No you are wrong. The previous article linked to Verizon's claim that it had upgraded EVDO to rev A, but Verizon's site still says (prominently) that some areas are still EVDO rev 0 and therefore about 40-200 kbps or something ridiculous. Go look at the site -- Prince Dan linked it for you.
Don't do personal attacks, check the facts.
Get real. I have NEVER seen speeds that low from EVDO in practice. Throwing around false numbers.
EVDO rates from EVDOinfo.com
1xRTT: 50Kbps - 100Kbps Upload and Download (bursts to 144Kbps)
EVDO Rev 0: 400kbps-1000kbps Download (bursts up to 2.0Mbps), 50kbps-100kbps Upload (bursts to 144Kbps)
EVDO Rev A: 600Kbps-1,400Kbps Download (bursts to 3.1Mbps), 500Kbps-800Kbps Upload (bursts to 1.8Mbps)
I'm amazed that someone can twist 400-1000kbps to be 40-200 just to try and protect AT&T. Its not true. EVDO just isn't that slow.
Even with 1xRTT I rarely received less than 140kbps, whereas my iPhone reports 3G coverage at my house and gets a whopping 60kbps. Should I report that as real 3G speeds? Should I say that AT&T's 3G coverage map is overly generous because I'm shown squarely in a coverage area?
You may be onto something. Samab linked to an article that Verizon had completely updated it?s network to EVDO Rev. A. back in mid-2007, but that wouldn?t have included any of the Altell acquisition which didn?t take place until the beginning of this year. Did Altell have EVDO Rev. 0 still active?
edit: I have no idea how accurate this site is but it shows plenty of Rev. 0 sites dating after the supposed completion of Rev. A in mid 2007.
Not a question of fact! Verizon plainly states that it counts its low end EVDO as 3G but doesn't count EDGE, which allows it to portray maps that indicate AT&T does not have data service across much of the US, which is not true.
EVDO is considered a 3G technology and EDGE, while first defined by the ITU and 3GPP as a 3G technology, is known as a 2.5G or 2.75G tech due to it still being the GSM family. More importantly, AT&T has never advertised it as such so an ad clearly stating a 3G map should should not include EDGE or GPRS coverage.
Most importantly, this marketing jargon we know as ‘3G’ may be hurting AT&T right now but Verizon is not lying. These marketing labels do not and have not ever referred to actual speed of the network, just a lame generalization of the generation of the technology being used across these disparate network types. AT&T should come back with ads about the speed of their network and the inherent superior features like simultaneous voice and data, but I have no issue with Verizon’s campaign.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glockpop
I just realized samab = teckstud. Both make wild trollish assertions, call Prince Dan a liar over things that aren't even wrong, and happen to always show up in the same few minutes to post lots of comments all saying the same thing over and over again until it appears to be true.
I have to disagree with this, too. While I usually disagree with Samab views for Verizon and against AT&T you can hold a conversation with him, he actually comprehends what you write even if he doesn’t agree with it, he never flips his position when he feels cornered, and he defends his PoV well with specific details and links to sites to support his view. I would think Samab would be insulted by such a comment. I know I would be.
No you are wrong. The previous article linked to Verizon's claim that it had upgraded EVDO to rev A, but Verizon's site still says (prominently) that some areas are still EVDO rev 0 and therefore about 40-200 kbps or something ridiculous. Go look at the site -- Prince Dan linked it for you.
Don't do personal attacks, check the facts.
Even if there are parts of the 3G map that are ev-do rev 0 --- the actual spec for the ev-do rev 0 network is still 2.4 mbps peak max download speed and 400-700 average download speed (take the average of the two numbers and it's 550 kbps).
The main point regarding these Verizon ads are not about AT&T but rather what Verizon considers 3G. The Verizon map shows both Verizon's EV-DO and EV-DO Rev as both being 3G. AT&T's map would look exactly the same as Verizon if AT&T included EDGE with their 3G network.
EV-DO is equal to 2G EDGE in speed.
EV-DO Rev is extremely slow compared to AT&T's 3G. Verizon's 3G download speeds run between 600 kbit/s to 1.4 Mbit/s - AT&T's 3G network has an average speed of 2x faster and up to 4x faster and AT&T is currently rolling out it's next generation of 3G which will boost it over 7.2 Mbit/s.
