Tesla and AT&T Multi-Year Car Connectivity Agreement

[pete8314]

Just to add a wider opinion, we give our engineers the choice of cellphone provider (AT&T, Sprint or Verizon). The split is around 60/20/20, it was even more in AT&Ts favor until they lost exclusivity on the iPhone. We're in Dallas, home turf for AT&T, but many of our engineers are not, so it's just a reminder that a single experience might not be representative of the bigger picture.

Now, I also have to take care of our AT&T billing (not just cellphones, hosting, MPLS etc) and that's a living hell that just keeps getting worse. Some units within AT&T are great, many are truly appalling.

 

[Kraius]

Do they even need to right now? haha. I mean they have a pretty huge market share in the US compared to AT&T (the number 2 guy).

About the "love to hate"... no I hate Verizon just as much as any other telecom, because it is just like the major automakers... where they are all screwing over the customers and lobbying the government to screw us over even more and also lock out any real competition.

That being said, I go with Verizon because they have hands down the best 4G coverage, even here in the busy Northern VA area, where you would think tech like this would be bleeding edge and such. Noone comes close to the coverage of Verizon. 3G wise, Verizon has easily has the best coverage here too. If you look at AT&T's map they say Nationwide coverage at 99% but with a big fat *asterisk*... if you go look at their real data, their 3G coverage looks pretty pathetic. This all is what irritates me about what Google did with their Nexus 4 and Nexus 5 keeping it away from Verizon. Because I would totally switch carriers, if they could even remotely compete on the 4G coverage. Verizon, I hold 4G just about everywhere I go within my local area here... I have talked with others, and they can't even hold it on the freeway where you would think they would have things focused the most.

Last i looked, they were a few million apart on customers, which isn't really a huge lead (we're talking in excess of 100 million customers each, here), but being the market leader isn't a reason to stop innovating. If Verizon wants to play in the connected car space, they're going to have to do some more compelling stuff and make it easier for vehicle manufacturers to leverage their technology (ie, be a partner to Ford, instead of a part supplier). You have me wondering now though. How much of what we think of our carriers is based on how often we re-up contracts? If you hated AT&T 4 years ago and had horrible coverage for example, then it certainly must still have horrible coverage, even when the two appear more neck-in-neck as of late:
http://gigaom.com/2013/11/06/att-is-closing-in-on-verizon-in-lte-network-coverage/

I guess it really does matter where you typically drive. In Texas, the coverage for both is workable (maybe not fast out in the middle of no where, but it does work). Still, I will reiterate that i don't think Tesla made a strictly financial decision with picking AT&T (ie, the lowest bidder scenario). I think there is more potential in a partnership there then with other carriers.

 

[Chris TX]

If Verizon wants to play in the connected car space, they're going to have to do some more compelling stuff and make it easier for vehicle manufacturers to leverage their technology (ie, be a partner to Ford, instead of a part supplier). .

Verizon bought Hughes Telematics.

Drive Connected - Verizon Telematics

They are already in the game

 

[chickensevil]

AT&T LTE is much faster here than Verizon and Sprint (the only ones we have checked multiple times using the same device) and coverage is great at least where I travel. I am sure in the more fringe areas Verizon is still superior (like it was when I was with them), but it's a non-issue for so many people. Somehow I doubt the majority of Tesla owners live in the boonies.

But this is why I am telling you, I have talked with people with 4G both on Sprint and ATT in my area, and they go into 3G far more than I do. And I would hardly call anything in Northern Virginia (greater DC metro area) "boonies" Their coverage map claims they hit our area, but 4G is VERY finicky on range and interference. I would switch in an instant if I thought I could get better coverage because I want a Nexus 5 (which means I could go with any other provider to get that phone... it's just the coverage...)

