Home

Share this Story

AT&T Lights Up Large List of 4G LTE Markets

att logo

This morning, AT&T is flipping the 4G LTE switch in a nice big handful of U.S. cities. All the way across from California to Florida, customers will now have the ability to bask in high data speeds.

To see the full list, have a look below. 

  • Fort Smith , Arkansas
  • Fort Pierce , Florida
  • Lakeland, Florida
  • Palm Coast, Florida
  • Las Cruces, New Mexico
  • Binghamton, New York
  • Carbondale, Illinois
  • Jefferson City, Missouri
  • Mount Vernon, Washington
  • Montgomery, Alabama
  • Fresno, California
  • Temple, Texas
  • Beaumont, Texas
  • Houma, Louisiana

Via: AT&T

  • socalrailroader

    Santa Rosa, Windsor and Healdsburg in Sonoma County in Northwestern California now have AT&T LTE as well.

  • TomasHunter

    Thanks for the news, Tim. It’s great that AT&T is expanding their LTE network into new areas so quickly. I travel all over the country for my job at DISH, and I rely on my phone for both business and entertainment. The faster my data speed, the faster I can get work done, and the faster speeds make my entertainment better too. I use my DISH Anywhere app to keep up with my favorite teams while on the road; it streams live TV and DVR recordings to my phone, and the faster speeds mean higher quality streams for my games!

  • Cayden Griesbach

    Oh and HSPA+ is 4g and i get 8 to 9 mbps on average with 4G

    • Tim242

      Dude, g stands for generation. That means a new generation of tech. HSPA is a 3rd generation tech. That is a fact. They didn’t start claiming it to be 4G until Verizon launched LTE. Even if you compared speeds, 8-9 doesn’t compare to 25-50. Nice try though.

      • zwade

        I was lucky to get 7 mbps in my area with Verizon’s “4g lte.” I’m getting 10-11 on hspa. Who cares about what “generation” it is, speeds aren’t consistent enough in all areas to state that Verizon has a minimum of 25. I had only broke 20 a couple times (and unfortunately not where I live).

        • Tim242

          Of course it will depend on your coverage. I just tested and got 44 Mbps. LTE is far more consistent in speed and latency than HSPA+.

          • zwade

            I had excellent coverage, just poor speeds. It may be consistent for you, but to say it’s more consistent than hspa isn’t true for me.

          • Tim242

            There’s no way you had good signal and only 7Mbps on LTE. My mom has one bar of signal at her house and gets 8-10. I get 35-50 with full signal.

          • zwade

            I have no reason to lie about my signal strength lol. I obtained 7 mbps with full signal constantly while I was on Vzw.

          • Tim242

            Show me a screenshot of your speed right now on HSPA+

          • zwade

            This is with one bar of hspa+ inside my house.

            Edit: hang on, pic didn’t upload

            http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/6338/screenshot2013040322053.png

          • Tim242

            C’mon…show that HSPA+ goodness…

  • Cayden Griesbach

    add to that list: Fond du lac, Wisconsin 4g lte on the east side.

  • http://www.facebook.com/rene.barba.89 Rene Barba

    Yes, finally! Fresno is on the map!

  • Feed Jake

    I don’t know if anyone has noticed, but people in Kentucky DO have the internet and smartphones. 4G would be nice…

    • PhoenixPath

      Lies!

      Everyone knows Kentukians communicate with each-other using only Banjos.

      • Feed Jake

        But banjo music travels faster over 4G. Everyone knows that.

  • http://twitter.com/spdivr1122 Stephen

    i feel like verizon may have gotten their lte out way faster than tmobile currently is. Is it just because of money, or am i imagining things?

    • JoshGroff

      Money probably has a lot to do with it.

  • Good_Ole_Pinocchio

    Moving to Missouri soon it seems. . . . They seem to be pretty covered by all LTE carriers out there.

    • Joey

      Kansas City? ….Fiber :)

  • troy studnicka

    you gotta loooong way to go to catch up to verizon bitches. You just got 4g in madison about a month ago and verizon has had it here for over a year already!!!!

    • JoshGroff

      T-Mobile had HSPA+ (Not quite 4G as we all know, but certainly a hell of a lot faster than 3G) in my area for about a year before we saw Verizon roll out their 4G, your point?

    • High Tech Bull

      Are you the “Can You Hear Me Now” guy from the Verizon ads?
      Not a fan of any corporation. I prefer portability and transparency. If one provider does not fit my wireless requirements or charges too much, then I want the ability to move to another provider.

  • hashtagtroll

    #NotOnTheListDamn

    • Tim242

      #VerizonHasYouCovered

      • zwade

        #VerizonHasYourSoul

  • Tim242

    At&t does not even have LTE in all metros in Arkansas. Verizon has virtually the whole state covered. At&t is so far behind.

