Analyst Estimates AT&T Needs To Spend $5B To Catch Up

itwbennett writes "The public's perception of AT&T's network is poor and declining, apparently because of real shortcomings when compared with Verizon Wireless and Sprint Nextel,' says Gerard Hallaren, director of research at TownHall Investment Research. 'AT&T's capital expenditures on its wireless network from 2006 through September 2009 totaled about $21.6 billion, compared with $25.4 billion for Verizon and $16 billion for Sprint (including Sprint's investments in WiMax operator Clearwire). Over that time, Verizon has spent far more per subscriber: $353, compared with $308 for AT&T,' Hallaren said. 'Even Sprint has outspent AT&T per subscriber, laying out $310 for network capital expenditure.' All this means AT&T has a choice, says Hallaren: 'spend or suffer.'"

Comments

Re:considering the 3g maps

[slimjim8094]

Those are wrong, or at least misleading. AT&T's 2G (called EDGE, 2-300kbps) is as fast as Verizon's 3G. And AT&T has EDGE coverage across it's whole area.

AT&T's 3g coverage (shown in the map) is HSDPA. That's up to theoretically 20mbps, but I've seen real-world speeds of 3mbps/300kbps.

Long story short, Verizon's comparing gold to tin, and poo-pooing AT&T because there's less gold than tin.