Verizon rumored to be fast-tracking 4G for launch by early 2010

[AppleInsider]

A new rumor suggests that Verizon could be scrambling to launch its high-speed Long-Term Evolution data network in the first quarter of 2010 -- just in time, perhaps, to accommodate an Apple-made tablet.

Citing a "knowledgeable" source, TechCrunch reported Friday that the deployment of Verizon's new 4G mobile broadband network, originally planned for a limited launch in late 2010, is allegedly being fast-tracked.

"Our source says that Verizon is putting just about everything it has in to moving many of these markets up to Q1 2010 — which is the same timeframe for this supposed new Apple device," the report states. "While the source had no information to specifically tie Apple to this move by Verizon, they did note that there was talk of at least one non-dongle (wireless card) product that this LTE launch was being specifically geared towards."

The timing is particularly interesting given the exclusive rumor broken earlier Friday by AppleInsider that Apple is also racing toward an early 2010 launch for its still-unannounced multi-touch 10-inch tablet.

Verizon officials have kept Apple in mind as they prepare to roll out their LTE network. Earlier this year, Verizon's chief executive Ivan Seidenberg said the chances of an iPhone on his network will be greater once 4G is in place.

The problem for Apple and the iPhone has been that the device runs only on GSM devices. While SIM card-based phones are the standard internationally, carriers such as Verizon and Sprint in the U.S. use CDMA-based networks.

But that problem goes away with Verizon's choice of LTE. Unlike the artificial split between North America and the rest of the world today, a large number of both domestic and international carriers plan to move to LTE within the next few years, including AT&T and T-Mobile USA. The switch will let Apple build iPhones that stay with one core technology but which could be used worldwide with no real compromise.

Verizon's LTE network is reportedly capable of speeds up to 60 Mbps -- much faster than any existing 3G network.

TechCrunch reports that their source believes a data-only service offering for the tablet, which will not include a microphone, would not be in violation of the existing AT&T-Apple iPhone contract, due to expire in 2010. They said their source believes that a deal between Verizon and Apple "seems inevitable."

"Our source doubts that Apple would want to sell the device with a subsidy, locking customers into another contract, but believes that Apple could either try to bake the cost of the network into the device (which would work like Amazon’s Kindle)," the report reads. "Or, more likely, customers could sign up for a month-to-month data-only plan for the new device. And because it’s data only, the price would be significantly cheaper than current cellular bills we’re used to."

[nace33]

Anyone else find it humorous that I am so anxious to leave one carrier who I despise for another carrier who I despise slightly less but have to pay more for?

[dreyfus2]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

And because it’s data only, the price would be significantly cheaper than current cellular bills we’re used to."

So, they expect Verizon's 4G plans to be cheaper than Sprint's (currently 80 USD per month with a 24 months contract)? Color me doubtful...

[al_bundy]

I hope a lot of people leave ATT for verizon. It will free up network bandwidth for those of us who remain.

[steviet02]

Originally Posted by al_bundy

I hope a lot of people leave ATT for verizon. It will free up network bandwidth for those of us who remain.

I agree, and as it turns out alot of the speed issues appear to be with the 3G iPhones processing power rather than the speed of the network.

[EmC]

Originally Posted by steviet02

I agree, and as it turns out alot of the speed issues appear to be with the 3G iPhones processing power rather than the speed of the network.

I think this is the case. When tethering my iPhone 3G to my MacBook pages load incredibly fast. Much faster than on the iPhone itself in the same location.

[steviet02]

Originally Posted by EmC

I think this is the case. When tethering my iPhone 3G to my MacBook pages load incredibly fast. Much faster than on the iPhone itself in the same location.

I've heard similar accounts, and also the fact that the 3Gs is much faster rendering the webpages and email etc...

[NasserAE]

Verizon officials have kept Apple in mind as they prepare to roll out their LTE network. Earlier this year, Verizon's chief executive Ivan Seidenberg said the chances of an iPhone on his network will be greater once 4G is in place.

