for all you 4G junkies out there
The boadcast technology used is only 1 of 4 factors that determine the speed of a connection. Having 4G does NOT mean that you have faster speeds than 3G just cause you use a boadcast technology capable of supporting higher speeds.
You need enough T1 lines to process those internet speeds, without them you have a bottle neck.
A wireless N router is rated at 300 mbps, but if you have a dial up connection you connect at dial up speeds regardless of the broadcast speed of your router.
also you need enough transponders on your towers to process all you requests.
AT&T has the largest number of active smartphones on their network, over 3 times that of verizon, who is second. (thus the jealousy expressed in their negative ads against a...
(continues)
You need enough T1 lines to process those internet speeds, without them you have a bottle neck.
A wireless N router is rated at 300 mbps, but if you have a dial up connection you connect at dial up speeds regardless of the broadcast speed of your router.
also you need enough transponders on your towers to process all you requests.
AT&T has the largest number of active smartphones on their network, over 3 times that of verizon, who is second. (thus the jealousy expressed in their negative ads against a...
(continues)
...
I'm still not sure what your point was with all that. Thanks for the rant, though. If your subject/verb tenses were even slightly more agreeable, I might have some idea of what you were trying to say so I could post a scientific response to it.
As it is your "it" and "they" references are so jumbled and ridiculous, I'm not even going to try. Repost that in English, would you please?
I will say this though: T1 lines? Gimme a break! You and your attitude can go back to the 1990's where you belong!
As it is your "it" and "they" references are so jumbled and ridiculous, I'm not even going to try. Repost that in English, would you please?
I will say this though: T1 lines? Gimme a break! You and your attitude can go back to the 1990's where you belong!
...
CellStudent said:
I'm still not sure what your point was with all that. Thanks for the rant, though. If your subject/verb tenses were even slightly more agreeable, I might have some idea of what you were trying to say so I could post a scientific response to it.
As it is your "it" and "they" references are so jumbled and ridiculous, I'm not even going to try. Repost that in English, would you please?
I will say this though: T1 lines? Gimme a break! You and your attitude can go back to the 1990's where you belong!
🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣
ROFLMAO @ "I will say this though: T1 lines? Gimme a break! You and your attitude can go back to the 1990's where you belong!"
🤣 :lo...
(continues)
...
Hmm, is there actually a book called Cellular Technology for Dummies? If so I'd like to get it, cause most of my knowledge of cell tech has come from visiting PS for 5yrs.
...
a T1 line is an internet connection to a server that connects it directly to the interent.
consumer internet connects to their isp (internet service provider) the isp server connects to the internet using t1 lines.
the internet started w/ like 6 mainframe routing servers connected to eachother, i'm not sure how many there are now.
They're connected to eachother, like this
0 0 0
/ \ / \ /
0 0 0
That would be the backbone of the internet.
now internet service providers have servers that connect to this mainframe. ISPs connect to the mainframe using T1 lines, and depending on the application, sometimes t3 lines (not very cost effective but required for high perfromance in certain applications)
...
(continues)
consumer internet connects to their isp (internet service provider) the isp server connects to the internet using t1 lines.
the internet started w/ like 6 mainframe routing servers connected to eachother, i'm not sure how many there are now.
They're connected to eachother, like this
0 0 0
/ \ / \ /
0 0 0
That would be the backbone of the internet.
now internet service providers have servers that connect to this mainframe. ISPs connect to the mainframe using T1 lines, and depending on the application, sometimes t3 lines (not very cost effective but required for high perfromance in certain applications)
...
(continues)
...
A T-1 has a throughput of 1.544Mb - 24 64Kb circuits. A DS-3 (T-3) has a throughput of 45Mb. DS-3 circuits are much more efficient than T-1 in handling high bandwidth traffic. A T-1 does NOT provide 100Mb throughput.
Learn a little about telecomm technology before you post something.
Learn a little about telecomm technology before you post something.
...
having the speed wrong i don't think dimishes the point i'm making.
if a carrier doesn't have enough internet connectivity for it's users to share, it could busing a boadcast signal that supports 2 terabyte per second transfers, it doesn't make it's internet faster.
plus i'm sure you just looked those numbers up on wikipedia, which i could easily have done for my post. it doesn't matter what the exact speeds are.
if a carrier doesn't have enough internet connectivity for it's users to share, it could busing a boadcast signal that supports 2 terabyte per second transfers, it doesn't make it's internet faster.
plus i'm sure you just looked those numbers up on wikipedia, which i could easily have done for my post. it doesn't matter what the exact speeds are.
