or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › T-Mobile will be only US carrier to offer 'HD Voice' on Apple's iPhone 5
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

T-Mobile will be only US carrier to offer 'HD Voice' on Apple's iPhone 5

post #1 of 47
Thread Starter 
At a media event announcing its new payment plans and 4G network on Tuesday, T-Mobile was certain to point out that it will be the only U.S. carrier offering high-fidelity voice transmissions with the iPhone 5.

dried


The iPhone will arrive April 12 on T-Mobile's network, along with the iPhone 4S, iPhone 4, and a range of other smartphones. Making the announcement Tuesday, T-Mobile CEO John Legere pointed out that the iPhone 5 will support the carrier's branded "HD Voice" calling ? a feature that T-Mobile took nationwide earlier this year.

HD Voice, T-Mobile says, is a dramatic improvement over current in-call voice quality standards. The feature requires that both parties on a call use a T-Mobile 4G smartphone and be connected to either the carrier's 3G, 4G HSPA+, or 4G LTE network.

Legere, calling the iPhone's appearance on T-Mobile the start of a "long relationship," said that Apple's phone will have access to 50 percent more bandwidth on T-Mobile's network than it will on AT&T. The iPhone 5 on T-Mobile will work across all three layers of the carrier's network, including the 1900MHz spectrum, AWS spectrum, and LTE.

Legere pointed out other benefits he said T-Mobile customers will get. Compared to a two-year contract with AT&T, T-Mobile customers will save $1,000 over the same period, according to Legere.

The iPhone 5 will arrive on T-Mobile's network on April 12 for $99 with 20 additional monthly payments of $20. Apple's iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S will also be available, but only select markets and channels.
post #2 of 47

I'm all for anything that removes the subconscious belief now ingrained in society that hearing someone through a telephone implies lower-quality audio than that which we're hearing otherwise in whatever media we're consuming.

 

But it actually has to be better to do that. It has been almost ONE HUNDRED FORTY YEARS and call quality is still below that of a face to face conversation.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #3 of 47
Translation: T-Mobile will be the only carrier in the United States on which one could make a f---ing voice call.
post #4 of 47

It's too bad their coverage sucks or I'd leave Verizon behind.

post #5 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacManFelix View Post

Translation: T-Mobile will be the only carrier in the United States on which one could make a f---ing voice call.

And they support WiFi voice calling and WiFi TXT when there is poor cell signal.

 

Their coverage map seems broken at the moment but as I recall it is not as widespread as AT&T and Verizon. if you can make WiFi calls that might be enough to offset their lack of cell signal in some areas, although I'm not sure how you would receive a call but maybe you can.

 

Edit: After reading more it only works on some Android phones.


Edited by mstone - 3/26/13 at 9:55am

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #6 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

The feature requires that both parties on a call use a T-Mobile 4G smartphone and be connected to either the carrier's 3G, 4G HSPA+, or 4G LTE network.
 

 

So like pushing higher and higher PPI even though most folks are half blind, this feature will be pointless for most. I feel for the folks at Apple dealing with call quality complaints and having to explain that the whole HQ doesn't work with your mother who is on Verizon etc So long as these are the same phones as the AT&T I'm cool. Boss buys our phones unlocked so we can take them to our studio in Australia no issues


Edited by charlituna - 3/26/13 at 10:24am

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #7 of 47
They're so late to this party, it's not even worth a press release at this point. I stopped using T-Mobile so long ago...

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #8 of 47

I don't believe HD voice is part of the kitchen sink list of features on the Galaxy S4? 

post #9 of 47
1) 50% more bandwidth? Really? Considering they only have 7 cities where LTE will work with the iPhone 5 that seems disingenuous. Now they could mean bandwidth as "a range of frequencies within a given band" instead of the more colloquial data rate but that is doubly disingenuous in this context..

2) Save $1000 over 2 years? Seeing as how the subsidy is much less than other US carriers it seems the only way that can be true is if you are comparing uneven services and access.

3.a) HD Voice is simply ITU-T's G.722.2 standard. It's not new but it is uncommon for mobile network operators to use. It's more commonly used in intranetwork VoIP setups because it does result in a natural sounding voice since it does use the higher and lower range of what the human voice is capable of. Unfortunately, you do need to have this throughout the entire chain.

