Apparently Verizon CAN handle heavy traffic data:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/verizon-wireless-an ... »
🤤
(continues)
which may be a painful bumpy process for them as very few of their phones support both bands.
So they'll end up with an expensive legacy cdma network and they'll have to have both bands in all their phone until the network is completely upgraded.
Guess what? NO phone on att, tmobile, or verizon supports 4g yet. You're iphone 3gs won't suddently be an iphone 4g for LTE because LTE is COMPLETELY different tech from GSM. While it is the evolutionary upgrade, LTE is NOT backwards compatible.
Both companies will have to maintain an expensive legacy network (Edge/HSPA for ATT, EVDO/1xrtt for verizon)until their entire network is saturated.
Seriously.. even ATT reps know better than this if they read ...
(continues)
and it's backward compatable in the sence that a lte phone can be multiband and support legacy tecnology.
unless you mean it's not forward compatable, which it sounds like you're saying. like a 2 g phone can't connect to 3 g, which i think is just common sense.
verizon just bought into the HD-DVD or BETAMAX of broadcast technology. there's no 4 g cdma b/c there it's an inferior standard, you would have to produce it at higher cost than lte for lower performance, i'm sure the reason that qualcom was ever working on it is b/c of verizon, but since they decided to get wise and get with the rest of the world on gsm train it would be pointless to produce.
gprs ->...
(continues)
Because for both GSM and CDMA phones, they need a separate radio to access it. This is really simple freaking knowledge here man. That is why your initial argument doesn't make sense. and with every subsequent post you're making less and less of it.
if verizon has been braggin about using a CDMA standard and what kick butt technology it is, they should feel some shame in going to a GSM standard, when they've said gsm is crap for years.
i don't like hearing verizon reps and customers saying "cdma is better"
well don't switch, pay a company to keep developing faster cdma standards.
it seems like verizon is flip-flopping, that''s all
The funny part, is if the GSM association had picked UMB, you wo...
(continues)
LTE is a set of enhancements to the Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS)
UMTS requires new base stations and new frequency allocations. However, it is closely related to GSM/EDGE as it borrows and builds upon concepts from GSM. Further, most UMTS handsets also support GSM, allowing seamless dual-mode operation. Therefore, UMTS is sometimes marketed as 3GSM, emphasizing the close relationship with GSM and differentiating it from competing technologies
i suppose you couldn't exactly call umts a gsm revision, but it's very close.
but lte is definately a umts revision. and UMTS is the ATT standard for 3G.
It's kind of like saying the Dodge Viper is based on the Ford model-T....
...BECAUSE THEY BOTH HAVE 4 WHEELS!!!
It's NOT a first-cousin relationship, it's a HUGE leap forward!
We're not talking about the differences between smoke signals and radio telephony here, we're talking about two slightly different versions of similar technology based on similar concepts.
2) They are going to LTE because it fixes most of the issues with current GSM tech (qualcomm, the CDMA developer is one of the main developers for LTE now)
3) GSM, aka EDGE, WCDMA, HSPA, HSPA+ IS crap, and will continue to be crap. GSM, which has as much in common with HSPA does GRPS. It is the natural evolution from GSM, but it IS NOT the same thing as current GSM tech. Again, common sense that you somehow missed.
4) Verizon is not flip flopping. I told you this once already, ok? Qualcomm, the company that develops CDMA tech decided to drop UMB (4g evolution for CDMA) because they saw a higher profit potential in LTE. They are now one of the primary developer...
(continues)
epik said:
Is that the GSM shoe?
Wait...ATT has shoes and VZW has flip-flops?
If they are both natural progressions from socks, then maybe the whole network thing makes more sense.
Does ATT completely brainwash its employees these days?
deepskyblue said:
i read all of my internal emails thank you. double check, lte is gsm.
and it's backward compatable in the sence that a lte phone can be multiband and support legacy tecnology.
You mean, like, how and a "multi-band" LTE/EVDO/1XRTT would also be able to do exactly the same thing? Backward compatibility is such a non-issue it isn't even worth discussing with an idealogue like yourself.
gprs -> gsm -> edge -> umts -> lte
they're all gsm
Why does it even matter? Why are you so far stuck on this worthless "high school football rivalry" that you cannot recognize when the other team has done something right and learn to deal with it?
LTE has b...
(continues)
CellStudent said:
LTE has been adopted as the 4G standard by the GSM Association. WHO CARES? SO WHAT?
AND we can pull a few dozen other organizations that also chose to adopt the same 4G standard.
http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2010/04/att-netw ... »
here is an article that talks about att's response to the study, it may have some valid points but again i'd have to look at the origional study.
basically att states that 50% of the nations data trafic is on their network and the other 50% is all other networks combined.
seth bloom is the att pr guy who's quoted throughout the article and is basically saying that att was never contacted to provide data for smartphone data consumption, that the study used 3rd party info and it doesn't match ...
(continues)
AT&T is getting its number out of its ass, by having no clue how the other carriers work while ABI looked into how the carriers work to do its estimates. for every iphone pulling in 20 gigs a month there are several others that do almost nothing being owned by people that got it because they were told it was the "cool" phone to have.
i'm assuming that since you're saying "ABI looked into how carriers work to do their estimates" that you have the full text of the article, right?
isn't that the only way to verify the quality of the research?
my reaction when i saw the article was the same, especially in the case of sprint. how can they have 35 million less active lines and use more data when they have so few smartphone users. that's a lot of compensating for their data card customers to do. it sounds far fetched.
if you have the full text of the research they did i would love to see it.
cause if you're saying that and you don't know how the research was done it sounds l...
(continues)
So customers pay ~$70.00/monthly just to leave the device turned off and in some drawer?
Do you know why carriers put the 5GB caps on data cards and not on smartphones? My guess is you dont. I am not going to tell you why, as anyone with half a brain can figure it out, and it isnt because data cards arent used as much...
It doesnt change the fact that AT&T wasnt prepared to have that many people using data connections at the same time. VZW or Sprint would have most likely had overloads in the big cities, but would have been able to fix it quickly, unlike AT&T