yes but the talk is that both technologies are on the way out. making the way for LTE or whatever. so it would be counterproductive to do any switching, only to do it again in a year or so. given this, they probably would have both going at the same time.
assuming that the legals shake out and allow the merger.
LTE won't be viable until late 2011. Then it will cover most of the US from both at7t and Verizon.
It will take longer for T-Mobile (what should we use for a shorthand name for this that doesn't sound too cute?) because Verizon has already started, and AT&T has made up its plans and is considering how todo the rollout.
Knowing how far behind T-Mobile is with 3G, we can see that LTE won't come quick.
What happens in the meantime? What if frustrated customers start to leave in larger numbers because of the problems caused by this "merger"?
No, when I said "jackpot", actually I was hungry for some pizza, but really, I was thinking to the fact that I wouldn't have to PAY to port my number that I have been giving out for the past 6 years, just in order to keep it while using the iPhone and I don't want a jail broke phone or whatever. I'm not to techno savvy to go through the chutes and ladders process every time Apple releases a new iPhone OS.
Regarding Apple avoiding this, I guess would be determined by the technologies of the future that are supposedly coming regarding LTE or 4G.
I don't think Apple would look at it from the standpoint as best possibilities, because were we not told by Steve Jobs that going with AT&T was the best carrier and then a year later Apple is hosting a spring time event and talking about MMS available worldwide now, available in the US at the end of Sept! And this was said in a jokingly manner with Apple management rolling their eyes!
Also, was it not just recently reported on that where in France Apple had one exclusive partnership and sales were dismal and then the French courts ruled exclusivity was illegal and Apple had two partnerships and their market share percentage went up, or something to that effect.
So based on the fact that Apple really isn't concerned about the carrier's ability and the fact that the market share increases when the iPhone is available to multiple carriers in one nation, then why not a large T-Mobile merged with Sprint. Maybe T-Mobile will dump the PRE?!
And why should T-Mobile's debt be a problem, the bozos in Washington think debt and deficits is no big deal, just you don't try and "protest" against them...
Finally, RIP Patrick Swayze. No more pain and discomfort from your Pancreatic cancer. You left an indelible mark with your talent and will be looked upon fondly. Thanks for your movies Dirty Dancing, Ghost, and your tv movie miniseries, North and South... may God Bless you into His Kingdom of Peace and Love!
It looks as though Apple doesn't want to build devices with technology they think is irrelevant to most users if it adds to the cost, even by a little.
With LTE being the next jump in technology, Apple will want to go with that. With both AT&T and Verizon working on that, it gives them the potential of a subscriber base of 164 million. That's with two growing companies. One technology.
What will this company offer that could match that?
I'm looking at incremental sales. If Apple adds Verizon, they could add another 25% to their sales. I don't see much more.
Why? Because AT&T is already getting substantial sales coming in from all three other companies. Some people are coming in from Verizon now. If Verizon has the phone, the people who were moving, would just get the phone from Verizon, no increase from them. Some people now on AT&T getting an iPhone would move to Verizon to get it, so no new sales there either. So maybe about a 25% rise.
As they are already getting people to come over from both Sprint and T-Mobile, many of them would also be no new customers. In fact, I surmise that many Sprint customers moving to AT&T for the iPhone might have left anyway, so no gain there either. Almost the same thing for T-Mobile.
So this new company, if everything worked out just right might add another 10% to Apple's sales. Not enough to make another phone, and possibly not enough to want to even bother with the new problem fraught company.
And what would that 10% be when considering worldwide sales? Maybe 5%. After China comes on board with China Unicom, maybe 3%. If then China Mobile is added, perhaps 1%?
Sprint has talked about dumping Nextel. What if T-mobile bought Nextel to get their towers and spectrum for LTE? nextels push to talk is a completely separate radio system, they must have a good bit of spectrum.
Except there are two problems with this: Verizon will continue to use CDMA for voice for years after 4G is rolled out, and the 4G rollout will take until 2012, according to Verizon itself.
First, Verizon has publicly stated that although they are beginning trials of 4G, they are "very happy" with CDMA's voice capabilities, and they plan to continue to keep CDMA around well into 2018. The reason is simple: they have to keep CDMA around for all their existing customers, so they will use their significant CMDA investment a while longer to reduce cost and risk during the rollout. Meaning they can roll out LTE as time and money permit, using the CDMA fallback as necessary. The LTE phones that Verizon carries will include a CDMA fallback radio so that they function when LTE is not available, but the iPhone won't have any such capability. The iPhone 3G could be sold nationwide because it would just fall back to 2.5G. Verizon stores on the other hand would be overrun with angry people who can't use their phone in the vast parts of the midwest that were still running on a 2G network up until early 2009.
Second, Verizon publicly said they will begin their 4G rollout in late 2010 with 20-30 cities. By 2011, they will have expanded it to the top 50 markets and it will continue into 2012. By 2012 they hope to have coverage in 175-200 markets--but note they said coverage IN 200 markets, not coverage OF 200 markets. To cover a market, they can put up a tower in a crowded area like a downtown center, and leave the rest of the city on CDMA until they have more capital to spend.
