You can't add a new frequency band using firmware.
Well...it is possible.
A lot of these cellular radio ICs are highly integrated and programmable to use desired frequencies or methods of transmission. It's cheaper to make one radio that the phone vendor programs as they see fit.
The phone's processor could in fact have upgraded firmware delivered that would program the radio IC to a different operating frequency--or at least allow it the choice of doing so as required.
You do need some supporting circuitry, as well as an antenna that can work well over multiple frequencies. However, the cost of those supporting components is extremely low, and given the highly integrated nature of the IC, little else is needed outside of an antenna and a reference clock.
The common method by which highly flexible frequency selection is made possible is through a phase locked loop, or PLL circuit. The net result is basically a freely programmable frequency generator, usually with very stable output.
(To bring AM and FM radio back into it, nearly all "digitally tuned" AM/FM radios use that same method. Many of the ICs used in those designs will receive more than just standard AM and FM broadcasts if the radio maker chooses to implement those features.)
Verizon would never work with an apple device because of the restriction they would want or the control they want with the device. For example, verizon won't let apple make billions of dollars on their itunes app store and not get a cut of it. At&t gets no money of app revenue, verizon would want some.
How do you explain the Droid, Droid Eris, upcoming Nexus One, Blackberry Storm, Palm Pre Plus, Pixi Plus, etc. Those all have app stores just like apples (except no where near the selection). I don't see any restrictions that Verizon has induced on them. What would make you think they'd do the same IF the iPhone were to come to Verizon. I'd love to see the iPhone come to Verizon, but every time Apple hosts a surprise event, more and more rumors appear about a Verizon iPhone. Honestly I don't see it happening till maybe when Verizon rolls out their LTE service.
Call AT&T and ask for fiber to your home, you will hit a brick wall, with no path forward.
New developments would generally not be calling in to request fiber to the home, obviously home developers line things up in advance.
Too expensive is a copout! If I offer to pay, there should be NO AT&T concern. In example, I can pay the electric company to have an overhead power line buried in my yard from the service node.
What Verizon is doing with fiber, AT&T REFUSES to do, even if you offer to pay extra. AT&T is the dinosaur.
Who cares about CDMA, it's likely dead, as you can use it very few places outside the US. I don't want a phone that's a brick when I leave the country!
Sprint royally screwed up their merger with Nextel by not integrating Direct Connect into ALL Sprint phones -- thereby killing the sole reason to acquire Nextel. Nextel never had a good smartphone, which is why I left their service for an iPhone.
Unfortunately there is STILL no Direct Connect equivalent for AT&T iPhones (Push To Talk)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApplePi
Well all I know is that after being with Sprint for 4 years (and loved it)
AT&T doesn't serve my area. So no matter how good a partner Apple thinks AT&T is, until they go with Verizon, they won't be selling my family iPhones. I know it's only five phones, but we're not the only people in Montana, either.
From my perspective, the AT&T only deal was a total stupidgasm on the part of Apple. And it's something we - the family - keep in mind when considering other Apple products, or talking about them with other people. That's the problem with disenfranchising people. They start to think about it.
I have the greatest smartphone [Iphone] on a crummy network. I know Apple and Verizon both like to have control, but I am real tired of inferior network.
There are other good smartphones out there now and I hope Apple is noticing.
Sprint royally screwed up their merger with Nextel by not integrating Direct Connect into ALL Sprint phones -- thereby killing the sole reason to acquire Nextel. Nextel never had a good smartphone, which is why I left their service for an iPhone.
Unfortunately there is STILL no Direct Connect equivalent for AT&T iPhones (Push To Talk)
I never cared for push-to-talk. I was only commenting on the service and price. If I could have gotten an iPhone on Sprint I would have never switched.
A lot of these cellular radio ICs are highly integrated and programmable to use desired frequencies or methods of transmission. It's cheaper to make one radio that the phone vendor programs as they see fit.
The phone's processor could in fact have upgraded firmware delivered that would program the radio IC to a different operating frequency--or at least allow it the choice of doing so as required.
You do need some supporting circuitry, as well as an antenna that can work well over multiple frequencies. However, the cost of those supporting components is extremely low, and given the highly integrated nature of the IC, little else is needed outside of an antenna and a reference clock.
The common method by which highly flexible frequency selection is made possible is through a phase locked loop, or PLL circuit. The net result is basically a freely programmable frequency generator, usually with very stable output.
