Actually, no, you didn't get 8.1Mbps on your dad's Blackberry. Rather, testmyiphone.com measured the speed from its site to the site of the Blackbery PROXY at RIM's datacenter in Waterloo, ON Canada. So, Waterloo is getting 8.1Mbps. The throughput from there to your dad's Blackberry is probably a far slower speed.
Thank you for explaining that. From what I understand this is also what Opera Mini does to render the full page. I've gotten quite a few people test using Opera Mini and get really fast scores that the cell network just can't do.
Sprint and Verizon are using the same tech
Correct, Opera Mini also uses a proxy. Basically, any web browser with a proxy in front of it will give you inaccurate speed test results, because you're only only testing the speed to the proxy (which by design is supposed to be way faster than the endpoint it's proxying for).
No, they're not. The air interface bears SOME resemblance, but that's where it ends. The routing and signaling methods and infrastructure behind the air interface is an entirely different beast. Is it more archaic? Yes, actually, and that's again by design. North American CDMA was intended to be fully compatible with AMPS, and so inherits some of the limitations.
CDMA is also an older tech. as well. As you stated CDMA is older and was designed for AMP usage in the U.S because people did not want to give up there phones (Very Expensive at the time.) But as AMPS got less secure (Listening in on phone calls.) It eventually over time got banned and only CDMA was used. GSM has much more potentional over CDMA, att just has to play there cards right. Which I have to say they have been as my internet has been ALOT better.