I doubt either of these generalizations are true at this point. This is ten years later, and after so many mergers mobile phone usage is not regional anymore.
Anecdotally, the far majority of my friends who live in the south use Sprint, because its cheap. Here in NYC, its pretty evenly divided between AT&T and Verizon. But then, many people have iPhone's and Blackberry Bold's so I'm being pretty generous to Verizon.
To this date, American Idol winners continue to be dominated by country music type singers. That is a far more concrete evidence than just saying oh my friends from the south use this and that, my friends on the east coast use this and that....
No its not. I'm not sure how you are finding American Idol votes as an equal cross section of mobile phone users. That is limited to a specific demographic and age group.
I agree my example is not all encompassing either. But my point is that most people in the south don't use AT&T, its an expensive service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
To this date, American Idol winners continue to be dominated by country music type singers. That is a far more concrete evidence than just saying oh my friends from the south use this and that, my friends on the east coast use this and that....
No its not. I'm not sure how you are finding American Idol votes as an equal cross section of mobile phone users. That is limited to a specific demographic and age group.
I agree my example is not all encompassing either. But my point is that most people in the south don't use AT&T, its an expensive service.
I wasn't the one who is saying it. The theory has been around for many many years now.
People in the south will more likely than not pick AT&T (than your Sprint example) because they can triple/quad bundle with DSL package. And people in NYC are going to quad bundle with FIOS on Verizon.
And the specific demographic age group that votes on American Idols are the younger crowd --- precisely the same age group that buys a smartphone.
The speed and reach of 3G service has been the centerpiece of advertising in the marketplace for “smartphones” for more than a year. (See Saracino Decl. ¶ 9.) During that time, neither AT&T nor any other competitor has suggested that “1G,” “2G,” or “2.5G” service were adequate substitutes for 3G service. (See id.) In fact, AT&T has been one of the loudest voices in this advertising battle, spending many millions of dollars to market its 3G network as the “Nation’s Fastest 3G Network” and, with its exclusive partner Apple, naming the latest iPhone (only available on AT&T’s network) the “iPhone 3GS.”
The speed and reach of 3G service has been the centerpiece of advertising in the marketplace for ?smartphones? for more than a year. (See Saracino Decl. ¶ 9.) During that time, neither AT&T nor any other competitor has suggested that ?1G,? ?2G,? or ?2.5G? service were adequate substitutes for 3G service. (See id.) In fact, AT&T has been one of the loudest voices in this advertising battle, spending many millions of dollars to market its 3G network as the ?Nation?s Fastest 3G Network? and, with its exclusive partner Apple, naming the latest iPhone (only available on AT&T?s network) the ?iPhone 3GS.?
Live by the term, die by the term.
We agree on something for once.
AT&T did this to themselves. The are simply being petty with this groundless lawsuit and should be advertising the benefits of an HSPA network has over EVDO. I fully expect AT&T to lose this case.
Yes Verizon did not want a phone it could not control.
Are you serious?
It will take some years for VZ to get LTE in a viable position for people to actually use. AT&T's HDPA network will keep getting faster, while VZ will have an aging EVDO network and a immature LTE network.
That is because AT&T has HDPA and has no need to rush LTE like VZ does.
VZ currently has no LTE infrastructure and its roll out will not be quick.
VZ has been working on its LTE infrastructure and is EONS ahead of ATT. As a matter of fact, its already been tested and approved to launch in 30+ markets by mid to late year.
Yes that is the reason AT&T adds over a million iPhone users each quarter, because the iPhone is slow and does not work.
Actually, the phone does work and works very well (considering its limited geographic network coverage
The CDMA phone is just a rumor, the rest of what you're saying makes no sense.
There will be no 4G phones next year. These things don't happen that quickly.
Actually, you're wrong. There will be a 4G phone next year - which is the point of rolling out 4G.
What you don't understand is that LTE is designed to be an evolution from HDPA. The network that AT&T uses for them it will be a smooth transition. LTE is not designed to be an evolution from CDMA, that is the reason VZ has to begin to work with it because it may not be a smooth transition.
Yet, somewhat correct. However the same principle used in world edition blackberries sold on VZ's network is likely to be used to be able to convert from EVDO to LTE. If blackberries are already using the same type of technology to switch, why would it be so difficult?
You really don't understand how this all works.
Don't write responses to comments made by others, when in fact you are in the same position. It appears you, too, don't know. Lesson Learned! Please notice my responses in red.
VZ has been working on its LTE infrastructure and is EONS ahead of ATT. As a matter of fact, its already been tested and approved to launch in 30+ markets by mid to late year.
Actually, the phone does work and works very well (considering its limited geographic network coverage
Actually, you're wrong. There will be a 4G phone next year - which is the point of rolling out 4G.