Verizon will not see any boost in their network speed until they switch to the GSM technology curve AT&T uses and rollout LTE in 2012. So for the next two years Verizon is going to be have half to five times slower network speed than AT&T.
AT&T's map would look exactly the same as Verizon if AT&T included EDGE with their 3G network.
EV-DO is equal to 2G EDGE in speed.
Even if that were true, which I don?t think it is, the fact remains that EVDO is CDMA?s 3G tech and EDGE is not considered GSM?s 3G tech. These network types shouldn?t have interchangeable terminology but for marketing reasons they do so AT&T needs to find a more productive way to combat Verizon?s ads.
[QUOTE=solipsism;1520265]EVDO is considered a 3G technology and EDGE, while first defined by the ITU and 3GPP as a 3G technology, is known as a 2.5G or 2.75G tech due to it still being the GSM family."
EDGE, 3G, and LTE are all part of the GSM technology curve.
Sorry AT&T, the ads clearly state 3G coverage and have a disclaimer "Voice & data services outside of 3G coverage area". You have no case. You're just making yourself look worse.
I'm an iPhone user now. If this is how you spend the money I give you every month rather than improving your piss poor service, you're going to lose me as a customer. I live in SoCal and the coverage here is absolutely terrible. Spend the money customers give you every month to improve your service, not silence those who point out FACTS that your service is downright terrible.
The main point regarding these Verizon ads are not about AT&T but rather what Verizon considers 3G. The Verizon map shows both Verizon's EV-DO and EV-DO Rev as both being 3G. AT&T's map would look exactly the same as Verizon if AT&T included EDGE with their 3G network.
EV-DO is equal to 2G EDGE in speed.
EV-DO Rev is extremely slow compared to AT&T's 3G. Verizon's 3G download speeds run between 600 kbit/s to 1.4 Mbit/s - AT&T's 3G network has an average speed of 2x faster and up to 4x faster and AT&T is currently rolling out it's next generation of 3G which will boost it over 7.2 Mbit/s.
Verizon will not see any boost in their network speed until they switch to the GSM technology curve AT&T uses and rollout LTE in 2012. So for the next two years Verizon is going to be have half to five times slower network speed than AT&T.
EDGE has a "PAPER SPEC" max speed of 384 kbps. EV-DO rev O has a "PAPER SPEC" max speed of 2.4 mbps. How is ev-do rev 0 equal to 2G edge in speed.
3.6 mbps HSDPA has a "PAPER SPEC" max speed of 3.6 mbps. EV-DO rev A has a "PAPER SPEC" speed of 3.1 mbps.
AT&T advertises their 3G network to be averaging 700-1700 kbps. Verizon advertises their 3G network to be averaging 600-1400 kbps. Real life difference? Zero. Your web browsing will be 0.1 second faster on the AT&T network. Your ringtone downloading will be 2 seconds faster on the AT&T network. Your music downloading will be 5 second faster per song on the AT&T network.
EDGE, 3G, and LTE are all part of the GSM technology curve.
ITU is an international organization in Geneva, Switzerland. Negotiations of the 3G standard is like negotiating UN resolutions --- it's full of loopholes so that everyone goes home happy.
The standard has always have the 3 conditions --- nothing was changed suddenly. The cell phone manufacturers and cell phone service companies have budgets to hype their "interpretations" of the 3G standard. It's not ITU's fault that they don't have a big budget to tell you that the whole definition of what 3G is.
Sometimes, cell phone service companies like to "under" hype a technology as well. China Unicom (a cell phone service provider in communist China) liked to upgrade their existing 1x network to ev-do. The problem is that Communist China hadn't given out any 3G licenses yet.
Since a 1x to ev-do upgrade can be done on existing 2G frequencies, China Unicom did 3G without waiting for the chinese government to give them a 3G license. But China Unicom doesn't want to anger the chinese government because the official chinese government policy as of 2003 was to wait until 3G technology has matured before they give out 3G licenses. So China Unicom called their ev-do upgrade as "2.75 G" --- even though everybody knows that ev-do is a true 3G technology.
3.6 mbps HSDPA has a "PAPER SPEC" max speed of 3.6 mbps. EV-DO rev A has a "PAPER SPEC" speed of 3.1 mbps.
It?s disingenuous to refere to HSDPA as only being 3.6Mbps without stating the current deployments and potential max speeds of later revisions built off the technology.