But as you say, CDMA is for fallback only on LTE phones. That doesn't mean that new phones would even need it. I did say by the end of 2011, which is the same as saying by 2012.
It would be mostly for their cheap and "free" phones that wouldn't have LTE capabilities, until that became cheap enough to add to even those.
We don't have, nor do we need exact dates. Apple could move in June 2012, when they announce the new phones. That would likely be the best time.
Quote:
They had no choice. They either worked with China Unicom, or no company at all, because CU is the only company in China that uses the same GSM band as the iPhone. Apple has plenty of choices in the USA, and I see no reason they'd want to give in to any of Verizon's demands (like crippling the phone via software just so Verizon can charge for Bluetooth).
Not true. Apple was first negotiating with China mobile, and is STILL negotiating with them. It's likely we'll see in on both carriers late this year, or the next.
We don't know what the industry will look like in 2012. Verizon is now beginning to break with its old policy. It must if it expects to get the Pre, and possibly the Pixi, and all those Android phones. No one would buy them from Verizon if there were restrictions there that weren't anywhere else.
AT&T only seems to suck BECAUSE it has the iPhone. What do you think will happen if the media eating iPhone users are on this new company? It will suck. Likely, it will suck more. T-Mobile has just a few major cities on 3G, and it's incompatible with Sprints much larger coverage which is CDMA, which the iPhone can't deal with.
Do you thing that suddenly, T-Mobile will cover the entire country? It won't. It will still have a small coverage, and that's for its regular service as well. It's much more limited than AT&T's, and people complain about that. Sprints is out of the picture entirely. Apple isn't making a CDMA phone for Verizon, and they sure ain't gonna make one for Sprint.
You have an overactive imagination. Sprint isn't getting an iPhone, and neither is T-Mobile.
You don't seem to understand the coverage problems I've been talking about. T-Mobile's coverage will still be puny, and Apple still won't make a CDMA iPhone.
If a lot of customers began using iPhones on T-Mobile's network, it would overload it more than it does the much larger AT&T network. There's no doubt about that. How many customers would be satisfied that in most of T-Mobiles coverage area there is no 3G, and won't be for months or years?
And what do you tell your new CDMA customers? "No iPhone for you!" That's 2/3rds of your customers. Oh, and what about Sprints IDEN customers? They won't be able to use it either.
What are you talking about? Do you think Apple cares if Verizon has a few million more customers than AT&T? They don't. They went to them first, remember? They want the biggest carrier in each country. Sometimes they can't get that, so they settle for a smaller one.
Again, look to China. Apple was in negotiations with China Mobile, the largest carrier in the world. Bigger than all the carriers in the US put together. Larger than all the carriers in the extended EU put together. They couldn't make a deal, so they went with China Unicom. But the three year deal is non exclusive. They're still negotiating with China mobile.
So don't say that Apple doesn't want Verizon to get a bit bigger. They don't care, or maybe they do, and would want that.
But Sprint/T-Mobile will really be a messed up company for years to come. Why would Apple want to deal with that?
Now, if they abandoned WiMax and went for LTE, in a few years it might be different, but that's billions down the hole for Sprint, and a major change in direction.
Doesn't it feel that talking to these profiles [specifically about this subject] is right up there with talking to first graders?
Doesn't it feel that talking to these profiles [specifically about this subject] is right up there with talking to first graders?
I try to think these things through. The topics are complex. I think that some people just think, wow! This is cool, Apple could make a great deal with them because the iPhone is so great, and this company just would want to have it, so you know, like they would do anything to get it, and well, Apple would be just so happy with that, being that they just, you know, hate Verizon because they turned them down the first tine, and um, who needs that restrictive software stuff that Verizon does.
So this deal would be just so cool, and Apple is so cool.
Doesn't it feel that talking to these profiles [specifically about this subject] is right up there with talking to first graders?
And most don't have a good understanding of the basic technologies to appreciate the complexities involved.
Perhaps the following excerpt will help. It may ned some further vetting and updating, but it is one of the best descriptions on wireless protocols we have seen.
"GSM and CDMA are different wireless protocols, or "air interfaces".
GSM is a worldwide nonproprietary standard. It is a variation of TDMA - time division multiple access. It allows many phones to use the same radio channel via a technique of "time slicing": each phone on the channel transmits only during its allotted time slot.
CDMA is a proprietary standard and while there are CDMA systems in over 50 countries, it is not the "world standard" - if you want a "world phone" you want a GSM quad-band phone. South Korea is one of CDMA's chief users besides the US. CDMA stands for "code division multiple access." It uses a spread-spectrum technique; different phones share the same channel by using different spread-spectrum keys.
On top of these differences you have to consider frequencies. GSM in North America uses two bands, 850 MHz and 1900 MHz. GSM in almost all of the rest of the world (ROW) uses two other bands, 900 and 1800 MHz.