...
actually it does. Because t1 and t3 are both meaningless when it comes to LTE backhaul. For that you need FIBER, which is more than enough bandwidth for current LTE specs
...
okay so you're using fiber, you are still dividing an internet connection between a number of users, there has to be enough bandwidth to go around.
i think you agree with my principle point.
4 g is meaningless without the backhaul.
right now att's backhaul is more then verizons or sprints, that's why att's speeds are faster than verizons 3G or sprints 4G
of course that is only try in a general sense, because carriers will have speed advantages in certain locations and not in others
i think you agree with my principle point.
4 g is meaningless without the backhaul.
right now att's backhaul is more then verizons or sprints, that's why att's speeds are faster than verizons 3G or sprints 4G
of course that is only try in a general sense, because carriers will have speed advantages in certain locations and not in others
...
no, the reason ATT's speeds are faster is because they are pushing 7.2 HSPA while Verizon has 3.1EVDO
And Sprint's 4g IS faster than att's current 3g spec, with the exception of the few cities they are testing HSPA+
And Sprint's 4g IS faster than att's current 3g spec, with the exception of the few cities they are testing HSPA+
...
I'm guessing you have no idea what Fiber is, do you?
Verizon, and ATT are making FIBER backhaul, not easily overloaded T1.
You're arguing 90's tech, when it's 2010. We don't have flying cars yet, but we've moved past t1 my friend. welcome to the future
Verizon, and ATT are making FIBER backhaul, not easily overloaded T1.
You're arguing 90's tech, when it's 2010. We don't have flying cars yet, but we've moved past t1 my friend. welcome to the future
...
Menno said:
I'm guessing you have no idea what Fiber is, do you?
Verizon, and ATT are making FIBER backhaul, not easily overloaded T1.
You're arguing 90's tech, when it's 2010. We don't have flying cars yet, but we've moved past t1 my friend. welcome to the future
🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣
I am surprised this guy even works for Verizon, yet is clueless about their own FiOs product.
ROFLMAO!
🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣
...
i'm not saying it's not, but i have not heard of fiber optic being used for that type of application.
i work for att and i can tell you that we use T1, and that T1 is widely used in the US, it's not technology that was exclusive to the "90s" anymore than cellphones are "90s" technology or even "70s" technology.
can you point me toward a source that shows fiber optic being used to connect servers to the internet mainframe?
i work for att and i can tell you that we use T1, and that T1 is widely used in the US, it's not technology that was exclusive to the "90s" anymore than cellphones are "90s" technology or even "70s" technology.
can you point me toward a source that shows fiber optic being used to connect servers to the internet mainframe?
...
Can I show you a source that uses fiber to connect to the "Internet mainframe"? Yeah, my house. It's called FIOS - 25Mb of bandwidth up and down - end to end fiber. Every major market POP uses fiber to move traffic. Hosting centers use fiber. My office has an OC-3 (155Mb bandwidth on fiber) for Internet and data. I was in data network and telecomm engineering for over 9 years so I don't need Google to know what's what.
...
you connect from your house to your isp w/ fiber, but does your isp connect to the internet with fiber is the question. i'm not saying it doesn't. i'm just not familiar with it.
and when i say the "internet mainframe"
the internet began a a military linkage of servers called arpnet, i think there was 6 of them. that is the core.
isps connect to those
or in some cases isps connect to other isps that connect to those.
you connect to your isp, you do not connect directly.
and when i say the "internet mainframe"
the internet began a a military linkage of servers called arpnet, i think there was 6 of them. that is the core.
isps connect to those
or in some cases isps connect to other isps that connect to those.
you connect to your isp, you do not connect directly.
...
Hell, you've got me thinking of the Internet as if it were controlled by WOPR from War Games. Does it come with that "womping and beeping" sound from the movie too?
The Internet (as ARPANET) started in 1969 as four mainframe systems interconnected as nodes: UCLA Engineering, UC-Santa Barbara, University of Utah, and SRI International in Menlo Park, CA. Al Gore was not present.
The Internet today is a collection of thousands of switching systems, research networks, and ISPs which connect through IPX, or Internet Exchange Points. In so many ways, an ISP has become part of the backbone of the Internet. One by itself it nothing, but millions interconnected makes an Internet. The system grew out of it's "core" in the 80s when the netwo...