3.b) What Wikipedia has to say about it is accurate: "Wideband audio is an audio technology used in telephony. It extends the frequency range of audio signals transmitted over telephone lines, resulting in higher quality speech. The range of the human voice extends from 80 Hz to 14 kHz but traditional, voiceband or narrowband telephone calls limit audio frequencies to the range of 300 Hz to 3.4 kHz. Wideband audio relaxes the bandwidth limitation and transmits in the audio frequency range of 50 Hz to 7 kHz or higher."

3.c) I'd like for other carriers to adopt this. It does require more voice overhead as which can slow down speed of the vice traffic but I think people are using voice calls less and I thin the rate at which they have grown out their networks probably means they can support it. It would be nice to get higher quality calls like we had in the analog phone days.
Edited by SolipsismX - 3/26/13 at 10:16am

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #10 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

I don't believe HD voice is part of the kitchen sink list of features on the Galaxy S4? 

I don't think that would have nothing to do with the device. The handset can negotiate a range of voice codecs from the carrier. Plus, if one link in a call doesn't support it the whole thing goes to the weakest encode.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #11 of 47

It's time to end the "minutes" scam, and just do voice over data.

post #12 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I'm all for anything that removes the subconscious belief now ingrained in society that hearing someone through a telephone implies lower-quality audio than that which we're hearing otherwise in whatever media we're consuming.

 

But it actually has to be better to do that. It has been almost ONE HUNDRED FORTY YEARS and call quality is still below that of a face to face conversation.

 

Why would it ever be as good as a face-to-face conversation?   In a live face-to-face conversation, there's no analog to digital conversion, no quantization, no compression, no limited frequency response and unless you're using a video call app, you can't read someone's lips or expression, which actually adds quite a bit to comprehension.   Except in the areas of noise (tape hiss, etc.), audio quality over the years as we've converted to digital media has gotten worse, not better.

 

Even in the ideal situation of a recording studio, in order to get quality as good as a conversation, you need a $3000 microphone, such as a Neumann U87 and that's aside from all the other equipment necessary.

 

That's not the issue.

 

The issue is why can't a phone call sound as good as a web call.     One answer is to look at the cost of the speakers and microphones that we put into smartphones (of any brand).   It's amazing that they work as well as they do.   Another is to look at what happens when you lower bit rates and compress data streams.  

post #13 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifij775 View Post

It's time to end the "minutes" scam, and just do voice over data.

Voice traffic is inherent a different kind of data than the standard data we send. There are additional costs involved to make voice work properly. And while the prices seem exorbitant for you get they are nothing compared to text messaging.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #14 of 47
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post
…no compression, no limited frequency response… …you need a $3000 microphone…

 

That's not the issue.

 

Really? These things aren't the issue? The… core issues aren't the issue? The fact that it still costs that much to get this quality isn't the issue? 


One answer is to look at the cost of the speakers and microphones that we put into smartphones (of any brand). It's amazing that they work as well as they do. Another is to look at what happens when you lower bit rates and compress data streams.  

 

So basically everything that is the issue isn't the issue, except it is.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #15 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacManFelix View Post

Translation: T-Mobile will be the only carrier in the United States on which one could make a f---ing voice call.

Well, we can make f---ing voice calls now, it's just that the quality sucks.  I'm sure the others will do something similar.  Yeah, I've always hated using a cell phone for making calls, that's why I use them only when I need to rather than using them for insignificant calls where all you do for 5 minutes is ask the other person "Can you hear me now?"

 

I remember getting my first cell phone and that was pretty much what people did for most of their phone calls.  I had a friend of mine that always seem to buy a new cell phone every couple of months and he used to call me to test his phone service to see if I could hear him.  It was funny back in the beginning of the cell phone era.

post #16 of 47

I'm on contract with AT&T (I have a plan I like and coverage/speed are good and voice quality is flawless; I'm not recording a Beethoven concert here!). But in 1.5 years when I'm a free man... and T-Mobile has had time to build out their coverage a little more... this sounds good to me! It's absurd that ANY company gets away with charging you for a subsidy after you've already paid off the phone.

