MacDonald

    “Put this temporary solution in place in San Francisco and New York until you fix the underlying problems.”

    Here here!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1217239720 Joshua Johnson

    Scoble said on TWiT this week that San Francisco regulations won’t allow them to deploy the 6 ft. antennas they’re using in Austin.

  • carlo

    “Population of San Francisco: 808,976″

    Yes, because the population of the city of San Francisco are the only people using AT&T service in the bay area.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=718881996 Jason Fleetwood-Boldt

    California is hilly and, despite being the tech-hub of the world, isn’t actually very densely populated.

    As someone who lived in SF for many years and recently moved to NYC, I have to say I’m quite happy with then network performance in New York. Occasionally it drops out, but overall coverage is better than I ever had in SF.

    I’ll be austin is flat & populated. If you were a radio wave you’d have a hard time getting around all those peeks in SF too.

  • Dave Hanna

    MG’s prior post narrated the major amount of goof proofing AT & T did.

    ATT investment for this venue:

    Per MG’s post on Techcrunch 3/11- http://tcrn.ch/cd5aFz

    -8 cell sites- Around the convention center alone.
    -50 antenna nodes to cover the whole venue.
    -Moving from one radio network carrier to three.
    -Expanded the capacity of the so-called “high quality” 850 MHz spectrum to get through walls.
    -HSPA 7.2 software installed at all of the 3G cell towers – because the software works.
    -AT&T has brought in two Cells on Wheels called “COWS”
    -Also a third rooftop temporary cell site brought to alleviate network strain.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=11700009 Jonathan Lally

    pretty sure San Francisco has a few more hills than Austin..

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=10002197 Chris Cardinal

    …this “network,” I don’t think it works like you think it works. It’s not a zero sum game. “They’ve used up all our internets in AUSTIN! THOSE BASTARDS!”

  • http://startups.typepad.com Don Rainey

    And DC!! Coverage is very poor in some notable parts of the city……….

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=500043889 Brian Mullin

    I live in SF and want to throw my iphone out the window half the time so I would love this, but to state that they should “just do what they’re doing in Austin” for SF is a tad simplistic.

    - SXSW is 2 weeks long, the commitment expires after that, this working in SF would be open ended commitment. Anything on the ground would require constant monitoring, security, support, and SF would have to agree to these temporary footprints.
    - Austin, while being “hill country” in TX, has nothing on SF hills
    - SF is a bureaucratic nightmare – try getting a remodel permit approved through the downtown infrastructure and you’ll soon realize why

  • Valley Bob

    Yes according to MG’s previous post about all of the “special” efforts to support SXSW, for AT&T to “do what you’re doing in Austin” would mean to apply such “special efforts” in SF as well.

    You think this would still cost $100/month? Probably more like $500/month/user.

    This post would have been less ridiculous if it were titled “AT&T let me pay $500 a month for this level of service”. And that’s a pretty ridiculous article.

    TC continues to waste my time.

  • Phil McTimoney

    Seriously…I saw them packing up antennas in SF. They were using Uhaul trucks from Texas, so putting two-and-two together…

    No, just kidding.

    There was some AT&T apologist on TWiT saying that SF limits the height of the antennas in the city. And the dog ate their homework.

  • http://longbrevity.com PJ

    You are always going to get better cellphone coverage and performance in cities that are flat and aren’t a nest of large buildings. Coverage is much easier when you don’t have so many obstructions. If San Francisco was topographically similar to Austin, I could understand the expectation… also, what is the population of Austin vs. that of San Fran? Your comparing apples and oranges here me thinks. I probably just echoed the same thing as everyone before me, if so, forgive me for being to lazy to read all the previous posts ;)

  • ChaiG
  • Marc

    Don’t forget about Chicago or the ridiculous other number of cities that need COWs. Is it really realistic to put one in each city – probably not. Is it realistic to put a couple in three of four sities – probably.