Yet, somewhat correct. However the same principle used in world edition blackberries sold on VZ's network is likely to be used to be able to convert from EVDO to LTE. If blackberries are already using the same type of technology to switch, why would it be so difficult?
Don't write responses to comments made by others, when in fact you are in the same position. It appears you, too, don't know. Lesson Learned! Please notice my responses in red.
So you are so sure there will be a 4G phone next year despite having no infrastructure for 4G set up and having no LTE USB data cards on their network, historically the first devices to utilize the faster data on networks. So phones are these? If they are using LTE radios that can fit into modern phones then you must know who is making them and what radios they are using. 2010 starts in 40 days.
The fact that NTT DoCoMo won?t have LTE phones until 2011 doesn?t make you think that LTE phones aren?t as close as you think? That data cards will come first due to chip size, cost and power requirements? Or the fact that a real LTE infrastructure needs to be set up over a good portion of your network before you can actually start offering devices that and services that consumers can effectively utilize?
VZ has been working on its LTE infrastructure and is EONS ahead of ATT. As a matter of fact, its already been tested and approved to launch in 30+ markets by mid to late year.
VZW is working on LTE because it cannot evolve to 4G the same way AT&T and the rest of the worlds GSM networks are able to.
Quote:
Actually, the phone does work and works very well (considering its limited geographic network coverage
That was sarcasm.
Quote:
Actually, you're wrong. There will be a 4G phone next year - which is the point of rolling out 4G.
Lets check back on this next year.
Quote:
Yet, somewhat correct. However the same principle used in world edition blackberries sold on VZ's network is likely to be used to be able to convert from EVDO to LTE. If blackberries are already using the same type of technology to switch, why would it be so difficult?
I'm not saying its difficult. I'm saying its a lot of work and won't happen as quickly as many here seem to think it will. 30 markets is far smaller than AT&T's 3G coverage that VZW is making light of.
VZW is working on LTE because it cannot evolve to 4G the same way AT&T and the rest of the worlds GSM networks are able to.
Qualcomm is the largest patent holder for LTE, so I don't expect VZW's "difficulty" in LTE transition is the main reason why VZW is working on it earlier than AT&T.
VZW is working on LTE early because they think that they can make a lot of money on it and because they are spending Vodafone's money on capex. VZW hasn't paid a single cent in dividend to Vodafone since 2005 and won't start paying out dividends until at least 2011.
Qualcomm is the largest patent holder for LTE, so I don't expect VZW's "difficulty" in LTE transition is the main reason why VZW is working on it earlier than AT&T.
VZW is working on LTE early because they think that they can make a lot of money on it and because they are spending Vodafone's money on capex. VZW hasn't paid a single cent in dividend to Vodafone since 2005 and won't start paying out dividends until at least 2011.
Don?t try to spin LTE as some insightful idea on Verizon?s part. They are working on it because they have reached a dead end with EVDO. Sprint already made their choice for 4G a couple years prior.
Everyone else has awhile to wait while LTE actually matures because while HSPA is well established and mature it has a long way to go before it reaches the end of its tether. AT&T will likely be offering HSPA phones that are faster than LTE phones for sometime. By the time AT&T is ready for LTE they?ll be able to make a more natural switch, unlike the one Verizon is making.
Don?t try to spin LTE as some insightful idea on Verizon?s part. They are working on it because they have reached a dead end with EVDO. Sprint already made their choice for 4G a couple years prior.
Everyone else has awhile to wait while LTE actually matures because while HSPA is well established and mature it has a long way to go before it reaches the end of its tether. AT&T will likely be offering HSPA phones that are faster than LTE phones for sometime. By the time AT&T is ready for LTE they?ll be able to make a more natural switch, unlike the one Verizon is making.
It's not really a dead end because South Korean carriers are doing ev-do rev B upgrades --- which VZW didn't want to. Sprint's choice of wimax is a dead end.
It has nothing to do with waithng for LTE to mature. It has everything to do with whether Verizon thinks that they can make money on it. When VZW announced their ev-do national wide launch plans (6-7 years ago), none of the other American carriers were announcing anything like it. Cingular had zero 3G plans back then. AT&T Wireless (not Cingular) had a 6 city 3G rollout plan --- not because they wanted to do it, but because they HAD to do it according to their agreement with DoCoMo (in exchange to DoCoMo investing in AT&T Wireless).
That's the history lesson. Nobody put a gun on Verizon's head to deploy ev-do back in 2002, nobody put a gun on Verizon's head to spend $22+ billion on FIOS, and nobody is putting a gun on Verizon's head to be the first carrier to launch LTE.
It's not really a dead end because South Korean carriers are doing ev-do rev B upgrades --- which VZW didn't want to. Sprint's choice of wimax is a dead end.
