T-Mobile will be only US carrier to offer 'HD Voice' on Apple's iPhone 5

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 46
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    I'm all for anything that removes the subconscious belief now ingrained in society that hearing someone through a telephone implies lower-quality audio than that which we're hearing otherwise in whatever media we're consuming.

    But it actually has to be better to do that. It has been almost ONE HUNDRED FORTY YEARS and call quality is still below that of a face to face conversation.

    The frequency range is limited to allow more conversations. Think of it this way, more small cars can fit on an expressway than big cars.
  • Reply 22 of 46
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    charlituna wrote: »
    If I understand the whole thing correctly this would, if universally adopted, remove the need for voice at all. Perhaps keep it as a back up for emergency calls but everything else could become essentially VoIP. Then move 'texting' to data (AT&T at least has for mms off iPhones) and only a data plan is needed. 

    Rather like the notion of taking TV digital in the sense that it is just particular data on your broadband and not something unique that needs a second payment

    Voice, even over IP, is inherently different from all other general data and it costs more to setup and maintain from the lines to the nodes that push all the voice data through. You are essentially changing one type of voice for another. Will there be some cost savings by moving to VoIP? It's quite possible, but don't make the mistake of thinking it's the same effort as pulling up a website or checking your email. There is a lot that goes into VoIP to make it work well. Finally, once we do get that as standard there will be a large time where both will be supported by the carriers. We were well into using 3G coverage the US when the last analog towers went dark.
  • Reply 23 of 46
    solipsismx wrote: »
    ifij775 wrote: »
    It's time to end the "minutes" scam, and just do voice over data.

    Voice traffic is inherent a different kind of data than the standard data we send. There are additional costs involved to make voice work properly. And while the prices seem exorbitant for you get they are nothing compared to text messaging.

    But he suggested doing voice over data, i.e. VOIP. That would eliminate all the traditional costs involved to make voice work properly since the traditional way of handling voice traffic would not longer be employed. Now if you know of reasons why VOIP wouldn't be a good switch, let us know. So far as I know, the real issue thus far was the connections were too slow to handle good quality codecs and the network latency sometimes caused issues, i.e. lag/delay in the call. But on decent connections it seems perfectly suitable as a replacement, and LTE seems perfectly capable of resolving the bandwidth and latency issues, unless I'm missing something.
  • Reply 24 of 46
    solipsismx wrote: »
    charlituna wrote: »
    If I understand the whole thing correctly this would, if universally adopted, remove the need for voice at all. Perhaps keep it as a back up for emergency calls but everything else could become essentially VoIP. Then move 'texting' to data (AT&T at least has for mms off iPhones) and only a data plan is needed. 

    Rather like the notion of taking TV digital in the sense that it is just particular data on your broadband and not something unique that needs a second payment

    Voice, even over IP, is inherently different from all other general data and it costs more to setup and maintain from the lines to the nodes that push all the voice data through. You are essentially changing one type of voice for another. Will there be some cost savings by moving to VoIP? It's quite possible, but don't make the mistake of thinking it's the same effort as pulling up a website or checking your email. There is a lot that goes into VoIP to make it work well. Finally, once we do get that as standard there will be a large time where both will be supported by the carriers. We were well into using 3G coverage the US when the last analog towers went dark.

    It looks like as I was posting my other message while you were already responding to the issue raised by another poster. Can you be a little more specific as to what is required to make VOIP work well? Right now it isn't clear to me that VOIP packets gets any sort of priority and it seems to work perfectly fine on most decent broadband connections and even on all the LTE networks I've tested. Sure, if they completely switched, it would probably involve ensuring the VOIP packets get priority over all the rest of our data transfers, but why should that be expensive to implement? At any rate, it isn't clear it would be remotely close to the costs involved with the traditional model.
  • Reply 25 of 46
    tyler82tyler82 Posts: 1,024member
    Tmobile still has a long way to go. I've been with them on my iPhone 4S since last October and I only get 1g and 2g speeds in most areas here in sacramento, which is a large/ major city. I can't even stream pandora as I'm driving. I know they are supposed to complete their transition by the end of this year, but I feel I should be refunded part of my service for having such unbearably slow speeds when t is advertised as "up to 4g let" speeds.
  • Reply 26 of 46
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,789member
    Fine. Just show us more Carly Foulkes in your ads.
  • Reply 27 of 46
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    johndoe98 wrote: »
    It looks like as I was posting my other message while you were already responding to the issue raised by another poster. Can you be a little more specific as to what is required to make VOIP work well? Right now it isn't clear to me that VOIP packets gets any sort of priority and it seems to work perfectly fine on most decent broadband connections and even on all the LTE networks I've tested. Sure, if they completely switched, it would probably involve ensuring the VOIP packets get priority over all the rest of our data transfers, but why should that be expensive to implement? At any rate, it isn't clear it would be remotely close to the costs involved with the traditional model.