(continues)
The Internet (as ARPANET) started in 1969 as four mainframe systems interconnected as nodes: UCLA Engineering, UC-Santa Barbara, University of Utah, and SRI International in Menlo Park, CA. Al Gore was not present.
The Internet today is a collection of thousands of switching systems, research networks, and ISPs which connect through IPX, or Internet Exchange Points. In so many ways, an ISP has become part of the backbone of the Internet. One by itself it nothing, but millions interconnected makes an Internet. The system grew out of it's "core" in the 80s when the netwo...
(continues)
...
When I was going to school for telecommunications/wireless in 1995-97, T1 & T3s were what you normally saw for high speed connections to commercial buildings (we had one to our school and we did maintenance on it as part of our education). Fiber was just starting to be widely used, we were taught about it in class (theory & practical use). Nowadays people can get T1s to their house! I now live out in the boonys and my ISP ran fiber to our ped (telephone pedestal). Why would an ISP run fiber everywhere and then use a T1 to hook to their outgoing trunks? Normally the only places you will see T1s & T3s is at the user end (or the last bit of line before it gets to the customer). That maybe the reason why AT&T is having trouble with data if they ...
(continues)
(continues)
...
so AT&T is using T-1s to support their backhaul? That would explain why they are sucking so bad! 🤣
...
Speed or throughput? Just because your connection is "fast" doesn't necessarily mean your throughput is good.
...
...mostly because I'm finishing my Associates Degree in Electrical Engineering next month, and you're spouting of like some barely-graduated high school kid (based on your grammar) who read a few Wiki articles and got brainwashed by some corporate trainer/cheerleader, so now you know everything.
Fun!
Get some real background, then come back to the conversation.
As for speeds, backhaul is NOT a problem for Sprint's WiMax and it's unlikely to be a problem for Verizon's LTE. WiMax subscribers on this board REGULARLY report transfer rates in excess of 8 Mbps on individual connections.
The reason AT&T can claim faster 3G data speeds is NOT because they have better backhaul then Verizon or Sprint (they don't- except maybe in Dallas and...
(continues)
Fun!
Get some real background, then come back to the conversation.
As for speeds, backhaul is NOT a problem for Sprint's WiMax and it's unlikely to be a problem for Verizon's LTE. WiMax subscribers on this board REGULARLY report transfer rates in excess of 8 Mbps on individual connections.
The reason AT&T can claim faster 3G data speeds is NOT because they have better backhaul then Verizon or Sprint (they don't- except maybe in Dallas and...
(continues)
...
Thanks for showing up to the radio engineering discussion party a little late. Oh, wait, I was late, too.
...
And yet even with all of AT&T's "superior technology", I still couldn't wait to drop them like a bad habbit and get back to Verizon. Call me old fashioned, but I enjoy the simple things like actually having a signal when I want to place a call. Or having a clear (not garbeled) call when I do have a signal. AT&T looks great on paper, but real-world experience with them has taught me diferent.
...
Matt_a said:
And yet even with all of AT&T's "superior technology", I still couldn't wait to drop them like a bad habbit and get back to Verizon. Call me old fashioned, but I enjoy the simple things like actually having a signal when I want to place a call. Or having a clear (not garbeled) call when I do have a signal. AT&T looks great on paper, but real-world experience with them has taught me diferent.
You ain't alone here my friend....TRUST ME YOU ARE NOT!
...
every carrier will have issues, att had huge smartphone penetration w/ the iphone, they had to bulk up their network.
it is impossible to predict every scenerio that will impact your network quality.
lets see how smothly verizon transistion to gms lte technology goes, see if they have any issues w/ dropped calls and transponder overloads, or other issues related to their mixed signal network they're going to have to operate.
it is impossible to predict every scenerio that will impact your network quality.
lets see how smothly verizon transistion to gms lte technology goes, see if they have any issues w/ dropped calls and transponder overloads, or other issues related to their mixed signal network they're going to have to operate.
...
They won't. Because LTE will be for Data, 1xrtt will be for voice. they won't have an overload unless they get more early adopters than they are prepped for, which is doubtful because they've been developing backhaul for 4g for years now.
Please tell me how the transition will be any harder for Verizon than it is for ATT?
Please tell me how the transition will be any harder for Verizon than it is for ATT?