(To bring AM and FM radio back into it, nearly all "digitally tuned" AM/FM radios use that same method. Many of the ICs used in those designs will receive more than just standard AM and FM broadcasts if the radio maker chooses to implement those features.)
No comparison between AM/FM receivers and PLL's when it comes to a cell phone that needs to also transmit. Programming PLL's is not the major issue with tuning to and filtering different bands. As a matter of fact it's the least of the issues when dealing with multi-band radios. I won't go any further and give people a popsicle headache, but it's not trivial to build it in so that it supports AT&T's operating bands and the 1700M band. It would however, not be that difficult to make a new iPhone with that frequency support, most likely a dedicated one.
Actually there are Quadband 3G chips on the horizon that could easily allow Apple to support both T-Mobile and AT&T and the rest of the world on one design. Take in mind that other carriers in North and South America are included to use AWS (T-Mobile's band) in their respective countries, so T-Mobile will not be lone in supporting this new band.
As for adding it on existing iPhones, its not possible.
It is however possible to include quadband in the next iPhone and only sell it as triband till its convienent for them. HTC has done this before with GSM, the Euro spec HTC Diamond was orignally only triband (900, 1800, 1900) GSM plus Euro 3G bands. But because of either roaming or increased import into the US they released a radio patch that did unlock it to quadband GSM giving it better US and Americas coverage.
Remember T-Mobile and AT&T first had 1900 GSM, but later AT&T added the odd 850 GSM which now has become a second band for the Americas.
A lot of these cellular radio ICs are highly integrated and programmable to use desired frequencies or methods of transmission. It's cheaper to make one radio that the phone vendor programs as they see fit.
If that is true, then why does Apple incorporate 3 distinct chips with distinct product numbers by TiQuent Semiconductor to use distinct UMTS frequency bands if it’s as simple as altering the firmware on the same chip?
I agree that Verizon is just as bad if not worst then AT&T. However, allowing smaller players to enter the game would benefit Apple in the sense that it would be giving users more choice without necessarily destroying it's good relationship with AT&T.
For instance, going with T-Mobile would serve these purposes. Further, AT&T's data network is better then T-Mobile because it has had the incentive to upgrade quickly. Namely, the sales of iPhones. If T-Mobile were to have an influx of high data users it would upgrade as well. AT&T needs competition on the variety of plans it offers. T-Mobile has better family plans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marielox
Why are t-mobile and verizon the only ones in the running?
Verizon would never work with an apple device because of the restriction they would want or the control they want with the device. For example, verizon won't let apple make billions of dollars on their itunes app store and not get a cut of it. At&t gets no money of app revenue, verizon would want some.
Has anyone ever talked about t-mobiles internet service??? Everyone has something to say about at&t, do you really think t-mobile is any better, if anything, worse.
Sprint has nationwide coverage, their EVDO internet is very large, and they are the first company with 4G internet that is rolling out nationwide in less than 5 months, and is already in a lot of places currents.
Actually there are Quadband 3G chips on the horizon that could easily allow Apple to support both T-Mobile and AT&T and the rest of the world on one design. Take in mind that other carriers in North and South America are included to use AWS (T-Mobile's band) in their respective countries, so T-Mobile will not be lone in supporting this new band.
The current iPhone uses the X-Gold 608. As I recall (too lazy to reread the PDFs) the new 618 can do four WCDMA bands with an option for a fith.
I must be some sort of statistical anomaly, because I have not had any problems with at&t service.
I've used the original iPhone since 2007 and it's always just worked, and last April I switched to U-verse TV and Internet service and couldn't be happier with it.
Verizon has some decent multi-band phones, my HTC Ozone is one of them with CDMA and GSM. And it was a free phone. Would I rather an iPhone, of course. But I mostly use a phone to, you know, talk - so all the fancy apps that you use for two minutes and then delete don't really appeal to me anyways.
Really in the end what does it matter? We all know that all of the cell phone service
providers are evil. They're all right there with the credit card, mortgage, and insurance companies and the federal government. This really is a silly debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey
I believe the features that you are asking for are short in coming. You may have noticed that the carriers have dropped their prices. I'm expecting them to add data plans that would bring the aggregate plan for both the Iphone and the tablet to remain about the same cost as the old contracts with just an iphone. Just a thought, but I have a feeling that some of these carrier issues have much to do with the development and release of new products.
As an example the Iphone itself...
