Even further, me working in IT, I know how critical QoS is. Part of the reason why there are so many dropped calls on AT&T is due to the fact that on the 3G network, calls are competing with data for bandwidth. With so many full-internet phones on their network (such as the iPhone and others that can fully access the internet without going through proxies), running out of bandwidth within your tower is a real possibility. When this happens, you drop as well. For me, having a separate network for voice and data is critical, even if it means that I can't surf while talking (unless I'm on a Wi-Fi network, which the majority of the time, I am).
Good points but the new IN infrastructure networks can use QoS to route calls around congested cells. They can look at a particular cell and its BTS. If it is saturated, they can route calls via the BSC to another BSC and around the congestion.
I believe you have that incorrect. I recall that a 3GSM connection can complete an inter-technology handoffs to GSM. If it?s a GSM call then it has no ability to handoff to 3GSM, thus requiring disco/reconnect to get on 3GSM. I don?t think GSM has the dual-mode inherent to make the it possible, but 3GSM does. At least, that is how I remember it.
1000000% correct. 3G can hand off to GSM but no vice versa. I experience this daily in my commute into the office. If I start a call via 3G, I hit one spot in Helsinki where there is marginal 3G coverage and the phone switches over without incident. I have to hang up before it will reacquire the 3G network.
Somebody please give me explanation of How the iPhone user experience would be better on Verizon?
As if you were pitching this to Steve, I don't want to hear more coverage more speed as neither is true, or translates into something the user experiences.
All I see on Verizon is slower 3G, No rollover minutes, and no Data while on a call. Sorry but every single phone call I make is while using Data. Every one.
I have a BB Tour on VerizonWireless also. Call stability is excellent but as you say, you can't talk and tether at the same time. At least it gives you an option of taking an incoming call or not so you can choose whether you will disconnect or not.
My understanding, however, is there is a newer version of CDMA that will allow simultaneous voice and data but VerizonWireless hasn't adopted it. Don't blame them, though, with LTE coming soon.
Don't blame them for saving their money rather than spending it on consumer satisfaction? No, I don't think so.
Actually, yes it does take more than year to put a new tower down, if at all. Sometimes the process can take up to 5 years and beyond. And that's not because the carriers want it that way, believe me. If they could, they would put one up the day after they apply.
Cities and counties DO NOT LIKE new towers. Swapping out antenna and equipment on existing towers isn't such a hassle, but to increase coverage in areas where there is none presently is a major hassle.
I, for one, would love to see AT&T's exclusivity end. If, for any reason, just to get all the whiners off the network and free up some bandwidth.
Wrong, or at least wrong where you are. I was part of the buildout for Mannesmann (now Vodafone) in Germany, E-Plus in Germany, and O2 in Germany, as well as Vodafone in Cairo, Egypt. A tower or more accurately BTS (base station) can be put in a matter of minutes. It is all about location. Many, operators use existing structures, i.e. building rooftops, the sides of buildings, leasing space on towers, etc... You get the picture. You inference is simply incorrect. You are correct about swapping out equipment. That tends to be no problem at all.
The next-generation iPhone will be smaller than the current version.
Wrong.
It will be the same basic dimensions. So will the one after that.
How clueless re: Apple are some of you? Do you not understand that they got it right with the iPhone, and are not going to change the most basic aspects of it until there is a reason to. There is no reason to, and never has been.
T-Mobile 3G operates on a unique 1700MHz spectrum. The iPhone is currently compatible with UMTS/HSDPA 3G connections at the frequencies 850MHz, 1900MHz and 2100MHz. It would be necessary, therefore, for Apple to build a new hardware model that supports T-Mobile's 3G frequency.
Not necessarily. Some chipsets can handle the 1700 spectrum with a firmware change. I don't know if these are used in the iPhone.