...
i'm not saying its harder for verizon.
att was at 1 point the network with the "fewest dropped calls"
lately that has not been the case
why?
the iphone.
att did not correctly anticipate the ammount of penetration that the 3G iphone would have and the level of data services users would consume. transponder overload, dropped calls.
now if you read the consumer reportes they will tell you that when the iphone 3G came out, there was no network that could have handled it. so verizon too would have been dropping calls left and right from overloaded transponders caused by iphone data requestes.
no the conversion to lte will probably not create the same level of problems, but it will create some. also verizon is starting to m...
(continues)
att was at 1 point the network with the "fewest dropped calls"
lately that has not been the case
why?
the iphone.
att did not correctly anticipate the ammount of penetration that the 3G iphone would have and the level of data services users would consume. transponder overload, dropped calls.
now if you read the consumer reportes they will tell you that when the iphone 3G came out, there was no network that could have handled it. so verizon too would have been dropping calls left and right from overloaded transponders caused by iphone data requestes.
no the conversion to lte will probably not create the same level of problems, but it will create some. also verizon is starting to m...
(continues)
...
AT&T never had supporting evidence to support their fewest dropped calls claim, and were sued by multiple parties, including government bodies over the claim. It had nothing to do with the iphone, it had to do with their marketing department telling flat out lies.
You really need to read up on how CDMA works compared to GSM, you are comparing apples to oranges here. VZW or Sprint would not have had the same issues AT&T did because of network design. VZW also would have responded to the problem instead of ignoring it for so long. It takes far fewer sites to cover capacity issues on a CMDA network than a GSM network.
You really need to read up on how CDMA works compared to GSM, you are comparing apples to oranges here. VZW or Sprint would not have had the same issues AT&T did because of network design. VZW also would have responded to the problem instead of ignoring it for so long. It takes far fewer sites to cover capacity issues on a CMDA network than a GSM network.
...
well explain to me why as a company, if CDMA is so superior, why they are going with a gsm standard (LTE) for their 4 G conversion
...
Because LTE is a logical evolution for EVERYTHING.
LTE isn't so much a GSM standard as a standard that's able to communicate with older CDMA1xRTT, CDMA2000, GSM, and UMTS standards. WIMAX wasn't fitting this need, and supporting upgrades on legacy formats such as EVDO and UMTS wasn't logical, meaning, why continue to upgrade 3G technologies when 4G is ready to be implemented?
LTE made the most sense from a technological stand point as well as a business stand point. GSM wins in the market simply because more countries and companies decided to use it. More phones are made for GSM, and more GSM-based radio and switching systems are made simply because there is a larger market for their production. It made no sense to continue the t...
(continues)
LTE isn't so much a GSM standard as a standard that's able to communicate with older CDMA1xRTT, CDMA2000, GSM, and UMTS standards. WIMAX wasn't fitting this need, and supporting upgrades on legacy formats such as EVDO and UMTS wasn't logical, meaning, why continue to upgrade 3G technologies when 4G is ready to be implemented?
LTE made the most sense from a technological stand point as well as a business stand point. GSM wins in the market simply because more countries and companies decided to use it. More phones are made for GSM, and more GSM-based radio and switching systems are made simply because there is a larger market for their production. It made no sense to continue the t...
(continues)
...
Right.. and verizon calls WILL NOT DROP because of heavy data because that's how the network operates.
and as stated, Verizon's network already handles BILLIONS more MB than ATT's
and as stated, Verizon's network already handles BILLIONS more MB than ATT's
...
1) GSM Preceded CDMA. In fact, GSM 3g technology borrows heavily from CDMA to make it more efficient.
2) Sprint and Verizon BOTH handle more data traffic than ATT
3) Verizon is extremely profitable. last quarter they lost money, but it was all from WIRELINE not wireless.
4) GSM uses the same exact receptors for voice and data. Verizon (because of CDMA) use different transponders for voice and data. This is why voice quality doesn't degrade during heavy data traffic like it does with GSM.
5) Verizon spends more money than any other network ON their network, a heck of a lot of this is improving backhaul for 4g. The bandwidth will be there.
maybe you should.. I don't know, read SOMETHING before trying to post on here? ...
(continues)
2) Sprint and Verizon BOTH handle more data traffic than ATT
3) Verizon is extremely profitable. last quarter they lost money, but it was all from WIRELINE not wireless.
4) GSM uses the same exact receptors for voice and data. Verizon (because of CDMA) use different transponders for voice and data. This is why voice quality doesn't degrade during heavy data traffic like it does with GSM.
