love the commercials.......Simple and to the point....Love my Iphone and AT&T.....No problems in the dc surrounding area...Full bars and fast network..I hope vzw never gets the Iphone
If apple is jumping to attack Verizon's network, can there be any truth to the rumor that apple will release an iPhone that works in Verizon's network next year? Although, it could, in theory, work in apples favor in the end...Interesting!
Doesn?t seem that way. Note that Verizon attacked the iPhone first. If they were going to be partners announced within 6 months I?d think they wouldn?t have done that. There are other carriers that would do more for Apple than Verizon will. Both are arrogant companies that want control of everything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ski1
CDMA will be a fallback for Verizon LTE phones. The chipsets Verizon will use in their phones will be dual-mode that support both LTE and CDMA.
From what I?ve read Verizon will only use LTE for data with CDMA for voice. The CDMA voice codec is good and low power so this makes sense. GSM voice codec pales in comparison. Technically LTE is all IP-based data, but VoIP will be directed through carriers with QoS. I don?t see Verizon adding this for a very long time.
ATT on the other hand has most of their UTMS network at a so-called "2 or 2.5G" level of UTMS. Oh, no! What to do!
...
...
UMTS 2.5G / Edge / whatever, has a bandwidth and throughput that approaches the 3rd Gen of Verizon's CDMA technology. UTMS has legs. It's 3G is still a growing tech, and throughput will start at 7.2mps. You don't get that on CDMA"
EDGE is not UMTS. They are two completely different networks and protocols. The real world speed/latency of EDGE is nowhere close to the real world speed/latency of CDMA EVDO that Verizon uses.
Good article that goes into depth about this, and talks about how a previous Apple Insider article was misleading:
From what I?ve read Verizon will only use LTE for data with CDMA for voice. The CDMA voice codec is good and low power so this makes sense. GSM voice codec pales in comparison. Technically LTE is all IP-based data, but VoIP will be directed through carriers with QoS. I don?t see Verizon adding this for a very long time.
True, in a LTE area, Verizon LTE phones might still use CDMA for voice. But if they are in an area with no LTE service, these phones will support both voice and data on CDMA. This is only logical. There is no way Verizon will have phones that only work on a network that will take years to roll out.
How about WE set the record straight by ignoring both companies' marketing departments:
1. AT&T has crappy 3G coverage compared to Verizon, and an inferior 1900mhz network.
2. Verizon's CDMA cannot do data and voice simultaneously.
3. AT&T users seem to report more dropped calls, call quality and net connection problems.
4 AT&T got itself into trouble by underestimating the amount of data iPhones would use. They responded by spending a lot of money, but also tacitly blaming their customers (e.g. "Hummer of cellphones").
5. AT&T's 3G speeds don't seem to live up to what's advertised. They are also inconsistent between areas. In the Philly suburbs, I get much slower "3G" access than I do in D.C. or Boston. I don't have benchmarks, but I have real world experience that confirms this.
6. iPhones continue to have problems switching networks in-call. This causes a lot of dropped calls from what I can tell.
I really think that the answer is to get rid of exclusivity. It would create true competition. Let Verizon figure out how to get simultaneous connections and let AT&T figure out its voice and coverage problems. The market would dictate which was more important. It would also hopefully unburden AT&T's network by not having every iPhone in the US attached to it, thereby improving quality.
UMTS, WCDMA, HSDPA, HSUPA, HSPA+ and HSPA all are distinct yet connected initialisms. I?m now going to use 3GSM as a hypernym umbrella term for these related but different technologies.
UMTS, WCDMA, HSDPA, HSUPA, HSPA+ and HSPA all are distinct yet connected initialisms. I?m now going to use 3GSM as a hypernym umbrella term for these related but different technologies.
Perfect! Just keeping you honest. I'd be very happy if I could get 3.5G 7.2Mbps downlink transfer rates. I'm afraid a lot of ATT's 3GSM is still at a very slow 384kbps. But as you say, it has legs to grow and with LTE being backwards compatible with UTMS, life will be good. And once they roll out LTE with 100Mbps downlink transfer rates, even better.