It’s disingenuous to refere to HSDPA as only being 3.6Mbps without stating the current deployments and potential max speeds of later revisions built off the technology.
That's why I am specifically saying that a 3.6 mbps HSDPA has a max theoretical paper spec downlink speed of 3.6 mbps.
I can further explain that a 7.2 mbps HSDPA has a max theoretical paper spec downlink speed of 7.2 mbps and EV-DO rev B (which is being deployed by LG Telecom in South Korea) has a max theoretical paper spec downlink speed of 9.3 mbps.
EV-DO uses 1.5 MHz channels and EV-DO rev B is basically bundling 3 1.5 MHz channels together. 3x1.5 MHz channels occupies 5 MHz spectrum (which is the space of a single downlink HSDPA channel) and the initial rev B is just 3x3.1 mbps = 9.3 mbps (which competes with 7.2 mbps HSDPA). If the carriers decides to add a few extra minor upgrade it goes to 3x4.9 mbps = 14.7 mbps (which competes with 14.4 mbps HSDPA).
That's why I am specifically saying that a 3.6 mbps HSDPA has a max theoretical paper spec downlink speed of 3.6 mbps.
I can further explain that a 7.2 mbps HSDPA has a max theoretical paper spec downlink speed of 7.2 mbps and EV-DO rev B (which is being deployed by LG Telecom in South Korea) has a max theoretical paper spec downlink speed of 9.3 mbps.
Your comment implied that AT&T and Verizon were pretty close on theoretical speed so their 3G technologies. You know this isn?t true and you know that 3GPP?s Rev.9 has 84,4Mbps up and 42Mbps down for a technology still a 3G mobile telephony communications protocol.
You also know that Verizon and Sprint have no interest in ever introducing that dead end that is EVDO Rev. B. They are moving to LTE and that will take a lot of money, a lot of time, and be problematic for mobile handhelds for sometime before it becomes a real competitor to HSPA. Though AT&T will likely lag on network build up and thus lose good deal of their advantage.
Your comment implied that AT&T and Verizon were pretty close on theoretical speed so their 3G technologies. You know this isn’t true and you know that 3GPP’s Rev.9 has 84,4Mbps up and 42Mbps down for a technology still a 3G mobile telephony communications protocol.
You also know that Verizon and Sprint have no interest in ever introducing that dead end that is EVDO Rev. B. They are moving to LTE and that will take a lot of money, a lot of time, and be problematic for mobile handhelds for sometime before it becomes a real competitor to HSPA. Though AT&T will likely lag on network build up and thus lose good deal of their advantage.
I never claimed about anything on theoretical speeds. It's the most silliest thing to talk about theoretical speed that can never be achieved in real life.
There are practical reasons for deploying narrow channels instead of bundling them together (like rev . Spectrum space is expensive. If you have 12 MHz spectrum available --- you can only do 1 up and 1 down 5 MHz channel for HSDPA (and have 2 MHz unused spectrum that you can't use at all). If Verizon has the same 12 MHz spectrum, it can deploy 8 channels of 1.5 MHz channels and used the full 12 MHz spectrum.
To be able to use that extra 2 MHz spectrum may be night and day for your wireless speed in real life and it is going to be more relevent than silly theoretical speed.
... the AT&T guys also include their legacy, low speed 2.5G GPRS/EDGE network on their version of the map.
So, what is the map labeled on AT&T's web site? If Verizon has removed coverage areas from AT&T's map, regardless of the labeling, AT&T's case may be stronger than I initially thought it was, since the map is then no longer AT&T's map and they aren't just, "using their own map against them." If they've just cherry picked the map from AT&T, then the case doesn't seem so strong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
... EDGE, while first defined by the ITU and 3GPP as a 3G technology, is known as a 2.5G or 2.75G tech due to it still being the GSM family. More importantly, AT&T has never advertised it as such so an ad clearly stating a 3G map should should not include EDGE or GPRS coverage.
So, basically, it seems that all AT&T needs to do to shut down these ads is to make sure their data coverage maps are labeled 3G, including the EDGE areas -- after all, technically, EDGE is just a flavor of 3G. They can differentiate between EDGE and current 3G areas, and new higher speed areas with shading, throw in a bunch of *, **, ***, ... with fine print explaining the distinctions.