  • http://clp.ly John Pettitt

    To be fair it’s not entirely AT&T’s fault, trying to add as new cell site in northern California is really hard because every time you ask for zoning approval the tinfoil hat brigade comes out and claims it will cause three eyed fish or the like. (I used to be a planning commissioner in Sausalito and helped draft the telecom ordinance there so I’ve seen it first hand).

    Still that doesn’t let ATT of the hook, if it really is a city process issue they should say so and let the phone using public apply pressure to the city to counter the tinfoil hat brigade.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=677030732 Michael Thies

    LOL Some AT&T apologist? It was ROBERT SCOBLE… ya know one of the better known bloggers on the net.

  • Travis

    His name is Robert Scoble. He’s the Internet version of one of those idiot talking heads you see on cable news delivering whatever message he got paid that week to deliver. Or “Social Media Consultant” I guess is what they call themselves.

  • dave

    I wouldn’t discount that TWiT. There are lots and lots of rules in different cities that tie up where you can put antennas, how high, what color and shape, etc. And within those cities there are various minor entities that control view rights and roof rights to buildings and poles.

    For example I worked for a company that was putting WiFi antennas in small towns as Proof of Concept for community based WiFi. After the antennas were installed the city complained that they needed to be certain shade of brown. The company painted them. Now they collected so much sunlight that the antennas would overheat. This was all in the PoC and in small suburb.

    Another city had 3 different entities that owned rights and tower rights to a building that the vendor wanted to use for an Antenna. Only 2 agreed. So he put up 2 others in less than optimum locations to try to support this.

    I’m not saying this is the reason ATT doesn’t work well in SF. But government entities can be impediments to network layout.

  • Chris

    And yet you keep on coming back to this site.

  • Joost Schuur

    The Game Developer’s Conference was in town last week, and towards the latter half, the data connectivity was pretty bad for me.

  • Dave Hanna

    funny, so do you-

  • Dave Hanna

    We now know they can perform and deliver- question is when will they actually do it outside of the SXSW Lab rat experiment.

  • Steve

    Then how are Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint able to provide working service in San Francisco? Why does this antenna size problem only affect AT&T?

  • Steve

    Or number of base stations as you say (antenna size is similarly cited in other threads).

  • Peter G.

    Because AT&T provides substantially more aggregate bandwidth (average_bits/second/user * number_of_users) than the other carriers.

  • Steve

    No idea if the system even allow it… but turning down the bandwidth until they stop dropping calls seems like it would be an improvement…

    Having to switch off 3G and only use EDGE to reliably make calls isn’t winning them any fans.

  • maus

    15% of Verizon users are utilizing smart phones. 15% of AT&T users are utilizing iPHONES, with 45% of its users utilizing smart phones in general. Can you really compare apples and oranges? I don’t think so.

  • whoindatgarden

    At the end of the day between the 4 major carriers in the land, everyone has something to bitch about the carriers. So what does that mean, we are all suckers who are spineless and gutless we put up their crap cuz we are addicted to our mobile phones.

  • tatsuke

    So does that preclude him from being an AT&T apologist?

  • sean

    Anyway, I’m still sticking to Red V and not that deadlast carrier: http://bit.ly/att-going-down-verizon-is-laughing

    Each carriers will always have their own flaws, but me? I’ll choose something that’s less more evil. *

  • JeffK

    I come back for the dumbass comments – dumbass.

  • http://blog.connectedplanetonline.com/unfiltered/2010/03/16/are-att-sxsw-austin-upgrades-a-model-for-its-future-4g-network/ Are AT&T SXSW Austin upgrades a model for its future 4G network? | Unfiltered

    [...] interesting details have filtered out about how AT&T upgraded its network in Austin, Texas, to support the masses at the South by Southwest eve…. This is no small requirement: if AT&T were to have mucked up 3G access at the show, thousands [...]

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=599624186 Amit Shaked

    AT&T invested time and money in this event because of the high profile, and because they knew everybody will be waiting for them to fail – so think of it as a super-expensive, small-scale localized PR effort.