UMTS, WCDMA, HSDPA, HSUPA, HSPA+ and HSPA all are distinct yet connected initialisms. I’m now going to use 3GSM as a hypernym umbrella term for these related but different technologies.
Thanks S, I'd never heard that one before, figured I'd Google it to see what came up.
Scraped from the bottom of the sewer bin of the intraweb that is Wikipedia:
"Therefore, UMTS is sometimes marketed as 3GSM, emphasizing the close relationship with GSM and differentiating it from competing technologies."
I came from Verizon and I can't say how much happier I am with At&T and my iphone. I'd rather dropped to Edge while have nothing, like I experienced with Verizon. I could barely use my phone at work or my college. It completely sucked.
If apple is jumping to attack Verizon's network, can there be any truth to the rumor that apple will release an iPhone that works in Verizon's network next year? Although, it could, in theory, work in apples favor in the end...Interesting!
I was on Verizon, then I got 3G iphone on ATT but was disappointed in the lack of 3G in the area. Everyone I know was waiting to switch back to Verizon, but guess what--ATT just put a new 3G tower last week. Service is excellent. Now no one is talking about going back now.
Give ATT enough time, and this 3G coverage issue will be moot. In fact, in my state, they are putting up tower after tower. So it's a race between ATT completing nationwide 3G coverage and Verizon getting the iphone. At this point, Verizon may finding itself on the losing end.
AT&T bashing is fine. they're telco pigs and deserve it. but so is Verizon. i'm amazed V can jack up the cancellation fee to a ridiculous $360 and the Droid lovers meekly swallow it. if it were AT&T, they'd be screaming bloody murder about greed etc. or blaming Apple for not stopping it. why hasn't Google?
as to service quality, if today's AdMob stats are indicative, AT&T has to handle about 5x as much data on its net than Verizon today. we will see how well Verizon performs when it gets the same load level. but right now it is not an equal load to compare at all, not anywhere close. so of course V does better - for now.
finally, anecdotal reports of service are not reliable. i run all over San Francisco and have little problem with 3G reception, except inside big concrete buildings. while many of the tech pundits are probably in buildings crammed full of iphone users that are overwhelming a single local microcell site or two. that is not a typical situation. but since pundits all think they are genius everymen, they assume their reality is the only possible truth.
AT&T bashing is fine. they're telco pigs and deserve it. but so is Verizon. i'm amazed V can jack up the cancellation fee to a ridiculous $360 and the Droid lovers meekly swallow it. if it were AT&T, they'd be screaming bloody murder about greed etc. or blaming Apple for not stopping it. why hasn't Google?
They all really do suck, don?t they. Personally, I don?t think the $350 cancelation fee is outrageous. The telcos are subsidization phones a lot more than they used to and I think they have the right just as the customer has the right not to go with them. I don?t think AT&T is too far behind with upping the cancelation fee.
If I were running these telcos there are three things I would be doing differently. For starters, the cancelation fee would never have been lower than the subsidization fee. I took advantage of this several times with the iPhone 3G to pay for my iPhone 3G outright. That plus selling my 3G unlocked allowed me to get the 3GS a year later without caring about paying a premium for it.
Secondly, I would make the cancelation fee not drop by $5 or $10 per month but drop by 1/24 each month so that if you cancel in the last month you only pay 1/24. The carrier is always ahead, even if by a day, though this only viable f you have made the cancelation fee equal to or more than the subsidization you pay the vendor. The consumer can easily understand why it drops by 1/24 for a 2 year contract. Owing $60 or $120 within the last month makes no sense and does nothing to reassure them.
