You beat me to it... Yep VZ in its all controlling nature went down a non standard LTB path, so it just limits them yet again...
People the government does not need to fix this, people just vote with your pocket books, The only reason that VZ is as big as it is, because they bough up competitors in their space over the last 15 yrs. They give away cheap crappy phones with two yr agreements and most of the people on VZ could care less about everything everyone here is complaining about.
I will tell you this, drop calls on AT&T is not an iphone only issue, got a new Atrix for work and switch from T-Moble to get it and it drops calls like crazy especially when in a building. Yeah T-mobile did not have coverage everywhere, but when I did have a connection even one bar I never dropped a call. However, i will tell you the Atrix Data on AT&T is faster than any other phone I seen on VZ or AT&T or T-mobile
People the government does not need to fix this, people just vote with your pocket books,
Telecom firms are quasi monopolies due to the limited amounts of bandwidth, as such it is entirely appropriate that government regulation be stricter than it is on say, PC makers. People will choose a carrier based on who gives them a good signal, often they won't have a good choice - so market forces are not enough.
Come on, government regulators! Do your job! This incompatibility is ultimately bad for everyone, including the telcos.
Nah, I want governments to focus on more important issues.
The international standards body should mandate some level of interoperability and not rely on the regional governments to work this out.
That said it is likely that future generations of LTE chips will have greater interoperability between the various spectrum allocations around the world.
This is yet another reason why the next generation iPhone will probably not be LTE compatible. The technology is still relatively immature. LTE deployment around the world is very spotty right now and the hardware is still in its infancy. Heck, the specification for voice over LTE isn't even complete.
Telecom firms are quasi monopolies due to the limited amounts of bandwidth, as such it is entirely appropriate that government regulation be stricter than it is on say, PC makers. People will choose a carrier based on who gives them a good signal, often they won't have a good choice - so market forces are not enough.
True, and I do think some regulation is necessary to ensure people have access to services. But to regulate that a specific phone is portable between networks? That seems more the job of the standards setting body than the government. And regardless of any regulation on hardware compatibility, how does that address the lack of available spectrum? I could have a phone that works on every network, but you'd still choose your service based on who gives a good signal. In other words, you still have the same choice of carriers you'd have if the hardware wasn't interoperable. The only thing an interoperable handset would help is if you are proposing government mandated internetwork roaming agreements. But that is hardly a 4G issue.
I do think phone service is an essential service and the government should ensure everyone has access, but I don't think smartphone service is in any way essential. There are any number of free phones available with your service, so there is no financial penalty to switching networks when you contract is up. And if you have the resources (ie, money) to own a smartphone, then I would argue you are less in need of the government looking after your interests (in this area).
Where the government could and should step in is in transparency of the service contracts and related fees. Help the consumer be better informed of the choices they make so they can make better choices. It's far better to have an educated consumer than to rely on the goverment to do our fishing for us.
[In case nobody got the fishing reference: "Feed a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime." ]
While it's easy to point to government and say "fix this for me", I have to wonder what people think the appropriate action by government should be? Mandate interoperability, resulting in bigger, more expensive, less efficient phones?...
Perhaps to build the network out themselves, or contract with a single entity to do so, and charge carriers for use, who then become simply backhaulers. This is essentially the model used for the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways in the U.S. and, although not perfectly analogous, it works better for the public than the current wireless carrier model, which uses spectrum wastefully. Imagine if 3 or 4 companies built parallel Interstate Highway systems, compatible only with the cars they sold. It's a nightmare for everyone -- consumers, handset manufacturers, etc. -- except the carriers.
Quote:
...Before asking government for a solution, I'd be asking the standards setting body why they didn't mandate a minimal interoperability standard. Perhaps they considered it but it just wasn't feasible in any practical manner. ...
The standards setting bodies don't represent the public, they represent the industry, so they aren't going to be looking out for the public interest, which is the job of government.
