A step backward: iPhone 5 is not a "world phone"

[mikethebigo]

The Verizon and AT&T models are both world phones that will support GSM frequencies overseas. It's the same chip in each of them. The only difference between the two is LTE bands, for which the Verizon model has more international compatibility. If you are a good standing Verizon customer for over 60 days, they will unlock the iPhone 4s/iPhone 5 and let you use an international sim card while you are away on vacation.

 

[Let's Sekuhara!]

Agreed. In fact, everyone here blaming this on a poor Apple decision is also wrong. It's not Apple's decision to exclude anybody. The reason for this mess is the Carrier's inability to agree on one LTE standard that is worldwide.

This is why Apple would be wise to create their own network.
The worst part of the customer experience with an iPhone (or any phone) is the pigheaded dictatorial carriers you have to deal with.

Edit: Yes, I realize it would be a massive undertaking, spanning the entire globe. But one can dream, right? ;-)

 

[thewitt]

This is why Apple would be wise to create their own network.
The worst part of the customer experience with an iPhone (or any phone) is the pigheaded dictatorial carriers you have to deal with.

Apple worldwide LTE network?

There is absolutely no way that Apple, or any other company, could simply create their own new LTE network worldwide.

Malaysia, for example, has decided that LTE will operate at 2600MHz. Period. No other licenses are being granted. You want to play in Malaysia? You pay the government for your slice of the LTE band in your coverage areas.

 

[Let's Sekuhara!]

There is absolutely no way that Apple, or any other company, could simply create their own new LTE network worldwide.

Forget LTE. What about a satellite-based network?
Any reason why this couldn't be done?
Not trying to get off-topic and hijack my own thread here, but I do wonder...

 

[Nermal]

Malaysia, for example, has decided that LTE will operate at 2600MHz. Period. No other licenses are being granted. You want to play in Malaysia? You pay the government for your slice of the LTE band in your coverage areas.

It seems strange to me for licences to be granted for specific technologies (as opposed to getting rights to the spectrum and then using it for whatever you like). I'm reminded of back in 2006/2007, shortly after Telecom NZ had rolled out EVDO Rev A (which offered up to 3.1 Mb/s). A UK-based company was doing some sort of "network survey" across Europe and also did AU and NZ. The NZ speed tests were way ahead of what was offered in Europe, where most countries were stuck with GSM due to the government making the spectrum "GSM only".

Forget LTE. What about a satellite-based network?
Any reason why this couldn't be done?
Not trying to get off-topic and hijack my own thread here, but I do wonder...

Ignoring the expense of satellite bandwidth, there's also huge latency. From memory it takes about 4 seconds to get a signal from Earth, up to a satellite, and back down to Earth again. Imagine trying to have a phone call with a 4-second delay before the other person hears what you said (it's annoying even with the 1-2 second delay you sometimes get when calling the other side of the world).

PS. Your location tag is confusing me. I feel like it should say ロス・アンジリース or something, not just ロス...

 

[Let's Sekuhara!]

Ignoring the expense of satellite bandwidth, there's also huge latency. From memory it takes about 4 seconds to get a signal from Earth, up to a satellite, and back down to Earth again. Imagine trying to have a phone call with a 4-second delay before the other person hears what you said (it's annoying even with the 1-2 second delay you sometimes get when calling the other side of the world).

PS. Your location tag is confusing me. I feel like it should say ロス・アンジリース or something, not just ロス...

Touché.
OK, so it is highly improbable if not impossible.
My calculations based on your estimates indicate there would be almost a second of delay if the signal were traveling at the speed of light (a feat we have not achieved). My idea accepts defeat, and I commend you.

Your location tag confuses me as well. I wondered why there is a place in NZ called わかたね. And would the kanji for that be 和歌種 or 若種？ (>_<)

 

[tivoboy]

historically

historically, the Sprint CDMA versions of the iphone 4s (and maybe the Verizon) did have a SIM slot and one could enable them via sprint for international use on GSM networks.

