With HSDPA, ATT could deliver bandwidth that VZ couldn't match with EVDO.
Wireless is a shared resource.
Sure, your top speed will be better on AT&T because the channels are wider. But you may get better wireless experience because you are on a 1.5 MHz channel alone and the guy next to you is downloading on a separate channel.
Why are they doing it? Their EVDO network is just fine right?
Because a lot of those theoretical numbers are for dual channels --- 84 mbps HSPA requires 10 MHz up and 10 MHz down. There is no way to get AT&T to deploy 20 MHz of their spectrum in that set-up.
Because a lot of those theoretical numbers are for dual channels --- 84 mbps HSPA requires 10 MHz up and 10 MHz down. There is no way to get AT&T to deploy 20 MHz of their spectrum in that set-up.
Both. Spectrum is scarce and expensive. The FCC ain't going to sell you a 20 MHz spectrum space in New York City.
Sure you can probably buy that much spectrum cheaply in the midwest --- the infamous red area in the Verizon commercial. But there are more cows than humans in the midwest.
Sure you can probably buy that much spectrum cheaply in the midwest --- the infamous red area in the Verizon commercial. But there are more cows than humans in the midwest.
Well I'm not going to argue that ATT will deploy their network in a manner that leverages its strengths. In fact I've said the opposite.
Both. Spectrum is scarce and expensive. The FCC ain't going to sell you a 20 MHz spectrum space in New York City.
Funny how you never make mention of this fact when discussing why AT&T's 3G hasess coverage than Verizon.
Also, you never seem to make mention of UMB, the failed technology that Verizon supported before it sinking in favour of 3GPP's much superior LTE built off of UMTS/HSPA, which you call inferior to CDMA2000.
PS: Of course LTE is all data, it uses the well known, effective and efficient IP protocols to transmit data. This will also mean carrier VoIP with QoS. I know you know better so please don't insinuate that LTE won't be used for voice calls from the carrier.
Funny how you never make mention of this fact when discussing why AT&T's 3G hasess coverage than Verizon.
Also, you never seem to make mention of UMB, the failed technology that Verizon supported before it sinking in favour of 3GPP's much superior LTE built off of UMTS/HSPA, which you call inferior to CDMA2000.
PS: Of course LTE is all data, it uses the well known, effective and efficient IP protocols to transmit data. This will also mean carrier VoIP with QoS. I know you know better so please don't insinuate that LTE won't be used for voice calls from the carrier.
I have always mentioned that Verizon is a north eastern baby bell where it is natural for them to have more cell towers, more fibers in the sewers hooking up to the cell towers, more spectrum.... in New York City.
Qualcomm had a lot of failed specs like ev-dv as well. Verizon didn't buy those failed specs at all because they felt that the current set-up is sufficient.
No, you just seem to think that ev-do without voice is automatically a weaker technology --- which isn't the case because LTE has the same set-up. EV-DO rev B can also do VoIP-over-EVDO.
No, you just seem to think that ev-do without voice is automatically a weaker technology --- which isn't the case because LTE has the same set-up. EV-DO rev B can also do VoIP-over-EVDO.
Not automatically, sumultaneously. Verizon doesn't have Rev. B, won't have Rev. B and adequate LTE coerae will be longer than people think. I have to hand to Verizon for spreading vaporware better than any carrier. They do a great job marketing while AT&T fails even when pointing out the superior aspects to their network.
Not automatically, sumultaneously. Verizon doesn't have Rev. B, won't have Rev. B and adequate LTE coerae will be longer than people think. I have to hand to Verizon for spreading vaporware better than any carrier. They do a great job marketing while AT&T fails even when pointing out the superior aspects to their network.
Sorry, typing mistake.
EV-DO Rev A can do VoIP-over-EV-DO --- and Verizon has Rev A.
EV-DO Rev A can do VoIP-over-EV-DO --- and Verizon has Rev A.
But Verizon isn?t ever going to use so it?s a moot point. They?ll use CDMA for voice for as long as they can. The infrastructure is there, it?s solid, it?s sound, and it uses a good voice codec. AT&T needs to get away from the GSM voice codec as quickly as possible and a WCDMA-based network does that. Each is not without their pros and cons.
Verizon is in trouble. They have no plan to expand their current 3G network...and 4G is many years away. Their 3G is capped at 1.4MB.....while AT&T is already at 3MB and going to 7MB then 14MB.