I believe they will have better chances if they stop requiring features to be removed from phones on their network. If Apple want to sell their tablet/netbook worldwide then they will need to include GSM as well. If that happens then I doubt Apple will give exclusivity to one carrier even in the US.

[Wayfarer]

Verizion really needs to come to the iPhone. Over and out.

[lightstriker]

Will carriers charge more $ 4 4G subscriptions? Can i go back to beepers and pay phones?

[Rot'nApple]

Originally Posted by dreyfus2

So, they expect Verizon's 4G plans to be cheaper than Sprint's (currently 80 USD per month with a 24 months contract)? Color me doubtful...

(in thick Sean Connery accent)... "The name is Jobs... Steve Jobs"... queue Bond music now...

[Dlux]

But that problem goes away with Verizon's choice of LTE. Unlike the artificial split between North America and the rest of the world today, a large number of both domestic and international carriers plan to move to LTE within the next few years, including AT&T and T-Mobile USA. The switch will let Apple build iPhones that stay with one core technology but which could be used worldwide with no real compromise.

I still haven't found a precise explanation of which frequencies each country or carrier uses. While standardizing on LTE sounds great (sorry, Wimax), what frequencies and antennae will the devices need to support all the locations?

[mdriftmeyer]

Originally Posted by EmC

I think this is the case. When tethering my iPhone 3G to my MacBook pages load incredibly fast. Much faster than on the iPhone itself in the same location.

I bet if I tethered my iPhone 3GS to a Pentium II it would render pages slower than the iPhone.

The iPhone 3GS doesn't have a Core2Duo processor in it. End of story.

The network performance isn't measured by how fast the end device renders a web page.

[8CoreWhore]

Why would Apple build a Verizon-only radio into the device if they're not going to get something out of it? Apple may build more than one radio into it to reach more customers in more markets and geographical areas. The radios are smaller, cheaper, and this device is bigger. In this scenario, Apple would charge full price for the device - you go find your own carrier with no contract - OR - Different carriers could sell it with a contract and subsidize the up-front price.

Without a voice plan, data plans are very expensive - more suitable for road warriors who don't care if they pay 70USD. But for Apple to reach the masses, this device must be uncoupled from a data plan, meaning it's totally optional, or the data plan is 30USD/Mo or less. Carriers could say, "If you have a phone with us, we'll give you the data for this cheaper".

[yuusharo]

I find it funny that so many people want the iPhone on Verizon. I'm no fan of AT&T, but for what its worth, the phone does work well in my area and the data speeds are mostly acceptable (though it can be frustrating at times).

People forget that Verizon is notorious for crippling handsets and their capability. To AT&T's credit, they usually leave the phones they carry alone, only adding a few features they like to tout like mediaNET and such. Verizon is famous for rewriting the phone's OS and limiting/removing much of its functionality. Case in point - RAZR V3M.

I would only want my iPhone on Verizon because of its (slightly) better coverage for my area. But other than that, they're just as bad as AT&T in terms of service and support. The only real advantage of having it on Verizon is it finally gives some competition to AT&T, forcing both companies to improve their networks and pricing for the phone.

[backtomac]

Originally Posted by yuusharo

I find it funny that so many people want the iPhone on Verizon....

What's so funny about getting on Verizon's network? It's widely believed to be of better quality than ATT. While I've found ATT to be ok, its certainly nothing to brag about.

The real draw is the likelihood that Verizon will have their 4g network up ahead of everyone else (Sprint's WiMax network notwithstanding). If Verizon get their 4g network up by the beginning of 2010 they may be a full year ahead of ATT which IIRC aren't going to begin 4g deployment until 2011.

Next year it's possible for the iPhone to have a dual core ARM cpu. Probably capable of handling all the data LTE can throw at it.

[lilgto64]

Originally Posted by dreyfus2

So, they expect Verizon's 4G plans to be cheaper than Sprint's (currently 80 USD per month with a 24 months contract)? Color me doubtful...

