PDA

View Full Version : Verizon to Open Wireless Network to Any App or Device




MacRumors
Nov 27, 2007, 12:36 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

The big industry news today comes from Verizon (http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200711271236DOWJONESDJONLINE000532_FORTUNE5.htm) when they announced that in 2008 that it would offer wireless service plans open to any application or device.
[Verizon] said it will publish early next year technical standards for the development community, which are necessary for designing software, applications and devices that can run on its network. The carrier said that any device that meets the minimum technical standards will be activated on the network. It hopes to have new devices and applications available to customers by the end of next year.

Verizon expects the new service to open up new services and devices and encourage innovation. The service is also aimed at smaller players who would otherwise be unable to offer similar services. Indeed, per Arstechnica, one Verizon exec (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071127-verizon-opens-up-will-support-any-device-any-app-on-its-network.html) claimed that even "if someone builds a device in their basement on a breadboard, Verizon will test it and activate it." Pricing is claimed to be reasonable, with no specific restrictions on usage.

This news comes in the wake of Google's Android wireless platform (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/11/12/first-look-at-googles-android-mobile-platform/) announcement, but is not associated with that initiative. Meanwhile, Verizon still uses a CDMA network, while the iPhone is a GSM device. As a result, it's unlikely this announcement will necessarily have any affect on Apple's iPhone.


Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/11/27/verizon-to-open-wireless-network-to-any-app-or-device/)



Grimace
Nov 27, 2007, 12:38 PM
yummy! Verizon iPhone!

gphoto
Nov 27, 2007, 12:38 PM
Sounds like a good idea!

Stridder44
Nov 27, 2007, 12:39 PM
Doesn't CDMA suck compared to GSM? I remember hearing this somewhere but perhaps it's not true?

O and A
Nov 27, 2007, 12:40 PM
What about an iPod Touch with EVDO?

VERY interesting....

bdkennedy1
Nov 27, 2007, 12:40 PM
YAY!!! Stick it to Comcast!

levitynyc
Nov 27, 2007, 12:40 PM
Sounds like a good idea!


No way they are making a CDMA iPhone

arn
Nov 27, 2007, 12:41 PM
As stated in the article. this won't have anything to do with the iPhone directly... but is an interesting move and probably will introduce a lot of novel applications/devices.

arn

asketchbook
Nov 27, 2007, 12:42 PM
It really looks like the wireless industry in the U.S. Is taking some positive steps forward. I wonder what could have prompted this shift...

bdkennedy1
Nov 27, 2007, 12:44 PM
AT&T and the cable companies sitting on their asses doing the absolute minimum amount of work possible and spanking users for using their networks more than casually.

China has better networks than we do. CHINA.

It really looks like the wireless industry in the U.S. Is taking some positive steps forward. I wonder what could have prompted this shift...

gugy
Nov 27, 2007, 12:48 PM
forget it for the next 5 years. Verizon will not have an iPhone. AT&T has a contract with Apple, so no matter what Verizon does, AT&T protected their b*tts.
I am about to switch to AT&T when the iPhone 2.0 comes out. I am sick and tired of Verizon reception in my area. It used to be great, now there is not a single call more than 5 minutes long that do not drop. It's a nightmare. They suck bad. :mad:

Small White Car
Nov 27, 2007, 12:48 PM
I was wondering which cell company would "get it" first.

10 years from now no one will be paying for cellular phone service. You'll be paying someone for wired internet in your home and someone else for wireless access everywhere else. (Maybe the same company, but maybe not.) From those connections you will get TV, home phone, web sites, media purching, media rentals, and outdoor phone service.

The difference is that you'll only be paying AT&T or T-Mobile for the connection, and everything else willl be done through the web. Sure, the cell companies can offer phone service and phone numbers, but that will be a distinct business from offering the connection, unlike now where the 2 are linked.

The cellular companies that survive will be the ones that make this transition first and best. Looks like Verizon is trying to get a head start.

asphalt-proof
Nov 27, 2007, 12:57 PM
I was wondering which cell company would "get it" first.

10 years from now no one will be paying for cellular phone service. You'll be paying someone for wired internet in your home and someone else for wireless access everywhere else. (Maybe the same company, but maybe not.) From those connections you will get TV, home phone, web sites, media purching, media rentals, and outdoor phone service.

The difference is that you'll only be paying AT&T or T-Mobile for the connection, and everything else willl be done through the web. Sure, the cell companies can offer phone service and phone numbers, but that will be a distinct business from offering the connection, unlike now where the 2 are linked.

The cellular companies that survive will be the ones that make this transition first and best. Looks like Verizon is trying to get a head start.

This is great vision and I think it could haappen but i really think that the telcos are going to fight it tooth and nail. You are talking about a huge amount of money done away with. Apple has shaken the industry with its iPhone in a way that other smartphones have not. Its forcing the telcos change their way of doing business with the handsets. I think that its going to be Google (if they get the 700 spectrum) that forces them to change their model of pricing and services. I give it a slightly lower than even chance of your vision coming to fruition.

indiekiduk
Nov 27, 2007, 01:06 PM
Sounds to me like Amazon are the ones to thank for this. Their Kindle device is the first one to utilise this kind of service and in their discussions they must have opened Verizon's eyes to this opportunity.

iSee
Nov 27, 2007, 01:07 PM
This is really, really good news.

It's going to be hard to image at this point exactly how this will be used, but it is potentially revolutionary.

Here's what you (might) get: A near ubiquitous (for much of the US, anyway), wireless, unrestricted, inexpensive network.

OK, ok, the details may not bear this out, but this is the potential.

By the way, here's my idea: The Friend Finder (need a better name). It would be a little device that you throw in your wallet or purse. It's loaded with your address book or your classmates.com profile, facebook contacts, or whatever.
Whenever you are X meters away from one of your contacts, the thing rings or beeps or whatever to let you know. The other person's will similarily beep. you could both hit a button to agree to meet and then you could actually go find each other. There'd be various privacy settings, of course. If you're really extraverted, you could even set it to beep for friends of friends, etc.

plumbingandtech
Nov 27, 2007, 01:10 PM
Sounds to me like Amazon are the ones to thank for this. Their Kindle device is the first one to utilise this kind of service and in their discussions they must have opened Verizon's eyes to this opportunity.