I predict we will see the DROID Users start complaining about their service real soon.
AT&T needs to create some nifty commercials to relay this to the public.
The biggest difference that is a killer for me personally. The ability to be on a call and on the net at the same time. I do this daily. Where it's on Verizon's "3G", that's EDGE for AT&T. That is a massive shortcoming. This is something that both AT&T and Apple are pushing in their new ads.
Verizon's ads are playing on the words "3G". Having a 3G network doesn't mean you have speed.
I don't think any current network in the US could handle the current load that the iPhone uses. AT&T stated that the iPhone uses more data than all other phones on their network combined. If that transfered onto Verizon's network, it would drop like a stone. That is probably most of the reason why Verizon don't want the iPhone.
I'm inside a building right now, and have friends on t-mobile and Verizon. We all done speed tests. I'm getting 1.3Mbps down, 458kbps up, t-mobile is 408kbps down, 128kbps up, and Verizon can't even get a signal. WAY TO GO Verizon!!
But Verizon isn?t ever going to use so it?s a moot point. They?ll use CDMA for voice for as long as they can. The infrastructure is there, it?s solid, it?s sound, and it uses a good voice codec. AT&T needs to get away from the GSM voice codec as quickly as possible and a WCDMA-based network does that. Each is not without their pros and cons.
CDMA technology is dying. GSM technology is the standard all over the world. Verizon's proposed 4G LTE network is a GSM standard, so it shows how much Verizon are loyal to the outdated CDMA technology. The future isn't voice, it's data.
The biggest difference that is a killer for me personally. The ability to be on a call and on the net at the same time. I do this daily. Where it's on Verizon's "3G", that's EDGE for AT&T. That is a massive shortcoming. This is something that both AT&T and Apple are pushing in their new ads.
Verizon's ads are playing on the words "3G". Having a 3G network doesn't mean you have speed.
AT&T started it by only using the ?3G? marketing term when describing their 3G network as being fastest. Verizon?s ads have been excellent, concise and to the point, while AT&T?s ads have been convoluted and unfocused.
It's interesting to see how AT&T has very limited 3.6 Mbps coverage, and a 7.2 Mbps coverage limited to only a couple of cities while in Europe it's EDGE for almost 98% of the population, 7.2 Mbps coverage por almost all the small cities (20.000 inhabitants and up) and 21 Mbps (HSPA+) for selected cities.
CDMA technology is dying. GSM technology is the standard all over the world. Verizon's proposed 4G LTE network is a GSM standard, so it shows how much Verizon are loyal to the outdated CDMA technology. The future isn't voice, it's data.
The biggest patent holder for the LTE spec is Qualcomm --- which really makes LTE more of a continuation of CDMA than GSM.
The future isn't voice, it's data --- it means that ev-do going data only has been the correct strategy from the start.
The biggest patent holder for the LTE spec is Qualcomm --- which really makes LTE more of a continuation of CDMA than GSM.
The future isn't voice, it's data --- it means that ev-do going data only has been the correct strategy from the start.
The 3GPP designed LTE as a et of enhancements to UMTS(3GSM) which is built off of GSM. Qualcomm holding patents that are used throughout does not automatically mean that it?s more CDMA than 3GSM. That is erroneous.
Don?t try to spin LTE as some insightful idea on Verizon?s part. They are working on it because they have reached a dead end with EVDO. Sprint already made their choice for 4G a couple years prior.
Everyone else has awhile to wait while LTE actually matures because while HSPA is well established and mature it has a long way to go before it reaches the end of its tether. AT&T will likely be offering HSPA phones that are faster than LTE phones for sometime. By the time AT&T is ready for LTE they?ll be able to make a more natural switch, unlike the one Verizon is making.
All technology is dying and will be a dead end at some point in time.
Why would Verizon waste the money on EVDO Rev B when Rev A works as well as the competition in real-world usage, and LTE is just around the corner?
How is Verizon's position any worse than AT&T, which geographically has an enormous, outdated EDGE network that needs to be updated? If the HSPA upgrade is as simple as a software upgrade, what is AT&T waiting for?
Also, it appears that AT&T does not have the spectrum in many of its highly-touted population centers (NYC and San Fran, for example) to fully and reliably support HSPA 7.2 now -- so do you really expect that they have the spectrum to simply "switch on" the next theoretical level of HSPA, which would require even more spectrum per user?