Perhaps to build the network out themselves, or contract with a single entity to do so, and charge carriers for use, who then become simply backhaulers. This is essentially the model used for the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways in the U.S. and, although not perfectly analogous, it works better for the public than the current wireless carrier model, which uses spectrum wastefully. Imagine if 3 or 4 companies built parallel Interstate Highway systems, compatible only with the cars they sold. It's a nightmare for everyone -- consumers, handset manufacturers, etc. -- except the carriers.
The standards setting bodies don't represent the public, they represent the industry, so they aren't going to be looking out for the public interest, which is the job of government.
The highways work better? Everywhere I go I find toll highways better maintained and they weren't built with tax dollars. Further, people who don't use them don't have to pay for them. You did get the "not perfectly analogous" part right, though.
The highways work better? Everywhere I go I find toll highways better maintained and they weren't built with tax dollars. Further, people who don't use them don't have to pay for them. You did get the "not perfectly analogous" part right, though.
You're like 16 and don't remember a time when this country actually invested in infrastructure, right? There aren't any toll highways in the U.S. that weren't originally built with tax dollars.
Perhaps to build the network out themselves, or contract with a single entity to do so, and charge carriers for use, who then become simply backhaulers. This is essentially the model used for the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways in the U.S. and, although not perfectly analogous, it works better for the public than the current wireless carrier model, which uses spectrum wastefully. Imagine if 3 or 4 companies built parallel Interstate Highway systems, compatible only with the cars they sold. It's a nightmare for everyone -- consumers, handset manufacturers, etc. -- except the carriers.
I understand the analogy you are trying to make, but I'm also trying to think of an example of a government maintained infrastructure that then has a private entity actually be the ones who control access to the service. There's nobody standing between me and highway when I want to go for a drive. You could turn over the entire thing to the goverment (get rid of the carriers altogether), but then you are sure to end up back with the previous poster's comment about potholes (and collapsed bridges, etc). And everyone would get taxed to support it, even if you never used it (bring us back to the "is this an essential service" question).
A better method would be not to force carriers to only sell hardware that works on all networks, but to tell them they must allow people to attached their own devices (imagine if Microsoft made a deal with Comcast whereby only Windows computers would be allowed to connect to the cable company's internet service!). This is one of the reasons Ma Bell got broken up, they were forcing people to only get phones from the phone company. It's also the reason why the cable industry was forced to create CableCards (although that's been largely a failure because they let the cable company run the show).
Combine that with transparency in the contracts and fees (how much of my monthly payment go towards paying off the subsidy/loan from the carrier to get my handset?), then the customer has choice. If I want to pay more for a multicarrier device and preserve my options to switch carriers later, then I can. But if I know I want ATT and that's all I need, I can have that consideration when I purchase a handset. Handset manufacturers can finally start working for the people using their devices instead of for the carriers (Apple leading the trend on that). We can choose a handset based on the network we want to use instead of choosing a network based on the handset we want to use. And the carriers will be more dependent on the quality of their service to attract customers instead leveraging exclusive handset deals, forced contracts, and locked phones to prevent people from switching.
I understand the analogy you are trying to make, but I'm also trying to think of an example of a government maintained infrastructure that then has a private entity actually be the ones who control access to the service. There's nobody standing between me and highway when I want to go for a drive. ...
As I indicated, it's not an exact analogy, however, it would probably work better for the public than the current chaos. (And, theoretically, at least, highways are maintained by the people who use them, through fuel taxes.) There are also any number of other approaches that could work, including simply a government mandate that they agree on common frequencies. The main point is that the lack of governmental oversight of the use of what is in fact a public resource is harmful to consumers, wasteful, and is even a burden on handset manufacturers.
But, who knows, maybe, combined with a (hypothetical) mandate that carriers allow people to use whatever equipment they want, someone will come up with a cellular radio that can simply tune itself to whatever frequency is required and work on any network, undermining the carriers obvious attempt to avoid real competition at any cost to everyone.
You're like 16 and don't remember a time when this country actually invested in infrastructure, right? There aren't any toll highways in the U.S. that weren't originally built with tax dollars.