Kindle had nothing to do with this.

Verizon sees the writing (and possible new Govt. laws), and 700mhz spectrum on the wall and wants to get out in front of it.

That is all. Bezos and his 7th time must be the charm, overpriced Book reader had nothing to do with this.

shadowfax
Nov 27, 2007, 01:14 PM
This is great vision and I think it could haappen but i really think that the telcos are going to fight it tooth and nail. You are talking about a huge amount of money done away with. Apple has shaken the industry with its iPhone in a way that other smartphones have not. Its forcing the telcos change their way of doing business with the handsets. I think that its going to be Google (if they get the 700 spectrum) that forces them to change their model of pricing and services. I give it a slightly lower than even chance of your vision coming to fruition.

well, either telecom competition will get so utterly stiff that one slouching company will "reinvent" itself by trying something crazy by implementing a business model that benefits the consumer, thereby beating out the competition until they follow suit, or a new company will come in and force them to do the same. Or we could legislate it, as we are fond of doing here in the proud US of A.

Grimace
Nov 27, 2007, 01:20 PM
Ooh, ooh!! New lawsuits and new legislation next Tuesday!! :D

arn
Nov 27, 2007, 01:23 PM
Kindle had nothing to do with this.

Verizon sees the writing (and possible new Govt. laws), and 700mhz spectrum on the wall and wants to get out in front of it.


I would think Android may have accelerated this plan too.

arn

Stella
Nov 27, 2007, 01:26 PM
Doesn't CDMA suck compared to GSM? I remember hearing this somewhere but perhaps it's not true?

CDMA has better voice quality but GSM is more prevalent. CDMA is mostly north america only.

Don't bother taking your CDMA phone to Europe to use more than a door stop.

-

This Verizon initiative sounds like a great idea...

brucku
Nov 27, 2007, 01:26 PM
The rest of the world has given up on CDMA. I heard that verizon's new network will be a GSM variant - I really hope they are not going to try to encourage innovation using old technology that is not the widely accepted standard. Thats like promoting Sony Betamax development or LaserDisc innovation.


CDMA may have better signal in some areas, and better call quality (i have no idea if it does).

But innovation is development that pushes technology forward, wasting resources on old and long forgotten networks is not a good idea.

Silencio
Nov 27, 2007, 01:30 PM
Sounds good on paper, but what criteria will constitute Verizon's "testing and certification" that must be done before the devices are allowed on their network? Will they deny permission to use devices they don't like in an arbitrary manner? What's touted as "open" might not end up being much more open than things are now; the proof will be in the execution, but color me skeptical until then.

But yeah, this reeks of a desparation tactic to keep CDMA relevant in an increasingly GSM-oriented world.

fabsgwu
Nov 27, 2007, 01:32 PM
I am sick and tired of Verizon reception in my area. It used to be great, now there is not a single call more than 5 minutes long that do not drop. It's a nightmare. They suck bad. :mad:

Do you regularly update your phone's roaming database? *228, option 2. It's very important to do that with VZW....

O and A
Nov 27, 2007, 01:33 PM
CDMA has better voice quality but GSM is more prevalent. CDMA is mostly north america only.

Don't bother taking your CDMA phone to Europe to use more than a door stop.

-

This Verizon initiative sounds like a great idea...

This isn't entirely true. My verizon phone has worked in central america and europe. Its expensive but it does work in some areas.

Anyway back on topic. Does anyone think that maybe EVDO could be added to the ipod touch?

Small White Car
Nov 27, 2007, 01:34 PM
This is great vision and I think it could haappen but i really think that the telcos are going to fight it tooth and nail. You are talking about a huge amount of money done away with.

They actually have opportunities to make more money than ever if they're smart.

But I don't need to go through all those reasons here...what matters is if THEY understand that or not.

You're totally correct in saying the odds of that aren't fantastic. That's what excites me about this news. It's not what they're doing, exactly, but just the fact that they see the need to do it. That's encouraging.

EDIT: And, I might add, I strongly suspect Apple agrees with me. I'm guessing that they see the iPhone as a temporary 5-10 year product. At that point they'll just have iPods that do everything and stop selling the phone altogether. Remember how "iPod Photo" was a product and then became absorbed into the normal iPod? That happened in about a year. Expect the same thing to happen to the iPhone but over a decade instead of a year. This strategy makes absolute sense IF my guesses about the industry are good ones. We'll see.

shoelessone
Nov 27, 2007, 01:46 PM
I would think Android may have accelerated this plan too.

arn

Yep, I agree.

iPhone SchmiPhone, I'd say android as well as the generally accelerated trend of mobile internet devices (yes, the iPhone has some part in this) is the driving force.

twoodcc
Nov 27, 2007, 01:54 PM
seems alright. i'll just stick with my at&t for now though

baleensavage
Nov 27, 2007, 01:55 PM
So in theory, this means I could get a Razr that works with iTunes instead of Verizon's crappy Vcast? That's been my biggest bone to pick with Verizon, how they completely lock down any phone that they sell so it can't use anything that isn't verizon's. I even put tried to put songs on our Razr using their Windows Media Player (and corresponding $30 kit) on a PC, and it still wouldn't work. And forget adding ringtones you don't buy from Verizon (unless you hack the phone).

