Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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?
- Thread starter HappyDude20
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Do you not understand what we are talking about.
W-CDMA is a type of CDMA signal. The GSM part is a carrier over from older technology. Back when it was TDMA(GSM) vs CDMA.
W-CDMA is a type of CDMA. There is a reason GSM tech went over to CDMA base line. It allowed for faster speeds and more data.
Verizon and sprint started with CDMA and payed the higher upfront cost of it and guess what it paying off for them in spades right now because they could more or less move to 3G with a software update. This compared to the GSM carriers that are required to do a hardware update to their towers.
A) That is not entirely true because if everything was simply a software upgrade verizon would be running ev-dv right now.
B) They coughed up the money to qualcomm in the beginning but most companies did not. So as of right now the majority of the places are using/going to the w-cdma standard and the few cdma2000 companies are now the odd men out, who need different cell phones/worldphones for international travel.
To use W-CDMA you need GSM... you can't run W-CDMA with CDMA... not the same.
Not.
The world is moving to LTE.
Also most worldwide CDMA carriers already switched or are in the process of switching to GSM.
Verizons tech is old and outdated.
You are not understanding the acronymous. GSM is not a technology but group of standards.
CDMA is code devision and TDMA is time devision.
Verizon uses only CDMA called CDMA2000 with its 1x and EV-DO technology.
AT&T uses TDMA with its GPRS and enhanced GRPS aka EDGE technology AND CDMA with its W-CDMA/UMTS/HSDPA 3G technology.
So 3G is a completely different technology from its 2G tech. AT&T could completely stop 2G service and it would make no different to the 3G service.
Verizon and AT&T both us CDMA for their 3g, each is just a different flavor.
Not.... Verizon uses 3G EV-DO for their CDMA... AT&T uses 3G UMTS (W-CDMA) HSPA for their GSM....
You can't use HSPA/UMTS with a CDMA carrier... not possible, those were not made for CDMA.
Also what Applejuiced said, Verizon is using old antique tech while AT&T is buying new hardware for new tech that is more so easily upgradeable to LTE.
TDMA is time division multiple access, CDMA is code division multiple access and GSM is Global System for Mobile Communications. Get it? TDMA and CDMA are the actual technologies while any technology the GSM association endorses is considered GSM.
So since HSPDA is a CDMA technology you have to be a CDMA carrier to use it.
I think i know what each thing means thanks long before you did, don't waste your breathe. I made my point clear but you can't see it.
No you are the one who is completely clueless. Read what was posted again.
You do not understand that 3g used by verizon and AT&T are just different flavor of CDMA tech. AT&T uses w-CDMA and verizon uses ev-vo. Both are a type of CDMA
Sometimes people read Wikipedia and other marketing oriented writings about the so-called "evolution" from UMTS-3G to UMTS-LTE and think that "evolution" means the technology is actually related underneath. It's not.
- LTE will be yet another network (UMTS-LTE) overlaid on top of their current two networks (GPRS and UMTS-3G) and interfaced to some legacy backend pieces.
- LTE requires totally different radios (OFDMA + SC-FDMA).
- LTE requires an all-IP backend.
It's possible that ATT could buy new radio racks with integrated support for all three air types, to make it easier for them to add LTE radios later on. Do you have a link to anything saying so? I've not seen or heard of that. In fact quite the opposite: that ATT thinks it's more cost effective for them to delay LTE planning and continue with HSPA upgrades for their current network.
Right, all Verizon had to do is have some guy sitting in an office deploy a software update to their towers to light up the EvDO indicators on phones. It doesn't mean they actually went out to each and every cell site and upgraded the backhaul to something capable of handling 3G speeds, which is perhaps why their network is slower than AT&T's. But technically it's 3G so they can claim they have America's largest 3G network. I'd like to see a Verizon 3G coverage map for areas where they actually added backhaul and increased capacity to properly handle EvDO, I bet it would be more in line with AT&T's 3G map because software updates don't magically add T1 lines to cell sites, and I don't think Verizon is wasting millions of dollars on resources to upgrade cell sites in areas where there are more cows than people.
