Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I can't say I've had issues with AT&T in the past 2 years or so... I had two opportunities to begin switching to other carriers, and I decided I really didn't have an issue with AT&T.
 
woohoo...a higher bitrate call...even better for GSM that by nature of GSM itself is a non-variable bitrate technology which results in MORE dropped calls as the signal chokes on low signal and drops

how annoying is it during HD Radio when it goes in and out of HD signal. imagine what a phone call would be like....no thanks

it's hard to care about HD voice quality when they have other more obvious issues to address with their network.

While I totally agree with your last point, GSM is not a non-variable bitrate technology, not in any way, shape or form.

Years and years ago, GSM built right into the standard higher quality voice options.

However, with those higher quality voice options comes a corresponding reduction in capacity, so very few operators have a) turned it on b) bought handsets that supported it c) left it on once turned on.

IIRC (and I may not) the original iPhone used this higher quality voice option.
 
It's not a bad thing, and I'm sure I'll like it, but I don't see why people care that much. (If they even do outside of carrier marketing!)

It's a phone call. A disembodied voice you hear mixed with the sounds around you. It's never going to be like meeting in person, it's not a Beethoven concert, and it's not a keepsake recording to treasure forever. So I don't care about "richer, fuller" sound, as long as the voice is clear and not broken up. It already is, so I haven't wished for more.

When I dump AT&T (likely for T-Mobile) it won't be for HD voice!
 
Will this be compatible with all GSM iPhone 5's? Because isn't Tmobile getting a new iPhone to support this feature?

Ah, but actually T-mobiles phone only has a change which enables AWS support. Carriers have had the option of supporting HD Voice since they started carrying the iPhone (looking past network exceptions, that is).
 
While I totally agree with your last point, GSM is not a non-variable bitrate technology, not in any way, shape or form.

Years and years ago, GSM built right into the standard higher quality voice options.

However, with those higher quality voice options comes a corresponding reduction in capacity, so very few operators have a) turned it on b) bought handsets that supported it c) left it on once turned on.

IIRC (and I may not) the original iPhone used this higher quality voice option.

i can't speak to the specifics if GSM technology has changed and whether the carriers have adopted it yet, but the the reason why GSM carriers inherently drop more calls is b/c as the signal strength decreases it maintains the same bitrate for the voice call. thus, the call is more likely to drop as it tries to push that same bitrate across a smaller bandwidth (eventually becomes impossible so thus the call drops)

CDMA on the other hand, is variable. as the signal strength decreases and available bandwidth of the connection decreases, it decreases the bitrate in order to maintain the call


this is why you can have a perfectly good phone conversation on 1 bar with CDMA, but 1 bar on GSM is nearly impossible as it breaks in and out as it struggles to push the same bitrate across a lower bandwidth connection.

think of it like Netflix. Netflix will adjust the quality of the video when it detects a lower bandwidth connection. that is what CDMA does. GSM would still continue to push out the same video quality and it would constantly be buffering. with a voice call though, there is no buffering - it just drops the call

whether or not GSM has the capability to offer variable lower bitrate voice calls is a moot point really if the carriers have failed to implement it. this deficiency with GSM carriers, combined with the fact that GSM signal strength inside buildings is very bad, is why i would never EVER even remotely consider a GSM carrier. why pay for cell service based on an inferior technology. the talk+surf argument is non existent now that Verizon has implemented LTE and will have blanketed their entire network with it by 2015 - of course while AT&T at that point would still be rolling out its LTE network to 2nd and 3rd tier cities.
 
Last edited:
If this is the same as Voice Over LTE then I'm pretty excited about the news. I tether+call a lot and it's a pain when i'm limited to "4G" speeds.

As far as GSM dropping calls, I dropped a LOT with my 3G, the first year I had my 4 it was also higher than I'd have liked. The last year I had my 4 I didn't drop many at all. I'm on a 5 now and I don't even remember having a dropped call, if I have, they can easily be counted on one had. I'd say GSM is well matured at this stage and is just fine for voice calls.
 
God this will dramatically improve my phone sex life.

Don't do it bro! The chick on the other line may sound hot, but actually she's 350 Lbs and has four kids. You think she loves you but its all a lie. A GDamned LIE!!!!Damn you 3.99 a minute!!!!(sobbing)
 
Last edited:
It's not a bad thing, and I'm sure I'll like it, but I don't see why people care that much. (If they even do outside of carrier marketing!)

It's a phone call. A disembodied voice you hear mixed with the sounds around you. It's never going to be like meeting in person, it's not a Beethoven concert, and it's not a keepsake recording to treasure forever. So I don't care about "richer, fuller" sound, as long as the voice is clear and not broken up. It already is, so I haven't wished for more.

When I dump AT&T (likely for T-Mobile) it won't be for HD voice!

There are big reasons to care:

1. It sounds so much better. When you're talking to someone you care about, it makes a huge difference and you feel closer.

2. It is a huge improvement in noise canceling.

3. It can help protect your hearing (dispersing a sound over more frequencies rather than pumping up limited frequencies for volume) and reduce ear fatigue on long calls.

Once you experience it, you will care.
 
iPhone has a feature that the carriers don't even support?

And people complain about innovation ;):D

meh

Apple has had Thunderbolt ports on their laptops for what...almost 2 years now right? where are all of the Thunderbolt peripherals? last time i checked, as soon as USB came out literally within months there were thousands and thousands of affordable and useful peripherals.

having to pay $399 for a Thunderbolt hub or $1,099 for a drive bay just goes to show you...

just bc they scored by removing the floppy drive with a CD drive, then scored again by removing the CD drive all together, doesn't mean they are guaranteed to score with each supposed innovation.
 
I hope they don't come up something like HD Voice is supported only on shared plans.. because its AT&T and its possible they can screw us something stupid like this.
 
Sounds like AT&T is doing a "Ooh, look at us! We're doing HD Voice, too!" They've had the iPhone 5 for 6 months and never revealed that they were implementing this. Now that T-mobile will support HD Voice, suddenly AT&T says they are going to do the same.

And I bet this will only be available to tiered-plan subscribers.

Just because they announced it today doesn't mean they haven't been working on it for the past several months. Who cares. The fact that it's coming at all is great.
 
Voice over LTE would mean a lot more to Verizon than ATT, will be interesting to see if Verizon follow suit, they were supposed to launch it in 2012. I believe Metro PCS has already rolled it out here in my area.
 
It sounds like they are doing voice over LTE which is different than what T-Mobile is doing as you won't require an LTE connection to benefit from HD voice.
 
# grandfathered plans excluded

They can have my grandfathered unlimited when they take it from my cold dead hands. They take it, I'll jump to T-Mobile, and by the time that happens, there won't be a difference. So they best leave me the hell alone.
 
meh

Apple has had Thunderbolt ports on their laptops for what...almost 2 years now right? where are all of the Thunderbolt peripherals? last time i checked, as soon as USB came out literally within months there were thousands and thousands of affordable and useful peripherals.

having to pay $399 for a Thunderbolt hub or $1,099 for a drive bay just goes to show you...

just bc they scored by removing the floppy drive with a CD drive, then scored again by removing the CD drive all together, doesn't mean they are guaranteed to score with each supposed innovation.

Don't spread FUD... I got a thunderbolt drive with a $99 adapter and a $100 mSATA drive. I'm hoping MR does an article on it someday... It's quite a neat setup that most people don't know about.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.