I won't rejoice until I see what those standards are, but this sounds like a very good thing.

mahashel
Nov 27, 2007, 01:58 PM
Google was able to get the FCC to force any organization that wins the 700MHz spectrum to allow open access.
The current crop of devices that access cellular networks are subject to draconian limitations. (I have had 6 Verizon phones thus far, and the majority of their advanced feature sets are always disabled)

Soooo.. if Verizon wants to play in the 700MHz game (and they'd be STUPID not to, since it's a magic bullet for wireless coverage/bandwidth), they HAD to open up their network.
This was actually a fairly predictable move. If Verizon wants to expand its wireless business, it has to do this. :D

FCC Ensures Open Access in 700MHz Auction (http://www.dailytech.com/FCC+Ensures+Open+Access+in+700+MHz+Auction/article8258.htm)
"The “open platform” requirement was introduced last month, first surfacing as a vague set of rules from FCC Chairman Kevin Martin. On July 9, Google CEO Eric Schmidt wrote Martin with a specific plan that expanded the FCC’s rules, which Google saw as weak. In the letter, Google suggested four specific requirements, which included a controversial “wholesale” clause that network service be available to resellers on a wholesale basis. While Martin expressed reservations about Google’s proposal, he remained optimistic about the FCC’s plan, going so far as to call the 700 MHz band a “third pipe” alternative to America’s current cable/DSL duopoly."

timon
Nov 27, 2007, 02:03 PM
This is all fine and good but can I get non-crippled bluetooth on a phone from them? I want it now not sometime next year. I'm calling Verizon and if I can't get one then I'm off to AT&T!

somberlaine
Nov 27, 2007, 02:12 PM
It is about time wireless carriers open up their networks. I am convinced ATT, T-Mobile, Sprint will do the same. US wireless carriers will still have to work on a uniform standard as opposed to the current CDMA/GSM split. Changing wireless carriers should only be a matter of swaping sim cards.

AtHomeBoy_2000
Nov 27, 2007, 02:19 PM
It really looks like the wireless industry in the U.S. Is taking some positive steps forward. I wonder what could have prompted this shift...

Say what you want about Google's privacy issues and Apple's closed platform mentality, but I am REALLY excited to see they are making other get uncomfortable and do things that are PRO consumer rather than pro-profit.

shamino
Nov 27, 2007, 02:20 PM
Doesn't CDMA suck compared to GSM? I remember hearing this somewhere but perhaps it's not true?
The original CDMA was inferior to the original GSM. But that's ancient history. Modern CDMA phones support CDMA-2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDMA2000) in either a 2.5G "1xRTT" variant or the 3G "EV-DO" variant, which are comparable to GSM's 2G and 3G technologies.
CDMA has better voice quality but GSM is more prevalent. CDMA is mostly north america only.
Japan's 3G network is CDMA based. But you're right that GSM is dominant in Europe.
As stated in the article. this won't have anything to do with the iPhone directly...
For the moment. Apple would have to release a CDMA iPhone in order to work on Verizon's network. There's no hint of this coming soon, but anything is possible.
forget it for the next 5 years. Verizon will not have an iPhone. AT&T has a contract with Apple, so no matter what Verizon does, AT&T protected their b*tts.
There are exclusive contracts and there are exclusive contracts.

Nobody in the press has seen the actual contract. Depending on the wording, exclusivity may be restricted to one model or one series of iPhone. Apple may well be able to release an "iPhone version C" product with a CDMA chipset, a slightly different feature set, and maybe different packaging for use on other networks.

Without seeing the actual contract, we have no way of knowing for sure, but I would be very surprised if Apple signed a contract preventing them from making any phone-like product for a different network.

TimJim
Nov 27, 2007, 02:20 PM
Does this mean i can load Android on my Motorola Q if they end up doing this?

bokdol
Nov 27, 2007, 02:20 PM
CDMA has better voice quality but GSM is more prevalent. CDMA is mostly north america only.

Don't bother taking your CDMA phone to Europe to use more than a door stop.

This Verizon initiative sounds like a great idea...

north america and asia.

i believe japan korea and china are almost all cdma. i remember alot of my friends in the late 90s bring over japanese and korean phones to set up with verizon and sprint.

that means if apple wants to go to asia there is a high possibility that they will have to make a cdma phone. all us cdma users may only need to import that version of the phone.

either way i cant believe verizon is the one pushing this. especially the way they lock there phones with such proprietary software. this is sweet. maybe i wont change service now.

AtHomeBoy_2000
Nov 27, 2007, 02:23 PM
The rest of the world has given up on CDMA. I heard that verizon's new network will be a GSM variant - I really hope they are not going to try to encourage innovation using old technology that is not the widely accepted standard. Thats like promoting Sony Betamax development or LaserDisc innovation.

I thought I remember reading a rumor that Verizon was going to start a transition to GSM ot something along those lines.

doomnote
Nov 27, 2007, 02:24 PM
What exactly makes this a "macrumor"? This really has no affect on anything apple related. Why exactly is it on the front page?

AtHomeBoy_2000
Nov 27, 2007, 02:28 PM
What exactly makes this a "macrumor"? This really has no affect on anything apple related. Why exactly is it on the front page?

Possible Verizon iPhone?
If so, that royally sucks! My old phone broke Sunday and had to buy a new one. i didnt want to replace it until late '08.

arn
Nov 27, 2007, 02:35 PM
This really has no affect on anything apple related. Why exactly is it on the front page?

this has an affect on everything.

arn

mr_matalino
Nov 27, 2007, 02:37 PM
As long as we start somewhere. Its a domino effect.

moonzilla
Nov 27, 2007, 02:38 PM
north america and asia.

i believe japan korea and china are almost all cdma. i remember alot of my friends in the late 90s bring over japanese and korean phones to set up with verizon and sprint.

that means if apple wants to go to asia there is a high possibility that they will have to make a cdma phone. all us cdma users may only need to import that version of the phone.

either way i cant believe verizon is the one pushing this. especially the way they lock there phones with such proprietary software. this is sweet. maybe i wont change service now.

japan and korea are cdma from what i know, but i believe china may be using gsm. if apple continues their eastern expansion, we may be holding a CDMA iPhone by the time verizon rolls out this "service" in 2008.

FakeWozniak
Nov 27, 2007, 02:39 PM
yummy! Verizon iPhone!

I am NOT sure Apple would like to sell to VZ at the moment. I would put money down that they will loose the kickback from AT&T every month as part of the *exclusive* agreement. I wonder when there finally is competition among vendors for the iPhone, if Apple will have the same revenue.