That's not quite correct. The "world standard" for UMTS/HSDPA would be 1900/2100 MHz (paired spectrum, that means 1900 MHz upstream/ 2100 MHz downstream) which is used pretty much everywhere in the world, except for North (and partly South) America. So already AT&Ts frequencies 1900 (not paired with 2100 MHz!) and 850 MHz are somewhat special, while T-Mobile's 1700/2100 MHz pair (again, upstream/downstream) was indeed quite exclusive until recently.
I was meaning more of their frequency choices... not necessarily the frequency paring. Most AT&T 3G phones are capable of paring to the standards used world wide. AT&T, itself, uses frequency paring that are not necessarily used everywhere else (like you said, the 850MHz range, which is used primary for it's distance and penetration).
My understanding, however, is there is a newer version of CDMA that will allow simultaneous voice and data but VerizonWireless hasn't adopted it. Don't blame them, though, with LTE coming soon.
Yes. Last year, the CDMA Development Group announced CDMA2000 1X Advanced, which is supposed to be available sometime this year. There are several improvements to the standard that will allow for most CDMA networks to quadruple their capacity. One of the other enhancements that was announced was SVDO (Simultaneous 1X Voice and EvDO). This would allow for both voice and data to take place at the same time.
It is my understanding that the CDMA2000 1X Advance standard is an upgrade to CDMA2000 networks and does not necessarily require device upgrades to benefit. Essentially, companies like Verizon could perform the upgrade as well as push out device updates that would enable this functionality. This is based upon the fact that CDMA2000 1X Advanced does not give any performance gains (such as faster EvDO, etc), but, rather, it is a rather simple channel card infrastructure change to enable the features. The only thing, though, is that these changes are not expected to be available until the second half of 2010. With Verizon going LTE, as you said, it may not be worth their time and interest.
Somebody please give me explanation of How the iPhone user experience would be better on Verizon?
As if you were pitching this to Steve, I don't want to hear more coverage more speed as neither is true, or translates into something the user experiences.
All I see on Verizon is slower 3G, No rollover minutes, and no Data while on a call. Sorry but every single phone call I make is while using Data. Every one.
Anyone? Please?
I can make it simple for you. It depends on where you live and where you go. If I can't make a phone call what good is it? No one network is good for everyone. People should be able to choose the network that is best for them.
Exclusive contracts are bad for consumers as a concept. The only people who are in favor of them are AT&T stockholders.
Yes. But I don't live in Lexington, although I do visit frequently.
And now that my wife has Verizon, I realize that I don't *have* to settle for edge service 90% of the time.
Where ATT offers 3g service, its been good IME. But not everyone lives in a major metropolitan area. Franakly I'm astounded at the Verizon service. My wife rarely *doesn't* have 3g service. It may technically be slower service (compared to ATT 3g service) but it doesn't feel slower. While I prefer my iPhone to the Droid Eris (that's a discussion for a different day) I envy her service.
I'm sorry but now having experienced Verizon, I can tell you that they have a better network.
Wrong, or at least wrong where you are. I was part of the buildout for Mannesmann (now Vodafone) in Germany, E-Plus in Germany, and O2 in Germany, as well as Vodafone in Cairo, Egypt. A tower or more accurately BTS (base station) can be put in a matter of minutes. It is all about location. Many, operators use existing structures, i.e. building rooftops, the sides of buildings, leasing space on towers, etc... You get the picture. You inference is simply incorrect. You are correct about swapping out equipment. That tends to be no problem at all.
you should come to the USA
in NYC buildings love cell phone towers. especially residential apartment buildings. they pay a lot of rent that reduces people's monthly bills.
in the burbs the idiots complain about no coverage but every time they try to put up a tower the same idiots complain it would ruin the view. so a lot of companies make their towers look like fake trees or put them on church steeples. the same idiots complain that it doesn't blend in. if they still don't get their way they sue.
"HotHardware alleges, without any evidence to support the claim, that the iPhone doesn't handle the switch from 3G to EDGE connections well, and frequently drops calls when 3G access is lost."
