AT&T 3G SF FAIL
So AT&T pretty much sucks in SF. I almost never get 3G coverage on my iPhone here in La Lengua, and it’s pretty damn spotty walking through the Mission.
It now looks like we have some empirical evidence for AT&T’s suck. PC World tested 3G services across the country, including speed and reliability.
In San Francisco, Sprint and Verizon were the most reliable — 91 and 87%. AT&T? 61%.
(Reliability = “Percentage of 1-minute performance tests in which the service was available, uninterrupted and faster than dial-up speed.”)
The Bay Area seem to be battling it out with Baltimore and Orlando for worst AT&T coverage.
In fact, AT&T is the bottom feeder in reliability in every market listed on this chart. Apple, you need new friends.
And don’t get me started on the AT&T’s idiot coverage down 280 to San Jose. I swear it flips between EDGE and 3G every two minutes. (Not good for streaming audio.) I think I’m going to buy one of those Verizon MiFi routers to put in my car. And I can velcro it to my belt when I’m walking around the Mission. (Wouldn’t look any lamer than a Blackberry holster…)
Burrito Justice 
I wish T-Mobile were on that chart. I’ve been to NYC and LA in the past few month, and my G1’s 3G coverage in San Francisco absolutely pwns Manhattan and LA.
I wish iPhones could use T-Mobile’s 3G frequency. Jailbreak waiting to happen.
yeah this iPod via AT&T is a POS.
i miss T-Mobile. iPhone has great capabilities, but if it doesnt work 40% of the time, whats the point?
The iPhone- at the same time the best hand-held device _and_ worst phone I’ve ever owned. AT&T is the worst. And I’d be happy if the worst problem I had on my 280 commute was Edge coverage. I can’t even make phone calls half the time.
Yeah, I’ve pretty much given up on starting a conference call in the city – it’s pretty much guaranteed to drop 2 to 3 times in the black hole between between 92 and 85.
Then again I had the same issue with T-Mobile in that area.