With this new iphone 5 version, the Sprint CDMA model AND the european GSM model have the SAME model number, which leads me to think that this model will as well function abroad on GSM frequencies. The LTE bands are the same (actually the european model has MORE, but the ones the sprint one normally will use are replicated for europe, so why wouldn't the sprint one work on an LTE network in europe?

 

[Blorzoga]

This is a big deal for AT&T customers (the majority of iPhone users) who have ordered an iPhone 5 or will be waiting in line for one tomorrow.

If you buy an AT&T iPhone 5 it's not going to support LTE on any carriers outside of North America!

Don't believe me? See this:
http://www.apple.com/iphone/LTE/

I hope you don't plan on traveling much.

Just one more reason I am fed up with carrier lock-in and am content with waiting for the unlocked version.

Wow, you're a regular Sherlock Holmes. It took about 2 seconds to figure this out when th phone was announced.

 

[KPOM]

The Verizon ans Sprint versions will not work at all. The AT&T will work perfectly on everything but the LTE speeds over there. So basically the same speeds as a 4S

They will work on 3G networks overseas. Verizon and Sprint will even unlock it for non-US SIMs.

 

[FuNGi]

Good. Skipping the 5 this go around because of my need for international use (eg carrier unlock) is feeling less bad. The used 4S I bought should provide decent enough speeds.

 

[OneMike]

Considering the ridiculous amount of international fees you will be charged, LTE or not, you're better off not using your AT&T iPhone outside of the states.

This was my initial thought. I don't travel outside the US currently, but with my knowledge from those that do. I get that voice is more important than data.

 

[dontwalkhand]

You're on a vacation. I'm sure HSPA+ will suit you fine for Facebook and Twitter from abroad. I don't know about you but I'm abroad to relax, not to do work. I don't care if I'm on EDGE even.

 

[cynics]

I will check, but with my experience, Verizon phones generally don't work elsewhere, regardless of chip capabilities.

You just need to have Verizon unlock it for international use. Your contract doesn't even need to be up. It will not work on any other US carriers though.

 

[leenak]

When I bought my Verizon phone, Verizon had a question about whether the phone would be for international use. I was assuming that they would 'do something' to enable it if so? From all accounts, the Verizon phone can be used overseas.

 

[aristobrat]

If you do intend to roam, the AT&T model will work up to 3G speeds. The sprint/Verizon one will be useless.

All models of the iPhone support the following, which means even the Sprint/Verizon ones will roam on 3G (and what AT&T/T-Mobile are marketing at "4G") when traveling internationally.

UMTS/HSPA+/DC-HSDPA (850, 900, 1900, 2100 MHz)
GSM/EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz)

From all accounts, the Verizon phone can be used overseas.

Yup, the Verizon/Sprint iPhone 5 should work just as well overseas as the Verizon/Sprint iPhone 4s did!

 

[iEnvy]

Most places overseas haven't fully utilized LTE like the States have.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[greytmom]

Thank you to the few people who interjected some common sense in this thread. Of course the AT&T phone will still work overseas - it just won't be able to work at LTE speeds.

 

[slykens]

This is a big deal for AT&T customers (the majority of iPhone users) who have ordered an iPhone 5 or will be waiting in line for one tomorrow.

...

Just one more reason I am fed up with carrier lock-in and am content with waiting for the unlocked version.

I understand the appeal of LTE but what I don't understand is the completely fanboy fascination with it. LTE is better for all of us because it increases throughput on the air interface reducing congestion overall but individually I don't think I'm going to notice the difference on my iPhone. The device can only render so quickly.

What in the fark are people doing with their phones that 14.4 Mbps is not sufficient for? The phone can only render a web page so quickly, reasonable quality AVC HD video can be squeezed into a few Mbps, iTunes won't let you download an app over 50 MB OTA, etc.