These days most any GSM phone you get will be at least a dual-band phone: it will work on both bands used in your area. If you plan on traveling internationally and you want to use your phone, you can get tri-band GSM phones that work on both US bands and one of the ROW bands. Or if you live elsewhere you can get tri-band GSM phones that cover both of the ROW bands and one of the US bands. And of course there are quad-band GSM phones that cover all four. These will work on *almost* any GSM system in the world, assuming you have either a local SIM card or that international roaming is turned on for your account. There are a few oddball systems out there on different frequencies entirely.
CDMA has similar issues with frequencies. The first big build of CDMA in the US was by Sprint; they used 1900 MHz exclusively and called it "PCS". Verizon's CDMA towers use the same CDMA protocol, but on the 800 MHz band.
Most CDMA phones sold in the US will work on both bands so that you can roam on the other carrier's towers. In fact a lot of Verizon's older phones were "dual-band/tri mode", meaning they would work on both of the CDMA bands and also on the old AMPS analog towers (also 800 MHz). The need for those has gone away since many of the old analog cellular systems have been shut down. Sprint's PCS phones were orginally 1900 only, but most of their phones now are dual-band CDMA.
CDMA in South Korea uses different frequencies entirely; no US CDMA phone will work there, nor vice versa, even though we both use CDMA. (n.b.: If you travel to South Korea, there are phone rental booths in the airport... or at least there were the last time I was there. You can even keep your same number on the rental phone.)
There are CDMA systems in other countries here and there but in almost everyplace other than North America and South Korea, GSM is dominant.
So, so far we have GSM phones that might be dual-band (either North America or ROW only, not both), tri-band, or quad-band; and we have US CDMA phones that work on the two US CDMA bands; and we have South Korea's CDMA phones that work in South Korea. Of course GSM phones won't work on any CDMA tower, nor vice versa.
None of these provide 3G capabilities.
3G is not a specific air interface protocol. It is more of a name for a set of features and capabilities - if your system meets a specified set of capabilities (like data speed, simultaneous voice and data from the same phone at the same time, many others), you can call it a "3G" system. Just like both CDMA and GSM are commonly recognized as 2G or 2.5G (depending on features like EDGE), there are several different air interfaces that are all called "3G" and provide 3G capabilities. Yes, one of the key 3G capabilities is data transfer speed for a data connection - but there's a lot more to it than just higher data speed. The WIkipedia article on 3G has the details.
There are two 3G systems in common use today. One is called EV-DO. This is an extension of CDMA and accordingly is commonly found as the 3G upgrade to existing CDMA systems. So the 3G offered by Verizon and Sprint in the US is using EV-DO.
The other 3G system in common use is called UMTS. It is designed as the 3G upgrade for existing GSM providers.
There are frequency issues here too, just as there are for CDMA and GSM.
Both AT&T and T-mobile are providing UMTS.. but on different bands. My HTC TyTN II does quad-band GSM but it will not work on T-mobile's UMTS (1700/2100 MHz). It does work on AT&T's UMTS (850/1900 MHz), and also on UMTS in Europe (2100 MHz, but different from T-mo's 1700/2100).
UMTS includes an optional upgrade called HSPA. One piece of that is called HSPDA, which provides what is being called 3.5G data speed.
Note that 3G is not just for data access. 3G systems provide both voice and data services. My HTC phone will not work on any 2G system in Japan. However, it does work on Japan's UMTS systems (2100 MHz). Thus my phone works for both voice and high speed data in Japan, relying solely on its 3G capabilities.
Now... that covers the differences between the systems, sort of. There's a lot more detail and I've simplified a lot, but those are the basics.
Can you have a phone that has GSM, CDMA, and 3G? Yes - the Blackberry Storm is one example. It does CDMA in the US; it does quad-band GSM for near-worldwide GSM service. It does both EVDO (3G in the US) and UMTS (3G 2100) in many other countries.
Yes, it is standard GSM. I was surprised that they did quad-band GSM; I thought it would be ROW GSM only, but it is indeed quad-band. However it will usually not work on GSM in the US because there will usually be a Verizon or even Sprint CDMA tower handy; Sprint and Verizon have roaming agreements with each other such that using each others' towers is transparent and doesn't usually incur "roaming" charges even if the phone says you are roaming. About the only "non-USA" thing about it is that it won't do UMTS on any US carrier, but this doesn't make it not true GSM.
Also note that even if there were no CDMA/GPS/3G phones on the market, this would not prove that it isn't possible. It would only mean that no one has done it... this is usually for economic reasons. Carriers love to lock you into their systems and keep you there, and making your phone work on as few other systems as possible is one way they do that. The only reason Verizon and Blackberry decided to make the Storm is that Verizon was tired of losing world-traveling customers (who wanted a single phone they could use worldwide) to AT&T and T-mobile. It used to be if you wanted a "world phone" (or as close as is possible given the hodgepodge of "standards" around the world) you had to go to one of those carruers and get a quad-band GSM phone; no more." Sullivan. http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question...2042019AAt9J2P
GSM is a global standard, being used in over 212 countries around the world... the US is the exception, rather than the rule. The reason T-Mobile's coverage sucks indoors is because they use a higher frequency in the US than the do in Europe, since AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon already got licensed most of the favorable wireless frequencies that work well indoors from the FCC. In Europe, it's the opposite... AT&T coverage is terrible there (probably here too now b/c of iPhone users) b/c they didn't get favorable frequencies, while T-Mobile did, since they were there first to acquire and license the use of those frequencies.