I have no doubt AT&T will be running commercials claiming their HSPA phones are "faster" than LTE, but what good are theoretical speeds to me as a consumer if I can't get and keep that level of service in the real world? And will those commercials not be as hypocritical and deceptive as the current AT&T lawsuits, considering the fact that AT&T is planning LTE testing in 2010 with deployment to begin in 2011?
All carriers will eventually migrate to LTE (and whatever standard follows LTE) for the same reason -- because it uses spectrum more efficiently. And in the end, upgrading technologies is cheaper and more accessible than buying additional spectrum.
If history is any indicator, Verizon will roll out LTE to its entire network as soon as the technology is tested and reasonable to do so. AT&T will upgrade only the areas that it absolutely must, and will milk HSPA in other areas for as long as it can. If you have any doubt of that strategy, look at their current EDGE network.
You can defend AT&T's business decisions if you choose, but as a consumer paying roughly the same price per month for either service, I could care less whether Verizon "has to" roll out LTE. I just care that they do it fast, and that it works, and doesn't cost me a fortune.
ATTM's network buildout strategy seems to me to be driven at least as much by marketing considerations as anything else: deploy just enough HSDPA to be able to claim a nationwide 3g network without being sued for false advertising, then put up 7.2 in a few markets so that press releases can be issued about it.
I see little reason to believe that their approach to their LTE buildout will be much different, especially given that once again they will start behind VZW.
As always only time will tell. But were I a betting man, I'd wager that ATTM's HSPA network will never have a much larger footprint than it does now, and that ATTM will still have large swathes of EDGE-only coverage well after VZW and even Clear have covered most of the country.
The 3GPP designed LTE as a et of enhancements to UMTS(3GSM) which is built off of GSM. Qualcomm holding patents that are used throughout does not automatically mean that it?s more CDMA than 3GSM. That is erroneous.
You are just quoting PR hypes, UMTS/3GSM used to be called WCDMA --- so already that is more related to CDMA, not GSM.
It is just a name change for PR purposes --- doesn't means that the spec suddenly became more related to GSM.
Comments
Theoretical numbers means nothing.
.
Well then VZ has no reason to move to LTE.
Why are they doing it? Their EVDO network is just fine right?
With HSDPA, ATT could deliver bandwidth that VZ couldn't match with EVDO.
Wireless is a shared resource.
Sure, your top speed will be better on AT&T because the channels are wider. But you may get better wireless experience because you are on a 1.5 MHz channel alone and the guy next to you is downloading on a separate channel.
Well then VZ has no reason to move to LTE.
Why are they doing it? Their EVDO network is just fine right?
Because a lot of those theoretical numbers are for dual channels --- 84 mbps HSPA requires 10 MHz up and 10 MHz down. There is no way to get AT&T to deploy 20 MHz of their spectrum in that set-up.
Because a lot of those theoretical numbers are for dual channels --- 84 mbps HSPA requires 10 MHz up and 10 MHz down. There is no way to get AT&T to deploy 20 MHz of their spectrum in that set-up.
Are you saying it can't be done or won't be done?
Are you saying it can't be done or won't be done?
Both. Spectrum is scarce and expensive. The FCC ain't going to sell you a 20 MHz spectrum space in New York City.
Sure you can probably buy that much spectrum cheaply in the midwest --- the infamous red area in the Verizon commercial. But there are more cows than humans in the midwest.
Both. Spectrum is scarce and expensive.
Sure you can probably buy that much spectrum cheaply in the midwest --- the infamous red area in the Verizon commercial. But there are more cows than humans in the midwest.
Well I'm not going to argue that ATT will deploy their network in a manner that leverages its strengths. In fact I've said the opposite.
Both. Spectrum is scarce and expensive. The FCC ain't going to sell you a 20 MHz spectrum space in New York City.
Funny how you never make mention of this fact when discussing why AT&T's 3G hasess coverage than Verizon.
Also, you never seem to make mention of UMB, the failed technology that Verizon supported before it sinking in favour of 3GPP's much superior LTE built off of UMTS/HSPA, which you call inferior to CDMA2000.
PS: Of course LTE is all data, it uses the well known, effective and efficient IP protocols to transmit data. This will also mean carrier VoIP with QoS. I know you know better so please don't insinuate that LTE won't be used for voice calls from the carrier.
Funny how you never make mention of this fact when discussing why AT&T's 3G hasess coverage than Verizon.