Sprint is the same, they have a huge 3G footprint because it's just a software update. T-Mobile and AT&T can't compete in the map department, but I bet both of them beat the piss out of Verizon and Sprint in the speed department since they couldn't just cheat and deploy software to light up that 3G indicator.
Different flavor and 100% incompatible with each other. It's like how HDMI cable and an old serial modem cable are alike because they both use copper wire, but the similarities end there.
Why am I surrounded by clueless people is beyond me. I know that difference long before you ever posted here. What I am saying, and I am going to say it nice and slow so you can understand it, is that W-CDMA technology (ie HSPA/UMTS/HSPA+) can only be deployed and set up on top of a GSM network. Period. Verizon can't do that, neither can any other CDMA carrier.
That's it end of discussion. W-CDMA may have similarities with CDMA, but that's where it ends. It's like chocolate milk and strawberry flavoured milk. Both come from milk and that's about as what common thing they have.
Get it? Or do I have to put it in even more baby terms?
So you're saying that there must be an underlying GSM network for UMTS? If that's true, how do you explain South Korea and Japan who had their own proprietary 2G network but have a regular UMTS 3G network? A GSM only phone won't work in those countries, but a UMTS one will (assuming it has the right frequencies). Also, a Canadian carrier (Bell?) switched from CDMA to UMTS.
No you are clueless.
W-CDMA has more in common with Verison CDMA than it does with GSM 2G Edge network.
Verizon could use W-CDMA for its 3G and use the older ED-VO CDMA for its slow speeds. Now that is not cost effect for them.
GSM had to do a massive change to its network to go W-CDMA because the underlines technologies between Edge and W-CDMA are pretty massive. It required new tower, new hardware and new chipsets put into the phones.
EDVO (CDMA) and W-CDMA share a common base and have more in common than W-CDMA and Egde.
It already been explain that EDVO network could be improved to handle Voice and data at the same time. Just it is not cost effect at this point and Verizon is going to move over to LTE (4G) for longer term lasting.
Both back when Verizon looked much longer term than GSM looked. It when with a system that had a much longer life span and could be pushed farther. Unlike all the GSM carriers Verizon did not have to do as massive of an undertaking to go to 3G. It had base line technology in place when they built there 2G network up. GSM did not have it.
LTE system is requiring everyone to some massive advance mines and require a entire new set of equpiment for both phones and towers. LTE phones on the GSM network will be required to support at least 3 completely difference signal types (W-CDMA, GRPS/Edge, and LTE) Verizon LTE phones will only have to support 2 (CDMA2000, and LTE)
Sum it up for you. Verizon CDMA 3G system is backward compatible. Older phones can still use it just not at the full speed. W-CDMA is not backwards compatible with Edge. It required a completely different chipset to handle it than Edge and uses different hardware on the towers.
I held out until Nov '09 to buy an iPhone for multiple reasons - one of which was I refused to have it on the O2 network here in the UK.
Others included various features such as MMS, Video etc that didn't arrived until the later models.
Others included various features such as MMS, Video etc that didn't arrived until the later models.
Yes, they (Bell/Telus) are overlaying a GSM/UMTS network on top of it (hybrid) that is possible. However, if you read the reports, they said that both carriers were sharing the costs of the new network. One did the west, the other the east and customers will roam freely (as if on-network) when they cross to the other carrier's side (From Vancouver to Ontario per say).
All of that, just to carry the iPhone and have better service. Really tells you something about GSM/UMTS does it?
Once again, the whole milk example. Both have the same foundations, yet both are not compatible.
No it is not cost effective, hence they went the whole EV-DO route, albeit the faster one it is also the bad one. However, W-CDMA was designed for GSM systems, not CDMA systems. For CDMA it would be EV-DO. As you so eloquently already said.
