Curious. If Verizon offered the iPhone in 2010, would you drop AT&T?

[kdarling]

Until it's hammered by a huge amount of users who tend to use more data than voice.

Verizon's data and voice networks are separate. Extra data load does not affect voice calls, which have priority on backhaul.

Yet when 4G comes around they'll have to start from scratch where as AT&T will just do a software update....

4G is not just a software upgrade for AT&T. LTE is totally new for both networks.

funny huh?

Posting technical nonsense is not funny. It's sad.

 

[jav6454]

4G is not just a software upgrade for AT&T. LTE is totally new for both networks.

Posting technical nonsense is not funny. It's sad.

1. It's much easier for AT&T than for Verizon. You know that's true. AT&T has a better upgrade path and easier thanks to it's HSPA network. Remember, LTE is an evolution on UMTS, not a whole new technology.

Yes it's funny because people critique AT&t when they don't realize Verizon will have a hard time setting up 4G and AT&T won't.

 

[robanga]

I would not switch carriers. I have really have no issues with AT&T in Oregon. In addition to this I travel internationally, so Verizon would not work as I doubt they would issue it as a dual-radio "world phone"

I believe a big part of the bad rap that AT&T gets over overloaded networks and dropped calls comes from San Francisco and NYC (Which certainly is a lot of people)

Only if i needed coverage in rural areas, would i consider a switch to Verizon.

 

[Applejuiced]

Ok fine. nobodys motivated by posting for $$$ (belkin is the only one right?)

You are all preoccupied by new wireless tech spec speeds, which never play out..........lte etc, and you forget that when you drop a call to a client who pays you alot of $$$$, you look like an idiot.

I literally dropped 3 calls to a lawyer in New York last week, as we were integrating our practices in the South East.

Juiced, dont bother responding. You obviously have never had a major clients phone call dropped, if you have a job at all.

You know I shouldnt even bother replying cause everyone can tell how low your IQ is judging by your posts.
Keep buying that nonsense that Verizon is feeding you about "Its the Network" and "Can you hear me now"
To think that everyone with AT&T has bad coverage, dropped calls or whatever you claim just because of your experience in your neighborhood or whatever is rediculous.
And then to claim that we are all paid by AT&T cause you saw 20-30 positive posts about people beeing happy with their service is beyond childish.
AT&T about 6 months ago was the biggest wireless provider in the US with over 78.2 Million subscribers.
Verizon with its recent merge with Alltel is the largest at 86.5 Million.
You really think they'd still be in business if they didnt do something right or if everyone got constantly bad service everywhere in the US?
Reception and service in general varies depending on the location no matter who the carrier is.
Now do us all a favor and go on your way like you said you would cause we are all lying paid posters.

 

[kdarling]

1. It's much easier for AT&T than for Verizon. You know that's true.

Any knowledgeable engineer here knows that's NOT true.

AT&T has a better upgrade path and easier thanks to it's HSPA network. Remember, LTE is an evolution on UMTS, not a whole new technology.

Oh good grief. That's just marketing. You need to stop reading ignorant websites. LTE has only a political relationship to GSM.

UMTS uses WCDMA radios. LTE uses OFDMA radios and an IP based backend. They are not technically compatible systems.

Yes it's funny because people critique AT&t when they don't realize Verizon will have a hard time setting up 4G and AT&T won't.

It'll be a big switch for both carriers, but Verizon has advantages:

Verizon won the best spectrum for LTE, they have far more fiber backhaul to make LTE worthwhile, and as an early adopter of LTE they get to define a lot of the standard and equipment to fit their own needs.

However, ATT could benefit cost-wise by waiting until everything settles out.

 

[Applejuiced]

Im no engineer or anywhere near it but wouldnt the switch be easier for US GSM carriers since the rest of the world would also use LTE with headsets beeing backwards compatible to fall back to GSM/3G/Edge?
Wouldnt all Verizon 4G phones still need to be depending/including CDMA technology also thus making them again the odd carrier that would need specific phones custom made for their network only.
Where AT&T and Tmobile would have compatibility with almost every phone produced in the world and also their phones to be able to function worldwide like now?

 

[kdarling]

Im no engineer or anywhere near it but wouldnt the switch be easier for US GSM carriers since the rest of the world would also use LTE with headsets beeing backwards compatible to fall back to GSM/3G/Edge?

Good comment. Yes, even though it doesn't make building an LTE network any easier (which was the topic above), for a couple of years ATT could have some handset choice advantage, assuming we see lots of LTE+GSM phones show up soon... and if ATT begins their LTE network.

After Verizon has LTE fully rolled out in a few years though, they could use those same devices. E.g. the LTE side in the USA, and the GSM side overseas, similar to their current world phones.

 

[Applejuiced]

Good comment. Yes, even though it doesn't make building an LTE network any easier (which was the topic above), for a couple of years ATT could have some handset choice advantage, assuming we see lots of LTE+GSM phones show up soon... and if ATT begins their LTE network.

After Verizon has LTE fully rolled out in a few years though, they could use those same devices. E.g. the LTE side in the USA, and the GSM side overseas, similar to their current world phones.

Interesting.
So they could use the LTE side of the phone in the US or worldwide but if there isnt 4G coverage could those same phones for Verizon fall back to GSM 3G/Edge or not.
Thanks for the informative posts.

 

[jav6454]

Any knowledgeable engineer here knows that's NOT true.

Oh good grief. That's just marketing. You need to stop reading ignorant websites. LTE has only a political relationship to GSM.

UMTS uses WCDMA radios. LTE uses OFDMA radios and an IP based backend. They are not technically compatible systems.