Also, you never seem to make mention of UMB, the failed technology that Verizon supported before it sinking in favour of 3GPP's much superior LTE built off of UMTS/HSPA, which you call inferior to CDMA2000.
PS: Of course LTE is all data, it uses the well known, effective and efficient IP protocols to transmit data. This will also mean carrier VoIP with QoS. I know you know better so please don't insinuate that LTE won't be used for voice calls from the carrier.
I have always mentioned that Verizon is a north eastern baby bell where it is natural for them to have more cell towers, more fibers in the sewers hooking up to the cell towers, more spectrum.... in New York City.
Qualcomm had a lot of failed specs like ev-dv as well. Verizon didn't buy those failed specs at all because they felt that the current set-up is sufficient.
No, you just seem to think that ev-do without voice is automatically a weaker technology --- which isn't the case because LTE has the same set-up. EV-DO rev B can also do VoIP-over-EVDO.
No, you just seem to think that ev-do without voice is automatically a weaker technology --- which isn't the case because LTE has the same set-up. EV-DO rev B can also do VoIP-over-EVDO.
Not automatically, sumultaneously. Verizon doesn't have Rev. B, won't have Rev. B and adequate LTE coerae will be longer than people think. I have to hand to Verizon for spreading vaporware better than any carrier. They do a great job marketing while AT&T fails even when pointing out the superior aspects to their network.
Not automatically, sumultaneously. Verizon doesn't have Rev. B, won't have Rev. B and adequate LTE coerae will be longer than people think. I have to hand to Verizon for spreading vaporware better than any carrier. They do a great job marketing while AT&T fails even when pointing out the superior aspects to their network.
Sorry, typing mistake.
EV-DO Rev A can do VoIP-over-EV-DO --- and Verizon has Rev A.
Sorry, typing mistake.
EV-DO Rev A can do VoIP-over-EV-DO --- and Verizon has Rev A.
But Verizon isn?t ever going to use so it?s a moot point. They?ll use CDMA for voice for as long as they can. The infrastructure is there, it?s solid, it?s sound, and it uses a good voice codec. AT&T needs to get away from the GSM voice codec as quickly as possible and a WCDMA-based network does that. Each is not without their pros and cons.
Verizon is in trouble. They have no plan to expand their current 3G network...and 4G is many years away. Their 3G is capped at 1.4MB.....while AT&T is already at 3MB and going to 7MB then 14MB.
I predict we will see the DROID Users start complaining about their service real soon.
AT&T needs to create some nifty commercials to relay this to the public.
The biggest difference that is a killer for me personally. The ability to be on a call and on the net at the same time. I do this daily. Where it's on Verizon's "3G", that's EDGE for AT&T. That is a massive shortcoming. This is something that both AT&T and Apple are pushing in their new ads.
Verizon's ads are playing on the words "3G". Having a 3G network doesn't mean you have speed.
I don't think any current network in the US could handle the current load that the iPhone uses. AT&T stated that the iPhone uses more data than all other phones on their network combined. If that transfered onto Verizon's network, it would drop like a stone. That is probably most of the reason why Verizon don't want the iPhone.
I'm inside a building right now, and have friends on t-mobile and Verizon. We all done speed tests. I'm getting 1.3Mbps down, 458kbps up, t-mobile is 408kbps down, 128kbps up, and Verizon can't even get a signal. WAY TO GO Verizon!!
But Verizon isn?t ever going to use so it?s a moot point. They?ll use CDMA for voice for as long as they can. The infrastructure is there, it?s solid, it?s sound, and it uses a good voice codec. AT&T needs to get away from the GSM voice codec as quickly as possible and a WCDMA-based network does that. Each is not without their pros and cons.
CDMA technology is dying. GSM technology is the standard all over the world. Verizon's proposed 4G LTE network is a GSM standard, so it shows how much Verizon are loyal to the outdated CDMA technology. The future isn't voice, it's data.
The biggest difference that is a killer for me personally. The ability to be on a call and on the net at the same time. I do this daily. Where it's on Verizon's "3G", that's EDGE for AT&T. That is a massive shortcoming. This is something that both AT&T and Apple are pushing in their new ads.
Verizon's ads are playing on the words "3G". Having a 3G network doesn't mean you have speed.