It has nothing to do with waithng for LTE to mature. It has everything to do with whether Verizon thinks that they can make money on it. When VZW announced their ev-do national wide launch plans (6-7 years ago), none of the other American carriers were announcing anything like it. Cingular had zero 3G plans back then. AT&T Wireless (not Cingular) had a 6 city 3G rollout plan --- not because they wanted to do it, but because they HAD to do it according to their agreement with DoCoMo (in exchange to DoCoMo investing in AT&T Wireless).
That's the history lesson. Nobody put a gun on Verizon's head to deploy ev-do back in 2002, nobody put a gun on Verizon's head to spend $22+ billion on FIOS, and nobody is putting a gun on Verizon's head to be the first carrier to launch LTE.
And what?s planned after Rev. B? Exactly. Verizon nor Sprint were going to waste the money on a dead end tech. Oh yeah, the only Korean carrier with EVDO is LG Telecom with the lowest number of users on a relatively small country. They may not even have the option to upgrade to HSPA or LTE at this point. I seem to recall something about the gov?t cancelation it on them, but it?s been too long to recall for sure.
Verizon needs LTE fast or they are going to losing to mindshare and marketshare. AT&T is moving to 850MHz and adding more 3G towers and bandwidth thus making their more stable and consistent while Verizon has a network infrastructure that has comparatively slow data and simultaneous voice and data. I won?t even mention their handset issues. LTE is still very new and there will no LTE phones on Verizon?s network in 2010. Count yourself lucky to even get data cards.
And what?s planned after Rev. B? Exactly. Verizon nor Sprint were going to waste the money on a dead end tech. Oh yeah, the only Korean carrier with EVDO is LG Telecom with the lowest number of users on a relatively small country. They may not even have the option to upgrade to HSPA or LTE at this point. I seem to recall something about the gov?t cancelation it on them, but it?s been too long to recall for sure.
Verizon needs LTE fast or they are going to losing to mindshare and marketshare. AT&T is moving to 850MHz and adding more 3G towers and bandwidth thus making their more stable and consistent while Verizon has a network infrastructure that has comparatively slow data and simultaneous voice and data. I won?t even mention their handset issues. LTE is still very new and there will no LTE phones on Verizon?s network in 2010. Count yourself lucky to even get data cards.
Except that if you compare ev-do rev B to wimax --- they have the same "dead end" issue. So you arguing Sprint adopting wimax instead of ev-do rev B because of ev-do's dead endness makes zero sense.
If VZW needs to compete with AT&T's HSPA network in the short term --- VZW could have upgraded to ev-do rev B. Comparatively slow data --- means a couple of hundred kbps slower, you can't notice it in the real world.
There are plenty of real evidence that support my arguments --- Verizon is doing things because they think they can make money on it. You don't have to agree with Verizon's reasons --- for example whether spending $22 billion on FIOS is really worth it.
Somehow, you make it sound like it's AT&T pushing Verizon to do certain things --- but the fact is that Verizon was a first mover in nationalwide 3G deployment in 2002, first mover in FTTH, and first mover in LTE in the US.
Except that if you compare ev-do rev B to wimax --- they have the same "dead end" issue. So you arguing Sprint adopting wimax instead of ev-do rev B because of ev-do's dead endness makes zero sense.
WiMAX is a dead end tech. Sprint was foolish, but the data rates of WiMAX are much greater than EVDO so it?s not hard to see why it?s a step up.
Quote:
Somehow, you make it sound like it's AT&T pushing Verizon to do certain things --- but the fact is that Verizon was a first mover in nationalwide 3G deployment in 2002, first mover in FTTH, and first mover in LTE in the US.
Verizon is pushing itself to adopt LTE because they have no choice. It?s not financially viable to upgrade to Rev. B just to have to spend a billions more before you even complete the upgrade to move to LTE. Rev. B as a stop gap is not a financially viable move for Verizon. AT&T, T-Mobile USA and most of the world can ease into LTE much later because they don?t have the same limitations that Verizon and Sprint have. It?s really that simple.
You can spin it all you want to say that Verizon is better because they are moving to LTE before AT&T but the fact of the matter is they little choice in the matter. Even if they moved to Rev. B they?d still have to upgrade to LTE before any WCDMA network operator is required to.
WiMAX is a dead end tech. Sprint was foolish, but the data rates of WiMAX are much greater than EVDO so it?s not hard to see why it?s a step up.
Verizon is pushing itself to adopt LTE because they have no choice. It?s not financially viable to upgrade to Rev. B just to have to spend a billions more before you even complete the upgrade to move to LTE. Rev. B as a stop gap is not a financially viable move for Verizon. AT&T, T-Mobile USA and most of the world can ease into LTE much later because they don?t have the same limitations that Verizon and Sprint have. It?s really that simple.