In the US, say they eventually hook VZ, but loose the juice from AT&T. They would say, double sales, but loose the kickback. I wonder what is the greater revenue source on the iPhone, the per-unit profit or the monthly kickbacks.

Now, these latest developments from VZ convince me just how scared VZ actually is. Just the near Global acceptance of GSM should be writing on the wall that CDMA (the Betamax of wireless technology) is limiting their business opportunities. Consider Apple's shift from proprietary to popular standards based a good example of what VZ ought to do. The timing of VZs announcement, relative to the Amazon device and the Google development environment, seems like a "me too" reply.

VZ seems pretty stagnant technologically to me. Most of their developement effort is in taking vendors phones and retarding the features to look like every other phone they offer. Remember when they disabled downloading photos from camera phones. You had to pay $0.40 per photo you emailed yourself. Their mentality is to gouge their customers until the competition starts taking them away, then backpedal or "me too" them.

Now, I am not in love with AT&T either. Would rather the Internet and wireless communication be free, in the same way the roads are. Everyone depends on communications like our roads. You don't pay a toll to walk out your door and get on the highway to get to work, do you? Why should you have to pay a toll to Comcast, AT&T, VZ, etc to get compulsory government services, or to get to work. I think John Lennon would have wrote "Imagine there's no cellular fees, no ISPs, it's easy if you try!" if he were around today.

akac
Nov 27, 2007, 02:45 PM
Does this mean i can load Android on my Motorola Q if they end up doing this?

It has nothing to do with that at all. To load Android on your Q you are going to have to build your own kit to run on that Q. Moto can do it. Hackers can probably do it.

In fact, you can do this now. This announcement is for the hardware side only.

bokdol
Nov 27, 2007, 02:45 PM
What exactly makes this a "macrumor"? This really has no affect on anything apple related. Why exactly is it on the front page?

this will change the face of apple 5 year locked contract with at&t. well if at&t wants in to that 700Mhz spectrum. and if they want to bring the iphone over. they cant lock it. but this standard will probably not sturt for a few more years anyhow so it wont be such a big lose for at&t and they will have an already large user base.

well i guess wireless will become more like the internet companies any computer can run high speed internet. you just need to pick the provider you like or have offered in your area and you bring your own phone.

terevos
Nov 27, 2007, 02:46 PM
This is pretty lame considering most of the other cellphone carriers have allowed this since the beginning or since the move to GSM.

For one, AT&T Wireless, Cingular, and Tmobile have always allowed any application on any phone - there were no restrictions. However, currently, even if you have a java MIDP phone, you can't just download any java MIDP app and stick it on there, whereas with AT&T, Cingular, and Tmobile, you can do whatever you want.

And ever since those carriers moved to GSM, you can use any handset you want on their network. (Course now Cingular + AT&T are one)

So this is just Verizon becoming just a little less evil and restrictive than they used to me. Lame.

DTphonehome
Nov 27, 2007, 02:50 PM
...Meanwhile, Verizon still uses a CDMA network, while the iPhone is a GSM device. As a result, it's unlikely this announcement will necessarily have any affect on Apple's iPhone.


The only way it will affect the iPhone (for US users) is if Apple signs with a major CDMA provider overseas (Japan or South Korea most likely), and someone imports a CDMA iPhone from one of those countries and sends it to Verizon for activation. So it would be theoretically possible to have a CDMA iPhone on Verizon, should Apple ever release one somewhere in the world.

FakeWozniak
Nov 27, 2007, 02:52 PM
The only way it will affect the iPhone (for US users) is if Apple signs with a major CDMA provider overseas (Japan or South Korea most likely), and someone imports a CDMA iPhone from one of those countries and sends it to Verizon for activation. So it would be theoretically possible to have a CDMA iPhone on Verizon, should Apple ever release one somewhere in the world.

I thought part of the contract agreement with AT&T (allegedly) was that they were not able to develop a CDMA version of the iPhone for a long time (5 years?). Anyone able to link to that rumor?

DTphonehome
Nov 27, 2007, 02:55 PM
I thought part of the contract agreement with AT&T (allegedly) was that they were not able to develop a CDMA version of the iPhone for a long time (5 years?). Anyone able to link to that rumor?

I recall that as well, but I'm sure that's only in the US...no way Apple would tie their hands and not have a CDMA iPhone for Japan until 2012!

InLikeALion
Nov 27, 2007, 03:01 PM
I was just on another thread yesterday and voiced how I wish I could put LG's original software on my vx8600. Verizon's media player is so terrible i could never really use it. Maybe this will encourage people to write their own media apps that work better?

arn
Nov 27, 2007, 03:19 PM
I thought part of the contract agreement with AT&T (allegedly) was that they were not able to develop a CDMA version of the iPhone for a long time (5 years?). Anyone able to link to that rumor?

http://www.macrumors.com/2007/05/22/iphone-details-5-years-on-atandt-verizons-answer/


USA Today confirms that the iPhone is contractually bound to AT&T as an exclusive for a period of five years. Previous reports had varied, with one report claiming the deal as lasting through 2009 (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/01/12/cingular-ties-several-more-iphone-models-and-more-details/) instead. Apple is also said to be prohibited from creating a CDMA version of the iPhone during this time.

sigamy
Nov 27, 2007, 03:44 PM
Seems to me to be a press release about nothing. Verizon just wanted to get their name associated with the word "Open".

I don't understand all the complexities involved but how is this announcment any diffferent than what happens today? Verizon has a network. Others can build devices and/or apps to run on that network. Verizon tests these and then releases.

Seems like the current world to me...

Do we really believe they will allow *anyone* in their basement to hop on their network? I looked into to developing apps for Verizon BREW phones. It was a massive headache. Thousand dollars for an SDK, big learning curve, complex testing and certification process. Typical big telco crap.

Spades
Nov 27, 2007, 03:52 PM
Cheap unlimited wireless internet access with no restrictions on devices or applications is the beginning of a technological revolution, and the first company to deliver that will be the big winner. If Verizon really is opening their network to everything, that means it'll be them.