    Obviously if they tried to provide the same level of service in all the big US cities, they would need 10 times or 20 times more high-end cells everywhere … guess how much it would cost…

  • Janey

    And you’re discounting that.. why? San Francisco DOES have strict limits on antenna heights. Did you know that you need a permit if patrons of your establishment dance? Check out the stuff that JWZ has written about the DNA Lounge and the ridiculous amounts of permits he has to get. San Francisco is insane with the amount of permits and “environmental impact studies” that have to be performed.

    And don’t forget the anti-cell tower brigades.

    http://www.safeantenna.org/

    http://www.antennafreeunion.org/

    … unfortunately, the list goes on…

  • http://matrixpointer.com/karl Karl Adam

    Everyone overlooks that this network boost is temporary. AT&T hasn’t improved the network or built new permanent towers, instead they’ve deployed several mobile tower trucks in order to provide the extra towers necessary.

    This is a case where AT&T knew ahead of time that they would have increased network demand and thankfully, they decided to act appropriately by boosting the cell coverage in the area, and due to the fact that this isn’t a consistent need, deploying trucks was easiest.

    The same sort of solution isn’t going to help San Francisco for example.

  • Gordon

    Don’t forget that the total population (plus visitors and workers) is considerably higher during the day, especially for a city like San Francisco.

  • Dave

    Yay. AT&T was able to provide reliable cell phone service to several thousand people, in one location, over the course of part of a week, by trucking in extra equipment just for that one event.

    Now, they just have to replicate this EVERYWHERE.

  • http://blog.icultur.com/2010/03/16/att%e2%80%99s-success-at-sxsw-this-year/ AT&T’s Success at SXSW This Year «
  • CVBruce

    I don’t know where you got your area of San Francisco, but it is only about 47 sq mi of land. This makes SF about 7 times more densely populated than Austin. While Austin varies from 425′ to 1000′ SF varies from 0 to 925.

  • http://www.aboutus.org/KristinaWeis Kristina

    This post seems interesting and all, but I just keep re-reading the first sentence and it still doesn’t make sense.

  • Daddy

    AT&T don’t worry about the network, but please, try to invent something that can stop MG from crying like a little bitch.

  • Ilan Ben Menachem

    That is a little too simplistic of analysis.

  • http://gigaom.com/2010/03/18/the-3-best-things-i-saw-at-sxsw/ The 3 Best Things I Saw at SXSW – GigaOM

    [...] gotten a taste of what could be. I completely support MG at TechCrunch’s take: “Dear AT&T, Whatever You’re Doing At SXSW, Please Do It In San Francisco.” A snapshot of Austin check-ins from SimpleGeo's Vicarious.ly [...]

  • http://www.bradlanders.com/2010/03/16/finally-att-scores-a-win/ Finally AT&T scores a win : Brad Landers

    [...] is SWSX. Last year, AT&T’s network suffered miserably under the load. This year, they seem to have pulled their act together. Let’s hope this is a sign of things to come. Published: March 16, 2010 Filed Under: [...]

  • http://fudge.org Jay Cuthrell

    Battery life was the key take away for me. Having signal means not having the radio use up as much power from the device.

    Backhaul only failed a few times and it actually did degrade during the massive 6th Street moments but only in certain spots — and I gave it a good test each day and night.

    So, yeah… let’s see this trick pulled everywhere :)

  • http://www.asianpeemovies.com asia moore

    I wouldn't switch from AT&T, they service and customer support are far better than the others I have tried so far. Might not be the cheapest solution but at least you get help if something goes wrong.

  • http://eichhorn-lautertal.de ParkettCaro

    Well, quite interesting article!
    I´m from germany and as you got AT&T we got T-Mobile ^^

  • http://www.webcamwithmicrophone.org John

    that is true.

blog comments powered by Disqus
Advertisement
Got a tip? Building a startup? Tell us