Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Has Anyone Held Out For Years Waiting For it to Come To VERIZON?

xcrunner said:
3rd world country carriers likely don't want to pay licensing fees and/or don't have the influence to get CDMA phones made for them like Verizon and Sprint can. They also don't have the huge numbers that the US has.

How does that constitute GSM as being superior? Better yet - could you explain to me how CDMA is such a dying tech (ignoring the fact that Verizon & Sprint will be using it as a fallback for years to come), when GSM is older and also will be replaced? LTE is a big migration for both GSM and CDMA carriers. There's very little related between either of them to consider GSM thriving.
Click to expand...

Actually we did. The carrier according to some report had huge benefits and profits. Small countries might surprise you.

LTE was never for CDMA upgrade... Wi-Max is. Verizon is jumping over to LTE because they feel will allow them to do what GSM allows AT&T to do thru HSPA, faster speeds and better features (simultaneous voice/surf).
 
Rodimus Prime said:
Since you have reduced yourself to petty insults you clearly have not ever looked at the history of CDMA and TDMA (which became the bases of GSM)

Back in the day before mobile web ever even took off you had those 2. CDMA had a more powerful signal and could cut threw interference better than TMDA. That interference being walls buildings ect. TDMA was easier on the battery and more importantly it cost less run because of the lower licensing fees

Now CDMA back then was faster for mobile web and mobile data but lets face it not a huge issue on phones until you start streaming media and video. Most items were small in data size.

Now the SIM card GSM uses there is as something like it for CDMA and always has been called R-UIM. Just a lot of the carriers never choice to go with it. It would be nice to see Verizon and sprint to start using R-UIM for their phones.

You have never even bother looking up why TDMA beat out CDMA have you and it has nothing to do with which tech was better.
Click to expand...

We are not discussing this in my post... we are discussing this:

yg17 said:
Recent CDMA to GSM/HSPA converts:

Telecom New Zealand
Bell Mobility (Canada)
Telus (Canada)
Telstra (Australia)
Vivo (Brazil)

These are recent converts. They could've done what Verizon is doing and just keep the CDMA network and hold out for LTE, but CDMA must suck so bad that they decided to jump to GSM/HSPA in the meantime.
Click to expand...
 
jav6454 said:
Actually we did. The carrier according to some report had huge benefits and profits. Small countries might surprise you.

LTE was never for CDMA upgrade... Wi-Max is. Verizon is jumping over to LTE because they feel will allow them to do what GSM allows AT&T to do thru HSPA, faster speeds and better features (simultaneous voice/surf).
Click to expand...

While technically true, Verizon mainly did it for compatibility reasons and to make it easier to get phones. It was a chance to get back into what the rest of the world was doing and they took it. All those other things you mention (simultaneous voice/surf, faster speeds, etc) can all be done with Wi-Max and even under CDMA tech if the network was setup in such a way. You do realize there's many different EV-DO standards, right? And one of them allows for simultaneous voice/data?

Of course for all those "features" of GSM. At least on CDMA I can get notified of a call when surfing on non-3G. GSM on Edge just sends the call to voicemail as if it's not important...(ok, actually I think this is AT&T-specific, but since we're talking about those 2...)
 
xcrunner said:
While technically true, Verizon mainly did it for compatibility reasons and to make it easier to get phones. It was a chance to get back into what the rest of the world was doing and they took it. All those other things you mention (simultaneous voice/surf, faster speeds, etc) can all be done with Wi-Max and even under CDMA tech if the network was setup in such a way. You do realize there's many different EV-DO standards, right? And one of them allows for simultaneous voice/data?

Of course for all those "features" of GSM. At least on CDMA I can get notified of a call when surfing on non-3G. GSM on Edge just sends the call to voicemail as if it's not important...(ok, actually I think this is AT&T-specific, but since we're talking about those 2...)
Click to expand...

SV-DO, yet Verizon hasn't done, it. Also, my calls on my 1st Gen weren't sent to voicemail, my EDGE data paused and I took/declined the call.
 
yg17 said:
Recent CDMA to GSM/HSPA converts:

Telecom New Zealand
Bell Mobility (Canada)
Telus (Canada)
Telstra (Australia)
Vivo (Brazil)

These are recent converts. They could've done what Verizon is doing and just keep the CDMA network and hold out for LTE, but CDMA must suck so bad that they decided to jump to GSM/HSPA in the meantime.
Click to expand...

Or they felt like tapping into the roaming revenue and easy phone access compared to the custom agreements needed to usually get CDMA phones made. How exactly does this prove GSM superior...because everyone's using it? That doesn't make one superior over the other. Any evidence besides mindless speculation that CDMA sucks so bad was their reason for switching?
 
jav6454 said:
SV-DO, yet Verizon hasn't done, it. Also, my calls on my 1st Gen weren't sent to voicemail, my EDGE data paused and I took/declined the call.
Click to expand...