MarlboroLite
Nov 27, 2007, 03:53 PM
I think there is little question that Verizon has the best service and coverage in the US--that's why I keep them despite their ridiculous customer service and crippled phones--at the end of the day one is buying a phone to above all else talk in it and I would not drop VZW for ATT just because of a cool new phone like the iPhone if I can't get good reception.

If Apple does come out with a cdma version for Asia, I might import it or find a way to use it here with VZW, but I'm not switching.

MacNut
Nov 27, 2007, 04:09 PM
I still don't understand Apple's reasoning for not making the phone open to every carrier. Are they really going to make that much more off of ATT when they could of sold millions more phones if they opened it up to everyone world wide at once. Apple should of made 2 phones, GSM and CDMA and launched them simultaneously world wide with no exclusive deals.

shamino
Nov 27, 2007, 04:17 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/2007/05/22/iphone-details-5-years-on-atandt-verizons-answer/
Noting that USA Today is only confirming the 5-year timespan. The prohibition against developing any CDMA-based device is listed as "is said to" - or in other words "unconfirmed rumor".

I wouldn't bet any money on the accuracy of rumors like this, even ones confirmed by prestigious news agencies like USA Today. I'm sure that they haven't seen the contract either and are just quoting their own rumor/leak sources, which are not necessarily correct.

All we know for sure is that there is a five-year exclusive contract for AT&T to sell iPhones in the US. Any statements about restricting other products, especially for sale in other countries, is pure speculation.

ZrSiO4-Zircon
Nov 27, 2007, 04:26 PM
Do I see a typo?
"...no affect..."
Shouldn't it be "...no effect..."?

dannychang
Nov 27, 2007, 04:45 PM
who cares about CDMA this day?

oh wait....some verizon cellphone don't even have a SIM card.

oh shoot...whut a product with 90's technology.

They just try to get people to use their so call "special" CDMA network with EVDO expensive useless wireless connection.

on the other hand. Is AT&T and Tmobile gonna upgrade their system to 3G? when lots of counties in Asia starting to use 3.5G network. why are we still getting 2.5G here?

lseven
Nov 27, 2007, 04:51 PM
I still don't understand Apple's reasoning for not making the phone open to every carrier. Are they really going to make that much more off of ATT when they could of sold millions more phones if they opened it up to everyone world wide at once. Apple should of made 2 phones, GSM and CDMA and launched them simultaneously world wide with no exclusive deals.

Rumor is that Apple gets a good chunk of the monthly fees from AT&T also. Companies love recurring revenue. And the phone would be more expensive if it was open (like the unlocked phones for Germany).

Ted13
Nov 27, 2007, 05:07 PM
I still don't understand Apple's reasoning for not making the phone open to every carrier. Are they really going to make that much more off of ATT when they could of sold millions more phones if they opened it up to everyone world wide at once. Apple should of made 2 phones, GSM and CDMA and launched them simultaneously world wide with no exclusive deals.
Because many companies (like the pre iPhone Verizon) wouldn't let the iPhone on their networks. Verizon up till now has crippled Blue Tooth, etc. on various phones so they could charge users, instead of permitting them to freely transfer data. Most phone companies want to sell their users songs at $3 a pop, rather than allowing to be loaded for free via iTunes from someone's CD collection. Remember -- Apple approached Verizon before AT&T -- Verizon said no.

Now, post iPhone (and Google Android), the carriers are being scared into opening their networks up.

Papajohn56
Nov 27, 2007, 05:31 PM
CDMA has better voice quality but GSM is more prevalent. CDMA is mostly north america only.

Don't bother taking your CDMA phone to Europe to use more than a door stop.

-

This Verizon initiative sounds like a great idea...

CDMA is also better at getting through walls and buildings, and has a higher standard data rate. CDMA is supported in the following countries:

Canada
Guam
Northern Mariana
Islands
Puerto Rico
Saipan
St. Croix
St John
St Thomas
Virgin Islands, US
Mexico
Aruba
Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Bermuda
Bonaire
Brazil
Cayman Islands
China
Curaçao
Dominican Republic
India
Israel
Jamaica
Jost Van Dyke
Macau
Netherland Antilles
New Zealand
Peru
South Korea
St Maarten

who cares about CDMA this day?

oh wait....some verizon cellphone don't even have a SIM card.

oh shoot...whut a product with 90's technology.

They just try to get people to use their so call "special" CDMA network with EVDO expensive useless wireless connection.

on the other hand. Is AT&T and Tmobile gonna upgrade their system to 3G? when lots of counties in Asia starting to use 3.5G network. why are we still getting 2.5G here?

If I'm staying in the USA, I'd MUCH rather use CDMA. Call quality is the most important thing for me. I know you're trying to troll, but some of us pick function over form. I've never needed a SIM card, because I don't buy a phone to be a toy, I use it for its intended purpose and I want the best quality from it.

savar
Nov 27, 2007, 05:41 PM
What about an iPod Touch with EVDO?

VERY interesting....

I'll buy it if I can use it as a bluetooth modem

EagerDragon
Nov 27, 2007, 05:49 PM
yummy! Verizon iPhone!


That is a big leap, the iphone TODAY does not to my knowledge has a radio that is compatible with Verizon. It would require a new phone and probably re-certification by FCC but can't be sure.

takao
Nov 27, 2007, 05:49 PM
CDMA is also better at getting through walls and buildings, and has a higher standard data rate. CDMA is supported in the following countries:


GSM is used in 212 countries (which means around 75-80% of the mobile market in terms of population)
in fact 48 countries used GSM already in 1993

EagerDragon
Nov 27, 2007, 05:55 PM
I was wondering which cell company would "get it" first.

10 years from now no one will be paying for cellular phone service. You'll be paying someone for wired internet in your home and someone else for wireless access everywhere else. (Maybe the same company, but maybe not.) From those connections you will get TV, home phone, web sites, media purching, media rentals, and outdoor phone service.

The difference is that you'll only be paying AT&T or T-Mobile for the connection, and everything else willl be done through the web. Sure, the cell companies can offer phone service and phone numbers, but that will be a distinct business from offering the connection, unlike now where the 2 are linked.