At that point, if AT&T starts labeling everything it technically can 3G, Verizon will have to stop airing the ads (or a suit will become a slam dunk), and it will look to the public like Verizon was lying all along. AT&T can deflect the heat from labeling EDGE 3G by pointing out that it's technically correct, and they were forced to do it, "to head off misleading advertising, such as Verizon's."
The misleading part is how friggin' slow the "3G" coverage in the vast majority of Verizon's network is, since anything CDMA is considered "3G"... even if it's the dog-slow 1xRTT. Only the EVDO-ehanced areas compare to the 3G of the iPhone (and from my experience, Verizon's EVDO is faster than AT&T's 3G). In most places without the EV ehancements, EDGE is faster than the Verizon "3G". (Which is pretty sad.)
I'm not an AT&T fan by any means, but sheesh, Verizon is reeeeeealy stretching the truth here. A huge chunk of their "3G" network is pretty much just "2.5G" just like EDGE.
Agreed. The interesting thing is that Verizon has 2.5 times as many unserved customers as AT&T. I would argue that unserved customers is a more serious issue than customers who have 2.5G instead of 3G.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmgregory1
The point that the ATT lawyers will make is that consumers are used to maps like those depicted in the ad that the white spaces are representing no coverage areas - not just no 3G coverage. Even though Verizon shows the maps to represent 3G coverage, we consumers see it as no coverage. In a tv ad, you're not thinking about ATT's white space being covered by their edge network, because you only have mere seconds to even look at the map. I would tend to agree with ATT in this case, although I wouldn't fight it with a lawsuit.
It's even worse than that. Verizon's map has a key where white space is stated to be 'no coverage'. So by using white space in AT&T's map, they're making a very strong implication that there's no coverage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
Facts are facts --- geographically Verizon's coverage is really 5x as large as AT&T's. Only that Verizon is covering most of them in Alltel territory --- miles and miles of corn field in the midwest.
It's not enough to prove that the statement is factually correct. Verizon will also have to prove that they didn't mislead customers. By using white space and identifying it in their key as 'no coverage', and by implying in their ads (such as the misfit toys ad) that the iPhone is worthless in most of the country, they're on pretty shaky grounds. AT&T could win this one.
AT&T advertises their 3G network to be averaging 700-1700 kbps. Verizon advertises their 3G network to be averaging 600-1400 kbps. Real life difference? Zero. Your web browsing will be 0.1 second faster on the AT&T network. Your ringtone downloading will be 2 seconds faster on the AT&T network. Your music downloading will be 5 second faster per song on the AT&T network.
That is, when you get some decent coverage from at&t, which doesn't happen very often
Also, for all the fanboys who don't get that we're complaining about at&t here, not Apple, trying to say that at&t's network is in fact in much better shape than what the map put together by Verizon implies: your phone does either UMTS (3G) OR GSM/GPRS/EDGE (2G/2.5G), but not both at the same time since the technologies are wildly incompatible. On the other hand Verizon can use both 3G Rev 0/A in conjunction with their older 2.5G 1xRTT (equivalent to at&t's GPRS/EDGE) on all their handsets, so all voice still goes on the older network (1xRTT), and all the data goes over 3G (DO in EVDO means Data Only). For at&t, if you're using 3G, both voice AND data go over 3G at the same time, thus reducing the spectrum dedicated for data (voice always has a higher priority than data, and sucks a lot of resources given its "real time / always on" needs, unlike data), so in real life Verizon's 3G speeds kick ass vs. at&t's, it's as simple as that.
One last thing people don't look at here: RADIO SPECTRUM. Even if HSPA is theoretically slightly faster than EVDO, it all boils down to how much spectrum at&t owns vs. how much spectrum Verizon owns. The limiting factor in all markets is not the actual technology max speed, but how much spectrum you own to actually carry all that data for ALL subscribers in the same cell. Spectrum is a pooled resource guys, we don't all get the full [THEORETICAL MAX] mpbs at the same time, these value are the max for each cell sector and are shared between all users... If I own 1 Hz of spectrum while my competitor owns 10, even if I can cram a bit more bps into that 1 Hz, I still lose vs. the other guy...
Comments
No you are wrong. The previous article linked to Verizon's claim that it had upgraded EVDO to rev A, but Verizon's site still says (prominently) that some areas are still EVDO rev 0 and therefore about 40-200 kbps or something ridiculous. Go look at the site -- Prince Dan linked it for you.