Guess again... my youngest child is past 16. Toll highways were built with bond money. Granted, the bonds were backed by the government but tolls, not taxes, were used to pay the bond buyers.
If you don't like the idea of private enterprise running wireless telecom networks then are you willing for the government (i.e. the citizens) to buy back the spectrum that it sold for many billions of dollars? That's a lot of money you, me, and every other person will have to write a check for to ATT, VerizonWireless, etc.
Do you realize that much of the LTE standard includes backwards compatibility with GSM?
it's not going to be a problem at all. Verizon is doing this on purpose.
Exactly. It's Verizon's belief that compatibility with other carriers hurts it's business. That has always been the case. Did you also notice that Verizon's LTE speeds are half what AT&T's are? Come on big V. Don't make me switch. I need a phone that works world-wide. As if they care if I do.
Even if they aren't doing it on purpose and there is a legit technical barrier, lets just say they aren't losing sleep over it or rushing to help fix it.
There is a technical barrier. The Lower the Mghz, The better the bandwith! Which is why Verizon purchased the 700 mghz bandwith which used to be Analog Television. At&t purchased the 800. There will be 3 phases of LTE. The first which is Now, 5-12 megabytes per second. The Second which relates to the GSM question 12-50 per sec so by now there will be the introduction of VOICE OVER LTE as the new standard. Then last 50-1 terabytes.
I'm sure roaming will be eventually be rolled out for international roaming....?
Vodaphone, china unicom, and other's are also going LTE
Guess again... my youngest child is past 16. Toll highways were built with bond money. Granted, the bonds were backed by the government but tolls, not taxes, were used to pay the bond buyers.
Tolls are taxes. And apparently your memory has started to go, since it's only since the taxes are evil crowd came around and our national infrastructure was allowed to decay that toll roads were in many cases kept better maintained than other highways, and that's often because by law the money can't be used for anything else. The idea that the government shouldn't build infrastructure is simply stupid.
Quote:
If you don't like the idea of private enterprise running wireless telecom networks then are you willing for the government (i.e. the citizens) to buy back the spectrum that it sold for many billions of dollars? That's a lot of money you, me, and every other person will have to write a check for to ATT, VerizonWireless, etc.
They don't have to buy it back, they can simply mandate, in the public interest, that it be used for the public benefit. If the carriers don't like that, they can give it back. The carriers don't own the spectrum, they only own rights to use it in accordance with government regulation. (And, have they actually paid in full for use of spectrum, or are they paying for it over some number of years? I'd be surprised if it's the former.)
There is a technical barrier. The Lower the Mghz, The better the bandwith! Which is why Verizon purchased the 700 mghz bandwith which used to be Analog Television. At&t purchased the 800.
Not quite. The lower the frequency, the better the coverage (less attenuation). The higher the bandwidth used -> More speed (á la Shannon). That has very little to do with the selected frequency band in use. You can have 1.5, 5, 10, 20 MHz chunks in any of the frequency bands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by theobold
There will be 3 phases of LTE. The first which is Now, 5-12 megabytes per second. The Second which relates to the GSM question 12-50 per sec so by now there will be the introduction of VOICE OVER LTE as the new standard. Then last 50-1 terabytes.
The first, which is now is around 40-80Mbps as shown in the Nordics and Korea. Next stage will likely be a single digit multiplier to that.
50-1 terabytes? Not likely to happen at all. To get the 1Gbps (1/8000th of 1tB) requires the use of 8x8 MIMO on a 120Mhz band. That is not going to happen anytime soon. Many operators are having difficulties in obtaining just 20MHz.
Voice over LTE has been specified and is now being implemented, but that'l take a few years to porperly deploy.
Comments
Here we go again...
You beat me to it... Yep VZ in its all controlling nature went down a non standard LTB path, so it just limits them yet again...