The cellular companies that survive will be the ones that make this transition first and best. Looks like Verizon is trying to get a head start.

That maybe the case in highly populated areas. In the suburbs and other less populated areas TODAY is hard to find a single wireless location other than a fool or two that don't know how to lock it down.

I believe it when I see a lot more wireless places.

Consultant
Nov 27, 2007, 05:57 PM
They don't have the international standard GSM, probably never will.

EagerDragon
Nov 27, 2007, 06:07 PM
This is all fine and good but can I get non-crippled bluetooth on a phone from them? I want it now not sometime next year. I'm calling Verizon and if I can't get one then I'm off to AT&T!

Typically Verizon turns off a lot of the phone native capabilities and offers an equivalent service (sometimes) at a charge, for example VCast. They also disable the modem capabilities and a lot of bluetooth capabilities in other than the BlackBerry.

They are talking OPEN, which is against their culture. I left them long ago and have zero plan to comeback

FakeWozniak
Nov 27, 2007, 06:33 PM
Canada
Guam
Northern Mariana
Islands
Puerto Rico
Saipan
St. Croix
St John
St Thomas
Virgin Islands, US
Mexico
Aruba
Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Bermuda
Bonaire
Brazil
Cayman Islands
China
Curaçao
Dominican Republic
India
Israel
Jamaica
Jost Van Dyke
Macau
Netherland Antilles
New Zealand
Peru
South Korea
St Maarten


Sure, CDMA, go after the warm island destinations! But what have you done for Greenland, Iceland, Siberia, and Antarctica! :) (I did see Canada listed! ;))

sixth
Nov 27, 2007, 06:37 PM
Some very good points posted here, but I have been doing A LOT of reading on this announcement, and I really agree with a lot posts here. This means very little to me, and I really believe it is just to get media coverage, they are trying anything right now since the iPhone came out. I don't care if you are a Verizon customer or not, its just the facts, they STILL control what phones will be on their network, they still are going to get you in a contract that you wont be able to get out of unless you die and they are still going to be a crappy phone company (along with all the rest, because to me they all suck).

So...regardless of 'how big' the media is making this whole announcement out to be, it still doesnt mean crap. We wont see an iPhone on Verizon, it just won't work like that.

Just my .02 cents...

sjo
Nov 27, 2007, 06:42 PM
CDMA is also better at getting through walls and buildings, and has a higher standard data rate. CDMA is supported in the following countries:

Canada
Guam
Northern Mariana
Islands
Puerto Rico
Saipan
St. Croix
St John
St Thomas
Virgin Islands, US
Mexico
Aruba
Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Bermuda
Bonaire
Brazil
Cayman Islands
China
Curaçao
Dominican Republic
India
Israel
Jamaica
Jost Van Dyke
Macau
Netherland Antilles
New Zealand
Peru
South Korea
St Maarten



nice list. now let's take a look from the point of view of numbers.

cdma phones sold 2007: <200m
gsm phones sold 2007: 1B

implementing a cdma version of a phone comes as very distant 3rd after implementing gsm version and 3g version of a phone for any manufacturer. most actually don't even bother.


If I'm staying in the USA, I'd MUCH rather use CDMA. Call quality is the most important thing for me. I know you're trying to troll, but some of us pick function over form. I've never needed a SIM card, because I don't buy a phone to be a toy, I use it for its intended purpose and I want the best quality from it.


i'm sure somewhat got those results in some tests. however, the performance of the mobile phone network depends on a lot more variables than lab results. most importantly the implementation of the network. i'd suggest that there are better tools and knowledge available to implement a network based on standard with 3b subscribers than standard that has 100m+ subscribers...

further, sim is functionality, not form.

maokh
Nov 27, 2007, 06:57 PM
Doesn't CDMA suck compared to GSM? I remember hearing this somewhere but perhaps it's not true?

Okay, i dont want to start any sort of GSM vs. CDMA flame war, but you actually have it backwards.

CDMA has always been lightyears ahead of GSM as far as speed, capacity, reliability, etc. Almost a full generation gap in terms of actual technology and deployment.

CDMA CSD: 14.4k (vs GSM's 9.6k)
CDMA 1xRTT: 100Kbps-144Kbps symetrical (deployed during GPRS popularity)
CDMA EVDO: 600Kbps-1Mbps, 144Kbps up (deployed during EDGE popularity)
CDMA EVDO Rev A: 1Mbps-3Mbps, 600-1MBps up (deployed currently during EDGE/UMTS)
CDMA EVDO Rev B: 8-10Mbps down, 1-3Mbps up (deployed 2008)

There are a ton of different GSM technologies out there that were being developed to keep up with CDMA, but you will find that most of that stuff was either in the lab or deployed in 2-3 cities tops. at&t's UMTS deployment has been a big let down in terms of performance and actual UMTS cards actually installed at the towers.

CDMA also has about 3-5x more voice capacity, nearly all hand offs are soft -- mainly because multiple towers are able to pick up pieces of your signal and put it back togther as a whole...vice versa on the handset. no handoff mishaps like all the TDMA voice services i have ever used. All the systems are backwards compatible. higher call quality .... its actually rated better than GSM in technical journals, its not subjective.

CDMA is a great technology, but only niche in the americas and some of asia. European carriers actually wanted to deploy EVDO at one time (mainly because UMTS hardware didnt exist when EVDO was deployed), but the laws mandate GSM systems.

Of all the features, i like the simple fact that CDMA doesnt buzz the hell out of every speaker within a mile radius. I love my iPhone, and am "putting up" with EDGE..but man, it gets annoying sometimes.


CDMA is not good because:

1) not a truly global system
2) Its version of the SIM is almost never implemented..which:
3) the system very closed
4) requires usage of special chipsets with heavy royalties (qualcomm locked up a lot of UMTS IP the same way, so a moot point)

who cares about CDMA this day?

oh wait....some verizon cellphone don't even have a SIM card.

oh shoot...whut a product with 90's technology.