Don't do personal attacks, check the facts.
Get real. I have NEVER seen speeds that low from EVDO in practice. Throwing around false numbers.
EVDO rates from EVDOinfo.com
1xRTT: 50Kbps - 100Kbps Upload and Download (bursts to 144Kbps)
EVDO Rev 0: 400kbps-1000kbps Download (bursts up to 2.0Mbps), 50kbps-100kbps Upload (bursts to 144Kbps)
EVDO Rev A: 600Kbps-1,400Kbps Download (bursts to 3.1Mbps), 500Kbps-800Kbps Upload (bursts to 1.8Mbps)
I'm amazed that someone can twist 400-1000kbps to be 40-200 just to try and protect AT&T. Its not true. EVDO just isn't that slow.
Even with 1xRTT I rarely received less than 140kbps, whereas my iPhone reports 3G coverage at my house and gets a whopping 60kbps. Should I report that as real 3G speeds? Should I say that AT&T's 3G coverage map is overly generous because I'm shown squarely in a coverage area?
You may be onto something. Samab linked to an article that Verizon had completely updated it?s network to EVDO Rev. A. back in mid-2007, but that wouldn?t have included any of the Altell acquisition which didn?t take place until the beginning of this year. Did Altell have EVDO Rev. 0 still active?
edit: I have no idea how accurate this site is but it shows plenty of Rev. 0 sites dating after the supposed completion of Rev. A in mid 2007.
Might just be a labeling problem. I went to that link and all teh EVDO Rev. 0 sites were apparently pulling down 2 mbps. Below is an example:
Pomeroy Rd. Jackson, MI 49201
Carrier: Alltel\tCreate Date: 10/28/2008
Computer: Custom Built Desktop\tUpdate Date: 10/28/2008
Network: Rev0\tLocation: indoors
Download: 2675\tUpload: 104
dBm: 90\tBars: 3
EVDO device: EC228
Antennas or Amps Used: None
Not a question of fact! Verizon plainly states that it counts its low end EVDO as 3G but doesn't count EDGE, which allows it to portray maps that indicate AT&T does not have data service across much of the US, which is not true.
EVDO is considered a 3G technology and EDGE, while first defined by the ITU and 3GPP as a 3G technology, is known as a 2.5G or 2.75G tech due to it still being the GSM family. More importantly, AT&T has never advertised it as such so an ad clearly stating a 3G map should should not include EDGE or GPRS coverage.
Most importantly, this marketing jargon we know as ‘3G’ may be hurting AT&T right now but Verizon is not lying. These marketing labels do not and have not ever referred to actual speed of the network, just a lame generalization of the generation of the technology being used across these disparate network types. AT&T should come back with ads about the speed of their network and the inherent superior features like simultaneous voice and data, but I have no issue with Verizon’s campaign.
I just realized samab = teckstud. Both make wild trollish assertions, call Prince Dan a liar over things that aren't even wrong, and happen to always show up in the same few minutes to post lots of comments all saying the same thing over and over again until it appears to be true.
I have to disagree with this, too.
No you are wrong. The previous article linked to Verizon's claim that it had upgraded EVDO to rev A, but Verizon's site still says (prominently) that some areas are still EVDO rev 0 and therefore about 40-200 kbps or something ridiculous. Go look at the site -- Prince Dan linked it for you.
Don't do personal attacks, check the facts.
Even if there are parts of the 3G map that are ev-do rev 0 --- the actual spec for the ev-do rev 0 network is still 2.4 mbps peak max download speed and 400-700 average download speed (take the average of the two numbers and it's 550 kbps).
http://www.cdg.org/technology/3g_1xEV-DO.asp
The EDGE spec is 384 kbps peak max download speed and averages 150 kbps.
So the disputed ev-do rev 0 --- is 3.7x times faster than EDGE.
You might as well believe that your 54G wireless router actually gives you 54 mbps.
EV-DO is equal to 2G EDGE in speed.
EV-DO Rev is extremely slow compared to AT&T's 3G. Verizon's 3G download speeds run between 600 kbit/s to 1.4 Mbit/s - AT&T's 3G network has an average speed of 2x faster and up to 4x faster and AT&T is currently rolling out it's next generation of 3G which will boost it over 7.2 Mbit/s.
Verizon will not see any boost in their network speed until they switch to the GSM technology curve AT&T uses and rollout LTE in 2012. So for the next two years Verizon is going to be have half to five times slower network speed than AT&T.