No phone can switch a call between 3G and EDGE. If a call starts on 3G, in must end on 3G. Or, alternatively, end when 3G coverage vanishes. AT&T's 3G coverage gaps and insufficient network capacity are to blame.
There must be a problem with the US system then. Here in the UK, my phone frequently continues calls started in 3G areas on EDGE or GPRS.
Seems like everybody has forgotten about the uproar that came when Apple first announced that the iPhone was coming to Cingular (which became AT&T). There were a lot of people that were really upset clear back in January 2007. It was because the AT&T network was crap already. Adding the mediocre radio in the iPhone, coupled with its heavy data load made the network that much worse.
It's funny how often we get long-term memory loss.
No. We have examined the comments here and network wasn't much of a particular issue with AT&T or anybody else at the time. Everybody was upset with dropped calls and poor connections on all the services.
In fact, prior to Apple announcing that they were going to get into the wireless area, Jobs had made it quite evident that this was one of his issues with cellular phones was that they didn't work, i.e., making phone calls.
The uproar, if any, (and it typically came from the same trollers we have here today) at the time of the announcement was the perceived prices that AT&T (because of the high data prices carrier were charging at the time) was going to charge for data on the new iPhone and this turned out to be a non-issue at launch.
And AH, keep in mind that it was only AT&T who came to the table and agreed to Job's condition to upgrade the network and lower data prices.
As for "adding a crap radio," what the hell is that about? AH
in NYC buildings love cell phone towers. especially residential apartment buildings. they pay a lot of rent that reduces people's monthly bills.
in the burbs the idiots complain about no coverage but every time they try to put up a tower the same idiots complain it would ruin the view. so a lot of companies make their towers look like fake trees or put them on church steeples. the same idiots complain that it doesn't blend in. if they still don't get their way they sue.
Not only that, but many European countries had such poor landline services relative to the US and in particular Canada, that wireless became the law. Dictated by their governments, paid for by the taxpayer and no regional bylaws to prevent it. And unlike North America, a single communication standard, i.e., GSM was basically adopted/enforced/became thenorm.
Some countries, like I have just seen on a recent trip to China, even have cell towers not only on the top of buildings but on street corners, about 10-12 feet off the ground.
in NYC buildings love cell phone towers. especially residential apartment buildings. they pay a lot of rent that reduces people's monthly bills.
in the burbs the idiots complain about no coverage but every time they try to put up a tower the same idiots complain it would ruin the view. so a lot of companies make their towers look like fake trees or put them on church steeples. the same idiots complain that it doesn't blend in. if they still don't get their way they sue.
I hear you dude. People do not realize that you need the BTS's to have coverage. 3G antennas do not have to be as high as normal GSM towers, but you still need the antennas. I did see some pretty cool designs to hide them though. I was in Kuwait and Egypt and the operators disguised the towers as really tall palm trees.
I hear you dude. People do not realize that you need the BTS's to have coverage. 3G antennas do not have to be as high as normal GSM towers, but you still need the antennas. I did see some pretty cool designs to hide them though. I was in Kuwait and Egypt and the operators disguised the towers as really tall palm trees.
"Inside of AT&T, we are hearing that the iPhone is causing more trouble than ever before," the report said. "On some level, having the iPhone is hurting AT&T's image. Because they are the only company to carry it, and it's such a data hog, it's largely to blame for AT&T's network troubles. We don't remember hearing about AT&T's 'horrible network' before the iPhone--do you?"
That's a particularly stupid statement, roughly akin to observing that that we don't remember hearing about potholes in the road before people started driving down it.
The last one doesn't have any attempt to hide it. If appearance was a consideration, I think there are radio transparent materials that can be used as a fascia, it could be done in a way to make the building look taller.
Comments
Ok... Can I get my iPhone officially unlocked now?!
Like mine? Sure you can. Move to Finland, get Sonera, and work for the State Department. Pretty easy.