However, I'd guess that those three listed above aren't really doing much to improve coverage (maybe Verizon, I keep hearing from family that they don't go anywhere without having at least 4 bars.. even in swampy Louisana). T-Mobile is so far great coverage here in southern california, but they don't have a viable data phone to compete with the iPhone so they're losing customers to AT&T. And those that want Verizon-like coverage and are willing to pay, well, they go to Verizon. What's left for T-Mobile? Competing with AT&T and Sprint (with a higher wireless frequency that doesn't penetrate walls as well in the US) and having to offer more minutes/data for less. Is that really such a bad thing for consumers? Probably not, but they'd like not to be in that situation
My opinion on the merger? Clearwire is clearly losing billions each year, and the only sponsor really is Intel... Sprint doesn't have nearly enough capital to waste on a project like that. So that means if T-Mobile ever gets 4G, it'll probably be LTE. Besides, they can use their knowledge from building their 4G network in Europe to help build it in the US. Come to think of it, why AREN'T they using their experience in Europe's 3G networks to build it out in the US? But then again, to put these up all over the place requires more towers than AT&T (b/c of the frequency problem; these higher frequencies also don't travel as far.. sometimes, they're not much further than a few football field lengths of signal from the tower) and T-Mobile definitely doesn't have that kind of capital to build it out nationwide at that quantity, having only the 4th largest amount of subscribers.
It's actually not if you think about the idea that most towers are concentrated in the same place for all carriers, and if they let one network die and made all new phones only work on the other network, they could gradually transition their old customers over to the new network and switch their old towers over. Granted, they may have to force some customers to buy new phones after a time, but they could gradually move people off of the old network.
The problem here is that it isn't free. They'll have to install new equipment at every single tower and then with a third set of radios, they'll have to pay higher electric bills at every tower site. The infrastructure costs might cost more than the merger itself. It would have major problems for the ability of the new T-Mobile USA to make money and probably put parent Deutsche Telekom in pretty large hole as well. The costs and number of subscribers would be very similar to the combined European holdings.
low frequency high wavelength will give you penetration and range. high frequency and low wavelength will give you data speed but shorter range and horrible penetration of buildings
i think i read somewhere that the 850MHz band is a nice compromise
low frequency high wavelength will give you penetration and range. high frequency and low wavelength will give you data speed but shorter range and horrible penetration of buildings
i think i read somewhere that the 850MHz band is a nice compromise
Unfortunately, many here obviously skipped class.
It would be nice if you could reference "the compromise."
On top of these differences you have to consider frequencies. GSM in North America uses two bands, 850 MHz and 1900 MHz. GSM in almost all of the rest of the world (ROW) uses two other bands, 900 and 1800 MHz.
And for some arcane reason, T-Mobile in the US also uses 1700 MHz for its GSM. Another bolloxed up situation.
Here's their mess, quoted from Phonescoop.com:
Quote:
T-Mobile was the first company to offer a nationwide GSM network. Since purchasing SunCom in early 2008, T-Mobile offers GSM service in both the 850 and 1900 MHz frequency bands. T-Mobile offers EDGE data service over most of their network, plus WCDMA 3G voice and data in select metro areas, using the 1700 MHz band. Germany's Deutsche Telekom AG bought VoiceStream in June 2001 and re-branded it T-Mobile USA in the 2nd half of 2002. T-Mobile is Deutsche Telekom's global wireless brand.
And for some arcane reason, T-Mobile in the US also uses 1700 MHz for its GSM. Another bolloxed up situation.
Here's their mess, quoted from Phonescoop.com:
T-Mobile didn't have much of a choice. They didn't have enough spectrum to deploy 3G on their current 1900 setup. They had to get more by buying the AWS spectrum (2100/1700). Sure, it makes it harder to get a device that handles all of the global bands, but T-Mobile had to do what they had to do.
Doesn't it feel that talking to these profiles [specifically about this subject] is right up there with talking to first graders?
No. But reading your post makes me feel like I am listening to a first grader.
Who the hell are you buddy? So far I hear people, myself included, discussing a topic of interest to them. What I do not hear is any executives from any company involved or anybody with any real expertise in the field giving their thougths or opinions.
But hey man- nice try on looking smart on a forum. Go over to macrumors if you want to be a tool with nothing to contribute but condescension from the protection of anonymity.
Comments
yes but the talk is that both technologies are on the way out. making the way for LTE or whatever. so it would be counterproductive to do any switching, only to do it again in a year or so. given this, they probably would have both going at the same time.
assuming that the legals shake out and allow the merger.
LTE won't be viable until late 2011. Then it will cover most of the US from both at7t and Verizon.
It will take longer for T-Mobile (what should we use for a shorthand name for this that doesn't sound too cute?) because Verizon has already started, and AT&T has made up its plans and is considering how todo the rollout.
