Kirtland already has towers, they supposedly wont let them be upgraded to 3G...
Before we place blame on anyone, let's look at AT&T's coverage viewer,
https://www.wireless.att.com/olam/loginAction.olamexecute?goto=welcome. I entered Sandia Albuquerque's address and it produced this 3G coverage map of that area. If I understand it correctly, AT&T is saying they have great coverage. The second map shows basic cellular access, all in the best range. I have AT&T cellular service and my daughter has a first generation iPhone (she says I don't need one). If you use the coverage viewer for our house, it shows we're in a dead zone. This doesn't surprise me since where I live only has 2 cell towers in the local area and we sit on the low side of a hill (short mountain). I've been to SNL and Kirtland is as flat as a board (compared to where I live) allowing good cellular reception without any obstructions.
For those people who do live in Albuquerque, I'd take this map to AT&T and have them justify it.
I understand why Kirtland doesn't want cell towers on their site, after all it is a military base.
On Jun 11, 2009, at 8:23 AM, Joel Esler wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Pike, Michael (IHS/NPA) <email@hidden> wrote:
I agree! :)
also to note, at least here in ABQ, NM (regarding federal and ATT carrier) is Kirtland AFB (from what ATT has told me) would not allow ATT on the land to install a 3G tower, hence the terrible 3G coverage in the SE area of ABQ by Kirtland.
That does not explain the terrible coverage for 3G everywhere else in the city, but that is the reason they gave me for terrible (3G coverage by Kirtland).
Peter Link
Cyber Security Analyst
Cyber Security Program
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
PO Box 808, L-315
Livermore, CA 94550