    • troy studnicka

      exactly tim and they claim they have the largest 4g network haha those ass clowns aren’t even close. They cheat with that statement cause they are counting HSPA+ which is not 4g.

      • BulletTooth_Tony

        HSPA+ is 4g… and has been for years. The ITU classified it as such the same day they finalized the 4g definitions in *2010*… way to keep up.

        • Tim242

          You are incorrect. They just simply OK’d letting carriers call it that. They had no choice at that point. T-Mobile had already jumped the gun. HSPA+ is a 3rd generation tech. If you want to judge by speed, T-Mobile’s HSPA+42 is the only one that comes close. I tested At&t’s HSPA+ in several large and small US cities. 6Mbps was the fastest I got, with results usually in the 2-4 range. That is not 4G speeds.

          • BulletTooth_Tony

            No. I am actually very correct. 4G includes HSPA, LTE and Wimax. There’s a separate classification called IMT-Advanced, that includes LTE-Advanced, and has data speed requirements

          • Tim242

            HSPA+ is a 3rd gen tech…period. If it were a 4G tech, why would the “definition” have “changed”? 2-6Mpbs is not even close to 4G speeds. I’m hoping that they drop the G moniker. It is just marketing at this point. If HSPA+ is 4G, then LTE Advanced would be like 10G

          • BulletTooth_Tony

            There was never a definition to change. The official designation always was, and still is, IMT-Advanced. IMT-Advanced is considered 4g. The term 4g was never defined, and thus never changed.

            HSPA+ is not a 3rd generation technology, and release 11 is IMT-Advanced compliant.

          • Tim242
          • BulletTooth_Tony

            Another person that can’t be bothered to read beyond the title of the article. “IMT-Advanced is considered as “4G”, although it is recognized that this term, while UNDEFINED, may also be applied to the forerunners…”

          • Tim242

            It has been spelled out for you. Regardless, G stands for generation. GPRS was 1G. EDGE was 2G. UMTS/HSPA are 3G. LTE is 4G…it is the 4th generation of data technology. Regardless of speed and arguments, it is what it is.

          • BulletTooth_Tony

            ….. and you’re wrong again, and explaining precisely why “G” doesn’t matter and are not defined numbers – it’s a new phenomenon within the past few years.
            -Analog – AMPS – is the first generation of mobile phone tech… definitely not sold as “1G”, sold as a cellular telephone, or PCS telephone…
            -TDMA and cdmaOne were the first digital networks and replaced Analog, there’s your 2nd Generation… 2G, never sold as such, sold as “Digital”.
            -GSM was then developed out of TDMA, and GPRS tagged to it… still “2G” and not sold as such.
            -EDGE was developed as the third-generation for GSM, and it is an IMT-2000 compliant technology… therefore, 3G — tho not sold as such and now referred to as “2.9G”.
            -W-CDMA was developed by NTT DoCoMo to replace their CDMA network, and as their IMT-2000 compliant candidate tech… not sold by them as 3G either – it was sold under the brand name of “FOMA”. AT&T Wireless Services joins a joint partnership with them to deploy W-CDMA, launches in 2 cities in the US in the early 2000s… abandons it for EDGE instead, since it was cheaper. Not sold as 3G still.
            -W-CDMA taken by the 3GPP and incorporated to meet GSM standards, rebranded as UMTS. Finally sold as 3G when Cingular launches it in 2005.
            -CDMA2000 also comes around – 3GPP2 and IMT-2000 compliant as well, launched by Verizon and Sprint as just 1x – which is 3G – originally. Sold as 1x.
            -EVolution Data-Only is developed, and sold as EV – in fact, phones had 2 antenna bars until recently for CDMA carriers… one for 1x, one for EV.
            -Verizon and Sprint join in the 3G naming parade with the Motorola Droid and HTC Hero… in 2009.

            Marketing terms. HSPA+ is 4G, deal with it.

          • Tim242

            You are confusing voice only and data generations. I worked at Cingular when EDGE was rolled out. It was referred to as 2Gand 2.5G internally. 3G was when the G terms started to be marketed to consumers. For Cingular/at&t, that was UMTS I am not having this argument with you all day. At&it’s HSPA+ network is not fast enough to argue 4G speeds. It is only slightly faster than EVDO rev A.

          • BulletTooth_Tony

            There’s no such thing as voice-only and data-only generations. And you never worked at Cingular when EDGE was rolled out, because it was referred to as EDGE, and was called “Project Genesis” during rollout, and sold as EDGE. It’s 3G, always has been 3G, always will be 3G. The only time it was referred to in a lesser sense was after UMTS was deployed and sold as 3G, and bloggers wanted to differentiate the speeds. So if you want to classify a 3G technology as 2G, and pretend you worked somewhere you didn’t in 2002 when it was rolled out to hide your Verizon fanboyness — 3G being 200 kbps — then HSPA+ is 4G by sheer improvement over the 3G requirement of 200 kbps. And yes, it is faster than needs to be considered 4G speeds, being that it’s faster than, or as fast as, Verizon LTE in most markets these days. EVDO Rev A is barely faster than EDGE, and definitely not nearly as fast as standard UMTS… let alone HSPA+.