    In this forum via my iPhone I really can't go into detail about VoIP if your starting point is all HTTP, FTP, and all other data over IP is dealt with the same as voice when all of use should realize that voice can't be late or reassembled out of order with a delay and still be useful. If think everyone would realize how much of a poor effect even a fraction of a second in delivery can have when watching the news report with a satellite hook up.

    Bottom line: There are reasons why the codecs strip so much to make the voice packets small, why they use UDP to make the overhead lower overhead, and use QoS (priority) to ensure voice packets arrive as instantaneous as possible. There is a whole industry just around voice. It's complex stuff. If regular data is a sledgehammer voice traffic is a sonic screwdriver*.



    * Not a great analogy, just wanted to use a Doctor Who reference.
  • Reply 28 of 46
    tyler82tyler82 Posts: 1,024member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NexusPhan View Post


     


    Careful. You drop to edge not 3G. It's sloooow. Still the right choice in my opinion.



    Incorrect- after reaching your data limit it doesn't even drop to Edge- it drops to 2g (slower than edge and confirmed by a Tmobile customer service rep a few months ago)


    So instead of sloooow its sloooooooooooooow.

  • Reply 29 of 46
    nexusphannexusphan Posts: 260member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post


    Incorrect- after reaching your data limit it doesn't even drop to Edge- it drops to 2g (slower than edge and confirmed by a Tmobile customer service rep a few months ago)


    So instead of sloooow its sloooooooooooooow.



     


    Edge does not equal 2G? That's what I meant. I guess I'm too young to know the likes of 2G :) Thanks for the clarification!

  • Reply 30 of 46
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    nexusphan wrote: »
    Edge does not equal 2G? That's what I meant. I guess I'm too young to know the likes of 2G :) Thanks for the clarification!

    No, EDGE data is considered '2G' GSM data. it's also part of the 3GSM/3GPP '3G' standard and came out after the original '2G' but it's squarely in the '2G' family of GSM. There is also GPRS which is older, which he might be referring. There is no simple, easily traversable chart that builds these generations YoY like with the iPod or something similar. These are complex standards being created one decade and adopted widely the next or some odd connotation. It's really just a mess.
  • Reply 31 of 46

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NexusPhan View Post


     


    Edge does not equal 2G? That's what I meant. I guess I'm too young to know the likes of 2G :) Thanks for the clarification!



     


    Edge is considered 2.75G. Wikipedia although not always 100% truth, you can at least get this gist of it.

  • Reply 32 of 46
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    drewyboy wrote: »
    Edge is considered 2.75G. Wikipedia although not always 100% truth, you can at least get this gist of it.

    I don't know who started this decimal fraction of these generational numbers referring to the base standard but I want to punch them in the face. Cellular technology is already complex enough without people saying such-and-such isn't x-gen but x.xx-gen. I imagine it came about as a way to describe how it came after the initial standard was created but that doesn't mean we start calling the whole thing something different. Do we refer to 802.11n as 802.11.n.5? No, so why call EDGE 2.5, 2.75, 2.8, 2.9 or any of the other odd choices that have been chosen based on a wide range of criteria from data rate to time introduced at GRPS to the time introduced before UMTS? It all just obfuscates the facts.

    On top of that, as we've seen from the ITU-R and their definition of '4G' they can move the goal posts whenever the want and for any reason, like it not being adopted fast enough. Oops! Why don't we just stick with the technological facts of what the technologies do, what they offer in terms of speed, their pros, cons, and any other hard data that make them a good or bad choice compared to competing technologies. This is a tech forum, right?