Lastly, I would make overage fees step up to higher cost packages. For instance, if you have 500 SMS you pay a per SMS fee until your SMS package plus overages reach the cost of the next tier and then you are on that tier. This way the most a customer would be required to pay is the unlimited package you offered. No bills for thousands of dollars because your kid got crazy with SMS. I think this kind of piece of mind would go a long way to keeping customers from switching.
AT&T bashing is fine. they're telco pigs and deserve it. but so is Verizon. i'm amazed V can jack up the cancellation fee to a ridiculous $360 and the Droid lovers meekly swallow it. if it were AT&T, they'd be screaming bloody murder about greed etc. or blaming Apple for not stopping it. why hasn't Google?
as to service quality, if today's AdMob stats are indicative, AT&T has to handle about 5x as much data on its net than Verizon today. we will see how well Verizon performs when it gets the same load level. but right now it is not an equal load to compare at all, not anywhere close. so of course V does better - for now.
finally, anecdotal reports of service are not reliable. i run all over San Francisco and have little problem with 3G reception, except inside big concrete buildings. while many of the tech pundits are probably in buildings crammed full of iphone users that are overwhelming a single local microcell site or two. that is not a typical situation. but since pundits all think they are genius everymen, they assume their reality is the only possible truth.
True. I have great service from AT&T in North Westchester (north of NY city) and rarely have a problem. I do feel sorry for those that have trouble getting service.
However there have been millioins of iphones sold. I find it hard to believe that a huge majority just have terrible voice or data service all of the time. People just like to bash their carrier. AT&T can and will improve their service over time but Verizon (unless they totally replace their network) will never offer simultaneous voice and data.
Most people I have run into in the tri-state area with iphones LOVE their iphones and do not complain about AT&T.
Comments
I hear that Ivan Seidenberg is a nice guy to work for. Is that true?
Who is that? Does that answer your question?
If apple is jumping to attack Verizon's network, can there be any truth to the rumor that apple will release an iPhone that works in Verizon's network next year? Although, it could, in theory, work in apples favor in the end...Interesting!
Doesn?t seem that way. Note that Verizon attacked the iPhone first. If they were going to be partners announced within 6 months I?d think they wouldn?t have done that. There are other carriers that would do more for Apple than Verizon will. Both are arrogant companies that want control of everything.
CDMA will be a fallback for Verizon LTE phones. The chipsets Verizon will use in their phones will be dual-mode that support both LTE and CDMA.
From what I?ve read Verizon will only use LTE for data with CDMA for voice. The CDMA voice codec is good and low power so this makes sense. GSM voice codec pales in comparison. Technically LTE is all IP-based data, but VoIP will be directed through carriers with QoS. I don?t see Verizon adding this for a very long time.
I think it has been hashed and rehashed:
ATT on the other hand has most of their UTMS network at a so-called "2 or 2.5G" level of UTMS. Oh, no! What to do!
...
...
UMTS 2.5G / Edge / whatever, has a bandwidth and throughput that approaches the 3rd Gen of Verizon's CDMA technology. UTMS has legs. It's 3G is still a growing tech, and throughput will start at 7.2mps. You don't get that on CDMA"
EDGE is not UMTS. They are two completely different networks and protocols. The real world speed/latency of EDGE is nowhere close to the real world speed/latency of CDMA EVDO that Verizon uses.
Good article that goes into depth about this, and talks about how a previous Apple Insider article was misleading:
http://i.engadgetmobile.com/2009/11/...its-not-calls/
BTW, I'm not a supporter of Verizon or AT&T. Just trying to make the record straight.
From what I?ve read Verizon will only use LTE for data with CDMA for voice. The CDMA voice codec is good and low power so this makes sense. GSM voice codec pales in comparison. Technically LTE is all IP-based data, but VoIP will be directed through carriers with QoS. I don?t see Verizon adding this for a very long time.