Even further, me working in IT, I know how critical QoS is. Part of the reason why there are so many dropped calls on AT&T is due to the fact that on the 3G network, calls are competing with data for bandwidth. With so many full-internet phones on their network (such as the iPhone and others that can fully access the internet without going through proxies), running out of bandwidth within your tower is a real possibility. When this happens, you drop as well. For me, having a separate network for voice and data is critical, even if it means that I can't surf while talking (unless I'm on a Wi-Fi network, which the majority of the time, I am).
Good points but the new IN infrastructure networks can use QoS to route calls around congested cells. They can look at a particular cell and its BTS. If it is saturated, they can route calls via the BSC to another BSC and around the congestion.
I believe you have that incorrect. I recall that a 3GSM connection can complete an inter-technology handoffs to GSM. If it?s a GSM call then it has no ability to handoff to 3GSM, thus requiring disco/reconnect to get on 3GSM. I don?t think GSM has the dual-mode inherent to make the it possible, but 3GSM does. At least, that is how I remember it.
1000000% correct. 3G can hand off to GSM but no vice versa. I experience this daily in my commute into the office. If I start a call via 3G, I hit one spot in Helsinki where there is marginal 3G coverage and the phone switches over without incident. I have to hang up before it will reacquire the 3G network.
As if you were pitching this to Steve, I don't want to hear more coverage more speed as neither is true, or translates into something the user experiences.
All I see on Verizon is slower 3G, No rollover minutes, and no Data while on a call. Sorry but every single phone call I make is while using Data. Every one.
Anyone? Please?
I have a BB Tour on VerizonWireless also. Call stability is excellent but as you say, you can't talk and tether at the same time. At least it gives you an option of taking an incoming call or not so you can choose whether you will disconnect or not.
My understanding, however, is there is a newer version of CDMA that will allow simultaneous voice and data but VerizonWireless hasn't adopted it. Don't blame them, though, with LTE coming soon.
Don't blame them for saving their money rather than spending it on consumer satisfaction? No, I don't think so.
Actually, yes it does take more than year to put a new tower down, if at all. Sometimes the process can take up to 5 years and beyond. And that's not because the carriers want it that way, believe me. If they could, they would put one up the day after they apply.
Cities and counties DO NOT LIKE new towers. Swapping out antenna and equipment on existing towers isn't such a hassle, but to increase coverage in areas where there is none presently is a major hassle.
I, for one, would love to see AT&T's exclusivity end. If, for any reason, just to get all the whiners off the network and free up some bandwidth.
Wrong, or at least wrong where you are. I was part of the buildout for Mannesmann (now Vodafone) in Germany, E-Plus in Germany, and O2 in Germany, as well as Vodafone in Cairo, Egypt. A tower or more accurately BTS (base station) can be put in a matter of minutes. It is all about location. Many, operators use existing structures, i.e. building rooftops, the sides of buildings, leasing space on towers, etc... You get the picture. You inference is simply incorrect. You are correct about swapping out equipment. That tends to be no problem at all.
No.
The next-generation iPhone will be smaller than the current version.
Wrong.
It will be the same basic dimensions. So will the one after that.
How clueless re: Apple are some of you? Do you not understand that they got it right with the iPhone, and are not going to change the most basic aspects of it until there is a reason to. There is no reason to, and never has been.
T-Mobile 3G operates on a unique 1700MHz spectrum. The iPhone is currently compatible with UMTS/HSDPA 3G connections at the frequencies 850MHz, 1900MHz and 2100MHz. It would be necessary, therefore, for Apple to build a new hardware model that supports T-Mobile's 3G frequency.
Not necessarily. Some chipsets can handle the 1700 spectrum with a firmware change. I don't know if these are used in the iPhone.