No - that is not what the article says - the part about less expense was in reference to the Tablet device - which would NOT have telephone capabilities at all - so would not have a voice plan or voice mail - but would have a data only connection.

on a separate note - just speculating here but the LTE may be as much about the manner in which data is encoded and transmitted as it is the frequency at which the carrier wave operates. I am not saying that the carrier wave is unimportant or that it will be different than some of those currently used or may even be a multi-band thing - just that it would seem that to jump from 3 Mbps to 60 Mbps you must be doing something other than moving from one radio band to another. Though I suppose if you moved from a 20 Hz signal to a 20 MHz cycle to a 20 GHz cycle your carrier wave would be sending more bits in the same amount of time.

It sure would be interesting if we were talking about a shift akin to moving from AM to FM radio - or maybe we are already at FM and are looking at HD?

[dreyfus2]

Originally Posted by lilgto64

No - that is not what the article says - the part about less expense was in reference to the Tablet device - which would NOT have telephone capabilities at all - so would not have a voice plan or voice mail - but would have a data only connection.

Pardon, but the 80 USD from Sprint that I have quoted are data (and Baltimore) only. See: http://www.nextel.com/en/solutions/m...dband_4G.shtml for details.

Carriers have always raised tariffs for newer and faster networks, at least initially. I simply see no way that Verizon will offer an unlimited or reasonable (say 5-10 GB/mth) contract on a brand new 4G network for the same 30-35 USD they charge for 3G.

[GregAlexander]

Originally Posted by Dlux

I still haven't found a precise explanation of which frequencies each country or carrier uses. While standardizing on LTE sounds great (sorry, Wimax), what frequencies and antennae will the devices need to support all the locations?

You're right that different locations will use different frequencies. IIRC, they were working towards some higher frequencies (with higher bandwidth) operating internationally, but even there they are having issues. Hopefully all devices will at least support the big standards (just like UMTS 2100 is standard everywhere except the US).

The problem is that carriers already own frequencies all over the place, and as they phase out older technologies they'll want to reuse those frequencies. Those frequencies will also offer better coverage and building penetration while the higher frequencies can be used in parallel for greater bandwidth in good reception areas.

It seems that both Verizon and AT&T have purchased some of the 700Mhz frequencies freed up by the US move to digital TV - so I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple focus on those with an LTE device. That's not much good for us in Australia though... we'll be using those for analogue TV for a few more years.

Couldn't find much on LTE frequencies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3GPP_Lo...nel_Bandwidths

[GregAlexander]

Originally Posted by dreyfus2

Carriers have always raised tariffs for newer and faster networks, at least initially.

Really? In what way?
In Australia when 2G was released (GSM), it was identical plans to 1G (Analog) phones. When 3G was released, it too was identical to 2G plans. The data plans gradually got bolted on as extras but that's not for a new network, rather a new feature.

I simply see no way that Verizon will offer an unlimited or reasonable (say 5-10 GB/mth) contract on a brand new 4G network for the same 30-35 USD they charge for 3G.

The LTE network is claimed to be 2-3 times more efficient with its spectrum, it also handles more users. So technically it'd be better for Verizon if you switched to the better network for the same price & quota.

All that said....
I don't want to pay ANOTHER data plan. I pay for one on my iPhone now. Let me tether my tablet via my iPhone! (AT&T can't allow that for free since they give unlimited data, but on a 3GB plan things become more plausible)

[dagamer34]

All data-only plans from ANY network cost at LEAST $60/month, and there are plenty of restrictions on how you use the "unlimited" data they've alloted you. I don't see how any device Apple releases magically chops that price in half. And you can't talk about subsidizing the price of the tablet as well as baking in the cost of data into the device within the same sentence! To the end user, the price is still the same! Plus, with the amount of data used to surf the Internet, there's no way you can do something like with the Kindle.

[GregAlexander]

Originally Posted by dagamer34

with the amount of data used to surf the Internet, there's no way you can do something like with the Kindle.

The kindle works because it restricts what's downloaded significantly. If Apple wanted to mimic the Kindle model, they'd have to allow minimal data connections for apps, while opening it up for paid Apple content....