Last i looked, they were a few million apart on customers, which isn't really a huge lead (we're talking in excess of 100 million customers each, here), but being the market leader isn't a reason to stop innovating. If Verizon wants to play in the connected car space, they're going to have to do some more compelling stuff and make it easier for vehicle manufacturers to leverage their technology (ie, be a partner to Ford, instead of a part supplier). You have me wondering now though. How much of what we think of our carriers is based on how often we re-up contracts? If you hated AT&T 4 years ago and had horrible coverage for example, then it certainly must still have horrible coverage, even when the two appear more neck-in-neck as of late:
http://gigaom.com/2013/11/06/att-is-closing-in-on-verizon-in-lte-network-coverage/

I guess it really does matter where you typically drive. In Texas, the coverage for both is workable (maybe not fast out in the middle of no where, but it does work). Still, I will reiterate that i don't think Tesla made a strictly financial decision with picking AT&T (ie, the lowest bidder scenario). I think there is more potential in a partnership there then with other carriers.

I am sure that people's sentiment plays a role here, but I hate both of these companies because they are corrupt. Specifically AT&T and Verizon. They have both been paid billions of dollars over the years to migrate everyone over to Fiber, and are just not doing it... all the while they have shifted their funding over to roll out their 4G stuff. If anyone is interested there was an AMAZING 3 part huffington post piece detailing how corrupt these two companies really are. If I could get away from them both I would.

 

[techMology]

If anyone is interested there was an AMAZING 3 part huffington post piece detailing how corrupt these two companies really are. If I could get away from them both I would.

Would love to read this. Link?

 

[Discoducky]

Would love to read this. Link?

there seems to be quite a few http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/2014-the-end-game-in-tele_b_4533510.html

 

[chickensevil]

Here are the three articles I read a while back that mostly targets Verizon (which is most important to me, since that is who services my area).
Bruce Kushnick: Please, Sir, May I Have Another?
Bruce Kushnick: How Wireless Hype Is Hurting America
Bruce Kushnick: The Great Verizon FiOS Ripoff

I feel I should mention, since you (techMology) live in Canada it may be an entirely different ballgame for you and your connectivity woes. But America is just so sad how little speed we have, and how the telco's are screwing us over left and right...

 

[techMology]

I feel I should mention, since you (techMology) live in Canada it may be an entirely different ballgame for you and your connectivity woes. But America is just so sad how little speed we have, and how the telco's are screwing us over left and right...

Much the same here, arguably worse. Especially when it comes to data caps on usage (25GB is "standard", with 90GB beings considered generous by the big carriers).

We do have the advantage of a more urban population which reduces the costs of building networks out some. Were it not for some provincially focused (and owned in one case) providers, rural areas wouldn't see much.

Competition up here is laughable. The big three (Bell, Rogers, TELUS) launched a huge misinformation campaign against foreign investment when Verizon made a brief mention about potentially bidding in our 700MHz wireless auction.

We do have tighter regulations on POTS (copper), though, so as much as they would like to, they aren't able to deprecate it. Yet. They are lobbying for it.

What has happened in the US is a real shame.

 

[chickensevil]

Yeah, everything I have heard would suggest Canada is like a 3rd world country when it comes to the internet... I am also complaining about all this from the comfortably of my Verizon FiOS 75MB connection. But, that doesn't mean that I cannot see them for the crap they are, and won't at least try to stand up and complain on the side of these people here who SHOULD get what they paid for.

 

[moollar]

Much the same here, arguably worse. Especially when it comes to data caps on usage (25GB is "standard", with 90GB beings considered generous by the big carriers).

Is this for mobile (wireless) internet or some form of wired internet (e.g. DSL, Cable, Fibre, etc.)?

If those limits are for wired internet, that blows. But for wireless, that's a HUGE amount of data. At least, in Australia it would be - most mobile plans top out at a few gigabytes.

Should be interesting to see who Tesla end up using for connectivity in Australia (and other countries for that matter).

 

[techMology]

Is this for mobile (wireless) internet or some form of wired internet (e.g. DSL, Cable, Fibre, etc.)?