5) Verizon spends more money than any other network ON their network, a heck of a lot of this is improving backhaul for 4g. The bandwidth will be there.
maybe you should.. I don't know, read SOMETHING before trying to post on here? ...
(continues)
...
1) well if you count gprs as gsm yes, it's older than cdma, but that's not the technology att uses. edge is newer than origional cdma, UMTS (att's 3G standard) is newer than WCDMA that verizon uses for it's 3G. Now are you of the opinion that WCDMA is superior to UMTS? and if so why?
2) i saw that article but i find it hard to believe, especially in the case of sprint. there is a ton of bad research out there and every carrier can find some of it to generate claims of superiority. sprint has less than 50 million customers and att have 85 million, the iphone is really the smartphone that brought smartphones out of the margins and into dominance on networks, no carrier has as many active smartphones as att. and the wireless cards that...
(continues)
2) i saw that article but i find it hard to believe, especially in the case of sprint. there is a ton of bad research out there and every carrier can find some of it to generate claims of superiority. sprint has less than 50 million customers and att have 85 million, the iphone is really the smartphone that brought smartphones out of the margins and into dominance on networks, no carrier has as many active smartphones as att. and the wireless cards that...
(continues)
...
1. Verizon doesn't use WCDMA (that is a gsm tech) they use EVDO (RevA to be exact). Seriously.. this is basic knowledge.
2. That article was posted by a data research company. Sprint and Verizon both have signifigantly more business aircards. they count ALL data, not just smartphone data. and revenue means NOTHING when it comes to data processed. average iphone usage is between 200 and 300mb/mo (there was an article a few months back on it). you are confusing data processed with revenue. It doesn't work that way.
3. Verizon wireless does not report their profits, only verizon does. and that includes landline. So no, you can't "look at numbers" like you are claiming. verizon wireless is a privately held company between Ve...
(continues)
2. That article was posted by a data research company. Sprint and Verizon both have signifigantly more business aircards. they count ALL data, not just smartphone data. and revenue means NOTHING when it comes to data processed. average iphone usage is between 200 and 300mb/mo (there was an article a few months back on it). you are confusing data processed with revenue. It doesn't work that way.
3. Verizon wireless does not report their profits, only verizon does. and that includes landline. So no, you can't "look at numbers" like you are claiming. verizon wireless is a privately held company between Ve...
(continues)
...
1) you are right evdo, i mistakingly put wcdma as the second version of CDMA, verizon does use evdo, AND it doesn't have the speed ratings of UMTS
2) if you have the full text of the article i would like to see it. you should acknolege that there is a lot of bogus research out there and that any company could use it to justify network superiority. I work in the industry, those data card account for 1-3% of the cellular devices on a network depending on the carrier, and their capped. 5 gig limit per month. they have limited business use too, many businesses are just fine w/ a cheeper faster wired conection. it's only a benifit for people who travel. anyway, lets say that 3% of sprints 50 million lines are data cards. and lets say th...
(continues)
2) if you have the full text of the article i would like to see it. you should acknolege that there is a lot of bogus research out there and that any company could use it to justify network superiority. I work in the industry, those data card account for 1-3% of the cellular devices on a network depending on the carrier, and their capped. 5 gig limit per month. they have limited business use too, many businesses are just fine w/ a cheeper faster wired conection. it's only a benifit for people who travel. anyway, lets say that 3% of sprints 50 million lines are data cards. and lets say th...
(continues)
...
1..You are still getting things wrong, I think what you are meaning to say is the currently deployed EVDO networks dont match the speed of HSDPA+ networks (which is what AT&T and Tmobile are deploying. VZW and sprint could have matched those speeds by progressing through EVDO Rev B and Rev C, but they didnt bother, they both desided it was a better investment to jump right to a 4G tech. Take a look at the capabilities of EVDO Rev B and C, they match/exceed that of HSDPA+. One US carrier launched Rev B so far, not sure if others will as well. When VZW launched LTE they will have the backhaul to support it, but it isnt going to launch at max speeds.
2. You seriously under estimate the number of mobile broadband devices out there, and they...
(continues)
2. You seriously under estimate the number of mobile broadband devices out there, and they...
(continues)
...
patritic
- no dictionary results
Did you mean patriotic?
uh, whuh?
Low blow?