People the government does not need to fix this, people just vote with your pocket books, The only reason that VZ is as big as it is, because they bough up competitors in their space over the last 15 yrs. They give away cheap crappy phones with two yr agreements and most of the people on VZ could care less about everything everyone here is complaining about.
I will tell you this, drop calls on AT&T is not an iphone only issue, got a new Atrix for work and switch from T-Moble to get it and it drops calls like crazy especially when in a building. Yeah T-mobile did not have coverage everywhere, but when I did have a connection even one bar I never dropped a call. However, i will tell you the Atrix Data on AT&T is faster than any other phone I seen on VZ or AT&T or T-mobile
People the government does not need to fix this, people just vote with your pocket books,
Telecom firms are quasi monopolies due to the limited amounts of bandwidth, as such it is entirely appropriate that government regulation be stricter than it is on say, PC makers. People will choose a carrier based on who gives them a good signal, often they won't have a good choice - so market forces are not enough.
The problem here is too little government, and a theological belief that markets solve problems.
Yep, that's what Lenin and Trotsky said. What a wonderful economy they created.
Come on, government regulators! Do your job! This incompatibility is ultimately bad for everyone, including the telcos.
Nah, I want governments to focus on more important issues.
The international standards body should mandate some level of interoperability and not rely on the regional governments to work this out.
That said it is likely that future generations of LTE chips will have greater interoperability between the various spectrum allocations around the world.
This is yet another reason why the next generation iPhone will probably not be LTE compatible. The technology is still relatively immature. LTE deployment around the world is very spotty right now and the hardware is still in its infancy. Heck, the specification for voice over LTE isn't even complete.
Telecom firms are quasi monopolies due to the limited amounts of bandwidth, as such it is entirely appropriate that government regulation be stricter than it is on say, PC makers. People will choose a carrier based on who gives them a good signal, often they won't have a good choice - so market forces are not enough.
True, and I do think some regulation is necessary to ensure people have access to services. But to regulate that a specific phone is portable between networks? That seems more the job of the standards setting body than the government. And regardless of any regulation on hardware compatibility, how does that address the lack of available spectrum? I could have a phone that works on every network, but you'd still choose your service based on who gives a good signal. In other words, you still have the same choice of carriers you'd have if the hardware wasn't interoperable. The only thing an interoperable handset would help is if you are proposing government mandated internetwork roaming agreements. But that is hardly a 4G issue.
I do think phone service is an essential service and the government should ensure everyone has access, but I don't think smartphone service is in any way essential. There are any number of free phones available with your service, so there is no financial penalty to switching networks when you contract is up. And if you have the resources (ie, money) to own a smartphone, then I would argue you are less in need of the government looking after your interests (in this area).
Where the government could and should step in is in transparency of the service contracts and related fees. Help the consumer be better informed of the choices they make so they can make better choices. It's far better to have an educated consumer than to rely on the goverment to do our fishing for us.
[In case nobody got the fishing reference: "Feed a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime."
Nah, I want governments to focus on more important issues.
The international standards body should mandate some level of interoperability and not rely on the regional governments to work this out.
Very true. If you let the governments do the job, you'll still have varying technology between countries.
The 700MHz spectrum in North America became available because analog television transmission was discontinued.
Very true. If you let the governments do the job, you'll still have varying technology between countries.
Not once we get One World Government.
While it's easy to point to government and say "fix this for me", I have to wonder what people think the appropriate action by government should be? Mandate interoperability, resulting in bigger, more expensive, less efficient phones?...
Perhaps to build the network out themselves, or contract with a single entity to do so, and charge carriers for use, who then become simply backhaulers. This is essentially the model used for the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways in the U.S. and, although not perfectly analogous, it works better for the public than the current wireless carrier model, which uses spectrum wastefully. Imagine if 3 or 4 companies built parallel Interstate Highway systems, compatible only with the cars they sold. It's a nightmare for everyone -- consumers, handset manufacturers, etc. -- except the carriers.
...Before asking government for a solution, I'd be asking the standards setting body why they didn't mandate a minimal interoperability standard. Perhaps they considered it but it just wasn't feasible in any practical manner. ...