If those limits are for wired internet, that blows. But for wireless, that's a HUGE amount of data. At least, in Australia it would be - most mobile plans top out at a few gigabytes.

Should be interesting to see who Tesla end up using for connectivity in Australia (and other countries for that matter).

Wired, sadly. Mobile is typically in the 500 MB to 3 GB range with "special" 6 GB plans available most of the time.

I've been to Oz plenty (and purchased local SIM's while there) What you guys get for $30 AUD is what we get at $75 CAD.

NZ, on the other hand, is horrible on both price and data caps, comparatively.

I'm not sure what criteria Tesla is weighting heavily, but my guess is they will go with Telstra for coverage, or, if they sign a multi-territory agreement with Vodafone, it's possible they'll end up there also. Based on another comment from Estonia, it appears they may have signed something with Telefonica for coverage outside the US.

 

[techMology]

Yeah, everything I have heard would suggest Canada is like a 3rd world country when it comes to the internet... I am also complaining about all this from the comfortably of my Verizon FiOS 75MB connection. But, that doesn't mean that I cannot see them for the crap they are, and won't at least try to stand up and complain on the side of these people here who SHOULD get what they paid for.

Certainly 3rd world in terms of pricing (not what they charge - that could imply it's cheap - but how they treat customers). Not horrible in terms of speeds, depending on what report you read.

Not a lot of FTTH, but a lot of DOCSIS 3 and FTTC, which brings our average up. Where we really lose is what they charge, the data caps, and top speeds.

I would kill for something like FiOS at my house.

Rural coverage and speeds, are a mess, though.

 

[moollar]

Wired, sadly. Mobile is typically in the 500 MB to 3 GB range with "special" 6 GB plans available most of the time.

I've been to Oz plenty (and purchased local SIM's while there) What you guys get for $30 AUD is what we get at $75 CAD.

NZ, on the other hand, is horrible on both price and data caps, comparatively.

I'm not sure what criteria Tesla is weighting heavily, but my guess is they will go with Telstra for coverage, or, if they sign a multi-territory agreement with Vodafone, it's possible they'll end up there also. Based on another comment from Estonia, it appears they may have signed something with Telefonica for coverage outside the US.

Mate, that is a shocker on the wired front. I guess it's made up for a little in the speeds. At least now it's mandated for new estates to be hooked up to Fibre over here, but the rest is a bit of a mess.

Sounds like our mobile data caps are fairly similar, although $75 CAD is a bit steep.

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if they go with Telstra for coverage. I guess we'll find out at some point. I'm just looking forward to seeing a Model S in the wild over here. Only a couple of months to go....

 

[anticitizen13.7]

AT&T is one of those companies people love to hate (like Microsoft). If they had just kept the name SBC when they bought the original AT&T and took it's name, they'd probably be significantly more loved (as much as a phone company can be). Instead most people like to exaggerate their issues and pile on cause it's fun. Human nature.

All of that said and bringing it around to the original topic, it's great to see a telecommunications company getting serious about a connected car and not just slapping a modem in the dash and sending you a bill (which is what they've done so far). Take a look at their actual press release:
http://about.att.com/newsroom/connected_car.html

The lab they built out in Atlanta actually looks like something i'd expect from Elon, so I'm guessing this had more to do with a aligning of vision then just a "we're cheaper" sales pitch. Now that I think of it, does Verizon even want into this space?

Many people seem to be unhappy with Tesla's choice of AT&T, but I don't know that they had any other good choices.

In the U.S., there are 4 major nationwide carriers:
(1) Verizon
(2) AT&T
(3) Sprint
(4) T-Mobile

The Model S was designed with 3G Connectivity in mind. If the design specifications were being finalized in the 2010 timeframe, LTE hadn't been around that long, so Tesla needed to choose a 3G Carrier.