55% patritic, 45% traitor? What the hell is that for? I reread this section of the overall thread and I can't tell where you pulled this out of (I can guess).
American made cell service?
What part of Verizon Wireless being a network that operates and functions in the US makes it not American? One of the founding companies (and still partial owner) of Verizon Wireless is in the UK, but it's not like they're importing UK towers and UK network technicians to build this grand "American network" you long for. Verizon Wireless employs people living and working in the US for their workforce. If Verizon Wireless is paying 80,000 people who live in t...
(continues)
- no dictionary results
Did you mean patriotic?
uh, whuh?
Low blow?
55% patritic, 45% traitor? What the hell is that for? I reread this section of the overall thread and I can't tell where you pulled this out of (I can guess).
American made cell service?
What part of Verizon Wireless being a network that operates and functions in the US makes it not American? One of the founding companies (and still partial owner) of Verizon Wireless is in the UK, but it's not like they're importing UK towers and UK network technicians to build this grand "American network" you long for. Verizon Wireless employs people living and working in the US for their workforce. If Verizon Wireless is paying 80,000 people who live in t...
(continues)
...
5) LTE-EVDO handoffs have been demonstrated by Motorola, Nokia, LG and Samsung for over 18 months now.
It will NOT be a problem, especially since ONE 700MHz tower can reach out almost 25 miles holding down rates in excess of 1.5 Mbps at the EDGE of the cell!
Verizon seriously has to put up, like, 15 towers to cover all of New York City with LTE at launch-grade acceptable congestion levels. As adoption grows, those cells will have to be subdivided and spectrum re-use will kick in just like the 2G and 3G networks did, but it's not going to be a problem. EVDO will continue to be available as a backup for the next 5+ years until it's no longer needed.
It will NOT be a problem, especially since ONE 700MHz tower can reach out almost 25 miles holding down rates in excess of 1.5 Mbps at the EDGE of the cell!
Verizon seriously has to put up, like, 15 towers to cover all of New York City with LTE at launch-grade acceptable congestion levels. As adoption grows, those cells will have to be subdivided and spectrum re-use will kick in just like the 2G and 3G networks did, but it's not going to be a problem. EVDO will continue to be available as a backup for the next 5+ years until it's no longer needed.
...
There are several basic phones that can access AWS bands for rural roaming
Check out verizon's global phones. Those have full CDMA AND Euro 3g (and gsm) bands.
Until there is FULL network penetration, all calls will be handled by the 1xrtt network, so it doesn't matter if you are in a 4g or a 3g area. You've been told this multiple times. Please let it sink in. I suggest shouting it, then plugging up your ears and shaking vigorously until it sinks in.
And the "by american" argument is bullshit.
Last time I checked, all verizon wireless employees were US citizens as are a bulk of their management staff. If you're that concerned about buying american, I hope you only buy Toyota/Honda/subaru.. you know, the companies that actu...
(continues)
Check out verizon's global phones. Those have full CDMA AND Euro 3g (and gsm) bands.
Until there is FULL network penetration, all calls will be handled by the 1xrtt network, so it doesn't matter if you are in a 4g or a 3g area. You've been told this multiple times. Please let it sink in. I suggest shouting it, then plugging up your ears and shaking vigorously until it sinks in.
And the "by american" argument is bullshit.
Last time I checked, all verizon wireless employees were US citizens as are a bulk of their management staff. If you're that concerned about buying american, I hope you only buy Toyota/Honda/subaru.. you know, the companies that actu...
(continues)
...
When I was going to school for telecommunications/wireless in 1995-97, T1 & T3s were what you normally saw for high speed connections to commercial buildings (we had one to our school and we did maintenance on it as part of our education). Fiber was just starting to be widely used, we were taught about it in class (theory & practical use). Nowadays people can get T1s to their house! I now live out in the boonys and my ISP ran fiber to our ped (telephone pedestal). Why would an ISP run fiber everywhere and then use a T1 to hook to their outgoing trunks? Normally the only places you will see T1s & T3s is at the user end (or the last bit of line before it gets to the customer). That maybe the reason why AT&T is having trouble with data if they ...
(continues)
(continues)
...
GSM is more costly to maintain, not less. GSM requires more sites per users and thus in high population areas is a more costly tech.
...
Well yes & no. A single GSM site is less costly to implement & maintain, but since more are necessary to cover an area then yes it would end up costing more. Thanks for pointing that out to me. When I'm typing not all of the thoughts in my head get onto the computer screen.