The standards setting bodies don't represent the public, they represent the industry, so they aren't going to be looking out for the public interest, which is the job of government.
Perhaps to build the network out themselves, or contract with a single entity to do so, and charge carriers for use, who then become simply backhaulers. This is essentially the model used for the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways in the U.S. and, although not perfectly analogous, it works better for the public than the current wireless carrier model, which uses spectrum wastefully. Imagine if 3 or 4 companies built parallel Interstate Highway systems, compatible only with the cars they sold. It's a nightmare for everyone -- consumers, handset manufacturers, etc. -- except the carriers.
The standards setting bodies don't represent the public, they represent the industry, so they aren't going to be looking out for the public interest, which is the job of government.
The highways work better? Everywhere I go I find toll highways better maintained and they weren't built with tax dollars. Further, people who don't use them don't have to pay for them. You did get the "not perfectly analogous" part right, though.
The highways work better? Everywhere I go I find toll highways better maintained and they weren't built with tax dollars. Further, people who don't use them don't have to pay for them. You did get the "not perfectly analogous" part right, though.
You're like 16 and don't remember a time when this country actually invested in infrastructure, right? There aren't any toll highways in the U.S. that weren't originally built with tax dollars.
Perhaps to build the network out themselves, or contract with a single entity to do so, and charge carriers for use, who then become simply backhaulers. This is essentially the model used for the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways in the U.S. and, although not perfectly analogous, it works better for the public than the current wireless carrier model, which uses spectrum wastefully. Imagine if 3 or 4 companies built parallel Interstate Highway systems, compatible only with the cars they sold. It's a nightmare for everyone -- consumers, handset manufacturers, etc. -- except the carriers.
I understand the analogy you are trying to make, but I'm also trying to think of an example of a government maintained infrastructure that then has a private entity actually be the ones who control access to the service. There's nobody standing between me and highway when I want to go for a drive. You could turn over the entire thing to the goverment (get rid of the carriers altogether), but then you are sure to end up back with the previous poster's comment about potholes (and collapsed bridges, etc). And everyone would get taxed to support it, even if you never used it (bring us back to the "is this an essential service" question).
A better method would be not to force carriers to only sell hardware that works on all networks, but to tell them they must allow people to attached their own devices (imagine if Microsoft made a deal with Comcast whereby only Windows computers would be allowed to connect to the cable company's internet service!). This is one of the reasons Ma Bell got broken up, they were forcing people to only get phones from the phone company. It's also the reason why the cable industry was forced to create CableCards (although that's been largely a failure because they let the cable company run the show).
Combine that with transparency in the contracts and fees (how much of my monthly payment go towards paying off the subsidy/loan from the carrier to get my handset?), then the customer has choice. If I want to pay more for a multicarrier device and preserve my options to switch carriers later, then I can. But if I know I want ATT and that's all I need, I can have that consideration when I purchase a handset. Handset manufacturers can finally start working for the people using their devices instead of for the carriers (Apple leading the trend on that). We can choose a handset based on the network we want to use instead of choosing a network based on the handset we want to use. And the carriers will be more dependent on the quality of their service to attract customers instead leveraging exclusive handset deals, forced contracts, and locked phones to prevent people from switching.
I understand the analogy you are trying to make, but I'm also trying to think of an example of a government maintained infrastructure that then has a private entity actually be the ones who control access to the service. There's nobody standing between me and highway when I want to go for a drive. ...
As I indicated, it's not an exact analogy, however, it would probably work better for the public than the current chaos. (And, theoretically, at least, highways are maintained by the people who use them, through fuel taxes.) There are also any number of other approaches that could work, including simply a government mandate that they agree on common frequencies. The main point is that the lack of governmental oversight of the use of what is in fact a public resource is harmful to consumers, wasteful, and is even a burden on handset manufacturers.