All data-only plans from ANY network cost at LEAST $60/month, and there are plenty of restrictions on how you use the "unlimited" data they've alloted you.

I've got a A$15 (US$12) per month data-only plan in Australia. There are 3 (of 4) networks offering a similar plan. We only get 1GB though, not unlimited. And that low rate does NOT subsidise the device in any way.

All I'm saying is that there is scope for different models.

[Jerseymac]

If Verizon sets their mind to it, they will get their new network up and running in record time. In New Jersey they were trying to get in on the cable TV game for years. Once they got approved you wouldn't believe how fast they got the FIOS system in place. They were practically banging on my door the next day to sign me up.

[soundsgoodtome]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

...a data-only service offering for the tablet, which will not include a microphone, would not be in violation of the existing AT&T-Apple iPhone contract, due to expire in 2010"

Would someone please provide a credible source for the phrase "due to expire in 2010"? When the original iPhone was released, it was widely, widely, widely reported that apple had a 5-year exclusive deal with AT&T. That was two years and 1 month ago!!! According to all of the initial reports, AT&T's has exclusive rights to the iPone until June, 2012.

So, seriously -- what kind of math are you guys using?

[ncee]

Ok, so I'm a bit lost here?

A new tablet - A phone company?

Is it a Netbook, a tablet, A small Notebook???

If it is sold as a netbook, then maybe they will offer a CELL PHONE at a reasonable price?

I mean, they have a PHONE, that does why to much. Who sees the need for ANOTHER type of phone, and BIGGER I might add.

Everyone wanted a nice small electronic toy that they could take / make phone calls with, get their email, surf the web, play games, figure out the tip when dinning out, process credit cards with and so much more. Now they are (supposedly) coming out awith a LARGE version on the same thing???

Folks do you want small or do you want large … let's make up our minds here.

Now MANY of you will say - "no, it's not going to (do all of the above), but after it comes out, and it does something, you'll all say "If I could only do this (all of the above and more) with it, I wouldn't need a laptop, iPhone, iPod, iMac … and poor old Steve / Apple will go broke, because they will no longer sell many iphones, iMacs …

Hey, how about a larger iPhone?

I'm going to get a coffee now

Skip

[lemieuxd]

Since I strongly suspect that this is Apple's attempt to expand the Touch to become a media reader a la Kindle, they do not need network speed but rather be available everywhere. This will succeed if SJ has managed to negotiate with McGraw-Hill and other publishers along will all the large papers around the world to make reading something pleasant again on such a device. These industries must leave the molecular world by becoming fully electron-based ASAP or they will die. The costs of harvesting the source material (paper), printing and then distributing only to give the client news which is already old simply does not work for most of us. The beauty of papers over radio and TV is there ability to go deeper into the news. This gives them the ability to be quick with news and allow more in-depth reporting as well. What SJ has to do is find a way to make the device the tool for channeling to the client only the relevant advertising he wants. I still need to see specials on ply-wood for my renovations. This custom advertising (something better than Google) would allow groups of papers to offer the device cheaper or reduce network costs by using ad revenue to compensate. How to assure that such ads are seen? good question.

[kylemac09]

Sprint offers their WIMAX for 45 dollars a month, and it is as fast as cable. With them launching so many markets, they have proven speed, I am sure Verizon will have competition. I think we shall see, you know Sprint will always be the cheapest, and they have already a proven 3G network that is faster and larger than AT&T.

[EmC]

Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer

I bet if I tethered my iPhone 3GS to a Pentium II it would render pages slower than the iPhone.

The iPhone 3GS doesn't have a Core2Duo processor in it. End of story.

The network performance isn't measured by how fast the end device renders a web page.

I think you are missing the point. How is it helpful to have an 60 Mbps connection vs. the current 3.6 Mbps if the limitation is the hardware's ability to render the pages?

[Eriamjh]

It seems Verizon, the company that told Apple to bug off for the first iPhone is bending over backwards to get the next Apple wireless product.