Knowing how far behind T-Mobile is with 3G, we can see that LTE won't come quick.
What happens in the meantime? What if frustrated customers start to leave in larger numbers because of the problems caused by this "merger"?
yes but if what I read is correct, both of these companies support both GSM and CDMA.
unlike Verizon and Sprint which are both CDMA while the iphone is GSM
Well, that's one point. All Apple had to do was to kill WiFi.
But with LTE here in the States, it won't matter about CDMA.
And Apple already has standing deals with T-mo in Germany.... this sounds better every time I hear about it.
Thanks for your comments. I just couldn't get my head around why they would do this. Now I get it.
No, when I said "jackpot", actually I was hungry for some pizza, but really, I was thinking to the fact that I wouldn't have to PAY to port my number that I have been giving out for the past 6 years, just in order to keep it while using the iPhone and I don't want a jail broke phone or whatever. I'm not to techno savvy to go through the chutes and ladders process every time Apple releases a new iPhone OS.
Regarding Apple avoiding this, I guess would be determined by the technologies of the future that are supposedly coming regarding LTE or 4G.
I don't think Apple would look at it from the standpoint as best possibilities, because were we not told by Steve Jobs that going with AT&T was the best carrier and then a year later Apple is hosting a spring time event and talking about MMS available worldwide now, available in the US at the end of Sept! And this was said in a jokingly manner with Apple management rolling their eyes!
Also, was it not just recently reported on that where in France Apple had one exclusive partnership and sales were dismal and then the French courts ruled exclusivity was illegal and Apple had two partnerships and their market share percentage went up, or something to that effect.
So based on the fact that Apple really isn't concerned about the carrier's ability and the fact that the market share increases when the iPhone is available to multiple carriers in one nation, then why not a large T-Mobile merged with Sprint. Maybe T-Mobile will dump the PRE?!
And why should T-Mobile's debt be a problem, the bozos in Washington think debt and deficits is no big deal, just you don't try and "protest" against them...
Finally, RIP Patrick Swayze. No more pain and discomfort from your Pancreatic cancer. You left an indelible mark with your talent and will be looked upon fondly. Thanks for your movies Dirty Dancing, Ghost, and your tv movie miniseries, North and South... may God Bless you into His Kingdom of Peace and Love!
It looks as though Apple doesn't want to build devices with technology they think is irrelevant to most users if it adds to the cost, even by a little.
With LTE being the next jump in technology, Apple will want to go with that. With both AT&T and Verizon working on that, it gives them the potential of a subscriber base of 164 million. That's with two growing companies. One technology.
What will this company offer that could match that?
I'm looking at incremental sales. If Apple adds Verizon, they could add another 25% to their sales. I don't see much more.
Why? Because AT&T is already getting substantial sales coming in from all three other companies. Some people are coming in from Verizon now. If Verizon has the phone, the people who were moving, would just get the phone from Verizon, no increase from them. Some people now on AT&T getting an iPhone would move to Verizon to get it, so no new sales there either. So maybe about a 25% rise.
As they are already getting people to come over from both Sprint and T-Mobile, many of them would also be no new customers. In fact, I surmise that many Sprint customers moving to AT&T for the iPhone might have left anyway, so no gain there either. Almost the same thing for T-Mobile.
So this new company, if everything worked out just right might add another 10% to Apple's sales. Not enough to make another phone, and possibly not enough to want to even bother with the new problem fraught company.
And what would that 10% be when considering worldwide sales? Maybe 5%. After China comes on board with China Unicom, maybe 3%. If then China Mobile is added, perhaps 1%?
Why bother?
Except there are two problems with this: Verizon will continue to use CDMA for voice for years after 4G is rolled out, and the 4G rollout will take until 2012, according to Verizon itself.
First, Verizon has publicly stated that although they are beginning trials of 4G, they are "very happy" with CDMA's voice capabilities, and they plan to continue to keep CDMA around well into 2018. The reason is simple: they have to keep CDMA around for all their existing customers, so they will use their significant CMDA investment a while longer to reduce cost and risk during the rollout. Meaning they can roll out LTE as time and money permit, using the CDMA fallback as necessary. The LTE phones that Verizon carries will include a CDMA fallback radio so that they function when LTE is not available, but the iPhone won't have any such capability. The iPhone 3G could be sold nationwide because it would just fall back to 2.5G. Verizon stores on the other hand would be overrun with angry people who can't use their phone in the vast parts of the midwest that were still running on a 2G network up until early 2009.
Second, Verizon publicly said they will begin their 4G rollout in late 2010 with 20-30 cities. By 2011, they will have expanded it to the top 50 markets and it will continue into 2012. By 2012 they hope to have coverage in 175-200 markets--but note they said coverage IN 200 markets, not coverage OF 200 markets. To cover a market, they can put up a tower in a crowded area like a downtown center, and leave the rest of the city on CDMA until they have more capital to spend.
But as you say, CDMA is for fallback only on LTE phones. That doesn't mean that new phones would even need it. I did say by the end of 2011, which is the same as saying by 2012.
It would be mostly for their cheap and "free" phones that wouldn't have LTE capabilities, until that became cheap enough to add to even those.
