Apparently Verizon CAN handle heavy traffic data:
Just an interesting read showing that last year Verizon (and Sprint) handled more data on their network than ATT.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/verizon-wireless-an ... »
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/verizon-wireless-an ... »
...
Yeah, because our CDMA service *rocks*. GSM is, like, so last year.
🤤
🤤
...
LOL! Yeah. And the entire deal with "I can talk and surf the web at the same time", who honestly does that. I know there are always a few people that do, but for the 85 or so (how every many people Verizon has today) million people, they dont care, or they really wouldnt be with Verizon or Sprint in the first place. When I am on a call, I tend(now this is just me, idk about anyone else)to focus on the person who is talking and what they are saying. Again, that is just me. I honestly cant stand when I am talking to someone and I hear them txting on the other end. 99% of the time I will just hang up and they can call back when they are finished. I personally think it is rude(and yes, I can tell when someone is texting and using a touch keyboar...
(continues)
(continues)
...
CDMA is older than gsm and there is no 4G CDMA which is why verizon is switching to gsm (LTE) for their 4G upgrade.
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.
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.
...
You're right that there is no 4g CDMA technology. This is because Qualcomm, aka Mr CDMA, decided to stop development on Ultra Mobile Broadband (UMB, aka 4g CDMA) to push LTE because there is more profit in it, and it meant that the patents they developed would be more profitable
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)
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)
...
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.
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)
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)
...
If you actually looked into stuff instead of just copy/pasting it, you would know that by "not backwards compatible" I mean that a 3g phone cannot connect to a 4g tower, while an HSPA phone can connect to an HSPA+ tower, it just cant get the boosted speeds. Just like a Rev0 phone can connect to a RevA tower, just without the boosted speeds. This is why it DOESN'T matter what tech LTE is.
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.
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.
...
but isn't what you're saying just common sense?
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
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
...
LTE has nothing to do with GSM other than it being picked as the evolution path by whatever the group is called that picks paths for GSM carriers. LTE has nothing to do with GSM tech wise, they are not even remotely the same. Go look up what LTE is. The standard is being designed to easily overlay with existing GSM infrastructure, which just means VZW has to modify the system slightly to work with the CDMA infrastructure. CDMA is superior to GSM, LTE is superior to both as would UMB. In fact UMB was panning out to be superior to LTE, but since VZW along with Vodaphone picked LTE and Sprint had already picked WIMAX, there was no reason for Qualcomm to continue working on UMB.
The funny part, is if the GSM association had picked UMB, you wo...
(continues)
The funny part, is if the GSM association had picked UMB, you wo...
(continues)
...
from wikipedia:
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.
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.
...
Do some homework on FDD and TDD multiplexing, and you'll see what they're talking about.
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!
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!
...
Read "borrows and builds upon concepts from GSM," and then go read about the transition from analog to TDMA and CDMA and their transitions into GSM and CDMA1x, and you'll see that the "concepts" are all very similar. You could argue anything based off the original (yet slightly different) concepts. Heck, I could make the correlation between analog and digital to my ten year old and he'd get it.
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.
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.
...
1) YES it is common sense, common sense THAT YOU STILL DON'T GET
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)
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.
...
Just curious on what you are basing all these assumptions. Which engineering school taught you this information?
...
You seriously need to take like 10 mins and go look up what you are talking about. There is no such thing as a 4G GSM or 4G CDMA as neither meets the 4G standards, which is where LTE, UMB and WIMAX come in.
...
Wow, and often I feel like I'm in over my head.
Does ATT completely brainwash its employees these days?
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.
...
short of paying for the full text of the article, the origional poster has put up it's hard to assess the quality of their conclusions.
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)
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)
...
wow, AT&T execs really do just live in their own little world... have they never asked themselves why sprint has the higest ARPU? It sure in hell isnt because sprint has the same breakdown of device users that AT&T has.
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.
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 work in the industry and i see data cards with no use on them too. or only 20 megs.
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)
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)
...
Data cards with no usage at all? Really?
So customers pay ~$70.00/monthly just to leave the device turned off and in some drawer?
So customers pay ~$70.00/monthly just to leave the device turned off and in some drawer?
...
Things other than smarthphones transfer data.. Sprint has a far larger percentage of customers using data services than AT&T does.
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...
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...
...
heavy data traffic has nothing to do with nationwide usage it has to do with heavy usage in small areas, check out the stats for big cities and you see things the way they are
...
Statistically most of the countries population is in what we would call urban areas. unless you are saying that people travel out into the fields/woods whenever they are trying to use their data cards
...
A lot of data cards to get used outside the big cities though, it is one of the reasons Sprint and VZW have more data cards than AT&T, customer that need the things want to make sure they are going to have a broadband connection, which AT&T cant provide to them in a lot of places.
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
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
...