Among other things, Apple wanted a percentage of the monthly cellphone fees, say over how and where iPhones could be sold and control of the relationship with iPhone customers, said Jim Gerace, a Verizon Wireless vice president. "We said no. We have nothing bad to say about the Apple iPhone. We just couldn't reach a deal that was mutually beneficial."

Apparently they are kicking themselves for declining the iPhone over a loss of control when they really should have been thinking about the money! Silly Verizon.

Maybe now that Apple is subsidized (somewhat) like the other phonemakers that Verizon is crawling back for the business?

[Tofino]

Originally Posted by EmC

I think you are missing the point. How is it helpful to have an 60 Mbps connection vs. the current 3.6 Mbps if the limitation is the hardware's ability to render the pages?

how big are these pages you're looking at on your phone??

maybe for safari the processor has an impact, but if you want to download a movie from itunes on your phone, download speed is more important?

then again.... i'm still waiting for 3G in my neck of the woods...

[AjitMD]

I have received reports from friends, some in the telecom business, who say that extended WiFi and even WiMax, has been deployed in some poor Asian and Latin and African countries. The monthly rate that has been quoted to me is $10-12/mo. I do not know the bandwidth or the QoS. However, it seems to be way too expensive than anything that is offered in the US.

How come we do not have WiMax telcos besides Sprint? In most cases, people would be happy with a service that does not need complex hand-offs. It would be ok for VoIP and data. May be somebody here can elaborate.

[brucep]

Originally Posted by nace33

Anyone else find it humorous that I am so anxious to leave one carrier who I despise for another carrier who I despise slightly less but have to pay more for?

i tried to get fios today

i Mean i went online ready to GET F I O S bundle TODAY.
And the price said 79 or 99 a month
it went to $179 in no time flat .
Verizon has the most misleading ads ever. .
I wish apple had bought the spectrum when it was up for sale /

[brucep]

Originally Posted by ncee

Ok, so I'm a bit lost here?

A new tablet - A phone company?

Is it a Netbook, a tablet, A small Notebook???

If it is sold as a netbook, then maybe they will offer a CELL PHONE at a reasonable price?

I mean, they have a PHONE, that does why to much. Who sees the need for ANOTHER type of phone, and BIGGER I might add.

Everyone wanted a nice small electronic toy that they could take / make phone calls with, get their email, surf the web, play games, figure out the tip when dinning out, process credit cards with and so much more. Now they are (supposedly) coming out awith a LARGE version on the same thing???

Folks do you want small or do you want large … let's make up our minds here.

Now MANY of you will say - "no, it's not going to (do all of the above), but after it comes out, and it does something, you'll all say "If I could only do this (all of the above and more) with it, I wouldn't need a laptop, iPhone, iPod, iMac … and poor old Steve / Apple will go broke, because they will no longer sell many iphones, iMacs …

Hey, how about a larger iPhone?

I'm going to get a coffee now

Skip

That coffee smells good.

I mean i am feeling all wified or wifried out .
I would like a small powerful phone that only makes calls .
MY MBP 15" rocks
MY 3 OTHER

[tekneeq53]

Originally Posted by brucep

That coffee smells good.

I mean i am feeling all wified or wifried out .
I would like a small powerful phone that only makes calls .
MY MBP 15" rocks
MY 3 OTHER

still gonna be the same thing -5 gb limit at $60.00 per month. it doesnt matter if the carrier changes or not, you are still gonna see high prices for the data. The only thing im looking forward to is the 4g speeds. As for verizon, never liked them and a little tablet is not gonna push me to switch carriers. perfectly happy with my iphone 3GS and macbook pro.

[steviet02]

Originally Posted by backtomac

What's so funny about getting on Verizon's network? It's widely believed to be of better quality than ATT. While I've found ATT to be ok, its certainly nothing to brag about.

But then again there aren't millions of data consuming iPhones on Verizon network either. Besides, you can't do voice and sata on Verizon yet. While it's not very often that I need to use the data services and the voice services on ATT, when the chance to use it occurs I can use them both at the same time. And the real plus for Verizon over AT&T is it's coverage, and depending on what area it's significant.