 

I like the idea of having 500MB of high-speed coverage (which is just under what I typically use) and than automatically dropping down to 3G but unlimited. If it works that way, I might be OK with the lowest plan they have.

post #17 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

1) 50% more bandwidth? Really? Considering they only have 7 cities where LTE will work with the iPhone 5 that seems disingenuous. Now they could mean bandwidth as "a range of frequencies within a given band" instead of the more colloquial data rate but that is doubly disingenuous in this context..

2) Save $1000 over 2 years? Seeing as how the subsidy is much less than other US carriers it seems the only way that can be true is if you are comparing uneven services and access.

3.a) HD Voice is simply ITU-T's G.722.2 standard. It's not new but it is uncommon for mobile network operators to use. It's more commonly used in intranetwork VoIP setups because it does result in a natural sounding voice since it does use the higher and lower range of what the human voice is capable of. Unfortunately, you do need to have this throughout the entire chain.

3.b) What Wikipedia has to say about it is accurate: "Wideband audio is an audio technology used in telephony. It extends the frequency range of audio signals transmitted over telephone lines, resulting in higher quality speech. The range of the human voice extends from 80 Hz to 14 kHz but traditional, voiceband or narrowband telephone calls limit audio frequencies to the range of 300 Hz to 3.4 kHz. Wideband audio relaxes the bandwidth limitation and transmits in the audio frequency range of 50 Hz to 7 kHz or higher."

3.c) I'd like for other carriers to adopt this. It does require more voice overhead as which can slow down speed of the vice traffic but I think people are using voice calls less and I thin the rate at which they have grown out their networks probably means they can support it. It would be nice to get higher quality calls like we had in the analog phone days.

First, T-Mobile may lack LTE on a grand scale, but it fully supports HSPA+, which is considered 4G. When your data is capped on carriers like AT&T, how fast do you need your data? Watch one steamed movie and you exceeded your cap. 3G is fine for surfing the web, email, and streaming music. HSPA+ is more than great.

Second, the closest comparable plan to T-Mobile's $60 plan on AT&T costs $130, but lacks the hotspot abilities and isn't unlimited.
post #18 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

2) Save $1000 over 2 years? Seeing as how the subsidy is much less than other US carriers it seems the only way that can be true is if you are comparing uneven services and access.
 

 

It's actually a little more than $1000 over 2 years per individual line and that's comparing T-Mobile's unlimited minutes, text and data to ATT's 5GB plan. Don't believe me, T-Mobile or AI? Feel free to set up these plans on the company's websites to see for yourself.

post #19 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

I'm on contract with AT&T (I have a plan I like and coverage/speed are good and voice quality is flawless; I'm not recording a Beethoven concert here!). But in 1.5 years when I'm a free man... and T-Mobile has had time to build out their coverage a little more... this sounds good to me! It's absurd that ANY company gets away with charging you for a subsidy after you've already paid off the phone.

 

I like the idea of having 500MB of high-speed coverage (which is just under what I typically use) and than automatically dropping down to 3G but unlimited. If it works that way, I might be OK with the lowest plan they have.

 

Careful. You drop to edge not 3G. It's sloooow. Still the right choice in my opinion.

post #20 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

And they support WiFi voice calling and WiFi TXT when there is poor cell signal.

 

Their coverage map seems broken at the moment but as I recall it is not as widespread as AT&T and Verizon. if you can make WiFi calls that might be enough to offset their lack of cell signal in some areas, although I'm not sure how you would receive a call but maybe you can.

 

Edit: After reading more it only works on some Android phones.

It works exactly like regular phone service. You can make calls, receive calls, all on Wi-Fi. It even shuts off the cell radio by default when Wi-Fi Calling is being used, to save battery life. It's pretty slick.

post #21 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
 

3.c) I'd like for other carriers to adopt this. It does require more voice overhead as which can slow down speed of the vice traffic but I think people are using voice calls less and I thin the rate at which they have grown out their networks probably means they can support it. It would be nice to get higher quality calls like we had in the analog phone days.