True, in a LTE area, Verizon LTE phones might still use CDMA for voice. But if they are in an area with no LTE service, these phones will support both voice and data on CDMA. This is only logical. There is no way Verizon will have phones that only work on a network that will take years to roll out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IioSntkD8lE
1. AT&T has crappy 3G coverage compared to Verizon, and an inferior 1900mhz network.
2. Verizon's CDMA cannot do data and voice simultaneously.
3. AT&T users seem to report more dropped calls, call quality and net connection problems.
4 AT&T got itself into trouble by underestimating the amount of data iPhones would use. They responded by spending a lot of money, but also tacitly blaming their customers (e.g. "Hummer of cellphones").
5. AT&T's 3G speeds don't seem to live up to what's advertised. They are also inconsistent between areas. In the Philly suburbs, I get much slower "3G" access than I do in D.C. or Boston. I don't have benchmarks, but I have real world experience that confirms this.
6. iPhones continue to have problems switching networks in-call. This causes a lot of dropped calls from what I can tell.
I really think that the answer is to get rid of exclusivity. It would create true competition. Let Verizon figure out how to get simultaneous connections and let AT&T figure out its voice and coverage problems. The market would dictate which was more important. It would also hopefully unburden AT&T's network by not having every iPhone in the US attached to it, thereby improving quality.
This article failed to show one AT&T ad.....here it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IioSntkD8lE
That's lame- Luke Wilson need to loose some weight. He's morphing into Alec Baldwin.
Hmmm, two different technologies, apparently. UMTS and CDMA
UMTS is also known as W-CDMA outside EU.....
UMTS is also known as W-CDMA outside EU.....
UMTS, WCDMA, HSDPA, HSUPA, HSPA+ and HSPA all are distinct yet connected initialisms. I?m now going to use 3GSM as a hypernym umbrella term for these related but different technologies.
UMTS, WCDMA, HSDPA, HSUPA, HSPA+ and HSPA all are distinct yet connected initialisms. I?m now going to use 3GSM as a hypernym umbrella term for these related but different technologies.
Perfect! Just keeping you honest. I'd be very happy if I could get 3.5G 7.2Mbps downlink transfer rates. I'm afraid a lot of ATT's 3GSM
UMTS, WCDMA, HSDPA, HSUPA, HSPA+ and HSPA all are distinct yet connected initialisms. I’m now going to use 3GSM as a hypernym umbrella term for these related but different technologies.
Thanks S, I'd never heard that one before, figured I'd Google it to see what came up.
Scraped from the bottom of the sewer bin of the intraweb that is Wikipedia:
"Therefore, UMTS is sometimes marketed as 3GSM, emphasizing the close relationship with GSM and differentiating it from competing technologies."
That's lame- Luke Wilson need to loose some weight. He's morphing into Alec Baldwin.
Alec Baldwin's cool. Always was. Ever since Red October, not to mention Glengarry, Glen Ross . . . what a performance.
"Know what it takes to sell Real Estate? Brass balls."
And then he actually pulls out a set of brass balls, without looking stupid.
Masterful.
Alec Baldwin's cool. Always was. Ever since Red October, not to mention Glengarry, Glen Ross . . . what a performance.
"Know what it takes to sell Real Estate? Brass balls."
And then he actually pulls out a set of brass balls, without looking stupid.
Masterful.
That's true- Alec is cool.Actually I liked him back in Beetlejuice and Married to the Mob.
Ok then Daniel Baldwin.
If apple is jumping to attack Verizon's network, can there be any truth to the rumor that apple will release an iPhone that works in Verizon's network next year? Although, it could, in theory, work in apples favor in the end...Interesting!
I was on Verizon, then I got 3G iphone on ATT but was disappointed in the lack of 3G in the area. Everyone I know was waiting to switch back to Verizon, but guess what--ATT just put a new 3G tower last week. Service is excellent. Now no one is talking about going back now.
Give ATT enough time, and this 3G coverage issue will be moot. In fact, in my state, they are putting up tower after tower. So it's a race between ATT completing nationwide 3G coverage and Verizon getting the iphone. At this point, Verizon may finding itself on the losing end.