So you are saying this: Linky and this: linky

is false and then you are saying that the 3GPP is a pack of liars. They expressedly pin down LTE as an evolution to UMTS, (or HSPA). They call it Release 8 an evolution of Release 6.

Also, even a better source: Linky

Directly from the 3GPP, they say and I quote:

UMTS is not just about radio: the radio access network connects to the core network which is an evolution from the GSM core. 3GPP has expanded its capabilities, in principle allowing most services to be delivered over either 2G GERAN (GSM/EDGE) or 3G UTRAN.
The core network is becoming progressively access-agnostic, allowing home base stations serving pica-cells to connect directly to the core network via subscribers’ ASDL lines.
3GPP is now working on Long Term Evolution (LTE), which will build on UMTS, as the Industry looks beyond 3G.
Just as GSM has become synonymous with the whole mobile system for 2G, UMTS is 3G, which includes the whole of the W-CDMA and HSPA specifications catalogue.

Puts things into perspective huh?

Also, if you thought I was quoting Wikipedia, dead wrong.

It'll be a big switch for both carriers, but Verizon has advantages:

Verizon won the best spectrum for LTE, they have far more fiber backhaul to make LTE worthwhile, and as an early adopter of LTE they get to define a lot of the standard and equipment to fit their own needs.

However, ATT could benefit cost-wise by waiting until everything settles out.

Verizon won a piece of the spectrum, not the best piece, but a piece. AT&T won another piece, both equally good for radio waves transmissions. Saying one piece is inferior to the other is blatant lie. 700Mhz has the same properties over, there is a reason why all carriers bid on it.

Verizon has no advantage in terms of fiber, because you seem to have forgotten AT&T's U-Verse backhaul.

 

[LEGALROMA]

"Verizon's data and voice networks are separate. Extra data load does not affect voice calls, which have priority"

Exactly, Data on ATT has been overloaded and voice quality suffers as a result, hence my original question.

To all of you who dont have these voice problems than congratulations.

 

[kdarling]

They expressedly pin down LTE as an evolution to UMTS, (or HSPA). They call it Release 8 an evolution of Release 6.

Hmm. I figured it was their use of "evolution" that's confusing you. It's just a marketing word, like "best". You have to read and understand the specs instead. At the least, it should be a big red flag to even a non-engineer that the RADIOS ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

UMTS was called an "evolution", too. But UMTS (3G) also required a totally different set of radios. Which is why ATT is so far behind in 3G deployment, much less adding LTE.

The only true "evolution" part possible, would be if ATT first added HSPA+ support and its optional IP based backend. Then at least the backend (not the radios) could be evolved to support that part of LTE. However, they recently said they're not adding HSPA+ first.

Repeat: LTE is NOT natively backward compatible with either current GSM or CDMA networks. Control and comm support for it must be wedged into the older systems, and totally new devices (with new radios) must be built.

LTE actually has more in common with WiMAX (OFDMA radio, IP backend) than it does with current GSM or CDMA networks.

Verizon won a piece of the spectrum, not the best piece, but a piece. AT&T won another piece, both equally good for radio waves transmissions. Saying one piece is inferior to the other is blatant lie. 700Mhz has the same properties over, there is a reason why all carriers bid on it.

The band has the same basic properties, but the C-block section that Verizon won has wider bandwidth, allowing much more speed and capacity nationwide.

Verizon has no advantage in terms of fiber, because you seem to have forgotten AT&T's U-Verse backhaul.

U-Verse is nothing in comparison to FiOS. Verizon also bought MCI specifically to get all their fiber trunks.

 

[jav6454]

Hmm. I figured it was their use of "evolution" that's confusing you. It's just a marketing word, like "best". You have to read and understand the specs instead. At the least, it should be a big red flag to even a non-engineer that the RADIOS ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

UMTS was called an "evolution", too. But UMTS (3G) also required a totally different set of radios. Which is why ATT is so far behind in 3G deployment, much less adding LTE.

The only true "evolution" part possible, would be if ATT first added HSPA+ support and its optional IP based backend. Then at least the backend (not the radios) could be evolved to support that part of LTE. However, they recently said they're not adding HSPA+ first.

Repeat: LTE is NOT natively backward compatible with either current GSM or CDMA networks. Control and comm support for it must be wedged into the older systems, and totally new devices (with new radios) must be built.

LTE actually has more in common with WiMAX (OFDMA radio, IP backend) than it does with current GSM or CDMA networks.

The article clear states that LTE builds on UMTS. The word evolution may have a different meaning; however, the words "builds on" don't. Clearly LTE has it's UMTS roots and will therefor be easier for a GSM with UMTS + HSPA network carrier to have a better upgrade path than a CDMA carrier.

There might be some hardware, but that's mainly in the back-end (AIPN related).

The band has the same basic properties, but the C-block section that Verizon won has wider bandwidth, allowing much more speed and capacity nationwide.

The C-section maybe great for that, but Gizmodo reported back that The A&B-Blocks which AT&T purchased was best for Wi-Fi class speeds. True the C-Block has more headroom, but it's tainted by Google's dealings with the FC C that in the end may or may not affect negatively Verizon.

Also, headstart from Verizon? Not so much as they paid $4.74 Billion for that C-Block (and didn't win some of it in small towns) while AT&T paid less than that for their A&B Blocks (bear in mind AT&T entered the bid just to fill in gaps in its previous purchase of 700MHz). So, it financial terms, Verizon will have to go slow at first (unless the go in debt with someone). AT&T can spend a bit more. However, that's a huge toss-up.

Also, slow down of U-Verse adoption means nothing. AT&T could easily have troubles in the home business, but that doesn't mean the infrastructure isn't there already. It's like having water lines that no one connects to.