That's not quite correct. The "world standard" for UMTS/HSDPA would be 1900/2100 MHz (paired spectrum, that means 1900 MHz upstream/ 2100 MHz downstream) which is used pretty much everywhere in the world, except for North (and partly South) America. So already AT&Ts frequencies 1900 (not paired with 2100 MHz!) and 850 MHz are somewhat special, while T-Mobile's 1700/2100 MHz pair (again, upstream/downstream) was indeed quite exclusive until recently.
I was meaning more of their frequency choices... not necessarily the frequency paring. Most AT&T 3G phones are capable of paring to the standards used world wide. AT&T, itself, uses frequency paring that are not necessarily used everywhere else (like you said, the 850MHz range, which is used primary for it's distance and penetration).
My understanding, however, is there is a newer version of CDMA that will allow simultaneous voice and data but VerizonWireless hasn't adopted it. Don't blame them, though, with LTE coming soon.
Yes. Last year, the CDMA Development Group announced CDMA2000 1X Advanced, which is supposed to be available sometime this year. There are several improvements to the standard that will allow for most CDMA networks to quadruple their capacity. One of the other enhancements that was announced was SVDO (Simultaneous 1X Voice and EvDO). This would allow for both voice and data to take place at the same time.
It is my understanding that the CDMA2000 1X Advance standard is an upgrade to CDMA2000 networks and does not necessarily require device upgrades to benefit. Essentially, companies like Verizon could perform the upgrade as well as push out device updates that would enable this functionality. This is based upon the fact that CDMA2000 1X Advanced does not give any performance gains (such as faster EvDO, etc), but, rather, it is a rather simple channel card infrastructure change to enable the features. The only thing, though, is that these changes are not expected to be available until the second half of 2010. With Verizon going LTE, as you said, it may not be worth their time and interest.
Somebody please give me explanation of How the iPhone user experience would be better on Verizon?
As if you were pitching this to Steve, I don't want to hear more coverage more speed as neither is true, or translates into something the user experiences.
All I see on Verizon is slower 3G, No rollover minutes, and no Data while on a call. Sorry but every single phone call I make is while using Data. Every one.
Anyone? Please?
I can make it simple for you. It depends on where you live and where you go. If I can't make a phone call what good is it? No one network is good for everyone. People should be able to choose the network that is best for them.
Exclusive contracts are bad for consumers as a concept. The only people who are in favor of them are AT&T stockholders.
Do you remember saying this?
Yes. But I don't live in Lexington, although I do visit frequently.
And now that my wife has Verizon, I realize that I don't *have* to settle for edge service 90% of the time.
Where ATT offers 3g service, its been good IME. But not everyone lives in a major metropolitan area. Franakly I'm astounded at the Verizon service. My wife rarely *doesn't* have 3g service. It may technically be slower service (compared to ATT 3g service) but it doesn't feel slower. While I prefer my iPhone to the Droid Eris (that's a discussion for a different day) I envy her service.
I'm sorry but now having experienced Verizon, I can tell you that they have a better network.
Wrong, or at least wrong where you are. I was part of the buildout for Mannesmann (now Vodafone) in Germany, E-Plus in Germany, and O2 in Germany, as well as Vodafone in Cairo, Egypt. A tower or more accurately BTS (base station) can be put in a matter of minutes. It is all about location. Many, operators use existing structures, i.e. building rooftops, the sides of buildings, leasing space on towers, etc... You get the picture. You inference is simply incorrect. You are correct about swapping out equipment. That tends to be no problem at all.
you should come to the USA
in NYC buildings love cell phone towers. especially residential apartment buildings. they pay a lot of rent that reduces people's monthly bills.
in the burbs the idiots complain about no coverage but every time they try to put up a tower the same idiots complain it would ruin the view. so a lot of companies make their towers look like fake trees or put them on church steeples. the same idiots complain that it doesn't blend in. if they still don't get their way they sue.
"HotHardware alleges, without any evidence to support the claim, that the iPhone doesn't handle the switch from 3G to EDGE connections well, and frequently drops calls when 3G access is lost."