 

If I understand the whole thing correctly this would, if universally adopted, remove the need for voice at all. Perhaps keep it as a back up for emergency calls but everything else could become essentially VoIP. Then move 'texting' to data (AT&T at least has for mms off iPhones) and only a data plan is needed. 

 

Rather like the notion of taking TV digital in the sense that it is just particular data on your broadband and not something unique that needs a second payment

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #22 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I'm all for anything that removes the subconscious belief now ingrained in society that hearing someone through a telephone implies lower-quality audio than that which we're hearing otherwise in whatever media we're consuming.

But it actually has to be better to do that. It has been almost ONE HUNDRED FORTY YEARS and call quality is still below that of a face to face conversation.

The frequency range is limited to allow more conversations. Think of it this way, more small cars can fit on an expressway than big cars.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #23 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

If I understand the whole thing correctly this would, if universally adopted, remove the need for voice at all. Perhaps keep it as a back up for emergency calls but everything else could become essentially VoIP. Then move 'texting' to data (AT&T at least has for mms off iPhones) and only a data plan is needed. 

Rather like the notion of taking TV digital in the sense that it is just particular data on your broadband and not something unique that needs a second payment

Voice, even over IP, is inherently different from all other general data and it costs more to setup and maintain from the lines to the nodes that push all the voice data through. You are essentially changing one type of voice for another. Will there be some cost savings by moving to VoIP? It's quite possible, but don't make the mistake of thinking it's the same effort as pulling up a website or checking your email. There is a lot that goes into VoIP to make it work well. Finally, once we do get that as standard there will be a large time where both will be supported by the carriers. We were well into using 3G coverage the US when the last analog towers went dark.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #24 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by ifij775 View Post

It's time to end the "minutes" scam, and just do voice over data.

Voice traffic is inherent a different kind of data than the standard data we send. There are additional costs involved to make voice work properly. And while the prices seem exorbitant for you get they are nothing compared to text messaging.

But he suggested doing voice over data, i.e. VOIP. That would eliminate all the traditional costs involved to make voice work properly since the traditional way of handling voice traffic would not longer be employed. Now if you know of reasons why VOIP wouldn't be a good switch, let us know. So far as I know, the real issue thus far was the connections were too slow to handle good quality codecs and the network latency sometimes caused issues, i.e. lag/delay in the call. But on decent connections it seems perfectly suitable as a replacement, and LTE seems perfectly capable of resolving the bandwidth and latency issues, unless I'm missing something.
post #25 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

If I understand the whole thing correctly this would, if universally adopted, remove the need for voice at all. Perhaps keep it as a back up for emergency calls but everything else could become essentially VoIP. Then move 'texting' to data (AT&T at least has for mms off iPhones) and only a data plan is needed. 

Rather like the notion of taking TV digital in the sense that it is just particular data on your broadband and not something unique that needs a second payment

Voice, even over IP, is inherently different from all other general data and it costs more to setup and maintain from the lines to the nodes that push all the voice data through. You are essentially changing one type of voice for another. Will there be some cost savings by moving to VoIP? It's quite possible, but don't make the mistake of thinking it's the same effort as pulling up a website or checking your email. There is a lot that goes into VoIP to make it work well. Finally, once we do get that as standard there will be a large time where both will be supported by the carriers. We were well into using 3G coverage the US when the last analog towers went dark.

It looks like as I was posting my other message while you were already responding to the issue raised by another poster. Can you be a little more specific as to what is required to make VOIP work well? Right now it isn't clear to me that VOIP packets gets any sort of priority and it seems to work perfectly fine on most decent broadband connections and even on all the LTE networks I've tested. Sure, if they completely switched, it would probably involve ensuring the VOIP packets get priority over all the rest of our data transfers, but why should that be expensive to implement? At any rate, it isn't clear it would be remotely close to the costs involved with the traditional model.
post #26 of 47
Tmobile still has a long way to go. I've been with them on my iPhone 4S since last October and I only get 1g and 2g speeds in most areas here in sacramento, which is a large/ major city. I can't even stream pandora as I'm driving. I know they are supposed to complete their transition by the end of this year, but I feel I should be refunded part of my service for having such unbearably slow speeds when t is advertised as "up to 4g let" speeds.
post #27 of 47
Fine. Just show us more Carly Foulkes in your ads.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #28 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post

It looks like as I was posting my other message while you were already responding to the issue raised by another poster. Can you be a little more specific as to what is required to make VOIP work well? Right now it isn't clear to me that VOIP packets gets any sort of priority and it seems to work perfectly fine on most decent broadband connections and even on all the LTE networks I've tested. Sure, if they completely switched, it would probably involve ensuring the VOIP packets get priority over all the rest of our data transfers, but why should that be expensive to implement? At any rate, it isn't clear it would be remotely close to the costs involved with the traditional model.