You can spin it all you want to say that Verizon is better because they are moving to LTE before AT&T but the fact of the matter is they little choice in the matter. Even if they moved to Rev. B they?d still have to upgrade to LTE before any WCDMA network operator is required to.
If it's a dead end technology, then it's a dead end technology. You said it yourself, Sprint was foolish --- but you made Sprint's 4G migration as one of your central argument.
Why is ev-do rev B financially not viable --- ev-do is a SIMPLE upgrade of bonding 3 ev-do channels together. This is like bonding 2 54G channels together and selling the stuff as 108 mbps.
You keep on saying Verizon is somehow pressured to do it --- yet there is no massive outcry saying that Verizon's network is too damn slow. You can spin it everyway you want, but at the present time, AT&T is on average a couple hundred kbps faster than Verizon --- but it is somehow according to you --- forcing Verizon to deploy 4G right now. The only outcry is the iphone users complaining --- so AT&T should be the one that is deploying 4G right now.
. The only outcry is the iphone users complaining --- so AT&T should be the one that is deploying 4G right now.
Well ATT should just deploy their 3G network better. IF they deployed it as effectively as Verizon has deployed their 3g network then the landscape would look really different IMO. My iPhone is a completely different device in Florida where ATT's network doesn't suck hard. It also worked smooth as butter in Atlanta this summer.
Verizon has the weaker technology but they've deployed it effectively and are getting the most out of it. ATT have the better technology and have yet to really leverage that advantage. Its pretty stupefying to me that ATT haven't gotten their network working better in New York and San Fran in particular. Are there more tech savvy markets with users that have such high incomes elsewhere?
Well ATT should just deploy their 3G network better. IF they deployed it as effectively as Verizon has deployed their 3g network then the landscape would look really different IMO. My iPhone is a completely different device in Florida where ATT's network doesn't suck hard. It also worked smooth as butter in Atlanta this summer.
Verizon has the weaker technology but they've deployed it effectively and are getting the most out of it. ATT have the better technology and have yet to really leverage that advantage. Its pretty stupefying to me that ATT haven't gotten their network working better in New York and San Fran in particular. Are there more tech savvy markets with users that have such high incomes elsewhere?
I don't agree that somehow EV-DO is a "weaker" technology.
VZW is giving you an average 3G speed of 600-1400 kbps on a 1.5 MHz channel. AT&T is giving you an average 3g speed of 700-1700 kbps on a 5 MHz channel.
By designing ev-do to use a smaller channel --- it is effectively a stronger and better technology for carriers in big cities where population density is high, and spectrum is super expensive.
I don't agree that somehow EV-DO is a "weaker" technology.
VZW is giving you an average 3G speed of 600-1400 kbps on a 1.5 MHz channel. AT&T is giving you an average 3g speed of 700-1700 kbps on a 5 MHz channel.
By designing ev-do to use a smaller channel --- it is effectively a stronger and better technology for carriers in big cities where population density is high, and spectrum is super expensive.
AT&T has simultaneous voice and data due to their choice. They also currently have a theoretical maxim of 84.4Mbps down and 42Mbps up. How you can say that Verizon's choice is stronger makes no sense. The fact that they and Sprint are moving to 4G while WCDMA-based networks have a nice healthy roadmap ahead of them should be a clear indicator. Now, if you said that Verizon's 3G network is larger and more stable then I think we would all agree with you, but technologically EVDO is quite inferior to HSPA.
I don't agree that somehow EV-DO is a "weaker" technology.
VZW is giving you an average 3G speed of 600-1400 kbps on a 1.5 MHz channel. AT&T is giving you an average 3g speed of 700-1700 kbps on a 5 MHz channel.
By designing ev-do to use a smaller channel --- it is effectively a stronger and better technology for carriers in big cities where population density is high, and spectrum is super expensive.
With HSDPA, ATT could deliver bandwidth that VZ couldn't match with EVDO.
AT&T has simultaneous voice and data due to their choice. They also currently have a theoretical maxim of 84.4Mbps down and 42Mbps up. How you can say that Verizon's choice is stronger makes no sense. The fact that they and Sprint are moving to 4G while WCDMA-based networks have a nice healthy roadmap ahead of them should be a clear indicator. Now, if you said that Verizon's 3G network is larger and more stable then I think we would all agree with you, but technologically EVDO is quite inferior to HSPA.
LTE is designed solely as a data network --- no voice in the LTE spec --- does it make it a weaker technology? A 4G network without legacy voice is a stronger technology. EV-DO migrated towards this set-up a generation early.
Theoretical numbers means nothing.
Spectrum is expensive. If you have only 12 MHz of spectrum space, HSDPA will be wasting 2 MHz of spectrum because they can only do 5 MHz up and 5 MHz down. If you have the same 12 MHz of spectrum space, EV-DO can fully use the whole 12 MHz space (8 x 1.5 MHz).