We don't have, nor do we need exact dates. Apple could move in June 2012, when they announce the new phones. That would likely be the best time.
They had no choice. They either worked with China Unicom, or no company at all, because CU is the only company in China that uses the same GSM band as the iPhone. Apple has plenty of choices in the USA, and I see no reason they'd want to give in to any of Verizon's demands (like crippling the phone via software just so Verizon can charge for Bluetooth).
Not true. Apple was first negotiating with China mobile, and is STILL negotiating with them. It's likely we'll see in on both carriers late this year, or the next.
We don't know what the industry will look like in 2012. Verizon is now beginning to break with its old policy. It must if it expects to get the Pre, and possibly the Pixi, and all those Android phones. No one would buy them from Verizon if there were restrictions there that weren't anywhere else.
AT&T only seems to suck BECAUSE it has the iPhone. What do you think will happen if the media eating iPhone users are on this new company? It will suck. Likely, it will suck more. T-Mobile has just a few major cities on 3G, and it's incompatible with Sprints much larger coverage which is CDMA, which the iPhone can't deal with.
Do you thing that suddenly, T-Mobile will cover the entire country? It won't. It will still have a small coverage, and that's for its regular service as well. It's much more limited than AT&T's, and people complain about that. Sprints is out of the picture entirely. Apple isn't making a CDMA phone for Verizon, and they sure ain't gonna make one for Sprint.
You have an overactive imagination. Sprint isn't getting an iPhone, and neither is T-Mobile.
You don't seem to understand the coverage problems I've been talking about. T-Mobile's coverage will still be puny, and Apple still won't make a CDMA iPhone.
If a lot of customers began using iPhones on T-Mobile's network, it would overload it more than it does the much larger AT&T network. There's no doubt about that. How many customers would be satisfied that in most of T-Mobiles coverage area there is no 3G, and won't be for months or years?
And what do you tell your new CDMA customers? "No iPhone for you!" That's 2/3rds of your customers. Oh, and what about Sprints IDEN customers? They won't be able to use it either.
What are you talking about? Do you think Apple cares if Verizon has a few million more customers than AT&T? They don't. They went to them first, remember? They want the biggest carrier in each country. Sometimes they can't get that, so they settle for a smaller one.
Again, look to China. Apple was in negotiations with China Mobile, the largest carrier in the world. Bigger than all the carriers in the US put together. Larger than all the carriers in the extended EU put together. They couldn't make a deal, so they went with China Unicom. But the three year deal is non exclusive. They're still negotiating with China mobile.
So don't say that Apple doesn't want Verizon to get a bit bigger. They don't care, or maybe they do, and would want that.
But Sprint/T-Mobile will really be a messed up company for years to come. Why would Apple want to deal with that?
Now, if they abandoned WiMax and went for LTE, in a few years it might be different, but that's billions down the hole for Sprint, and a major change in direction.
Doesn't it feel that talking to these profiles [specifically about this subject] is right up there with talking to first graders?
Doesn't it feel that talking to these profiles [specifically about this subject] is right up there with talking to first graders?
I try to think these things through. The topics are complex. I think that some people just think, wow! This is cool, Apple could make a great deal with them because the iPhone is so great, and this company just would want to have it, so you know, like they would do anything to get it, and well, Apple would be just so happy with that, being that they just, you know, hate Verizon because they turned them down the first tine, and um, who needs that restrictive software stuff that Verizon does.
So this deal would be just so cool, and Apple is so cool.
Uh, that's enough, right?
Doesn't it feel that talking to these profiles [specifically about this subject] is right up there with talking to first graders?
And most don't have a good understanding of the basic technologies to appreciate the complexities involved.
Perhaps the following excerpt will help. It may ned some further vetting and updating, but it is one of the best descriptions on wireless protocols we have seen.
"GSM and CDMA are different wireless protocols, or "air interfaces".
GSM is a worldwide nonproprietary standard. It is a variation of TDMA - time division multiple access. It allows many phones to use the same radio channel via a technique of "time slicing": each phone on the channel transmits only during its allotted time slot.
CDMA is a proprietary standard and while there are CDMA systems in over 50 countries, it is not the "world standard" - if you want a "world phone" you want a GSM quad-band phone. South Korea is one of CDMA's chief users besides the US. CDMA stands for "code division multiple access." It uses a spread-spectrum technique; different phones share the same channel by using different spread-spectrum keys.
On top of these differences you have to consider frequencies. GSM in North America uses two bands, 850 MHz and 1900 MHz. GSM in almost all of the rest of the world (ROW) uses two other bands, 900 and 1800 MHz.
These days most any GSM phone you get will be at least a dual-band phone: it will work on both bands used in your area. If you plan on traveling internationally and you want to use your phone, you can get tri-band GSM phones that work on both US bands and one of the ROW bands. Or if you live elsewhere you can get tri-band GSM phones that cover both of the ROW bands and one of the US bands. And of course there are quad-band GSM phones that cover all four. These will work on *almost* any GSM system in the world, assuming you have either a local SIM card or that international roaming is turned on for your account. There are a few oddball systems out there on different frequencies entirely.