AT&T's map would look exactly the same as Verizon if AT&T included EDGE with their 3G network.
EV-DO is equal to 2G EDGE in speed.
Even if that were true, which I don?t think it is, the fact remains that EVDO is CDMA?s 3G tech and EDGE is not considered GSM?s 3G tech. These network types shouldn?t have interchangeable terminology but for marketing reasons they do so AT&T needs to find a more productive way to combat Verizon?s ads.
EDGE, 3G, and LTE are all part of the GSM technology curve.
EDGE, 3G, and LTE are all part of the GSM technology curve.
3G defines nothing. It?s not a technical term, it?s a general classification.
I'm an iPhone user now. If this is how you spend the money I give you every month rather than improving your piss poor service, you're going to lose me as a customer. I live in SoCal and the coverage here is absolutely terrible. Spend the money customers give you every month to improve your service, not silence those who point out FACTS that your service is downright terrible.
The main point regarding these Verizon ads are not about AT&T but rather what Verizon considers 3G. The Verizon map shows both Verizon's EV-DO and EV-DO Rev as both being 3G. AT&T's map would look exactly the same as Verizon if AT&T included EDGE with their 3G network.
EV-DO is equal to 2G EDGE in speed.
EV-DO Rev is extremely slow compared to AT&T's 3G. Verizon's 3G download speeds run between 600 kbit/s to 1.4 Mbit/s - AT&T's 3G network has an average speed of 2x faster and up to 4x faster and AT&T is currently rolling out it's next generation of 3G which will boost it over 7.2 Mbit/s.
Verizon will not see any boost in their network speed until they switch to the GSM technology curve AT&T uses and rollout LTE in 2012. So for the next two years Verizon is going to be have half to five times slower network speed than AT&T.
EDGE has a "PAPER SPEC" max speed of 384 kbps. EV-DO rev O has a "PAPER SPEC" max speed of 2.4 mbps. How is ev-do rev 0 equal to 2G edge in speed.
3.6 mbps HSDPA has a "PAPER SPEC" max speed of 3.6 mbps. EV-DO rev A has a "PAPER SPEC" speed of 3.1 mbps.
AT&T advertises their 3G network to be averaging 700-1700 kbps. Verizon advertises their 3G network to be averaging 600-1400 kbps. Real life difference? Zero. Your web browsing will be 0.1 second faster on the AT&T network. Your ringtone downloading will be 2 seconds faster on the AT&T network. Your music downloading will be 5 second faster per song on the AT&T network.
EDGE, 3G, and LTE are all part of the GSM technology curve.
ITU is an international organization in Geneva, Switzerland. Negotiations of the 3G standard is like negotiating UN resolutions --- it's full of loopholes so that everyone goes home happy.
The standard has always have the 3 conditions --- nothing was changed suddenly. The cell phone manufacturers and cell phone service companies have budgets to hype their "interpretations" of the 3G standard. It's not ITU's fault that they don't have a big budget to tell you that the whole definition of what 3G is.
Sometimes, cell phone service companies like to "under" hype a technology as well. China Unicom (a cell phone service provider in communist China) liked to upgrade their existing 1x network to ev-do. The problem is that Communist China hadn't given out any 3G licenses yet.
Since a 1x to ev-do upgrade can be done on existing 2G frequencies, China Unicom did 3G without waiting for the chinese government to give them a 3G license. But China Unicom doesn't want to anger the chinese government because the official chinese government policy as of 2003 was to wait until 3G technology has matured before they give out 3G licenses. So China Unicom called their ev-do upgrade as "2.75 G" --- even though everybody knows that ev-do is a true 3G technology.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/...ent_249477.htm
It's just a PR label that doesn't have much to do with anything.
3.6 mbps HSDPA has a "PAPER SPEC" max speed of 3.6 mbps. EV-DO rev A has a "PAPER SPEC" speed of 3.1 mbps.
It?s disingenuous to refere to HSDPA as only being 3.6Mbps without stating the current deployments and potential max speeds of later revisions built off the technology.
It’s disingenuous to refere to HSDPA as only being 3.6Mbps without stating the current deployments and potential max speeds of later revisions built off the technology.
That's why I am specifically saying that a 3.6 mbps HSDPA has a max theoretical paper spec downlink speed of 3.6 mbps.