Were you with T-Mobile? Otherwise you probably weren't loading a page or streaming at the second, which probably made it go through. AT&T, as configured, doesn't allow voice to interrupt data on EDGE.
 
xcrunner said:
Or they felt like tapping into the roaming revenue and easy phone access compared to the custom agreements needed to usually get CDMA phones made. How exactly does this prove GSM superior...because everyone's using it? That doesn't make one superior over the other. Any evidence besides mindless speculation that CDMA sucks so bad was their reason for switching?
Click to expand...

No, Telus and Bell did it because of the better tech. Just check out their statements in the press releases. Also, that also allowed them to carry the iPhone; that however is not a motive, but a by-product of the new network.
 
jav6454 said:
SV-DO, yet Verizon hasn't done, it. Also, my calls on my 1st Gen weren't sent to voicemail, my EDGE data paused and I took/declined the call.
Click to expand...

Nope, it still happens on Edge. Most recent time was a little over a week ago, while I was browsing an app for some shopping resources. Once I finished, my phone alerted me of a new voice mail. When I called, the person said they had tried over and over to reach me, but it just kept going straight to voicemail.
 
Sounds like there is some misinformation again:

LTE is a new standard for both GSM and CDMA. This means that LTE is not backwards compatible with either technology. Both Verizon and AT&T will both require a major network overhaul to switch to LTE and it'll be equally challenging for both companies. Neither company has a head start in the process due to underlying technology. Verizon said that their final phase of LTE testing will be done in the next 60 days and we can expect to see some items in Verizon stores shortly after that. My guess is aircards or MiFi units at first.

Verizon has upgraded pretty much their whole network to 3G while AT&T not so much. This poses an interesting question for AT&T. Will they spend resources deploying 3G and LTE at the same time or stop 3G deployment and just focus on LTE.
 
thetexan said:
Sounds like there is some misinformation again:

LTE is a new standard for both GSM and CDMA. This means that LTE is not backwards compatible with either technology. Both Verizon and AT&T will both require a major network overhaul to switch to LTE and it'll be equally challenging for both companies. Neither company has a head start in the process due to underlying technology. Verizon said that their final phase of LTE testing will be done in the next 60 days and we can expect to see some items in Verizon stores shortly after that. My guess is aircards or MiFi units at first.

Verizon has upgraded pretty much their whole network to 3G while AT&T not so much. This poses an interesting question for AT&T. Will they spend resources deploying 3G and LTE at the same time or stop 3G deployment and just focus on LTE.
Click to expand...

That would explain why Verizon choose to make change at LTE. A huge overhaul was going to have to be done to go to 4G no matter what they did.
I have read Verizon had planned on upgrading their 3G network to include Voice and data at the same time. The technology can handle it. Just requires some more back-end changes.

Now everyone needs to remember that Verizon phones will be required to support EV-Do for the next 10-20 years because that network is in place and will still fall back on it.

Just like ATT pushes 3G it still has Edge to fail back on and the phone still support gprs which is over 10 years old and will be supported for a long time forward.
 
yg17 said:
And I've never had trouble with AT&T even at big events. So your personal experience means nothing to me, and for every AT&T customer who says "AT&T sucks!" I can find a Verizon customer that says "Verizon sucks!"
Click to expand...

I doubt that considering the wide consensus on the internet that AT&T is horrible and Verizon has the best network. Of course even JD Power agrees with us ranking Verizon overall in the world for call quality. AT&T is...last. Unfortunate for such a "great" network :D
 
Rodimus Prime said:
That would explain why Verizon choose to make change at LTE. A huge overhaul was going to have to be done to go to 4G no matter what they did.
I have read Verizon had planned on upgrading their 3G network to include Voice and data at the same time. The technology can handle it. Just requires some more back-end changes.

Now everyone needs to remember that Verizon phones will be required to support EV-Do for the next 10-20 years because that network is in place and will still fall back on it.

Just like ATT pushes 3G it still has Edge to fail back on and the phone still support gprs which is over 10 years old and will be supported for a long time forward.
Click to expand...

GPRS is supported because not all small carriers have a widespread EDGE network. That isn't going to change anytime soon since most Americans in rural areas just need to make a quick call or send a text/MMS. They don't need Internet at 7.2Mb/s via their cellphone. And I don't mean it wouldn't be nice, but need as in "I need this to live". For that we have the FCC pushing 100Mb/s lines to the entire US population with their bill.
 
jav6454 said:
GPRS is supported because not all small carriers have a widespread EDGE network. That isn't going to change anytime soon since most Americans in rural areas just need to make a quick call or send a text/MMS. They don't need Internet at 7.2Mb/s via their cellphone. And I don't mean it wouldn't be nice, but need as in "I need this to live". For that we have the FCC pushing 100Mb/s lines to the entire US population with their bill.
Click to expand...