But, who knows, maybe, combined with a (hypothetical) mandate that carriers allow people to use whatever equipment they want, someone will come up with a cellular radio that can simply tune itself to whatever frequency is required and work on any network, undermining the carriers obvious attempt to avoid real competition at any cost to everyone.
You're like 16 and don't remember a time when this country actually invested in infrastructure, right? There aren't any toll highways in the U.S. that weren't originally built with tax dollars.
Guess again... my youngest child is past 16. Toll highways were built with bond money. Granted, the bonds were backed by the government but tolls, not taxes, were used to pay the bond buyers.
If you don't like the idea of private enterprise running wireless telecom networks then are you willing for the government (i.e. the citizens) to buy back the spectrum that it sold for many billions of dollars? That's a lot of money you, me, and every other person will have to write a check for to ATT, VerizonWireless, etc.
Do you realize that much of the LTE standard includes backwards compatibility with GSM?
it's not going to be a problem at all. Verizon is doing this on purpose.
Exactly. It's Verizon's belief that compatibility with other carriers hurts it's business. That has always been the case. Did you also notice that Verizon's LTE speeds are half what AT&T's are? Come on big V. Don't make me switch. I need a phone that works world-wide. As if they care if I do.
Even if they aren't doing it on purpose and there is a legit technical barrier, lets just say they aren't losing sleep over it or rushing to help fix it.
There is a technical barrier. The Lower the Mghz, The better the bandwith! Which is why Verizon purchased the 700 mghz bandwith which used to be Analog Television. At&t purchased the 800. There will be 3 phases of LTE. The first which is Now, 5-12 megabytes per second. The Second which relates to the GSM question 12-50 per sec so by now there will be the introduction of VOICE OVER LTE as the new standard. Then last 50-1 terabytes.
I'm sure roaming will be eventually be rolled out for international roaming....?
Vodaphone, china unicom, and other's are also going LTE
Guess again... my youngest child is past 16. Toll highways were built with bond money. Granted, the bonds were backed by the government but tolls, not taxes, were used to pay the bond buyers.
Tolls are taxes. And apparently your memory has started to go, since it's only since the taxes are evil crowd came around and our national infrastructure was allowed to decay that toll roads were in many cases kept better maintained than other highways, and that's often because by law the money can't be used for anything else. The idea that the government shouldn't build infrastructure is simply stupid.
If you don't like the idea of private enterprise running wireless telecom networks then are you willing for the government (i.e. the citizens) to buy back the spectrum that it sold for many billions of dollars? That's a lot of money you, me, and every other person will have to write a check for to ATT, VerizonWireless, etc.
They don't have to buy it back, they can simply mandate, in the public interest, that it be used for the public benefit. If the carriers don't like that, they can give it back. The carriers don't own the spectrum, they only own rights to use it in accordance with government regulation. (And, have they actually paid in full for use of spectrum, or are they paying for it over some number of years? I'd be surprised if it's the former.)
There is a technical barrier. The Lower the Mghz, The better the bandwith! Which is why Verizon purchased the 700 mghz bandwith which used to be Analog Television. At&t purchased the 800.
Not quite. The lower the frequency, the better the coverage (less attenuation). The higher the bandwidth used -> More speed (á la Shannon). That has very little to do with the selected frequency band in use. You can have 1.5, 5, 10, 20 MHz chunks in any of the frequency bands.
There will be 3 phases of LTE. The first which is Now, 5-12 megabytes per second. The Second which relates to the GSM question 12-50 per sec so by now there will be the introduction of VOICE OVER LTE as the new standard. Then last 50-1 terabytes.
The first, which is now is around 40-80Mbps as shown in the Nordics and Korea. Next stage will likely be a single digit multiplier to that.
50-1 terabytes? Not likely to happen at all. To get the 1Gbps (1/8000th of 1tB) requires the use of 8x8 MIMO on a 120Mhz band. That is not going to happen anytime soon. Many operators are having difficulties in obtaining just 20MHz.
Voice over LTE has been specified and is now being implemented, but that'l take a few years to porperly deploy.
Regs, Jarkko