No phone can switch a call between 3G and EDGE. If a call starts on 3G, in must end on 3G. Or, alternatively, end when 3G coverage vanishes. AT&T's 3G coverage gaps and insufficient network capacity are to blame.
There must be a problem with the US system then. Here in the UK, my phone frequently continues calls started in 3G areas on EDGE or GPRS.
Seems like everybody has forgotten about the uproar that came when Apple first announced that the iPhone was coming to Cingular (which became AT&T). There were a lot of people that were really upset clear back in January 2007. It was because the AT&T network was crap already. Adding the mediocre radio in the iPhone, coupled with its heavy data load made the network that much worse.
It's funny how often we get long-term memory loss.
No. We have examined the comments here and network wasn't much of a particular issue with AT&T or anybody else at the time. Everybody was upset with dropped calls and poor connections on all the services.
In fact, prior to Apple announcing that they were going to get into the wireless area, Jobs had made it quite evident that this was one of his issues with cellular phones was that they didn't work, i.e., making phone calls.
The uproar, if any, (and it typically came from the same trollers we have here today) at the time of the announcement was the perceived prices that AT&T (because of the high data prices carrier were charging at the time) was going to charge for data on the new iPhone and this turned out to be a non-issue at launch.
And AH, keep in mind that it was only AT&T who came to the table and agreed to Job's condition to upgrade the network and lower data prices.
As for "adding a crap radio," what the hell is that about? AH
you should come to the USA
in NYC buildings love cell phone towers. especially residential apartment buildings. they pay a lot of rent that reduces people's monthly bills.
in the burbs the idiots complain about no coverage but every time they try to put up a tower the same idiots complain it would ruin the view. so a lot of companies make their towers look like fake trees or put them on church steeples. the same idiots complain that it doesn't blend in. if they still don't get their way they sue.
Not only that, but many European countries had such poor landline services relative to the US and in particular Canada, that wireless became the law. Dictated by their governments, paid for by the taxpayer and no regional bylaws to prevent it. And unlike North America, a single communication standard, i.e., GSM was basically adopted/enforced/became thenorm.
Some countries, like I have just seen on a recent trip to China, even have cell towers not only on the top of buildings but on street corners, about 10-12 feet off the ground.
And if anybody thinks it is that easy or why can't my cell phone work in a building, here is some good reading: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...iD9wvAK4GInkBA
you should come to the USA
in NYC buildings love cell phone towers. especially residential apartment buildings. they pay a lot of rent that reduces people's monthly bills.
in the burbs the idiots complain about no coverage but every time they try to put up a tower the same idiots complain it would ruin the view. so a lot of companies make their towers look like fake trees or put them on church steeples. the same idiots complain that it doesn't blend in. if they still don't get their way they sue.
I hear you dude. People do not realize that you need the BTS's to have coverage. 3G antennas do not have to be as high as normal GSM towers, but you still need the antennas. I did see some pretty cool designs to hide them though. I was in Kuwait and Egypt and the operators disguised the towers as really tall palm trees.
I hear you dude. People do not realize that you need the BTS's to have coverage. 3G antennas do not have to be as high as normal GSM towers, but you still need the antennas. I did see some pretty cool designs to hide them though. I was in Kuwait and Egypt and the operators disguised the towers as really tall palm trees.
"Inside of AT&T, we are hearing that the iPhone is causing more trouble than ever before," the report said. "On some level, having the iPhone is hurting AT&T's image. Because they are the only company to carry it, and it's such a data hog, it's largely to blame for AT&T's network troubles. We don't remember hearing about AT&T's 'horrible network' before the iPhone--do you?"
That's a particularly stupid statement, roughly akin to observing that that we don't remember hearing about potholes in the road before people started driving down it.
The last one doesn't have any attempt to hide it. If appearance was a consideration, I think there are radio transparent materials that can be used as a fascia, it could be done in a way to make the building look taller.