3g is widely accepted internationally, so Apple chose AT&T first. It's pretty much that simple in my opinion. The first market intended for the iphone was obviously corporate and they need to travel abroad with their devices. With VZ's network you can't do it as easily. (I've had an iphone for quite a while now so correct me if I'm mistaken).
I can't use VZ because of that fact. Even though I'm moving to a rural area with good VZ coverage and bad ATT coverage. I'm with att since my job takes me out of the country about 6 months out of the year. So yeah I'm hoping for micro-cells as well.
Sure there are other issues that Apple had with VZ ( app sales and profit charing, simultaneous data and voice etc) but mostly it was about overall quality of service and generally ATT does in fact (sort of) do it better for the target audience of the first iphone. Didn't the earliest Blackberries run on Tmoblie first as well?
Things have changed allot, so I'm sure you'll get you VZ iphone very soon. Just keep in mind that all carriers are con artists and thieves and anything they do is simply about customer perception and not actually doing anything better than anyone else, except only to find their niche.
Choose the one that has the features that you need, but dropped calls, slow data rates etc etc are going to plague any and all networks for at least the next five or ten years. Even wired SP's are struggling with demand and generally don't care to offer anything remarkable. Rather in all cases they generally want o sell you old tech at bloated prices.
Yes Verizon as a company is MUCH more of an innovator than AT&T. I would sign-up for fiber to the home TODAY, if I could. Guess what, AT&T won't do it, even if you pay extra. Verizon does.
Why would I care who owns the fiber, I want the company that will install fiber to my home!
What are you talking about? I would love FIOS where I live. Verizon doesn't offer it, even if I "pay extra." No telling if and when they might get around to it, either. And this is a pretty upscale neighborhood in the Bay Area, not some backwater.
Good luck finding 4G chipsets now... AT&T can't put money into 4G to solve 3G problems. 5G is 5+ years away at best.
AT&T actually owns fiber. Verizon Wireless does not. Don't confuse Verizon and Verizon Wireless...
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
What are you talking about? I would love FIOS where I live. Verizon doesn't offer it, even if I "pay extra." No telling if and when they might get around to it, either. And this is a pretty upscale neighborhood in the Bay Area, not some backwater.
That's because here in the Bay Area at&t has a lock-down on the landline business. It's oddly different then wireless. Comcast yes. Verizon fios No. Is it fair? The closest region that has it would be gilroy. B.S. yes.
Comments
That would kill a decent part of the sales until June. Why would they do that? They don't do that.
http://news.vzw.com/pdf/Verizon_Wireless_Press_Kit.pdf
And to add, Verizon Wireless is not run as a subsidiary, it is run as it's own company.
AT&T Mobility is truly a subsidiary of AT&T and has access to it's parent company's resources.
You can't add a new frequency band using firmware.
Well...it is possible.
A lot of these cellular radio ICs are highly integrated and programmable to use desired frequencies or methods of transmission. It's cheaper to make one radio that the phone vendor programs as they see fit.
The phone's processor could in fact have upgraded firmware delivered that would program the radio IC to a different operating frequency--or at least allow it the choice of doing so as required.
You do need some supporting circuitry, as well as an antenna that can work well over multiple frequencies. However, the cost of those supporting components is extremely low, and given the highly integrated nature of the IC, little else is needed outside of an antenna and a reference clock.
The common method by which highly flexible frequency selection is made possible is through a phase locked loop, or PLL circuit. The net result is basically a freely programmable frequency generator, usually with very stable output.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLL
(To bring AM and FM radio back into it, nearly all "digitally tuned" AM/FM radios use that same method. Many of the ICs used in those designs will receive more than just standard AM and FM broadcasts if the radio maker chooses to implement those features.)
Verizon would never work with an apple device because of the restriction they would want or the control they want with the device. For example, verizon won't let apple make billions of dollars on their itunes app store and not get a cut of it. At&t gets no money of app revenue, verizon would want some.
How do you explain the Droid, Droid Eris, upcoming Nexus One, Blackberry Storm, Palm Pre Plus, Pixi Plus, etc. Those all have app stores just like apples (except no where near the selection). I don't see any restrictions that Verizon has induced on them. What would make you think they'd do the same IF the iPhone were to come to Verizon. I'd love to see the iPhone come to Verizon, but every time Apple hosts a surprise event, more and more rumors appear about a Verizon iPhone. Honestly I don't see it happening till maybe when Verizon rolls out their LTE service.