Comments
I doubt either of these generalizations are true at this point. This is ten years later, and after so many mergers mobile phone usage is not regional anymore.
Anecdotally, the far majority of my friends who live in the south use Sprint, because its cheap. Here in NYC, its pretty evenly divided between AT&T and Verizon. But then, many people have iPhone's and Blackberry Bold's so I'm being pretty generous to Verizon.
To this date, American Idol winners continue to be dominated by country music type singers. That is a far more concrete evidence than just saying oh my friends from the south use this and that, my friends on the east coast use this and that....
I agree my example is not all encompassing either. But my point is that most people in the south don't use AT&T, its an expensive service.
To this date, American Idol winners continue to be dominated by country music type singers. That is a far more concrete evidence than just saying oh my friends from the south use this and that, my friends on the east coast use this and that....
No its not. I'm not sure how you are finding American Idol votes as an equal cross section of mobile phone users. That is limited to a specific demographic and age group.
I agree my example is not all encompassing either. But my point is that most people in the south don't use AT&T, its an expensive service.
I wasn't the one who is saying it. The theory has been around for many many years now.
http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2006/0...-idol-results/
People in the south will more likely than not pick AT&T (than your Sprint example) because they can triple/quad bundle with DSL package. And people in NYC are going to quad bundle with FIOS on Verizon.
And the specific demographic age group that votes on American Idols are the younger crowd --- precisely the same age group that buys a smartphone.
I liked this part in the response....
The speed and reach of 3G service has been the centerpiece of advertising in the marketplace for “smartphones” for more than a year. (See Saracino Decl. ¶ 9.) During that time, neither AT&T nor any other competitor has suggested that “1G,” “2G,” or “2.5G” service were adequate substitutes for 3G service. (See id.) In fact, AT&T has been one of the loudest voices in this advertising battle, spending many millions of dollars to market its 3G network as the “Nation’s Fastest 3G Network” and, with its exclusive partner Apple, naming the latest iPhone (only available on AT&T’s network) the “iPhone 3GS.”
Live by the term, die by the term.
In the meantime..... Verizon responds to the AT&T lawsuit and it basically boils down to... truth hurts.
I liked this part in the response....
The speed and reach of 3G service has been the centerpiece of advertising in the marketplace for ?smartphones? for more than a year. (See Saracino Decl. ¶ 9.) During that time, neither AT&T nor any other competitor has suggested that ?1G,? ?2G,? or ?2.5G? service were adequate substitutes for 3G service. (See id.) In fact, AT&T has been one of the loudest voices in this advertising battle, spending many millions of dollars to market its 3G network as the ?Nation?s Fastest 3G Network? and, with its exclusive partner Apple, naming the latest iPhone (only available on AT&T?s network) the ?iPhone 3GS.?
Live by the term, die by the term.
We agree on something for once.
AT&T did this to themselves. The are simply being petty with this groundless lawsuit and should be advertising the benefits of an HSPA network has over EVDO. I fully expect AT&T to lose this case.
Yes Verizon did not want a phone it could not control.
Are you serious?
It will take some years for VZ to get LTE in a viable position for people to actually use. AT&T's HDPA network will keep getting faster, while VZ will have an aging EVDO network and a immature LTE network.
That is because AT&T has HDPA and has no need to rush LTE like VZ does.
VZ currently has no LTE infrastructure and its roll out will not be quick.
VZ has been working on its LTE infrastructure and is EONS ahead of ATT. As a matter of fact, its already been tested and approved to launch in 30+ markets by mid to late year.
Yes that is the reason AT&T adds over a million iPhone users each quarter, because the iPhone is slow and does not work.
Actually, the phone does work and works very well (considering its limited geographic network coverage
The CDMA phone is just a rumor, the rest of what you're saying makes no sense.
There will be no 4G phones next year. These things don't happen that quickly.
Actually, you're wrong. There will be a 4G phone next year - which is the point of rolling out 4G.
What you don't understand is that LTE is designed to be an evolution from HDPA. The network that AT&T uses for them it will be a smooth transition. LTE is not designed to be an evolution from CDMA, that is the reason VZ has to begin to work with it because it may not be a smooth transition.
Yet, somewhat correct. However the same principle used in world edition blackberries sold on VZ's network is likely to be used to be able to convert from EVDO to LTE. If blackberries are already using the same type of technology to switch, why would it be so difficult?
You really don't understand how this all works.
Don't write responses to comments made by others, when in fact you are in the same position. It appears you, too, don't know. Lesson Learned! Please notice my responses in red.
VZ has been working on its LTE infrastructure and is EONS ahead of ATT. As a matter of fact, its already been tested and approved to launch in 30+ markets by mid to late year.
Actually, the phone does work and works very well (considering its limited geographic network coverage
Actually, you're wrong. There will be a 4G phone next year - which is the point of rolling out 4G.