Where? I don't see a reference here to SV-DO. EV-DO != SV-DO. EV-DO can't handle ever talk/surf. However the cost of not having to do hardware upgrades came down as a con when all the T-1 lines Verizon has started getting cluttered and slowed a bit their service. Remember, software upgrading towers to faster 3G speeds does not make T-1 (or T-2/3) lines magically appear too.
Yes LTE requires new stuff, and yes LTE evolves from UMTS (no, that is not a Wikipedia entry). No one here is discussing backward compatibility, only you.
As an actual insider in wireless telecom...
...with 17 years of hands-on experience in GSM, UMTS, CDMA, EVDO and LTE, I can say this:
Each of you self-proclaimed experts has at *least* one glaring mistake per post, whether it be a total misunderstanding of the facts, or a acronym improperly used or just plain absurdness.
Sadly enough, understanding what is going on in wireless is tough. There aren't a lot of ways to find out what's REALLY going on behind the scenes, and even then there's almost always something else below the surface that's really influencing what's going on.
Book learning or reading press releases just doesn't cut it in this space.
Unless you REALLY know, posting probably isn't something you should do, unless you want to embarrass yourself. Oh, maybe no one will call you on your post, but that doesn't make it accurate.
Anyways, just to add to this thread and not to just point fingers, one supposition that some have made on this thread is that if you had LTE radios, then you would automatically be forced to add a fallback radio (GSM for AT&T, or EVDO for VzW, for example). This isn't strictly true - if a particular provider is rolling out LTE coverage quickly, they could very well choose to just include LTE.
Note, I'm not saying this *will* happen, just that nothing at all *forces* you to have a fallback radio. If the provider is OK with users having potentially spotty coverage for a while as they build out LTE coverage, then it could happen.
Then again, you won't see LTE UEs (mobiles/dongles) in any sort of interesting form factors until late 2011.
...with 17 years of hands-on experience in GSM, UMTS, CDMA, EVDO and LTE, I can say this:
Each of you self-proclaimed experts has at *least* one glaring mistake per post, whether it be a total misunderstanding of the facts, or a acronym improperly used or just plain absurdness.
Sadly enough, understanding what is going on in wireless is tough. There aren't a lot of ways to find out what's REALLY going on behind the scenes, and even then there's almost always something else below the surface that's really influencing what's going on.
Book learning or reading press releases just doesn't cut it in this space.
Unless you REALLY know, posting probably isn't something you should do, unless you want to embarrass yourself. Oh, maybe no one will call you on your post, but that doesn't make it accurate.
Anyways, just to add to this thread and not to just point fingers, one supposition that some have made on this thread is that if you had LTE radios, then you would automatically be forced to add a fallback radio (GSM for AT&T, or EVDO for VzW, for example). This isn't strictly true - if a particular provider is rolling out LTE coverage quickly, they could very well choose to just include LTE.
Note, I'm not saying this *will* happen, just that nothing at all *forces* you to have a fallback radio. If the provider is OK with users having potentially spotty coverage for a while as they build out LTE coverage, then it could happen.
Then again, you won't see LTE UEs (mobiles/dongles) in any sort of interesting form factors until late 2011.
Stopped reading right there. No one here is calling themselves experts, nor do we claim such.
We debate on what we know. Now, if you really want to add to the debate, you can post what is really true or not.
Actually, this thread is not about wireless tech, it got derailed there, but it is about coverage and how 2/3 of a country is blanketed by AT&T.
Many of us just want to relate to personal experience--how we perceive something--not necessarily a technical evaluation. Based on my experience, I perceive ATT as being fine for my needs--that is not a technical assessment--just a practical observation.
As YG17 already pointed out to you, South Korea has both 1xEVDO and UMTS/WCDMA/HSPA deployed on CDMA2000 networks.
Not GSM networks.
(Yes, it's unusual. The government mandated the support of both EVDO and WCDMA for 3G. So Korean engineers had to overlay UMTS networks on the CDMA2000 networks. The implementation details can be found in this IEEE document.)
.