In this forum via my iPhone I really can't go into detail about VoIP if your starting point is all HTTP, FTP, and all other data over IP is dealt with the same as voice when all of use should realize that voice can't be late or reassembled out of order with a delay and still be useful. If think everyone would realize how much of a poor effect even a fraction of a second in delivery can have when watching the news report with a satellite hook up.

Bottom line: There are reasons why the codecs strip so much to make the voice packets small, why they use UDP to make the overhead lower overhead, and use QoS (priority) to ensure voice packets arrive as instantaneous as possible. There is a whole industry just around voice. It's complex stuff. If regular data is a sledgehammer voice traffic is a sonic screwdriver*.



* Not a great analogy, just wanted to use a Doctor Who reference.
Edited by SolipsismX - 3/26/13 at 11:19am

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #29 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by NexusPhan View Post

 

Careful. You drop to edge not 3G. It's sloooow. Still the right choice in my opinion.

Incorrect- after reaching your data limit it doesn't even drop to Edge- it drops to 2g (slower than edge and confirmed by a Tmobile customer service rep a few months ago)

So instead of sloooow its sloooooooooooooow.

post #30 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post

Incorrect- after reaching your data limit it doesn't even drop to Edge- it drops to 2g (slower than edge and confirmed by a Tmobile customer service rep a few months ago)

So instead of sloooow its sloooooooooooooow.

 

Edge does not equal 2G? That's what I meant. I guess I'm too young to know the likes of 2G :) Thanks for the clarification!

post #31 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by NexusPhan View Post

Edge does not equal 2G? That's what I meant. I guess I'm too young to know the likes of 2G 1smile.gif Thanks for the clarification!

No, EDGE data is considered '2G' GSM data. it's also part of the 3GSM/3GPP '3G' standard and came out after the original '2G' but it's squarely in the '2G' family of GSM. There is also GPRS which is older, which he might be referring. There is no simple, easily traversable chart that builds these generations YoY like with the iPod or something similar. These are complex standards being created one decade and adopted widely the next or some odd connotation. It's really just a mess.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #32 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by NexusPhan View Post

 

Edge does not equal 2G? That's what I meant. I guess I'm too young to know the likes of 2G :) Thanks for the clarification!

 

Edge is considered 2.75G. Wikipedia although not always 100% truth, you can at least get this gist of it.

post #33 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewyboy View Post

Edge is considered 2.75G. Wikipedia although not always 100% truth, you can at least get this gist of it.

I don't know who started this decimal fraction of these generational numbers referring to the base standard but I want to punch them in the face. Cellular technology is already complex enough without people saying such-and-such isn't x-gen but x.xx-gen. I imagine it came about as a way to describe how it came after the initial standard was created but that doesn't mean we start calling the whole thing something different. Do we refer to 802.11n as 802.11.n.5? No, so why call EDGE 2.5, 2.75, 2.8, 2.9 or any of the other odd choices that have been chosen based on a wide range of criteria from data rate to time introduced at GRPS to the time introduced before UMTS? It all just obfuscates the facts.

On top of that, as we've seen from the ITU-R and their definition of '4G' they can move the goal posts whenever the want and for any reason, like it not being adopted fast enough. Oops! Why don't we just stick with the technological facts of what the technologies do, what they offer in terms of speed, their pros, cons, and any other hard data that make them a good or bad choice compared to competing technologies. This is a tech forum, right?