CDMA has similar issues with frequencies. The first big build of CDMA in the US was by Sprint; they used 1900 MHz exclusively and called it "PCS". Verizon's CDMA towers use the same CDMA protocol, but on the 800 MHz band.
Most CDMA phones sold in the US will work on both bands so that you can roam on the other carrier's towers. In fact a lot of Verizon's older phones were "dual-band/tri mode", meaning they would work on both of the CDMA bands and also on the old AMPS analog towers (also 800 MHz). The need for those has gone away since many of the old analog cellular systems have been shut down. Sprint's PCS phones were orginally 1900 only, but most of their phones now are dual-band CDMA.
CDMA in South Korea uses different frequencies entirely; no US CDMA phone will work there, nor vice versa, even though we both use CDMA. (n.b.: If you travel to South Korea, there are phone rental booths in the airport... or at least there were the last time I was there. You can even keep your same number on the rental phone.)
There are CDMA systems in other countries here and there but in almost everyplace other than North America and South Korea, GSM is dominant.
So, so far we have GSM phones that might be dual-band (either North America or ROW only, not both), tri-band, or quad-band; and we have US CDMA phones that work on the two US CDMA bands; and we have South Korea's CDMA phones that work in South Korea. Of course GSM phones won't work on any CDMA tower, nor vice versa.
None of these provide 3G capabilities.
3G is not a specific air interface protocol. It is more of a name for a set of features and capabilities - if your system meets a specified set of capabilities (like data speed, simultaneous voice and data from the same phone at the same time, many others), you can call it a "3G" system. Just like both CDMA and GSM are commonly recognized as 2G or 2.5G (depending on features like EDGE), there are several different air interfaces that are all called "3G" and provide 3G capabilities. Yes, one of the key 3G capabilities is data transfer speed for a data connection - but there's a lot more to it than just higher data speed. The WIkipedia article on 3G has the details.
There are two 3G systems in common use today. One is called EV-DO. This is an extension of CDMA and accordingly is commonly found as the 3G upgrade to existing CDMA systems. So the 3G offered by Verizon and Sprint in the US is using EV-DO.
The other 3G system in common use is called UMTS. It is designed as the 3G upgrade for existing GSM providers.
There are frequency issues here too, just as there are for CDMA and GSM.
Both AT&T and T-mobile are providing UMTS.. but on different bands. My HTC TyTN II does quad-band GSM but it will not work on T-mobile's UMTS (1700/2100 MHz). It does work on AT&T's UMTS (850/1900 MHz), and also on UMTS in Europe (2100 MHz, but different from T-mo's 1700/2100).
UMTS includes an optional upgrade called HSPA. One piece of that is called HSPDA, which provides what is being called 3.5G data speed.
Note that 3G is not just for data access. 3G systems provide both voice and data services. My HTC phone will not work on any 2G system in Japan. However, it does work on Japan's UMTS systems (2100 MHz). Thus my phone works for both voice and high speed data in Japan, relying solely on its 3G capabilities.
Now... that covers the differences between the systems, sort of. There's a lot more detail and I've simplified a lot, but those are the basics.
Can you have a phone that has GSM, CDMA, and 3G? Yes - the Blackberry Storm is one example. It does CDMA in the US; it does quad-band GSM for near-worldwide GSM service. It does both EVDO (3G in the US) and UMTS (3G 2100) in many other countries.
Yes, it is standard GSM. I was surprised that they did quad-band GSM; I thought it would be ROW GSM only, but it is indeed quad-band. However it will usually not work on GSM in the US because there will usually be a Verizon or even Sprint CDMA tower handy; Sprint and Verizon have roaming agreements with each other such that using each others' towers is transparent and doesn't usually incur "roaming" charges even if the phone says you are roaming. About the only "non-USA" thing about it is that it won't do UMTS on any US carrier, but this doesn't make it not true GSM.
Also note that even if there were no CDMA/GPS/3G phones on the market, this would not prove that it isn't possible. It would only mean that no one has done it... this is usually for economic reasons. Carriers love to lock you into their systems and keep you there, and making your phone work on as few other systems as possible is one way they do that. The only reason Verizon and Blackberry decided to make the Storm is that Verizon was tired of losing world-traveling customers (who wanted a single phone they could use worldwide) to AT&T and T-mobile. It used to be if you wanted a "world phone" (or as close as is possible given the hodgepodge of "standards" around the world) you had to go to one of those carruers and get a quad-band GSM phone; no more." Sullivan. http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question...2042019AAt9J2P
GSM is a global standard, being used in over 212 countries around the world... the US is the exception, rather than the rule. The reason T-Mobile's coverage sucks indoors is because they use a higher frequency in the US than the do in Europe, since AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon already got licensed most of the favorable wireless frequencies that work well indoors from the FCC. In Europe, it's the opposite... AT&T coverage is terrible there (probably here too now b/c of iPhone users) b/c they didn't get favorable frequencies, while T-Mobile did, since they were there first to acquire and license the use of those frequencies.