Call AT&T and ask for fiber to your home, you will hit a brick wall, with no path forward.
New developments would generally not be calling in to request fiber to the home, obviously home developers line things up in advance.
Too expensive is a copout! If I offer to pay, there should be NO AT&T concern. In example, I can pay the electric company to have an overhead power line buried in my yard from the service node.
What Verizon is doing with fiber, AT&T REFUSES to do, even if you offer to pay extra. AT&T is the dinosaur.
Who cares about CDMA, it's likely dead, as you can use it very few places outside the US. I don't want a phone that's a brick when I leave the country!
FiberOne... Cardboard, NO! Delicious, YES!
FiberOne
Sorry with all this talk about Fiber, I couldn't help myself!
Unfortunately there is STILL no Direct Connect equivalent for AT&T iPhones (Push To Talk)
Well all I know is that after being with Sprint for 4 years (and loved it)
From my perspective, the AT&T only deal was a total stupidgasm on the part of Apple. And it's something we - the family - keep in mind when considering other Apple products, or talking about them with other people. That's the problem with disenfranchising people. They start to think about it.
There are other good smartphones out there now and I hope Apple is noticing.
Mike Regan
Sprint royally screwed up their merger with Nextel by not integrating Direct Connect into ALL Sprint phones -- thereby killing the sole reason to acquire Nextel. Nextel never had a good smartphone, which is why I left their service for an iPhone.
Unfortunately there is STILL no Direct Connect equivalent for AT&T iPhones (Push To Talk)
I never cared for push-to-talk. I was only commenting on the service and price. If I could have gotten an iPhone on Sprint I would have never switched.
Well...it is possible.
A lot of these cellular radio ICs are highly integrated and programmable to use desired frequencies or methods of transmission. It's cheaper to make one radio that the phone vendor programs as they see fit.
The phone's processor could in fact have upgraded firmware delivered that would program the radio IC to a different operating frequency--or at least allow it the choice of doing so as required.
You do need some supporting circuitry, as well as an antenna that can work well over multiple frequencies. However, the cost of those supporting components is extremely low, and given the highly integrated nature of the IC, little else is needed outside of an antenna and a reference clock.
The common method by which highly flexible frequency selection is made possible is through a phase locked loop, or PLL circuit. The net result is basically a freely programmable frequency generator, usually with very stable output.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLL
(To bring AM and FM radio back into it, nearly all "digitally tuned" AM/FM radios use that same method. Many of the ICs used in those designs will receive more than just standard AM and FM broadcasts if the radio maker chooses to implement those features.)
No comparison between AM/FM receivers and PLL's when it comes to a cell phone that needs to also transmit. Programming PLL's is not the major issue with tuning to and filtering different bands. As a matter of fact it's the least of the issues when dealing with multi-band radios. I won't go any further and give people a popsicle headache, but it's not trivial to build it in so that it supports AT&T's operating bands and the 1700M band. It would however, not be that difficult to make a new iPhone with that frequency support, most likely a dedicated one.
As for adding it on existing iPhones, its not possible.
It is however possible to include quadband in the next iPhone and only sell it as triband till its convienent for them. HTC has done this before with GSM, the Euro spec HTC Diamond was orignally only triband (900, 1800, 1900) GSM plus Euro 3G bands. But because of either roaming or increased import into the US they released a radio patch that did unlock it to quadband GSM giving it better US and Americas coverage.
Remember T-Mobile and AT&T first had 1900 GSM, but later AT&T added the odd 850 GSM which now has become a second band for the Americas.
Well...it is possible.
A lot of these cellular radio ICs are highly integrated and programmable to use desired frequencies or methods of transmission. It's cheaper to make one radio that the phone vendor programs as they see fit.
If that is true, then why does Apple incorporate 3 distinct chips with distinct product numbers by TiQuent Semiconductor to use distinct UMTS frequency bands if it’s as simple as altering the firmware on the same chip?
For instance, going with T-Mobile would serve these purposes. Further, AT&T's data network is better then T-Mobile because it has had the incentive to upgrade quickly. Namely, the sales of iPhones. If T-Mobile were to have an influx of high data users it would upgrade as well. AT&T needs competition on the variety of plans it offers. T-Mobile has better family plans.
Why are t-mobile and verizon the only ones in the running?
Verizon would never work with an apple device because of the restriction they would want or the control they want with the device. For example, verizon won't let apple make billions of dollars on their itunes app store and not get a cut of it. At&t gets no money of app revenue, verizon would want some.