Verizon, if I remember correctly, uses the EV-DO protocol for its 3G-class network. EV-DO is a CDMA2000 technology, and CDMA is not widely used outside of North America and Japan. It would make less sense to use CDMA2000 technology than GSM-based protocols like UMTS.

Sprint also uses a CDMA network, and bet big on WiMax. Using Sprint would have had the same problems as using Verizon, and perhaps worse. Sprint's network has been ailing, although Softbank's acquisition may turn things around if they can do a good job completing their LTE network.

T-Mobile uses a GSM-based network. However, the T-Mobile network is much spottier than the larger carriers, at least outside populated areas.

That leaves AT&T. They had a GSM-based 3G network, which was better developed at the start of this decade than T-Mobile's network. This was really Tesla's only good choice IMO.

Regional carriers and MVNO's were a possibility, but it's simpler on the business end to deal with one nationwide carrier than sew together agreements with a lot of smaller carriers, or go with an MVNO who depends on being able to buy network bandwidth from a big carrier.

What I think would be cool would be for future Tesla cars to offer a user-accessible SIM slot, and for the owner to choose their data provider.

 

[N4HHE]

What I think would be cool would be for future Tesla cars to offer a user-accessible SIM slot, and for the owner to choose their data provider.

I'm happy for Tesla to simply pick up the tab. :smile:

But I agree if/when the time comes I am expected to pay for my data access then I want choice.

 

[chickensevil]

Many people seem to be unhappy with Tesla's choice of AT&T, but I don't know that they had any other good choices.

In the U.S., there are 4 major nationwide carriers:
(1) Verizon
(2) AT&T
(3) Sprint
(4) T-Mobile

The Model S was designed with 3G Connectivity in mind. If the design specifications were being finalized in the 2010 timeframe, LTE hadn't been around that long, so Tesla needed to choose a 3G Carrier.

Verizon, if I remember correctly, uses the EV-DO protocol for its 3G-class network. EV-DO is a CDMA2000 technology, and CDMA is not widely used outside of North America and Japan. It would make less sense to use CDMA2000 technology than GSM-based protocols like UMTS.

Sprint also uses a CDMA network, and bet big on WiMax. Using Sprint would have had the same problems as using Verizon, and perhaps worse. Sprint's network has been ailing, although Softbank's acquisition may turn things around if they can do a good job completing their LTE network.

T-Mobile uses a GSM-based network. However, the T-Mobile network is much spottier than the larger carriers, at least outside populated areas.

That leaves AT&T. They had a GSM-based 3G network, which was better developed at the start of this decade than T-Mobile's network. This was really Tesla's only good choice IMO.

Regional carriers and MVNO's were a possibility, but it's simpler on the business end to deal with one nationwide carrier than sew together agreements with a lot of smaller carriers, or go with an MVNO who depends on being able to buy network bandwidth from a big carrier.

What I think would be cool would be for future Tesla cars to offer a user-accessible SIM slot, and for the owner to choose their data provider.

For 2010 this does make the most sense. When they go 4G it will most definately be LTE since that is the selected global standard. At that point, if they get even a halfway decent wireless card it should have the radio band acces to really go on any network. They already do this with very tiny cell phones, so I don't see how this would be too hard.

beyond that, I don't think upgrading their wireless card in the computer would be any harder than any other upgrade they have done on the assembly line (maybe even easier?). It is very likely they have their computers custom made by NVidia (given the use of Tegra processors) or some other 3rd party, all they would have to do is request a different card when they renew their contract with them.

 

[djplong]

There's another reason to go AT&T. There are two 'flavors' of cell service. CDMA and GSM. Verizon and Sprint are CDMA. AT&T and T-Mobile are GSM. 95% of the rest of the world is also GSM. So, if Tesla had any ideas about selling their cars overseas (and I think that's rather obvious) the choice was either AT&T/T-Mobile or having one flavor of connectivity domestically and another variant for the rest of the world.