They just try to get people to use their so call "special" CDMA network with EVDO expensive useless wireless connection.

EVDO is a hell of a lot cheaper than even other GSM systems in the united states. It completely blows away europe and the rest of the world. $10-$15 Unlimited EVDO vs. metered EDGE/UMTS...hmmm...

EVDO is also lightyears ahead of even the "best" UMTS technologies. EVDO actually works in the real world...meanwhile...UMTS, due to CDMA patent dodging mainly, is not able to hold up to any claims in the real world. This is mainly because the most important thing is very high rate/resolution power control, a patent that GSM decided to dodge, and thus, creates an inferior system.

Yeah, your right, CDMA is from 1992...and boy does it kick UMTS's ass.

anyway..enough of that....im just happy Verizon is going to own up their network. There are some very interesting OEM modules id like to connect to their EVDO network with.

retroneo
Nov 27, 2007, 07:25 PM
Verizon is transitioning their CDMA-EVDO network to GSM-LTE in the 2009-2010 timeframe.

Several CDMA-EVDO carries have done a similar upgrade (CDMA-EVDO to GSM-HSDPA) already - (Two carriers in South Korea and Telstra in Australia)

HSDPA offers 14.4Mbit (Live today) and LTE offers 40Mbit and up.

The Telstra HSDPA transition took 10 months for concept to completion and created the worlds largest wireless network by area.

Papajohn56
Nov 27, 2007, 07:33 PM
Verizon iPhone would be nice, EV-DO instead of EDGE, especially if unlimited

Verizon is transitioning their CDMA-EVDO network to GSM-LTE in the 2009-2010 timeframe.

Several CDMA-EVDO carries have done a similar upgrade (CDMA-EVDO to GSM-HSDPA) already - (Two carriers in South Korea and Telstra in Australia)

HSDPA offers 14.4Mbit (Live today) and LTE offers 40Mbit and up.

The Telstra HSDPA transition took 10 months for concept to completion and created the worlds largest wireless network by area.

Got a source? How would they handle backwards compatibility?

AtHomeBoy_2000
Nov 27, 2007, 08:14 PM
Got a source? How would they handle backwards compatibility?

http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/21/verizon-dumps-cdma-for-gsm-based-lte-in-4g-networks/

Endorsed by the 3GPP as the official way to burn wireless rubber in the next few years, LTE is a progression of GSM's UMTS platform, making it an ironic choice for CDMA stalwart Verizon and a huge blow for the CDMA Development Group's competing UMB standard.

retroneo
Nov 27, 2007, 08:36 PM
Got a source? How would they handle backwards compatibility?

"In a conference this week, Vodafone Chairman Arun Sarin revealed that Verizon as well as Vodafone will use LTE for their 4G networks"

http://www.reuters.com/article/technology-media-telco-SP/idUSN1930400520070920

Backward compatibility is achieved by running both networks at the same time in the same spectrum for a period of 12-18 months and offering all customers new handsets. (This is how Telstra did it)

ccwilli3
Nov 27, 2007, 11:58 PM
good post by maokh, lots of mis-information being passed around on this forum about mobile carriers, mobile technology schemes, etc, glad to see someone is out there getting it right.

The only reason GSM is the 'standard' (which is isn't) is because it came out before CDMA and was implemented before CDMA was even available for carriers in europe. CDMA is so much better than GSM in a multitude of ways; capacity, quality, spectrum management (which is vital), handoffs, etc... Every handoff in the GSM world is a 'hard' handoff... UMTS/HSDPA is not a progression of GSM, it's also known as WCDMA (wideband CDMA) but they skirted the name and called it UMTS instead. The ATT (and others) UMTS/HSDPA network is an overlay network over it's existing GSM voice network, which is why 3g data is not available everywhere voice is... Just like when (if) sprint rolls out wimax as it's 4G network, it'll still be a CDMA voice network, but 4G devices will have wimax radios to utilize this other overlaid network. Similarly, if VZW goes LTE for it's 4G network, the voice network will still be CDMA.

TurboSC
Nov 28, 2007, 12:32 AM
AT&T and the cable companies sitting on their asses doing the absolute minimum amount of work possible and spanking users for using their networks more than casually.

China has better networks than we do. CHINA.

lol that's right. us Asians need to be connected to the internet no matter where we are.

America is just, *sigh* there are no words. At least the iPhone was a big slap in the face to all the competitors out there.

asphalt-proof
Nov 28, 2007, 08:16 AM
Say what you want about Google's privacy issues and Apple's closed platform mentality, but I am REALLY excited to see they are making other get uncomfortable and do things that are PRO consumer rather than pro-profit.

Its not a PRO consumer vs. PRO-profit construct. Its more, how to get more profit in a way that just happens to be more consumer friendly. Companies have actually gotten sued by shareholders for implementing pro-consumer policies that did not add to the bottom line or adversely affected the bottom-line.

shamino
Nov 28, 2007, 09:01 AM
GSM is used in 212 countries (which means around 75-80% of the mobile market in terms of population)
in fact 48 countries used GSM already in 1993
And how does this matter to me, the consumer, who can't afford to go globe-trotting? I spend 99% of my time in the US. Technology that is adopted elsewhere doesn't matter at all to me.
http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/21/verizon-dumps-cdma-for-gsm-based-lte-in-4g-networks/
Given how often business decisions are made and changed, any statement of an action that will take place in 3-4 years falls into the category of "I'll believe it when I see it".
Backward compatibility is achieved by running both networks at the same time in the same spectrum for a period of 12-18 months and offering all customers new handsets. (This is how Telstra did it)
Since handsets are purchased, not rented, I assume this really means "forcing all customers to buy new handsets, whether they want to or not."

unigolyn
Nov 28, 2007, 09:21 AM
And how does this matter to me, the consumer, who can't afford to go globe-trotting? I spend 99% of my time in the US. Technology that is adopted elsewhere doesn't matter at all to me.