However, I'd guess that those three listed above aren't really doing much to improve coverage (maybe Verizon, I keep hearing from family that they don't go anywhere without having at least 4 bars.. even in swampy Louisana). T-Mobile is so far great coverage here in southern california, but they don't have a viable data phone to compete with the iPhone so they're losing customers to AT&T. And those that want Verizon-like coverage and are willing to pay, well, they go to Verizon. What's left for T-Mobile? Competing with AT&T and Sprint (with a higher wireless frequency that doesn't penetrate walls as well in the US) and having to offer more minutes/data for less. Is that really such a bad thing for consumers? Probably not, but they'd like not to be in that situation
My opinion on the merger? Clearwire is clearly losing billions each year, and the only sponsor really is Intel... Sprint doesn't have nearly enough capital to waste on a project like that. So that means if T-Mobile ever gets 4G, it'll probably be LTE. Besides, they can use their knowledge from building their 4G network in Europe to help build it in the US. Come to think of it, why AREN'T they using their experience in Europe's 3G networks to build it out in the US? But then again, to put these up all over the place requires more towers than AT&T (b/c of the frequency problem; these higher frequencies also don't travel as far.. sometimes, they're not much further than a few football field lengths of signal from the tower) and T-Mobile definitely doesn't have that kind of capital to build it out nationwide at that quantity, having only the 4th largest amount of subscribers.
A further explanation well worth rereading.
It's actually not if you think about the idea that most towers are concentrated in the same place for all carriers, and if they let one network die and made all new phones only work on the other network, they could gradually transition their old customers over to the new network and switch their old towers over. Granted, they may have to force some customers to buy new phones after a time, but they could gradually move people off of the old network.
The problem here is that it isn't free. They'll have to install new equipment at every single tower and then with a third set of radios, they'll have to pay higher electric bills at every tower site. The infrastructure costs might cost more than the merger itself. It would have major problems for the ability of the new T-Mobile USA to make money and probably put parent Deutsche Telekom in pretty large hole as well. The costs and number of subscribers would be very similar to the combined European holdings.
A further explanation well worth rereading.
high school physics
low frequency high wavelength will give you penetration and range. high frequency and low wavelength will give you data speed but shorter range and horrible penetration of buildings
i think i read somewhere that the 850MHz band is a nice compromise
high school physics
low frequency high wavelength will give you penetration and range. high frequency and low wavelength will give you data speed but shorter range and horrible penetration of buildings
i think i read somewhere that the 850MHz band is a nice compromise
Unfortunately, many here obviously skipped class.
It would be nice if you could reference "the compromise."
On top of these differences you have to consider frequencies. GSM in North America uses two bands, 850 MHz and 1900 MHz. GSM in almost all of the rest of the world (ROW) uses two other bands, 900 and 1800 MHz.
And for some arcane reason, T-Mobile in the US also uses 1700 MHz for its GSM. Another bolloxed up situation.
Here's their mess, quoted from Phonescoop.com:
T-Mobile was the first company to offer a nationwide GSM network. Since purchasing SunCom in early 2008, T-Mobile offers GSM service in both the 850 and 1900 MHz frequency bands. T-Mobile offers EDGE data service over most of their network, plus WCDMA 3G voice and data in select metro areas, using the 1700 MHz band. Germany's Deutsche Telekom AG bought VoiceStream in June 2001 and re-branded it T-Mobile USA in the 2nd half of 2002. T-Mobile is Deutsche Telekom's global wireless brand.
1. T-Mobile and Sprint merge.
2. Apple breaks exclusive agreement and deals with both AT&T and Verizon.
3. T-Moble/Sprint closes their doors and boards up the windows.
Here's how I see it going down:
1. T-Mobile and Sprint merge.
2. Apple breaks exclusive agreement and deals with both AT&T and Verizon.
3. T-Moble/Sprint closes their doors and boards up the windows.
Lawl...
I don't think so.
And for some arcane reason, T-Mobile in the US also uses 1700 MHz for its GSM. Another bolloxed up situation.
Here's their mess, quoted from Phonescoop.com:
T-Mobile didn't have much of a choice. They didn't have enough spectrum to deploy 3G on their current 1900 setup. They had to get more by buying the AWS spectrum (2100/1700). Sure, it makes it harder to get a device that handles all of the global bands, but T-Mobile had to do what they had to do.
Joe
Here's how I see it going down:
1. T-Mobile and Sprint merge.
2. Apple breaks exclusive agreement and deals with both AT&T and Verizon.
3. T-Moble/Sprint closes their doors and boards up the windows.
keep on praying for a verizon iphone
Doesn't it feel that talking to these profiles [specifically about this subject] is right up there with talking to first graders?
No. But reading your post makes me feel like I am listening to a first grader.
Who the hell are you buddy? So far I hear people, myself included, discussing a topic of interest to them. What I do not hear is any executives from any company involved or anybody with any real expertise in the field giving their thougths or opinions.
But hey man- nice try on looking smart on a forum. Go over to macrumors if you want to be a tool with nothing to contribute but condescension from the protection of anonymity.
Don't be a douchebag.