...
Via: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/verizon-wire less-and-sprint-each-carried-over-16-billion- more-megabytes-of-mobile-network-data-than-at t-in-2009-says-abi-research-2010-04-12
(continues)
...
NEW YORK, Apr 12, 2010 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- In 2009, AT&T's network issues may have led some to conclude that its network was carrying the most data traffic. But according to ABI Research, Verizon Wireless carried the most, followed by Sprint. Customers of these two operators generated 63% of the US market's mobile network data traffic.
Says practice director, Dan Shey, "Interestingly AT&T had the most activated data devices in 2009. But it is laptop mobile data connections that have the most impact on operator data traffic levels. Mobile broadband
(continues)
...
But I can tell you're patritic about the wireless industry. I like patriticots.
...
1... GSM is a voice only service. The other techs you are talking about are add ons to GSM to let it do things CDMA can already do. CDMA has had multiple revisions, it is a newer tech overall and is superior to GSM and its add ons. btw, WCDMA and UMTS are the same thing..
2.. look into how AT&Ts data system works, a single device on their network requires a larger percentage of the network capacity than a single deivce with the exact same data flow on a CDMA network. AT&Ts problems wernt entirely on the backhaul, they were on the front end with towers hitting capacity due to an efficient network technology.
3..You might want to take a look at the companies financial reports before just making up numbers, since both companies report eac...
(continues)
2.. look into how AT&Ts data system works, a single device on their network requires a larger percentage of the network capacity than a single deivce with the exact same data flow on a CDMA network. AT&Ts problems wernt entirely on the backhaul, they were on the front end with towers hitting capacity due to an efficient network technology.
3..You might want to take a look at the companies financial reports before just making up numbers, since both companies report eac...
(continues)
...
He could check out HowStuffWorks.com, too. They present it in much simpler terms than Wikipedia.
...
Could we possibly consider the fact that ATT made more money by charging the customers more for a cheaper service?
Makes sense to me.
Makes sense to me.
...
their prices are the same as verizon. people just spend more w/ att, they buy more premium services.
verizon charges the same price for their same premium services, people are just less inclined to buy them.
verizon charges the same price for their same premium services, people are just less inclined to buy them.
...
No, they don't buy more premium services. People buy the IPHONE, which has NOTHING to do with ATT. if it was on Verizon, or sprint, or Tmobile, they would have a higher percentage of smartphone customers as well, no matter how crappy their network is.
The thing is.. is that Verizon spends MORE on their network than ATT does while, (according to you) have less "premium services" paying for it.
Seriously.. as Azeron said.. never post again
The thing is.. is that Verizon spends MORE on their network than ATT does while, (according to you) have less "premium services" paying for it.
Seriously.. as Azeron said.. never post again
...
to be clear, VZW has spent more, currently AT&T spends more. I think they spent something like 18 bil last year on expanding their network while VZW did not. AT&T is still trying to play catch up
...
listen to you iphone hating. i bet it drives you crazy everytime you hear someone say, "i'm cancelling my service so i can get the iphone"
anyway i can post if i want you can't stop me just cause you're lowell mcadam's girlfriend.
from wikipedia:
Verizon Wireless invests $8 billion annually to maintain and expand its nationwide CDMA network
From CNN:
AT&T plans to spend between $18 billion and $19 billion in 2010 upgrading its wireless and backhaul networks to handle the onslaught of new traffic. This is roughly $2 billion more than the company had invested in the previous year.
here's a link if you don't believe me
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/29/att.network.boost ... »
so basically att normally spends twice...
(continues)
anyway i can post if i want you can't stop me just cause you're lowell mcadam's girlfriend.
from wikipedia:
Verizon Wireless invests $8 billion annually to maintain and expand its nationwide CDMA network
From CNN:
AT&T plans to spend between $18 billion and $19 billion in 2010 upgrading its wireless and backhaul networks to handle the onslaught of new traffic. This is roughly $2 billion more than the company had invested in the previous year.
here's a link if you don't believe me
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/29/att.network.boost ... »
so basically att normally spends twice...
(continues)
...
You didn't even touch on the breath issue. Your credibility is lacking. I'm disappointed in you not living up to your promises.
...
You're comparing two completely different sources. Seriously, Wikipedia and CNN?
ATT 'plans to spend' is a future-reference. They may or may not. This does not also mention how much was spent in the past, during the time period you used as an example of ATT making more in profits.