If you're using a cell phone standard that 85% of the rest of the world doesn't, you're eating the cost difference of producing said cell phone. Economies of scale matter. You may think you're only paying so-and-so for your handset, but trust me, CDMA handsets cost more and Verizon is taking that difference from your pocket.

Given how often business decisions are made and changed, any statement of an action that will take place in 3-4 years falls into the category of "I'll believe it when I see it".

This isn't the sort of business decision one can make, back out of, and hope to survive as a company. It's as if Microsoft had said in 2006 - "screw it, we can't make Vista work so it's XP for the next ten years". As big as a turd Vista is, this would have buried Microsoft.

Since handsets are purchased, not rented, I assume this really means "forcing all customers to buy new handsets, whether they want to or not."

It's absolutely necessary for there to be a multi-year period where both networks coexist. Suggesting any kind of overnight switch-over from one standard to another is a strawman at best.

And it doesn't matter whether CDMA is technically superior to GSM (it is). The reason GSM works is because of the SIM and number portability. You don't like your carrier's service or prices? Screw 'em, put a new SIM in your phone and you're no longer indentured to them. This is what it means to PURCHASE a handset. A CDMA phone is pretty much a paperweight if you ever get sick of your carrier. The fact that you pay them for the privilege of "owning" this item is ridiculous.

A phone should not be provided by your carrier. You don't get your TV from your cable company, you don't buy your car from your gas station, you don't buy your furnace from the gas company. And for good reason.

cpatch
Nov 28, 2007, 12:31 PM
Good grief, people...when discussing change "affect" is a verb (the cold weather affected the crops), "effect" is a noun (the cold weather had an effect on the crops) or a more obscure verb (the cold weather effected a change in the crops). We're intelligent enough to use Macs, let's sound intelligent while discussing them.

Subscribe to the "Grammar Girl" podcast.

FunkyJunk
Nov 28, 2007, 12:37 PM
ninja edit

shamino
Nov 28, 2007, 04:36 PM
If you're using a cell phone standard that 85% of the rest of the world doesn't, you're eating the cost difference of producing said cell phone. Economies of scale matter. You may think you're only paying so-and-so for your handset, but trust me, CDMA handsets cost more and Verizon is taking that difference from your pocket.
Considering that my monthly bill is the same as what all the GSM owners in the US pay for a similar contract, and my service is better, it must be coming from somebody else's pocket.

Or maybe the subject isn't as simple as you say it is.
This isn't the sort of business decision one can make, back out of, and hope to survive as a company. It's as if Microsoft had said in 2006 - "screw it, we can't make Vista work so it's XP for the next ten years". As big as a turd Vista is, this would have buried Microsoft.
What business decision? There were some rumors and "forward looking" statements made to the press. Companies say things all the time, and much of it never happens.

It's funny you use Microsoft as an example, considering that they have announced tons of Windows features that have all been dropped and abandoned (except in their press releases, of course.) It doesn't seem to have ruined them.
It's absolutely necessary for there to be a multi-year period where both networks coexist. Suggesting any kind of overnight switch-over from one standard to another is a strawman at best.
Please point out where I was objecting to an transitionary period?

I was pointing out that the original poster is invoking wishful thinking when he claims that the carriers will give you free upgrades to your phone as a part of this transition. It won't happen. They'll announce a cut-off date, and anybody that doesn't pay up for a new phone by then will be cut off.

If you're using one of the cheap-junk phones that tend to break before your contract runs out, then you won't care - you'll have to replace it no matter what they do to the network. But if you've spent a lot of money on something good, you're going to be screwed over.

(BTW, who were you replying to with the rest of your message? It is responding to things I never said. If you were replying to someone else, you really should quote their text or put it in a separate comment.)

840quadra
Nov 29, 2007, 08:49 AM
For once.

Telco company news that I actually like. I am curious to see what technology the second generation iPhone will utilize, and what Verizon does in the future.

My hatred for most Telco companies is starting to feel a touch more useless now :) .

websyndicate
Nov 29, 2007, 10:03 AM
What about an iPod Touch with EVDO?

VERY interesting....

So a internet package for your ipod touch $60 verizon sell internet for. Why not just get the iPhone wouldnt that be smarter

beez1717
Nov 29, 2007, 11:27 AM
So a internet package for your ipod touch $60 verizon sell internet for. Why not just get the iPhone wouldnt that be smarter

Let's see: as I am a college student, not having this option would mean: having to pay for a cell service by myself, when my family could just have me play the $30 to get unlimited data plan and a one time fee of about $60 for the adaptor and abotu $300 for the ipod touch..... a hella a lot cheeper if you ask me! (I would then use skype which would only cost me $29.95 per year instead of MONTH :)

That means i would spend $429.95 the first month (included si skype), and then only 30 after that.... That's way cheeper than if I switched to the iphone!

John Musbach
Dec 1, 2007, 07:37 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

The big industry news today comes from Verizon (http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200711271236DOWJONESDJONLINE000532_FORTUNE5.htm) when they announced that in 2008 that it would offer wireless service plans open to any application or device.


Verizon expects the new service to open up new services and devices and encourage innovation. The service is also aimed at smaller players who would otherwise be unable to offer similar services. Indeed, per Arstechnica, one Verizon exec (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071127-verizon-opens-up-will-support-any-device-any-app-on-its-network.html) claimed that even "if someone builds a device in their basement on a breadboard, Verizon will test it and activate it." Pricing is claimed to be reasonable, with no specific restrictions on usage.

This news comes in the wake of Google's Android wireless platform (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/11/12/first-look-at-googles-android-mobile-platform/) announcement, but is not associated with that initiative. Meanwhile, Verizon still uses a CDMA network, while the iPhone is a GSM device. As a result, it's unlikely this announcement will necessarily have any affect on Apple's iPhone.


Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/11/27/verizon-to-open-wireless-network-to-any-app-or-device/)
This is very good news indeed, I attribute this to their wanting to avoid any possible pressure caused by the release of the Android without prior policy changes. I am very thankful for the upcoming Android platform, I believe that that platform will be the key to finally causing many mobile phone carriers to unlock their networks as so many consumers have been wanting (me included).