Yet, somewhat correct. However the same principle used in world edition blackberries sold on VZ's network is likely to be used to be able to convert from EVDO to LTE. If blackberries are already using the same type of technology to switch, why would it be so difficult?
Don't write responses to comments made by others, when in fact you are in the same position. It appears you, too, don't know. Lesson Learned! Please notice my responses in red.
So you are so sure there will be a 4G phone next year despite having no infrastructure for 4G set up and having no LTE USB data cards on their network, historically the first devices to utilize the faster data on networks. So phones are these? If they are using LTE radios that can fit into modern phones then you must know who is making them and what radios they are using. 2010 starts in 40 days.
The fact that NTT DoCoMo won?t have LTE phones until 2011 doesn?t make you think that LTE phones aren?t as close as you think? That data cards will come first due to chip size, cost and power requirements? Or the fact that a real LTE infrastructure needs to be set up over a good portion of your network before you can actually start offering devices that and services that consumers can effectively utilize?
VZ has been working on its LTE infrastructure and is EONS ahead of ATT. As a matter of fact, its already been tested and approved to launch in 30+ markets by mid to late year.
VZW is working on LTE because it cannot evolve to 4G the same way AT&T and the rest of the worlds GSM networks are able to.
Actually, the phone does work and works very well (considering its limited geographic network coverage
That was sarcasm.
Actually, you're wrong. There will be a 4G phone next year - which is the point of rolling out 4G.
Lets check back on this next year.
Yet, somewhat correct. However the same principle used in world edition blackberries sold on VZ's network is likely to be used to be able to convert from EVDO to LTE. If blackberries are already using the same type of technology to switch, why would it be so difficult?
I'm not saying its difficult. I'm saying its a lot of work and won't happen as quickly as many here seem to think it will. 30 markets is far smaller than AT&T's 3G coverage that VZW is making light of.
VZW is working on LTE because it cannot evolve to 4G the same way AT&T and the rest of the worlds GSM networks are able to.
Qualcomm is the largest patent holder for LTE, so I don't expect VZW's "difficulty" in LTE transition is the main reason why VZW is working on it earlier than AT&T.
VZW is working on LTE early because they think that they can make a lot of money on it and because they are spending Vodafone's money on capex. VZW hasn't paid a single cent in dividend to Vodafone since 2005 and won't start paying out dividends until at least 2011.
Qualcomm is the largest patent holder for LTE, so I don't expect VZW's "difficulty" in LTE transition is the main reason why VZW is working on it earlier than AT&T.
VZW is working on LTE early because they think that they can make a lot of money on it and because they are spending Vodafone's money on capex. VZW hasn't paid a single cent in dividend to Vodafone since 2005 and won't start paying out dividends until at least 2011.
Don?t try to spin LTE as some insightful idea on Verizon?s part. They are working on it because they have reached a dead end with EVDO. Sprint already made their choice for 4G a couple years prior.
Everyone else has awhile to wait while LTE actually matures because while HSPA is well established and mature it has a long way to go before it reaches the end of its tether. AT&T will likely be offering HSPA phones that are faster than LTE phones for sometime. By the time AT&T is ready for LTE they?ll be able to make a more natural switch, unlike the one Verizon is making.
Don?t try to spin LTE as some insightful idea on Verizon?s part. They are working on it because they have reached a dead end with EVDO. Sprint already made their choice for 4G a couple years prior.
Everyone else has awhile to wait while LTE actually matures because while HSPA is well established and mature it has a long way to go before it reaches the end of its tether. AT&T will likely be offering HSPA phones that are faster than LTE phones for sometime. By the time AT&T is ready for LTE they?ll be able to make a more natural switch, unlike the one Verizon is making.
It's not really a dead end because South Korean carriers are doing ev-do rev B upgrades --- which VZW didn't want to. Sprint's choice of wimax is a dead end.
It has nothing to do with waithng for LTE to mature. It has everything to do with whether Verizon thinks that they can make money on it. When VZW announced their ev-do national wide launch plans (6-7 years ago), none of the other American carriers were announcing anything like it. Cingular had zero 3G plans back then. AT&T Wireless (not Cingular) had a 6 city 3G rollout plan --- not because they wanted to do it, but because they HAD to do it according to their agreement with DoCoMo (in exchange to DoCoMo investing in AT&T Wireless).
That's the history lesson. Nobody put a gun on Verizon's head to deploy ev-do back in 2002, nobody put a gun on Verizon's head to spend $22+ billion on FIOS, and nobody is putting a gun on Verizon's head to be the first carrier to launch LTE.
It's not really a dead end because South Korean carriers are doing ev-do rev B upgrades --- which VZW didn't want to. Sprint's choice of wimax is a dead end.