Has anyone ever talked about t-mobiles internet service??? Everyone has something to say about at&t, do you really think t-mobile is any better, if anything, worse.
Sprint has nationwide coverage, their EVDO internet is very large, and they are the first company with 4G internet that is rolling out nationwide in less than 5 months, and is already in a lot of places currents.
I think Sprint needs to get looked at also.
Actually there are Quadband 3G chips on the horizon that could easily allow Apple to support both T-Mobile and AT&T and the rest of the world on one design. Take in mind that other carriers in North and South America are included to use AWS (T-Mobile's band) in their respective countries, so T-Mobile will not be lone in supporting this new band.
The current iPhone uses the X-Gold 608. As I recall (too lazy to reread the PDFs) the new 618 can do four WCDMA bands with an option for a fith.
I've used the original iPhone since 2007 and it's always just worked, and last April I switched to U-verse TV and Internet service and couldn't be happier with it.
Good luck finding 4G chipsets now... AT&T can't put money into 4G to solve 3G problems. 5G is 5+ years away at best.
AT&T actually owns fiber. Verizon Wireless does not. Don't confuse Verizon and Verizon Wireless...
Incorrect. They merged as a whole company last year. It's in fact at&t that doesn't let them expand in some landline markets
we're not the only people in Montana, either.
Yes you are.
Really in the end what does it matter? We all know that all of the cell phone service
providers are evil. They're all right there with the credit card, mortgage, and insurance companies and the federal government. This really is a silly debate.
I believe the features that you are asking for are short in coming. You may have noticed that the carriers have dropped their prices. I'm expecting them to add data plans that would bring the aggregate plan for both the Iphone and the tablet to remain about the same cost as the old contracts with just an iphone. Just a thought, but I have a feeling that some of these carrier issues have much to do with the development and release of new products.
As an example the Iphone itself...
3g is widely accepted internationally, so Apple chose AT&T first. It's pretty much that simple in my opinion. The first market intended for the iphone was obviously corporate and they need to travel abroad with their devices. With VZ's network you can't do it as easily. (I've had an iphone for quite a while now so correct me if I'm mistaken).
I can't use VZ because of that fact. Even though I'm moving to a rural area with good VZ coverage and bad ATT coverage. I'm with att since my job takes me out of the country about 6 months out of the year. So yeah I'm hoping for micro-cells as well.
Sure there are other issues that Apple had with VZ ( app sales and profit charing, simultaneous data and voice etc) but mostly it was about overall quality of service and generally ATT does in fact (sort of) do it better for the target audience of the first iphone. Didn't the earliest Blackberries run on Tmoblie first as well?
Things have changed allot, so I'm sure you'll get you VZ iphone very soon. Just keep in mind that all carriers are con artists and thieves and anything they do is simply about customer perception and not actually doing anything better than anyone else, except only to find their niche.
Choose the one that has the features that you need, but dropped calls, slow data rates etc etc are going to plague any and all networks for at least the next five or ten years. Even wired SP's are struggling with demand and generally don't care to offer anything remarkable. Rather in all cases they generally want o sell you old tech at bloated prices.
Verizon is the company, wireless is a division...
Yes Verizon as a company is MUCH more of an innovator than AT&T. I would sign-up for fiber to the home TODAY, if I could. Guess what, AT&T won't do it, even if you pay extra. Verizon does.
Why would I care who owns the fiber, I want the company that will install fiber to my home!
What are you talking about? I would love FIOS where I live. Verizon doesn't offer it, even if I "pay extra." No telling if and when they might get around to it, either. And this is a pretty upscale neighborhood in the Bay Area, not some backwater.
Good luck finding 4G chipsets now... AT&T can't put money into 4G to solve 3G problems. 5G is 5+ years away at best.
AT&T actually owns fiber. Verizon Wireless does not. Don't confuse Verizon and Verizon Wireless...
What are you talking about? I would love FIOS where I live. Verizon doesn't offer it, even if I "pay extra." No telling if and when they might get around to it, either. And this is a pretty upscale neighborhood in the Bay Area, not some backwater.
That's because here in the Bay Area at&t has a lock-down on the landline business. It's oddly different then wireless. Comcast yes. Verizon fios No. Is it fair? The closest region that has it would be gilroy. B.S. yes.
This is apparently at&t biggest market.