    PS: As I've stated many times before I'd like to see a system adopted that is much easier for the end user to understand. This would be akin to how OC (optical carrier) lines increase. They start at OC-1 at 51.84Mbps and you add 51.84 to get to OC-2, another 51.84 for OC-3, and so on. For cellular tech I recommend a rounding and stepping of 10MBps. That means 42Mbps LTE would show up on your phone as being x4 (or x4.2). HSDPA that is connected at 14MBps would be x1.4. I know that right now going in increments of 1MBps would be cleaner but these things aren't implemented overnight and we'll be well into the 100's before anyone with a similar idea could make it happen.
  • Reply 33 of 46
    liupingliuping Posts: 34member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ifij775 View Post


    It's time to end the "minutes" scam, and just do voice over data.



    Since all the T-Mobile plans now include unlimited voice minutes and text, I would not really call it a "scam"

  • Reply 34 of 46
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    Voice traffic is inherent a different kind of data than the standard data we send. There are additional costs involved to make voice work properly. And while the prices seem exorbitant for you get they are nothing compared to text messaging.


     


    Correct. It won't be until LTE Advanced (aka the original definition of 4G) that networks will be 100% packet-switched. Only then will we see voice calls being treated like data.

  • Reply 35 of 46
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,516member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Really? These things aren't the issue? The… core issues aren't the issue? The fact that it still costs that much to get this quality isn't the issue? 


     


    So basically everything that is the issue isn't the issue, except it is.



    The other poster was right:  expecting the same audio quality over these devices as face-to-face conversation is a fairy tale for all of the reasons he mentioned.  He was saying that that expectation isn't the issue, so he posed another one:  why can't we enjoy the same audio quality over voice calls as we can via the web... even on the same device.  The technical obstacles to quality are similar in both cases.


     


    Thompson

  • Reply 36 of 46
    wonkothesanewonkothesane Posts: 1,634member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    Voice traffic is inherent a different kind of data than the standard data we send. There are additional costs involved to make voice work properly. And while the prices seem exorbitant for you get they are nothing compared to text messaging.

    Agreed. But is the pure voice tech still required? Or wouldn't it be simpler to switch completely over to voice over data?
  • Reply 37 of 46
    wonkothesanewonkothesane Posts: 1,634member
    thompr wrote: »
    The other poster was right:  expecting the same audio quality over these devices as face-to-face conversation is a fairy tale for all of the reasons he mentioned.  He was saying that that expectation isn't the issue, so he posed another one:  why can't we enjoy the same audio quality over voice calls as we can via the web... even on the same device.  The technical obstacles to quality are similar in both cases.

    Thompson

    Actually, I was able to use the "HD" voice for some time and it was like seeing a HD movie in the cinema for the first time. Like the pictures seemed "unnatural" as you're used to the less sharp pictures the call was "unnatural" as there was a complete absence if the usual hiss in the background (so real silence when no one speaks) as well as a very unexpected sound quality of the speech really close to talking to someone in front of you.
    As CDs once largely supplanted vinyl and some called on the lack of the "warm" sound including the noises due to scratches etc I feel the above mentioned examples fall into the same category and in the end technology just advances. Another example is the discussion here on the iTV where it was mentioned that no one actually asked for higher def tv other than nerds. Well, I guess following this approach I'm not sure we would already have left the trees and live in houses right now :-)
  • Reply 38 of 46
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Agreed. But is the pure voice tech still required? Or wouldn't it be simpler to switch completely over to voice over data?

    It'll still be required for 1) phones that don't support VoIP, and 2) on phones where they aren't connected to networks that support VoIP. I'd estimate we're a good couple decades out before that's completely replaced with VoIP across the US, and even then there might be a reason to maintain it. Consider how long analog phones and networks still existed after digital first appeared.
  • Reply 39 of 46
    wonkothesanewonkothesane Posts: 1,634member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    It'll still be required for 1) phones that don't support VoIP, and 2) on phones where they aren't connected to networks that support VoIP. I'd estimate we're a good couple decades out before that's completely replaced with VoIP across the US, and even then there might be a reason to maintain it. Consider how long analog phones and networks still existed after digital first appeared.

    Thanks. Hm. I'm surprised. I thought all phones/services that support data would implicitly support VoIP so at least for those this could be established right away. But maybe that causes too many issues while there are this those out there that require current tech.
  • Reply 40 of 46
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,674member
    I thought HD Voice was supported by 20 carriers in the US. Isn't that the case?
    http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/12/3320266/iphone-5-hd-voice
Sign In or Register to comment.