It has nothing to do with waithng for LTE to mature. It has everything to do with whether Verizon thinks that they can make money on it. When VZW announced their ev-do national wide launch plans (6-7 years ago), none of the other American carriers were announcing anything like it. Cingular had zero 3G plans back then. AT&T Wireless (not Cingular) had a 6 city 3G rollout plan --- not because they wanted to do it, but because they HAD to do it according to their agreement with DoCoMo (in exchange to DoCoMo investing in AT&T Wireless).
That's the history lesson. Nobody put a gun on Verizon's head to deploy ev-do back in 2002, nobody put a gun on Verizon's head to spend $22+ billion on FIOS, and nobody is putting a gun on Verizon's head to be the first carrier to launch LTE.
And what?s planned after Rev. B? Exactly. Verizon nor Sprint were going to waste the money on a dead end tech. Oh yeah, the only Korean carrier with EVDO is LG Telecom with the lowest number of users on a relatively small country. They may not even have the option to upgrade to HSPA or LTE at this point. I seem to recall something about the gov?t cancelation it on them, but it?s been too long to recall for sure.
Verizon needs LTE fast or they are going to losing to mindshare and marketshare. AT&T is moving to 850MHz and adding more 3G towers and bandwidth thus making their more stable and consistent while Verizon has a network infrastructure that has comparatively slow data and simultaneous voice and data. I won?t even mention their handset issues. LTE is still very new and there will no LTE phones on Verizon?s network in 2010. Count yourself lucky to even get data cards.
And what?s planned after Rev. B? Exactly. Verizon nor Sprint were going to waste the money on a dead end tech. Oh yeah, the only Korean carrier with EVDO is LG Telecom with the lowest number of users on a relatively small country. They may not even have the option to upgrade to HSPA or LTE at this point. I seem to recall something about the gov?t cancelation it on them, but it?s been too long to recall for sure.
Verizon needs LTE fast or they are going to losing to mindshare and marketshare. AT&T is moving to 850MHz and adding more 3G towers and bandwidth thus making their more stable and consistent while Verizon has a network infrastructure that has comparatively slow data and simultaneous voice and data. I won?t even mention their handset issues. LTE is still very new and there will no LTE phones on Verizon?s network in 2010. Count yourself lucky to even get data cards.
Except that if you compare ev-do rev B to wimax --- they have the same "dead end" issue. So you arguing Sprint adopting wimax instead of ev-do rev B because of ev-do's dead endness makes zero sense.
If VZW needs to compete with AT&T's HSPA network in the short term --- VZW could have upgraded to ev-do rev B. Comparatively slow data --- means a couple of hundred kbps slower, you can't notice it in the real world.
There are plenty of real evidence that support my arguments --- Verizon is doing things because they think they can make money on it. You don't have to agree with Verizon's reasons --- for example whether spending $22 billion on FIOS is really worth it.
Somehow, you make it sound like it's AT&T pushing Verizon to do certain things --- but the fact is that Verizon was a first mover in nationalwide 3G deployment in 2002, first mover in FTTH, and first mover in LTE in the US.
Except that if you compare ev-do rev B to wimax --- they have the same "dead end" issue. So you arguing Sprint adopting wimax instead of ev-do rev B because of ev-do's dead endness makes zero sense.
WiMAX is a dead end tech. Sprint was foolish, but the data rates of WiMAX are much greater than EVDO so it?s not hard to see why it?s a step up.
Somehow, you make it sound like it's AT&T pushing Verizon to do certain things --- but the fact is that Verizon was a first mover in nationalwide 3G deployment in 2002, first mover in FTTH, and first mover in LTE in the US.
Verizon is pushing itself to adopt LTE because they have no choice. It?s not financially viable to upgrade to Rev. B just to have to spend a billions more before you even complete the upgrade to move to LTE. Rev. B as a stop gap is not a financially viable move for Verizon. AT&T, T-Mobile USA and most of the world can ease into LTE much later because they don?t have the same limitations that Verizon and Sprint have. It?s really that simple.
You can spin it all you want to say that Verizon is better because they are moving to LTE before AT&T but the fact of the matter is they little choice in the matter. Even if they moved to Rev. B they?d still have to upgrade to LTE before any WCDMA network operator is required to.
WiMAX is a dead end tech. Sprint was foolish, but the data rates of WiMAX are much greater than EVDO so it?s not hard to see why it?s a step up.
Verizon is pushing itself to adopt LTE because they have no choice. It?s not financially viable to upgrade to Rev. B just to have to spend a billions more before you even complete the upgrade to move to LTE. Rev. B as a stop gap is not a financially viable move for Verizon. AT&T, T-Mobile USA and most of the world can ease into LTE much later because they don?t have the same limitations that Verizon and Sprint have. It?s really that simple.