As for the Verizon statement, it's wikipedia. Is that number an average over twenty years, or two? Is it the rounded amount spent in the most recent years? That snippet is too little information from a source that likely does not completely know what they're talking about.
ATT 'plans to spend' is a future-reference. They may or may not. This does not also mention how much was spent in the past, during the time period you used as an example of ATT making more in profits.
As for the Verizon statement, it's wikipedia. Is that number an average over twenty years, or two? Is it the rounded amount spent in the most recent years? That snippet is too little information from a source that likely does not completely know what they're talking about.
...
as others have mentioned, you're quoting from TWO different sources.
And verizon spends billions ANNUALLY to improve their network. If ATT is playing catchup, they need to spend more NOW.
Reading is more than seeing strings of symbols on a page. Comprehension helps.
And verizon spends billions ANNUALLY to improve their network. If ATT is playing catchup, they need to spend more NOW.
Reading is more than seeing strings of symbols on a page. Comprehension helps.
...
it sounds like you're tacitly conceding that i'm right (att needs to spend more - implying that they have justification for the fact that they spend more)
and criticizing my sources without producing a source that shows verizon spends more.
and criticizing my sources without producing a source that shows verizon spends more.
...
I'm pretty sure he wasn't 'tacitly conceding'.
Just trust me on this one. 😉
Just trust me on this one. 😉
...
No, I am saying if they are spending more NOW it's because they are playing catchup. Also google results for ATT spending do not back up that link you gave.
...
If I search for that with quotes I get nothing, but without it I get "about" 118,000. If I google "verizon wireless" with "love bunnies" I get 348. I'm going to assume the latter, given that these words logically group within the modern English vernacular.
...
55 billion in 10 years is 5.5 billion a year and is a far cry from 16 bilion or 18 billion.
...
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/29/att.network.boost ... »
That figure included Cell towers and backhaul (Fiber) which is used for both their cellular network, and offerings like UVerse, and prepping their towers for 4g.
Verizon's numbers are for their Network (cell sites) not the fiber backhaul, or at least not all of it, it won't include any 4g backhaul (which will also handle 3g traffic), nor does it include fios (which can also help with backhaul) or the money they are investing to become a backhaul provider from other companies.
There were multiple articles a few months back talking about how much money it would take att to catch up to verizon for coverage and reliability. that number was under 18 billion.. so obviously ...
(continues)
That figure included Cell towers and backhaul (Fiber) which is used for both their cellular network, and offerings like UVerse, and prepping their towers for 4g.
Verizon's numbers are for their Network (cell sites) not the fiber backhaul, or at least not all of it, it won't include any 4g backhaul (which will also handle 3g traffic), nor does it include fios (which can also help with backhaul) or the money they are investing to become a backhaul provider from other companies.
There were multiple articles a few months back talking about how much money it would take att to catch up to verizon for coverage and reliability. that number was under 18 billion.. so obviously ...
(continues)
...
i think verizon's figure includes backhaul as well. they're just spending their big $'s on acqisitions.
i looked all over for a quote from verizon, and they just list their 10 year total of 55 billion.
probably cause their current investment rate is nothing to brag about.
i looked all over for a quote from verizon, and they just list their 10 year total of 55 billion.
probably cause their current investment rate is nothing to brag about.
...
If you wernt a newbie to the wireless industry you would know that VZW for years has quoted spending over 5 bil a year into the network, this year it was updated to 5.5 per year. The ammount being invested has been increasing year over year.
...
I feel dumber just from reading your original post. I was going to go line by line, but let me just say this: Whatever Wikipedia page you pulled this gem from
"Plus Verizon runs a cheeper network, they use CDMA, which is the technology that preceeded GSM."
Nuke it.
"Plus Verizon runs a cheeper network, they use CDMA, which is the technology that preceeded GSM."
Nuke it.
...
I don't even think Wikipedia is that bad. It had to have been on some teenage technogeek's geocities site.
...
CDMA is NOT cheaper then GSM. CDMA cost much more to deploy and use then GSM.
...
no, CDMA has lower upkeep cost per subscriber than GSM. an individual cell might cost more to upkeep, but you need less of them so it comes out to cost less
...
T1 lines are 1.5 megabit. You have no clue what you are talking about.
Want a source? Here ya go:
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/question372.htm »
Want a source? Here ya go:
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/question372.htm »
...