And what makes people in metropolis cities so different that they "need that to live"?
 
FrankieTDouglas said:
And what makes people in metropolis cities so different that they "need that to live"?
Click to expand...

People in metro don't need the internet to live. We have it as a useful tool and something that makes life things easier.

We are induced to think that way by our society, but people back in the 1990s didn't need the internet to make their stuff.

I won't deny, things are much easier now.
 
My 2 Cents

Over the years: ATT - Bag Phone - pretty darn heavy but it worked. Moved to Cingular in later years - no real problems. Presently with Verizon - No real problems. One day I'll grow up and throw the darn phones out but until then, I'll just sit here and wait for "my" Verizon to adapt to either the iPhone or possibly an iPad communicator. My 2 year obligation ran out just after the original iPhone was introduced. I still haven't upgraded and all the coatings are about worn off my handset. I'll continue to wait through 2010, then I'll make a decision. <...sure is a long time to wait though.
 
jav6454 said:
People in metro don't need the internet to live. We have it as a useful tool and something that makes life things easier.

We are induced to think that way by our society, but people back in the 1990s didn't need the internet to make their stuff.

I won't deny, things are much easier now.
Click to expand...


No, explain your original statement.

That isn't going to change anytime soon since most Americans in rural areas just need to make a quick call or send a text/MMS. They don't need Internet at 7.2Mb/s via their cellphone.
Click to expand...

For what reason does living in rural areas correlate to a lack of need for high speed cellular internet? You're excusing the lack of cellular quality in rural regions due to their rural nature, but that has absolutely no bearing on if people need to make quick calls or if they actually need a high quality service.
 
jav6454 said:
GPRS is supported because not all small carriers have a widespread EDGE network. That isn't going to change anytime soon since most Americans in rural areas just need to make a quick call or send a text/MMS. They don't need Internet at 7.2Mb/s via their cellphone. And I don't mean it wouldn't be nice, but need as in "I need this to live". For that we have the FCC pushing 100Mb/s lines to the entire US population with their bill.
Click to expand...
Such an incredibly stupid set of statements, I conclude you must be trolling. Nobody could be so dense as to actually believe this drivel.

"Need it to live" indeed. What a hoot.
 
jav6454 said:
GPRS is supported because not all small carriers have a widespread EDGE network. That isn't going to change anytime soon since most Americans in rural areas just need to make a quick call or send a text/MMS. They don't need Internet at 7.2Mb/s via their cellphone. And I don't mean it wouldn't be nice, but need as in "I need this to live". For that we have the FCC pushing 100Mb/s lines to the entire US population with their bill.
Click to expand...

Well there you go. I was wondering how long it would take you to say that and reveal your true colors. American's in rural areas are just a bunch of dumb hicks right? Dey don't need no none've dat fast internet stuff dem city folk been talkin bout :rolleyes:.

If rural American's don't need mobile high speed internet, then why has Verizon installed their EV-DO network throughout most of rural America?
 
jav6454 said:
People in metro don't need the internet to live. We have it as a useful tool and something that makes life things easier.

We are induced to think that way by our society, but people back in the 1990s didn't need the internet to make their stuff.

I won't deny, things are much easier now.
Click to expand...

By your argument we really don't need much of anything "to live". Frankly, we could all go back into the forest, kill some game, and eat berries. On another note, I could go to your house and take away your refrigerator and tell you to store your food in iceboxes in your back yard like they did a hundred years ago. You'd still be living. That's pretty much what you're trying to say about 3G service.

But obviously none of that matters. We live in America in the year 2010 where one phone company treats America like it's Europe and only services the major cities while the other phone company at least has the decency to support a majority of the country with adequate service.
 
icyfire said:
But obviously none of that matters. We live in America in the year 2010 where one phone company treats America like it's Europe and only services the major cities while the other phone company at least has the decency to support a majority of the country with adequate service.
Click to expand...

News flash: AT&T just can't stick a tower somewhere. They have to own the spectrum licenses in a given area before they can build out a network. Did you ever stop and think that maybe AT&T doesn't own spectrum in those areas and can't purchase any because it's not for sale, and thus, can't legally build a tower? Take your complaints up with the FCC, not AT&T.
 
yg17 said:
News flash: AT&T just can't stick a tower somewhere. They have to own the spectrum licenses in a given area before they can build out a network. Did you ever stop and think that maybe AT&T doesn't own spectrum in those areas and can't purchase any because it's not for sale, and thus, can't legally build a tower? Take your complaints up with the FCC, not AT&T.
Click to expand...

That's complete speculation. Frankly, AT&T should be the ones making a big deal about it if they were prevented from purchasing spectrum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back