I can further explain that a 7.2 mbps HSDPA has a max theoretical paper spec downlink speed of 7.2 mbps and EV-DO rev B (which is being deployed by LG Telecom in South Korea) has a max theoretical paper spec downlink speed of 9.3 mbps.
EV-DO uses 1.5 MHz channels and EV-DO rev B is basically bundling 3 1.5 MHz channels together. 3x1.5 MHz channels occupies 5 MHz spectrum (which is the space of a single downlink HSDPA channel) and the initial rev B is just 3x3.1 mbps = 9.3 mbps (which competes with 7.2 mbps HSDPA). If the carriers decides to add a few extra minor upgrade it goes to 3x4.9 mbps = 14.7 mbps (which competes with 14.4 mbps HSDPA).
That's why I am specifically saying that a 3.6 mbps HSDPA has a max theoretical paper spec downlink speed of 3.6 mbps.
I can further explain that a 7.2 mbps HSDPA has a max theoretical paper spec downlink speed of 7.2 mbps and EV-DO rev B (which is being deployed by LG Telecom in South Korea) has a max theoretical paper spec downlink speed of 9.3 mbps.
Your comment implied that AT&T and Verizon were pretty close on theoretical speed so their 3G technologies. You know this isn?t true and you know that 3GPP?s Rev.9 has 84,4Mbps up and 42Mbps down for a technology still a 3G mobile telephony communications protocol.
You also know that Verizon and Sprint have no interest in ever introducing that dead end that is EVDO Rev. B. They are moving to LTE and that will take a lot of money, a lot of time, and be problematic for mobile handhelds for sometime before it becomes a real competitor to HSPA. Though AT&T will likely lag on network build up and thus lose good deal of their advantage.
Your comment implied that AT&T and Verizon were pretty close on theoretical speed so their 3G technologies. You know this isn’t true and you know that 3GPP’s Rev.9 has 84,4Mbps up and 42Mbps down for a technology still a 3G mobile telephony communications protocol.
You also know that Verizon and Sprint have no interest in ever introducing that dead end that is EVDO Rev. B. They are moving to LTE and that will take a lot of money, a lot of time, and be problematic for mobile handhelds for sometime before it becomes a real competitor to HSPA. Though AT&T will likely lag on network build up and thus lose good deal of their advantage.
I never claimed about anything on theoretical speeds. It's the most silliest thing to talk about theoretical speed that can never be achieved in real life.
There are practical reasons for deploying narrow channels instead of bundling them together (like rev
To be able to use that extra 2 MHz spectrum may be night and day for your wireless speed in real life and it is going to be more relevent than silly theoretical speed.
There is no iphone profit.
Apple is spending the money that was supposed to be spent on network build-up --- on iphone subsidies.
i regret my poor english
i am born in the third world country of Brooklyn
apple is apple of course
but ATT took THE money they earned from data charges <<that $70 DOLLAR A MONTH FEE >
And plowed it right back into building out the infrastructure for the 4g/7g network .
Look out your window right now and a white van is parked down the block .Thats ATT fixing up the cable wire.
All the fiber optic cable JD UUN-PHASE buried YEARS ago is being is no longer dark .
It's an all out war that wastes the earths resources for no good reason at all . \\
i understood your post but >> ATT is sucking up A ton of cash every day >>besides the apple tax
I believe you meant to claim the following:
AT&T is spending the money that was supposed to be spent on network build-up --- on iphone subsidies.
is that what he meant
damn my post looks stupid now .
hmm that apple tax is a killer
... the AT&T guys also include their legacy, low speed 2.5G GPRS/EDGE network on their version of the map.
So, what is the map labeled on AT&T's web site? If Verizon has removed coverage areas from AT&T's map, regardless of the labeling, AT&T's case may be stronger than I initially thought it was, since the map is then no longer AT&T's map and they aren't just, "using their own map against them." If they've just cherry picked the map from AT&T, then the case doesn't seem so strong.
... EDGE, while first defined by the ITU and 3GPP as a 3G technology, is known as a 2.5G or 2.75G tech due to it still being the GSM family. More importantly, AT&T has never advertised it as such so an ad clearly stating a 3G map should should not include EDGE or GPRS coverage.
