Jaharmi’s Irreality renewable hyperlinks with 0% transfat since 1999

ABC News is but one news outlet saying that a Faster iPhone on Its Way, after AT&T Chief Executive Officer Randall Stephenson “spilled” this news last week. (Nevermind that, as others have said, Apple’s own CEO has said much the same thing already.)

What really annoys me is that every time I’ve looked into AT&T’s 3G coverage, the glaring lack of it has become apparent. Sure, you have to delve down into a lower level than their national coverage map, but you can look for yourself.

In New York State, only the New York City metro area had coverage when I’ve looked. (See The iPhone objections and At least 2G is better than nothing, and you can blame AT&T.) Forget upstate and its several MSAs in the top 100 in the nation by population.

So why, exactly, would a 3G iPhone be of broad interest in the U.S. if AT&T is the exclusive carrier? What good is a 3G iPhone if I can’t use 3G where I am? Is there something AT&T isn’t showing us? Right now, it seems like they are the bigger part of the problem, yet every story I see seems to focus on how this is Apple’s fault. I’m not trying to be a fanboy, but let’s at least get some balanced media coverage on this.

[Via MacInTouch.]

The Macalope, in Always wait for something better. ALWAYS, discusses the iPhone’s “silly pundit zombie talking points that will not die.” This, of course, includes the hue and cry over the lack of GSM 3G networking.

While I really don’t know what the battery life trade-off would have been to put 3G on the iPhone, I do know I would like something faster. (Note: I don’t have an iPhone, so I’m speaking only in generalities.) I’ve had 1x-RTT from Verizon, and it was seriously not cool. Everyone likes faster networking, right? I’m no exception, I’ll admit it.

But realistically, even thought I’ve seen AT&T issue press releases about how many metro areas are covered by 3G equipment, mine isn’t. My dose of reality came on June 29, when I posted Having an EDGE. I looked again, and although my area is slathered in the orange of ubiquitous AT&T signal, the blue of 3G data networking is conspicuously absent, still. Even if I purchased a 3G-capable phone right now at a local AT&T retail outlet, this tells me I wouldn’t get 3G.

So what kind of advantage is that to me, technology columnists? Do you all live in New York and Los Angeles, or other places that have received their AT&T upgrades?

I live in one of the 100 largest metro areas in the country, home to one of AT&T’s top network engineers (I’ve been in one presentation by him), and don’t get that same advantage. I haven’t looked at the entire U.S. coverage map (because you have to zoom down to the city level or below to see 3G coverage), but it would seem awfully silly of AT&T to have as much coverage as I’ve seen them claim, but then bypass my area — as well as the other main metro areas in my whole state.

So if 2G or 2.5G networking is available an ubiquitous in the locale where I’m going to use it most, and I don’t need to depend on having Wi-Fi at my disposal at all times … eh, I’ll take it. The iPhone matches the AT&T network conditions around me. That’s certainly better than nothing, and I’ll remember that as I consider how to replace my current phone.

I did try out a relative’s Verizon Treo 700p, though, and the speediness of the EVDO connection — even in rural Maryland — was readily apparent. However, it still ran through the Blazer browser I loathed in 2005; I’d choose mobile Safari over that any day.

Gadget news sites today are carrying reports of upgraded EDGE speeds on the AT&T wireless data network. EDGE performance seems to be at the core of most of the negative reviews of and objections to the iPhone (see Why You Don't Want an iPhone — Yet for one example), so any improvement is welcome news. It’s clearly good for existing AT&T customers, and probably a great sigh of relief for all of the new iPhone owners who’ll jump on the network starting this evening.

This factor is also important to me, since EDGE performance has been building in my mind as a serious drawback, reminding of my less-than-stellar experience with 1xRTT data speeds for my Treo 650 on Verizon Wireless. Eventually, I got so fed up with the price vs. performance — even though I wanted pervasive ’net access — that I cancelled the data portion of my plan. (It didn’t hurt a bit that we shaved around $45 dollars off our monthly cellular charges.)

I did some research this week and discovered that with AT&T’s current data coverage, none of the cities in the Empire State other than New York City have any 3G data. Not Buffalo … not Rochester … not Syracuse … not Albany-Schenectady-Troy … not Yonkers … not Binghamton. That’s right, only one of the state’s top cities/MSA’s has 3G UMTS data. It’s exactly like watching those commercials about wireless cards for laptops where the two competitors are responding to questions about their coverage, and the Cingular guy keeps saying “No,” for every city named.

Sure, more of the metro areas will be upgraded in time — perhaps as early as this summer, if I remember some news/rumors correctly. Hopefully my home will be one of them. But, this is still a significant drawback today.

Those that (rightly) see EDGE as a weakness of the iPhone should still take a dose of reality by looking at those coverage maps. That will clearly point out that AT&T’s 3G network is currently deployed in very limited geographical areas. Why have 3G support on the iPhone (or even other AT&T devices) if it can’t be used? If AT&T really has been upgrading their EDGE capability to support higher speeds, that change will have a significant and widespread impact in the short term and be of particular benefit to the iPhone launch.

Anyway, my conspiracy theory is that UMTS (or even HSDPA) support is actually in the iPhone, but will only be revealed later as an update when the network can handle it.

Update: Thanks to the iFixit take-apart, 3G support through a software update no longer has any credibility for me. If the chipset doesn’t handle 3G, game over.