You can spin it all you want to say that Verizon is better because they are moving to LTE before AT&T but the fact of the matter is they little choice in the matter. Even if they moved to Rev. B they?d still have to upgrade to LTE before any WCDMA network operator is required to.
If it's a dead end technology, then it's a dead end technology. You said it yourself, Sprint was foolish --- but you made Sprint's 4G migration as one of your central argument.
Why is ev-do rev B financially not viable --- ev-do is a SIMPLE upgrade of bonding 3 ev-do channels together. This is like bonding 2 54G channels together and selling the stuff as 108 mbps.
You keep on saying Verizon is somehow pressured to do it --- yet there is no massive outcry saying that Verizon's network is too damn slow. You can spin it everyway you want, but at the present time, AT&T is on average a couple hundred kbps faster than Verizon --- but it is somehow according to you --- forcing Verizon to deploy 4G right now. The only outcry is the iphone users complaining --- so AT&T should be the one that is deploying 4G right now.
. The only outcry is the iphone users complaining --- so AT&T should be the one that is deploying 4G right now.
Well ATT should just deploy their 3G network better. IF they deployed it as effectively as Verizon has deployed their 3g network then the landscape would look really different IMO. My iPhone is a completely different device in Florida where ATT's network doesn't suck hard. It also worked smooth as butter in Atlanta this summer.
Verizon has the weaker technology but they've deployed it effectively and are getting the most out of it. ATT have the better technology and have yet to really leverage that advantage. Its pretty stupefying to me that ATT haven't gotten their network working better in New York and San Fran in particular. Are there more tech savvy markets with users that have such high incomes elsewhere?
Well ATT should just deploy their 3G network better. IF they deployed it as effectively as Verizon has deployed their 3g network then the landscape would look really different IMO. My iPhone is a completely different device in Florida where ATT's network doesn't suck hard. It also worked smooth as butter in Atlanta this summer.
Verizon has the weaker technology but they've deployed it effectively and are getting the most out of it. ATT have the better technology and have yet to really leverage that advantage. Its pretty stupefying to me that ATT haven't gotten their network working better in New York and San Fran in particular. Are there more tech savvy markets with users that have such high incomes elsewhere?
I don't agree that somehow EV-DO is a "weaker" technology.
VZW is giving you an average 3G speed of 600-1400 kbps on a 1.5 MHz channel. AT&T is giving you an average 3g speed of 700-1700 kbps on a 5 MHz channel.
By designing ev-do to use a smaller channel --- it is effectively a stronger and better technology for carriers in big cities where population density is high, and spectrum is super expensive.
I don't agree that somehow EV-DO is a "weaker" technology.
VZW is giving you an average 3G speed of 600-1400 kbps on a 1.5 MHz channel. AT&T is giving you an average 3g speed of 700-1700 kbps on a 5 MHz channel.
By designing ev-do to use a smaller channel --- it is effectively a stronger and better technology for carriers in big cities where population density is high, and spectrum is super expensive.
AT&T has simultaneous voice and data due to their choice. They also currently have a theoretical maxim of 84.4Mbps down and 42Mbps up. How you can say that Verizon's choice is stronger makes no sense. The fact that they and Sprint are moving to 4G while WCDMA-based networks have a nice healthy roadmap ahead of them should be a clear indicator. Now, if you said that Verizon's 3G network is larger and more stable then I think we would all agree with you, but technologically EVDO is quite inferior to HSPA.
I don't agree that somehow EV-DO is a "weaker" technology.
VZW is giving you an average 3G speed of 600-1400 kbps on a 1.5 MHz channel. AT&T is giving you an average 3g speed of 700-1700 kbps on a 5 MHz channel.
By designing ev-do to use a smaller channel --- it is effectively a stronger and better technology for carriers in big cities where population density is high, and spectrum is super expensive.
With HSDPA, ATT could deliver bandwidth that VZ couldn't match with EVDO.
AT&T has simultaneous voice and data due to their choice. They also currently have a theoretical maxim of 84.4Mbps down and 42Mbps up. How you can say that Verizon's choice is stronger makes no sense. The fact that they and Sprint are moving to 4G while WCDMA-based networks have a nice healthy roadmap ahead of them should be a clear indicator. Now, if you said that Verizon's 3G network is larger and more stable then I think we would all agree with you, but technologically EVDO is quite inferior to HSPA.
LTE is designed solely as a data network --- no voice in the LTE spec --- does it make it a weaker technology? A 4G network without legacy voice is a stronger technology. EV-DO migrated towards this set-up a generation early.
Theoretical numbers means nothing.
Spectrum is expensive. If you have only 12 MHz of spectrum space, HSDPA will be wasting 2 MHz of spectrum because they can only do 5 MHz up and 5 MHz down. If you have the same 12 MHz of spectrum space, EV-DO can fully use the whole 12 MHz space (8 x 1.5 MHz).