So, basically, it seems that all AT&T needs to do to shut down these ads is to make sure their data coverage maps are labeled 3G, including the EDGE areas -- after all, technically, EDGE is just a flavor of 3G. They can differentiate between EDGE and current 3G areas, and new higher speed areas with shading, throw in a bunch of *, **, ***, ... with fine print explaining the distinctions.
At that point, if AT&T starts labeling everything it technically can 3G, Verizon will have to stop airing the ads (or a suit will become a slam dunk), and it will look to the public like Verizon was lying all along. AT&T can deflect the heat from labeling EDGE 3G by pointing out that it's technically correct, and they were forced to do it, "to head off misleading advertising, such as Verizon's."
The misleading part is how friggin' slow the "3G" coverage in the vast majority of Verizon's network is, since anything CDMA is considered "3G"... even if it's the dog-slow 1xRTT. Only the EVDO-ehanced areas compare to the 3G of the iPhone (and from my experience, Verizon's EVDO is faster than AT&T's 3G). In most places without the EV ehancements, EDGE is faster than the Verizon "3G". (Which is pretty sad.)
I'm not an AT&T fan by any means, but sheesh, Verizon is reeeeeealy stretching the truth here. A huge chunk of their "3G" network is pretty much just "2.5G" just like EDGE.
Agreed. The interesting thing is that Verizon has 2.5 times as many unserved customers as AT&T. I would argue that unserved customers is a more serious issue than customers who have 2.5G instead of 3G.
The point that the ATT lawyers will make is that consumers are used to maps like those depicted in the ad that the white spaces are representing no coverage areas - not just no 3G coverage. Even though Verizon shows the maps to represent 3G coverage, we consumers see it as no coverage. In a tv ad, you're not thinking about ATT's white space being covered by their edge network, because you only have mere seconds to even look at the map. I would tend to agree with ATT in this case, although I wouldn't fight it with a lawsuit.
It's even worse than that. Verizon's map has a key where white space is stated to be 'no coverage'. So by using white space in AT&T's map, they're making a very strong implication that there's no coverage.
Facts are facts --- geographically Verizon's coverage is really 5x as large as AT&T's. Only that Verizon is covering most of them in Alltel territory --- miles and miles of corn field in the midwest.
It's not enough to prove that the statement is factually correct. Verizon will also have to prove that they didn't mislead customers. By using white space and identifying it in their key as 'no coverage', and by implying in their ads (such as the misfit toys ad) that the iPhone is worthless in most of the country, they're on pretty shaky grounds. AT&T could win this one.
AT&T advertises their 3G network to be averaging 700-1700 kbps. Verizon advertises their 3G network to be averaging 600-1400 kbps. Real life difference? Zero. Your web browsing will be 0.1 second faster on the AT&T network. Your ringtone downloading will be 2 seconds faster on the AT&T network. Your music downloading will be 5 second faster per song on the AT&T network.
That is, when you get some decent coverage from at&t, which doesn't happen very often
Also, for all the fanboys who don't get that we're complaining about at&t here, not Apple, trying to say that at&t's network is in fact in much better shape than what the map put together by Verizon implies: your phone does either UMTS (3G) OR GSM/GPRS/EDGE (2G/2.5G), but not both at the same time since the technologies are wildly incompatible. On the other hand Verizon can use both 3G Rev 0/A in conjunction with their older 2.5G 1xRTT (equivalent to at&t's GPRS/EDGE) on all their handsets, so all voice still goes on the older network (1xRTT), and all the data goes over 3G (DO in EVDO means Data Only). For at&t, if you're using 3G, both voice AND data go over 3G at the same time, thus reducing the spectrum dedicated for data (voice always has a higher priority than data, and sucks a lot of resources given its "real time / always on" needs, unlike data), so in real life Verizon's 3G speeds kick ass vs. at&t's, it's as simple as that.
One last thing people don't look at here: RADIO SPECTRUM. Even if HSPA is theoretically slightly faster than EVDO, it all boils down to how much spectrum at&t owns vs. how much spectrum Verizon owns. The limiting factor in all markets is not the actual technology max speed, but how much spectrum you own to actually carry all that data for ALL subscribers in the same cell. Spectrum is a pooled resource guys, we don't all get the full [THEORETICAL MAX] mpbs at the same time, these value are the max for each cell sector and are shared between all users... If I own 1 Hz of spectrum while my competitor owns 10, even if I can cram a bit more bps into that 1 Hz, I still lose vs. the other guy...