I'm still not clear on why it's a big deal that someone travelling, who may have paid $200 for 800 MB from ATT, can only consume it at 14.4 Mbps instead of 20+ Mbps. I'm also unclear on why it's a big deal for AT&T users, 75% of which will never leave the United States anyway. Remember, only 1/3 of Americans have a passport with half of those getting them since the WHTI was put in place requiring passports for travel to Canada and Mexico.

And I say all of this as someone with unlimited international data so I don't care how much data I consume overseas - and I don't care that I can only use HSPA outside North America.

 

[darngooddesign]

Please explain how the lack on a SOC which supports every single LTE band is because of carrier lock-in.

 

[bapesta]

actually, even if it was on the same band, you still can't roam internationally on LTE as there isn't any form of agreement between the carriers internationally on international roaming on LTE. This means even if you have one that operates on 2600 or 1800 and roam to asian, you will only get 3G as theres no agreement between the carriers.

The only international agreement that i know on LTE is between 1010 (CSL) and SK Telecom in Korea,

http://1010.hkcsl.com/jsp/roaming_a...international_roaming/service_description.jsp

 

[Radiating]

The OP is a moron. None of the iPhones you can purchase will work multiple on LTE internationally. In fact nobody has ever made a phone that works on multiple LTE networks internationally. The AT&T iPhone 4 works on 3G internationally though.

 

[bapesta]

I understand the appeal of LTE but what I don't understand is the completely fanboy fascination with it. LTE is better for all of us because it increases throughput on the air interface reducing congestion overall but individually I don't think I'm going to notice the difference on my iPhone. The device can only render so quickly.

What in the fark are people doing with their phones that 14.4 Mbps is not sufficient for? The phone can only render a web page so quickly, reasonable quality AVC HD video can be squeezed into a few Mbps, iTunes won't let you download an app over 50 MB OTA, etc.

I'm still not clear on why it's a big deal that someone travelling, who may have paid $200 for 800 MB from ATT, can only consume it at 14.4 Mbps instead of 20+ Mbps. I'm also unclear on why it's a big deal for AT&T users, 75% of which will never leave the United States anyway. Remember, only 1/3 of Americans have a passport with half of those getting them since the WHTI was put in place requiring passports for travel to Canada and Mexico.

And I say all of this as someone with unlimited international data so I don't care how much data I consume overseas - and I don't care that I can only use HSPA outside North America.

download speed matters when you're in a plane on the runway taxi-ing to takeoff and you have to download that one email with the massive powerpoint attachment so you can make the most of the 4 hour flight...

 

[slykens]

download speed matters when you're in a plane on the runway taxi-ing to takeoff and you have to download that one email with the massive powerpoint attachment so you can make the most of the 4 hour flight...

I would suggest that the two hours wait after molestion, I mean security, would be a good time to do that instead of pulling an Alec Baldwin!

Perhaps he wouldn't have gotten into trouble if he only had LTE and could have finished his turn more quickly.

 

[aforty]

The LTE implementation is in flux. Show me a phone that will have near universal LTE functionality and I'll be impressed.

 

[nws0291]

There's a lot if confusion in this thread.....

You need to think about both LTE bands and CDMA vs GSM

The sprint/Verizon phones may offer LTE bands that are more common in Europe, but we don't use CDMA.

So you need a GSM phone with the right LTE bands to operate in Europe, and such a phone isn't available in the US.

If you do intend to roam, the AT&T model will work up to 3G speeds. The sprint/Verizon one will be useless.

The verizon/sprint version supports GSM so it will work unlocked there. Just not sure what UK carriers support the LTE bands of this model if any.

•CDMA model A1429*: CDMA EV-DO Rev. A and Rev. B (800, 1900, 2100 MHz); UMTS/HSPA+/DC-HSDPA (850, 900, 1900, 2100 MHz); GSM/EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz); LTE (Bands 1, 3, 5, 13, 25)