JoG
as to service quality, if today's AdMob stats are indicative, AT&T has to handle about 5x as much data on its net than Verizon today. we will see how well Verizon performs when it gets the same load level. but right now it is not an equal load to compare at all, not anywhere close. so of course V does better - for now.
finally, anecdotal reports of service are not reliable. i run all over San Francisco and have little problem with 3G reception, except inside big concrete buildings. while many of the tech pundits are probably in buildings crammed full of iphone users that are overwhelming a single local microcell site or two. that is not a typical situation. but since pundits all think they are genius everymen, they assume their reality is the only possible truth.
AT&T bashing is fine. they're telco pigs and deserve it. but so is Verizon. i'm amazed V can jack up the cancellation fee to a ridiculous $360 and the Droid lovers meekly swallow it. if it were AT&T, they'd be screaming bloody murder about greed etc. or blaming Apple for not stopping it. why hasn't Google?
They all really do suck, don?t they. Personally, I don?t think the $350 cancelation fee is outrageous. The telcos are subsidization phones a lot more than they used to and I think they have the right just as the customer has the right not to go with them. I don?t think AT&T is too far behind with upping the cancelation fee.
If I were running these telcos there are three things I would be doing differently. For starters, the cancelation fee would never have been lower than the subsidization fee. I took advantage of this several times with the iPhone 3G to pay for my iPhone 3G outright. That plus selling my 3G unlocked allowed me to get the 3GS a year later without caring about paying a premium for it.
Secondly, I would make the cancelation fee not drop by $5 or $10 per month but drop by 1/24 each month so that if you cancel in the last month you only pay 1/24. The carrier is always ahead, even if by a day, though this only viable f you have made the cancelation fee equal to or more than the subsidization you pay the vendor. The consumer can easily understand why it drops by 1/24 for a 2 year contract. Owing $60 or $120 within the last month makes no sense and does nothing to reassure them.
Lastly, I would make overage fees step up to higher cost packages. For instance, if you have 500 SMS you pay a per SMS fee until your SMS package plus overages reach the cost of the next tier and then you are on that tier. This way the most a customer would be required to pay is the unlimited package you offered. No bills for thousands of dollars because your kid got crazy with SMS. I think this kind of piece of mind would go a long way to keeping customers from switching.
AT&T bashing is fine. they're telco pigs and deserve it. but so is Verizon. i'm amazed V can jack up the cancellation fee to a ridiculous $360 and the Droid lovers meekly swallow it. if it were AT&T, they'd be screaming bloody murder about greed etc. or blaming Apple for not stopping it. why hasn't Google?
as to service quality, if today's AdMob stats are indicative, AT&T has to handle about 5x as much data on its net than Verizon today. we will see how well Verizon performs when it gets the same load level. but right now it is not an equal load to compare at all, not anywhere close. so of course V does better - for now.
finally, anecdotal reports of service are not reliable. i run all over San Francisco and have little problem with 3G reception, except inside big concrete buildings. while many of the tech pundits are probably in buildings crammed full of iphone users that are overwhelming a single local microcell site or two. that is not a typical situation. but since pundits all think they are genius everymen, they assume their reality is the only possible truth.
True. I have great service from AT&T in North Westchester (north of NY city) and rarely have a problem. I do feel sorry for those that have trouble getting service.
However there have been millioins of iphones sold. I find it hard to believe that a huge majority just have terrible voice or data service all of the time. People just like to bash their carrier. AT&T can and will improve their service over time but Verizon (unless they totally replace their network) will never offer simultaneous voice and data.
Most people I have run into in the tri-state area with iphones LOVE their iphones and do not complain about AT&T.
Alec Baldwin's cool.
Yeah, "You rude, thoughtless little pig!", he says in a voicemail to his daughter...
http://www.tvguide.com/news/alec-bal...e-1006923.aspx
'Considered...", so much for the Brass Balls theory! The guy's a prick!
Real "Father of the Year" material!