Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why can't I buy one phone that works on ALL carriers in the US?
Because Qualcomm doesn't appear to make a chipset that supports that yet.

It was the same way when GSM rolled out a decade ago. Most of Europe used 900/1800. In the US, those frequencies were already used by other things, so GSM ended up on 850/1900.

So at first, GSM phones were typically either good in the US, or Europe. Not both. Then companies like Qualcomm started making tri-band chipsets that supported bands 900/1800/1900 bands, which worked with T-Mobile (and some of AT&T, but not AT&T's 850 network) in the US + Europe. Eventually there was a quad-band chipset that supported all of the frequencies.

It just takes time.
 
Because Qualcomm doesn't appear to make a chipset that supports that yet.

It was the same way when GSM rolled out a decade ago. Most of Europe used 900/1800. In the US, those frequencies were already used by other things, so GSM ended up on 850/1900.

So at first, GSM phones were typically either good in the US, or Europe. Not both. Then companies like Qualcomm started making tri-band chipsets that supported bands 900/1800/1900 bands, which worked with T-Mobile (and some of AT&T, but not AT&T's 850 network) in the US + Europe. Eventually there was a quad-band chipset that supported all of the frequencies.

It just takes time.


I don't really understand why the CDMA version supports 5 LTE bands but the AT&T version doesn't. It seems to me they could have easily made it so that both the AT&T and Verizon versions supported international LTE
 
Every other country in the worlds seems to be able to do this, why can't this country get it together?

Actually, several countries use two (GSM and CDMA) technologies. The US is worst than most, but it's far from the only one that does it.

I don't really understand why the CDMA version supports 5 LTE bands but the AT&T version doesn't. It seems to me they could have easily made it so that both the AT&T and Verizon versions supported international LTE

Almost certainly it is up to the LTE chip makers and size targets for the iPhone 5. Perhaps they could have included multiple chips and antennas for a universal phone, but it would have been larger.
 
I don't really understand why the CDMA version supports 5 LTE bands but the AT&T version doesn't. It seems to me they could have easily made it so that both the AT&T and Verizon versions supported international LTE
The frequencies of the two LTE bands used in the AT&T iPhone (4, 17) seem to overlap/border with at least three of the bands used in the Verizon iPhone (1, 3, 13).

I don't make RF chipsets, so I don't know if that's the actual answer.
 
carriers/frequencies aside, I'd much rather they would switch to a european pricing model, where you buy the phone yourself, and only the person making the call gets charged minutes. as it is now, the price "includes" cost of phone, but once the contract is over you still pay the same price. Would it not be more logical to buy phone separately then pay a lower price per month since you wouldn't be paying off the cost of the phone?
 
The frequencies of the two LTE bands used in the AT&T iPhone (4, 17) seem to overlap/border with at least three of the bands used in the Verizon iPhone (1, 3, 13).

I don't make RF chipsets, so I don't know if that's the actual answer.

Hmm, that's probably right... does that mean we'll never have an AT&T LTE phone that's compatible with international networks?
 
Wait, so the unlocked U.S. GSM won't even be available for a few months? Geez..

This isn't a new thing. This is the same process as for the 4S, maybe a 1 month or two. the unlocked iP4 took a lot longer to come out. Pretty sure it's because the carriers want to encourage people to upgrade w/ a contract rather than paying for a phone outright.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.