          • Tim242

            I worked at Cingular from 2000-2004. I left in May 2004 right after Cingular bought at&t. I worked in an “orange” center, which was a legacy Cingular center. Believe what you will. I couldn’t care less. As far as Verizon 3G, you are obviously clueless. EVDO rev A mazes out at 3.1 Mbps. I always got 1.5-2.7.

          • BulletTooth_Tony

            If you’re going to lie, make it a good one. Cingular always referred to EDGE as EDGE, and nothing more. It was called Project Genesis when they overlaid the TDMA network with all available GSM services… GSM, GPRS and EDGE. UMTS came about and was called BroadbandConnect for a while… eventually being sold as 3G. UMTS was the first service to ever get labelled with a generational tag. Quit pretending.

          • Tim242

            Don’t just read, comprehend. I stated that EDGE was referred to as 2G and later 2.5G INTERNALLY. I also then stated that UMTS was the first that was labeled 3G to consumers.

          • BulletTooth_Tony

            It wasn’t referred to as anything other than EDGE… because the terms didn’t exist yet, and weren’t introduced until well after UMTS superceded EDGE in 2004. EDGE was the first IMT-2000 candidate for 3rd gen, and Cingular was the first company to deploy it. Come back to reality, you aren’t fooling anyone.

          • Tim242

            You can argue all day. I worked there , therefore I know what I’m talking about. All you have is an argument that At&t’s slow 2-6 Mbps HSPA+ is 4G speed.

          • BulletTooth_Tony

            OK, you worked there, and were the most poorly trained call center employee ever…. because they didn’t refer to it as anything other than EDGE. One way or another, you’re a terrible liar.

          • Tim242

            Yes, because whether EDGE was referred to as 2 and 2.5 G internally means so much to me. I mean, I’ll lie about it to my death. I have no reason to lie about that. It means nor proves anything. Ask yourself this question though. Wouldn’t the G moniker start internally first? They didon’t just pull it out of a hat, or their a$$ when UMTS came along.

          • Tim242

            Verizin 3G…now what? Not the 200Kbps you claim. http://db.tt/Fjf01UsA

          • BulletTooth_Tony

            You are not only a bad liar, but very unintelligent. 200 kbps is the minimum requirement for IMT-2000… which is exactly what I explained to you… 3G, being 200 kbps.

            And “Verizin” can’t hit that in 90% of the nation anymore anyways… hence their rush to get their slower-than-hspa LTE network up nationwide.

            http://www.speedtest.net/android/414957300.png

          • Tim242

            http://db.tt/APYnjvou ha you call me a liar and call LTE slower than HSPA, which I’m assuming you meant HSPA+. Your screenshot was cropped not to show your network, which I suspect to be HSPA. I showed you Verizon 3G, here is LTE.

          • Tim242

            Cat got your fingers, or did you just run out of BS?

          • BulletTooth_Tony

            It’s 2 am. And the only reason I’m awake is my son woke up. That’s “Verizin” 3g… and isn’t cropped, that’s what speed test gives you.

            Test Date: Apr 3, 2013 10:02:29 PM
            Connection Type: Ehrpd
            Download: 161 kbps
            Upload: 51 kbps
            Ping: 401 ms

          • Tim242

            Maybe if you used the app, it would show more. At&t is not going to smoke 44Mbps. I pity your son

          • BulletTooth_Tony

            The app gives the link given, moron. Maybe familiarize yourself with the app and it’s functions, then pretend to be an expert… just like you should familiarize yourself with cellular technology before pretending to be an expert. Here’s your “Verizin” 4G:

            http://imgur.com/S7tv5an.png

          • Butters619

            You are correct on both counts. They just OK’d them to try to stay relevant since the carriers already blatantly ignored them. Also AT&T HSPA+ is a joke. 2-4 Mbps is standard in So Cal.

          • PhoenixPath

            I hate to add to this mess of a thread, but…what the hell, right?

            “They just simply OK’d letting carriers call it that. ”

            And there you have it. Perception is Reality and therefore The Gods Honest Truth.

            You 3 can argue about it all you want but ask any average schmo and it’s all 4G.

            …and that’s all that really matters.

            (at least until we get moar Gees!)

        • Butters619

          They didn’t reclassify. They just allowed carriers to call HSPA+ and LTE 4G so long as they were precursors to true 4g.

          • BulletTooth_Tony

            They didn’t reclassify because there was no classification until 2010. There were draft specifications always called IMT-Advanced that were proposed nearly 3 years prior, and several candidate technologies to fulfill it. Since there was no definition around 4g, they included them when they defined 4g, for the first and only time.