[backtomac]

Originally Posted by steviet02

But then again there aren't millions of data consuming iPhones on Verizon network either. Besides, you can't do voice and sata on Verizon yet. While it's not very often that I need to use the data services and the voice services on ATT, when the chance to use it occurs I can use them both at the same time. And the real plus for Verizon over AT&T is it's coverage, and depending on what area it's significant.

Its true that we don't know how well Verizon's network would perform with millions of iPhones consuming data. That's a fair point.

But the real attraction will be the LTE network IF Verizon are able to get it up and running early next year. That would very attractive for data consuming iPhones.

[AIaddict]

Originally Posted by backtomac

But the real attraction will be the LTE network IF Verizon are able to get it up and running early next year. That would very attractive for data consuming iPhones.

In a handful of major metro areas maybe. You still need a good fallback network in the US, unless you live in a big city and never travel.

[skittlebrau79]

Originally Posted by AIaddict

In a handful of major metro areas maybe. You still need a good fallback network in the US, unless you live in a big city and never travel.

Even if you live in a top 5 metro area, you still need a fallback. When 3G was introduced to Chicago where I grew up, coverage was spotty at best. Because of all the buildings in downtown, if a certain tower hadn't been upgraded yet then turning your head would mean losing the call. Sometimes my friends got off the train and had 3G, then went downstairs to street level and they'd be back on 2G. It all depends on tower placement. And this wasn't with the iPhone, it was with an ordinary phone many months after they announced 3G was available.

I live in LA which got 3G around the same time, but it's more spread out so it's harder to tell. Both Verizon and AT&T bragged about their 3G coverage, but both of them still have 2G towers that are alive and well in Culver City, in the heart of west LA. My girlfriend's VZ Blackberry phone says it's on 2G every once in a while, and my iPhone stays on 2G pernamently when I'm at work (which admittedly near a large hill so coverage sucked until AT&T and VZW put a tower literally on the top of our building).

If Verizon says it will be ready in 2010, then they mean certain cities will start getting it rolled out by 2010. It won't be commonplace in those select cities in until mid to late 2010, and it won't be rolled out to a wider group of cities until 2011 or later. The smaller cities that are still on 2G (like where my large university is) won't get it until many years after 2010--they're still on 2G now, though 3G is popping up for both VZW and AT&T. It's the same as the 3G transition, and the same as VZ's FIOS rollout.

Speaking of the FIOS rollout, VZ is stretching the numbers quite a bit on that one. I live in the most densely populated area of west Los Angeles, and they've advertised FIOS for half a year now. But it's so densely populated because it's mostly condos and apartments--there are relatively few houses. VZ claims it reaches the entire area, despite the fact that they haven't rolled out FIOS to apartments or condos yet in west LA. Not really related, but it ticks me off when I get a flier a week saying "FIOS is available in your area!"

[faxthat]

Google [Qualcomm lte] for the other side of this prediction. May be not so fast track.

[StupidGenius]

Originally Posted by yuusharo

I find it funny that so many people want the iPhone on Verizon. I'm no fan of AT&T, but for what its worth, the phone does work well in my area and the data speeds are mostly acceptable (though it can be frustrating at times).

People forget that Verizon is notorious for crippling handsets and their capability. To AT&T's credit, they usually leave the phones they carry alone, only adding a few features they like to tout like mediaNET and such. Verizon is famous for rewriting the phone's OS and limiting/removing much of its functionality. Case in point - RAZR V3M.

I would only want my iPhone on Verizon because of its (slightly) better coverage for my area. But other than that, they're just as bad as AT&T in terms of service and support. The only real advantage of having it on Verizon is it finally gives some competition to AT&T, forcing both companies to improve their networks and pricing for the phone.

Well perhaps they've learned they're lesson on crippling. This article on GIGAOM this morning claims they've inked an agreement with Boingo to use their wifi network.

http://gigaom.com/2009/07/27/suddenl...to-do-with-it/