PS: As I've stated many times before I'd like to see a system adopted that is much easier for the end user to understand. This would be akin to how OC (optical carrier) lines increase. They start at OC-1 at 51.84Mbps and you add 51.84 to get to OC-2, another 51.84 for OC-3, and so on. For cellular tech I recommend a rounding and stepping of 10MBps. That means 42Mbps LTE would show up on your phone as being x4 (or x4.2). HSDPA that is connected at 14MBps would be x1.4. I know that right now going in increments of 1MBps would be cleaner but these things aren't implemented overnight and we'll be well into the 100's before anyone with a similar idea could make it happen.
Edited by SolipsismX - 3/26/13 at 11:51am

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #34 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifij775 View Post

It's time to end the "minutes" scam, and just do voice over data.

Since all the T-Mobile plans now include unlimited voice minutes and text, I would not really call it a "scam"

post #35 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Voice traffic is inherent a different kind of data than the standard data we send. There are additional costs involved to make voice work properly. And while the prices seem exorbitant for you get they are nothing compared to text messaging.

 

Correct. It won't be until LTE Advanced (aka the original definition of 4G) that networks will be 100% packet-switched. Only then will we see voice calls being treated like data.

post #36 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Really? These things aren't the issue? The… core issues aren't the issue? The fact that it still costs that much to get this quality isn't the issue? 

 

So basically everything that is the issue isn't the issue, except it is.

The other poster was right:  expecting the same audio quality over these devices as face-to-face conversation is a fairy tale for all of the reasons he mentioned.  He was saying that that expectation isn't the issue, so he posed another one:  why can't we enjoy the same audio quality over voice calls as we can via the web... even on the same device.  The technical obstacles to quality are similar in both cases.

 

Thompson

post #37 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Voice traffic is inherent a different kind of data than the standard data we send. There are additional costs involved to make voice work properly. And while the prices seem exorbitant for you get they are nothing compared to text messaging.

Agreed. But is the pure voice tech still required? Or wouldn't it be simpler to switch completely over to voice over data?
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, my opinion, man.
Reply
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, my opinion, man.
Reply
post #38 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post

The other poster was right:  expecting the same audio quality over these devices as face-to-face conversation is a fairy tale for all of the reasons he mentioned.  He was saying that that expectation isn't the issue, so he posed another one:  why can't we enjoy the same audio quality over voice calls as we can via the web... even on the same device.  The technical obstacles to quality are similar in both cases.

Thompson

Actually, I was able to use the "HD" voice for some time and it was like seeing a HD movie in the cinema for the first time. Like the pictures seemed "unnatural" as you're used to the less sharp pictures the call was "unnatural" as there was a complete absence if the usual hiss in the background (so real silence when no one speaks) as well as a very unexpected sound quality of the speech really close to talking to someone in front of you.
As CDs once largely supplanted vinyl and some called on the lack of the "warm" sound including the noises due to scratches etc I feel the above mentioned examples fall into the same category and in the end technology just advances. Another example is the discussion here on the iTV where it was mentioned that no one actually asked for higher def tv other than nerds. Well, I guess following this approach I'm not sure we would already have left the trees and live in houses right now :-)
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, my opinion, man.
Reply
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, my opinion, man.
Reply
post #39 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by WonkoTheSane View Post

Agreed. But is the pure voice tech still required? Or wouldn't it be simpler to switch completely over to voice over data?

It'll still be required for 1) phones that don't support VoIP, and 2) on phones where they aren't connected to networks that support VoIP. I'd estimate we're a good couple decades out before that's completely replaced with VoIP across the US, and even then there might be a reason to maintain it. Consider how long analog phones and networks still existed after digital first appeared.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #40 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

It'll still be required for 1) phones that don't support VoIP, and 2) on phones where they aren't connected to networks that support VoIP. I'd estimate we're a good couple decades out before that's completely replaced with VoIP across the US, and even then there might be a reason to maintain it. Consider how long analog phones and networks still existed after digital first appeared.

Thanks. Hm. I'm surprised. I thought all phones/services that support data would implicitly support VoIP so at least for those this could be established right away. But maybe that causes too many issues while there are this those out there that require current tech.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, my opinion, man.
Reply
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, my opinion, man.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • T-Mobile will be only US carrier to offer 'HD Voice' on Apple's iPhone 5
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › T-Mobile will be only US carrier to offer 'HD Voice' on Apple's iPhone 5