          • Butters619

            In March 2008, the International Telecommunications Union-Radio communications sector (ITU-R) specified a set of requirements for 4G standards, named the International Mobile Telecommunications Advanced (IMT-Advanced) specification, setting peak speed requirements for 4G service at 100 megabits per second (Mbit/s) for high mobility communication (such as from trains and cars) and 1 gigabit per second (Gbit/s) for low mobility communication (such as pedestrians and stationary users).[1]

            Since the first-release versions of Mobile WiMAX and LTE support much less than 1 Gbit/s peak bit rate, they are not fully IMT-Advanced compliant, but are often branded 4G by service providers. On December 6, 2010, ITU-R recognized that these two technologies, as well as other beyond-3G technologies that do not fulfill the IMT-Advanced requirements, could nevertheless be considered “4G”, provided they represent forerunners to IMT-Advanced compliant versions and “a substantial level of improvement in performance and capabilities with respect to the initial third generation systems now deployed”.[2]

            I hate to source wikipedia, but you can find this in other places as well.

          • BulletTooth_Tony

            Thank you ever so much for proving me right, and bolding exactly why you’re wrong. The term you’re confusing things with, as I’ve said repeatedly now, is IMT-Advanced. 4G was never defined, and if you bothered to actually read your wikipedia source instead of copying and pasting it, you’d see this gem “This article uses 4G to refer to IMT-Advanced, as defined by ITU-R”… and if you followed the actual source cited of what was poorly transcribed to avoid plagiarism, you’d see this other gem, “A highlight of these activities has been the recent decision of the ITU regarding the platform for the next generations of mobile telecommunication, known as IMT-Advanced. Following a detailed evaluation [snip] ITU has determined that “LTE-Advanced” and “WirelessMAN-Advanced” should be accorded the official designation of IMT-Advaced. [snip] IMT-Advanced is considered as “4G”, although it is recognized that this term, while UNDEFINED, may also be applied to the forerunners of these technologies …”

          • Butters619

            Not true. 4G was defined by IMT-Advance requirements in 2008.

            You are arguing for the sake of arguing now.

            2008: ITU set 4G requirements in IMT-Advanced specifications
            2009: Carriers started calling LTE 4G
            2010: A lot more carriers started calling LTE 4G
            2010: ITU modified their definition of 4G to allow carriers to call LTE that since the carriers ignored them anyway.

          • BulletTooth_Tony

            Wow… just wow… 4G was never defined by the ITU, EVER. The term, is IMT-Advanced. IMT-Advanced was proposed in 2008. In 2010, the ITU selected two technologies to meet the proposals and stated full specifications would be made available in 2012. On January 20th, 2012, the ITU finally, and only at that point, approved IMT-Advanced as the ITU standard for mobile broadband wireless. “G” terms have always been marketing terms. They are not official classifications. IMT-2000 is the official classification. “3G” is a marketing term, and not defined by the ITU. “4G” is a marketing term, and not defined by the ITU…… do you understand yet?

            http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2012/04.aspx#.UVxw4pM4R8E

          • Butters619

            IMT-2000 was referred to as 3G and IMT-Advance was referred to as 4G, both within the ITU and outside.

            Stop your little power rant.

          • BulletTooth_Tony

            No, they are not. They were referred to by the technologies they were. EDGE is IMT-2000. It was referred to as EDGE. W-CDMA is IMT-2000, it was referred to originally as FOMA. 1x is IMT-2000. It was referred to as 1x, and now “2G” by people like you that don’t know what the terms actually reference. EVDO is an enhancement to 1x for data-only, is IMT-2000, and referred to as EVDO…. and now “3G” since Verizon and Sprint decided to play “me too!” in the marketing department.

        • michael arazan

          Look up the true definition of 4G and technically non of the carriers are true 4G with 100MB in data. Carriers rewrote the definition to their standards and lies. The FCC is suppose to be testing all the carriers data and coverage and suppose to release the real stats on who has what and where so customers can make an informed decision. Every carrier claims the fastest and most coverage and the FCC wants to keep it honest for the consumers, but it’s been over 6 months since they announced the study and I have not heard a peep from it yet.

          • BulletTooth_Tony

            There is no definition for 4G… there’s only IMT-Advanced…. and the FCC does not do any such thing, nor are they the authority on the matter. The ITU sets definitions globally for technological requirements.

      • High Tech Bull

        Who cares? Fast is fast. Most of Europe has HSPA+ vs LTE. Sure is better than EDGE

    • Mark

      I know. I live in Texarkana and don’t have it. Unreal.

      • Tim242

        I lived in Magnolia for a year. I was there when Verizon launched LTE there. It was there before Texarkana. Maybe all of that road work slowed them down haha