AT&T started it by only using the ?3G? marketing term when describing their 3G network as being fastest. Verizon?s ads have been excellent, concise and to the point, while AT&T?s ads have been convoluted and unfocused.
Im Jonald!
Im new in this forum!
It's interesting to see how AT&T has very limited 3.6 Mbps coverage, and a 7.2 Mbps coverage limited to only a couple of cities while in Europe it's EDGE for almost 98% of the population, 7.2 Mbps coverage por almost all the small cities (20.000 inhabitants and up) and 21 Mbps (HSPA+) for selected cities.
I hope I can have more friends here!
Keep on posting Guys!...
Thanks!
Good Luck!...
CDMA technology is dying. GSM technology is the standard all over the world. Verizon's proposed 4G LTE network is a GSM standard, so it shows how much Verizon are loyal to the outdated CDMA technology. The future isn't voice, it's data.
The biggest patent holder for the LTE spec is Qualcomm --- which really makes LTE more of a continuation of CDMA than GSM.
The future isn't voice, it's data --- it means that ev-do going data only has been the correct strategy from the start.
The biggest patent holder for the LTE spec is Qualcomm --- which really makes LTE more of a continuation of CDMA than GSM.
The future isn't voice, it's data --- it means that ev-do going data only has been the correct strategy from the start.
The 3GPP designed LTE as a et of enhancements to UMTS(3GSM) which is built off of GSM. Qualcomm holding patents that are used throughout does not automatically mean that it?s more CDMA than 3GSM. That is erroneous.
Don?t try to spin LTE as some insightful idea on Verizon?s part. They are working on it because they have reached a dead end with EVDO. Sprint already made their choice for 4G a couple years prior.
Everyone else has awhile to wait while LTE actually matures because while HSPA is well established and mature it has a long way to go before it reaches the end of its tether. AT&T will likely be offering HSPA phones that are faster than LTE phones for sometime. By the time AT&T is ready for LTE they?ll be able to make a more natural switch, unlike the one Verizon is making.
All technology is dying and will be a dead end at some point in time.
Why would Verizon waste the money on EVDO Rev B when Rev A works as well as the competition in real-world usage, and LTE is just around the corner?
How is Verizon's position any worse than AT&T, which geographically has an enormous, outdated EDGE network that needs to be updated? If the HSPA upgrade is as simple as a software upgrade, what is AT&T waiting for?
Also, it appears that AT&T does not have the spectrum in many of its highly-touted population centers (NYC and San Fran, for example) to fully and reliably support HSPA 7.2 now -- so do you really expect that they have the spectrum to simply "switch on" the next theoretical level of HSPA, which would require even more spectrum per user?
I have no doubt AT&T will be running commercials claiming their HSPA phones are "faster" than LTE, but what good are theoretical speeds to me as a consumer if I can't get and keep that level of service in the real world? And will those commercials not be as hypocritical and deceptive as the current AT&T lawsuits, considering the fact that AT&T is planning LTE testing in 2010 with deployment to begin in 2011?
All carriers will eventually migrate to LTE (and whatever standard follows LTE) for the same reason -- because it uses spectrum more efficiently. And in the end, upgrading technologies is cheaper and more accessible than buying additional spectrum.
If history is any indicator, Verizon will roll out LTE to its entire network as soon as the technology is tested and reasonable to do so. AT&T will upgrade only the areas that it absolutely must, and will milk HSPA in other areas for as long as it can. If you have any doubt of that strategy, look at their current EDGE network.
You can defend AT&T's business decisions if you choose, but as a consumer paying roughly the same price per month for either service, I could care less whether Verizon "has to" roll out LTE. I just care that they do it fast, and that it works, and doesn't cost me a fortune.
I see little reason to believe that their approach to their LTE buildout will be much different, especially given that once again they will start behind VZW.
As always only time will tell. But were I a betting man, I'd wager that ATTM's HSPA network will never have a much larger footprint than it does now, and that ATTM will still have large swathes of EDGE-only coverage well after VZW and even Clear have covered most of the country.
The 3GPP designed LTE as a et of enhancements to UMTS(3GSM) which is built off of GSM. Qualcomm holding patents that are used throughout does not automatically mean that it?s more CDMA than 3GSM. That is erroneous.
You are just quoting PR hypes, UMTS/3GSM used to be called WCDMA --- so already that is more related to CDMA, not GSM.
It is just a name change for PR purposes --- doesn't means that the spec suddenly became more related to GSM.