Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Verizon iPhone More Likely When 4G Networks Arrive in 2010
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This has always puzzled me....why a countries carriers would choose to run entirely different non-compatible networksSeems like idiocy.
Who was there first? Who decided to go in the opposite direction (GSM v CDMA tech wise) after another (the first) had already began rolling out their chosen network?
I have no idea about in the US but I can explain why NZ went different ways.
The first services here, provided by Motorola, were based on AMPS. When BellSouth entered the country a few years later, GSM was a new technology and was a huge improvement over AMPS so they picked that.
When it became time to replace the AMPS network a few years later, they moved to CDMA because it was a better technology than GSM. Now with EVDO sitting on top of CDMA, we have what I believe is one of the fastest and most reliable mobile networks in the world.
Edit: So to clarify, Vodafone (previously BellSouth) uses GSM, and Telecom (previously Motorola) uses CDMA. There are other providers too, but those are the two big ones.
Verizon is going to have to sell Apple on more than just "4G" because AT&T has a faster network coming also ... and it's only a software upgrade. The current 3G network that AT&T operates is CAPABLE of double the current data speed. AT&T has not implemented it yet because they have been refining it and it is their "future" product. If Verizon gets more serious, AT&T will then likely lift the sheet off of their faster network.
source: Gizmodo
source: Gizmodo
I don't know if AT&T will be speeding up their 3G network or not, but it won't compare to 4G, which is why AT&T is working on a 4G network too.
Verizon 4G Now
Actually, Verizon has begun rolling out their 4G network this year, and hopes to complete the rollout by the end of next. Baltimore already has 4G and they'll be rolling it out in NYC, LA, Atlanta, San Antonio and Las Vegas this year. Here in Vegas, they're already selling subscriptions with completion of the roll out by the end of the summer. I pay Cox Cable (gag me with a spoon) almost $100 month for 20 Mbit download and 8 Mbit upload. Verizon claims their 4G will improve on this for $70 a month (no DSL in North Las Vegas since we're all poor black and brown people here). This includes a modem for the home and a dongle for the laptop which means I won't have to worry about finding and paying for WiFi. Also, there will be none of this rationing crap that some of the Cable Companies are trying to pull. All in all, a win-win. And I hope to God that it cripples to the greedy Cable Companies to the point of bankruptcy (at least Time Warner and Cox!).
Actually, Verizon has begun rolling out their 4G network this year, and hopes to complete the rollout by the end of next. Baltimore already has 4G and they'll be rolling it out in NYC, LA, Atlanta, San Antonio and Las Vegas this year. Here in Vegas, they're already selling subscriptions with completion of the roll out by the end of the summer. I pay Cox Cable (gag me with a spoon) almost $100 month for 20 Mbit download and 8 Mbit upload. Verizon claims their 4G will improve on this for $70 a month (no DSL in North Las Vegas since we're all poor black and brown people here). This includes a modem for the home and a dongle for the laptop which means I won't have to worry about finding and paying for WiFi. Also, there will be none of this rationing crap that some of the Cable Companies are trying to pull. All in all, a win-win. And I hope to God that it cripples to the greedy Cable Companies to the point of bankruptcy (at least Time Warner and Cox!).
Don't forget, verizon cannot use the 700MHz band until the government makes everyone switch over tv-wise. The earliest verizon can use that is now June ... pending any further delays by the government.
EDIT - I forgot to add, I think it's a preemptive strike/notice to slow the people from switching. I have verizon, but here, south of Baltimore, they just added one new at&t tower and another is scheduled next month. Verizon has better coverage here ... for now.
EDIT - I forgot to add, I think it's a preemptive strike/notice to slow the people from switching. I have verizon, but here, south of Baltimore, they just added one new at&t tower and another is scheduled next month. Verizon has better coverage here ... for now.
+1 Post of the day
Well said!
I don't have any faith that the carriers will do the right thing FOR CONSUMERS in the near future, for 4G, 5G, or even 15G. The exclusivity deals, proprietary technologies and software used differentiate the carriers from each other. However the overall apathy on the customer experience, service, and price gouging (on SMS and termination fees, for example) are all disgraceful examples of what they have in common.
If there is to be any true competition amongst the U.S. carriers, it seems to me the first step toward this end is the adoption of one technology standard in the U.S. That standard is GSM, in my humble opinion. Don't adopt it because you want iPhone business, Verizon. Adopt it because it vastly improves your outdated technology and opens your network to far more customers than otherwise. It also gives you more flexibility in international markets and for world travelers.
Short of adopting only one standard, I wouldn't mind if the only two carriers in play were Verizon and AT&T. Verizon acquires Sprint and other CDMA wannabes. AT&T acquires T-Mobile and any other GSM vagrant offshoots (are there any?). Since all the carriers share the same bed (in monopolistic, price gouging ideology), I think elimination of the smaller fish will force the big fish to really start competing with each other for our business and THAT'S what's best for consumers - iPhone or no iPhone.
Well said!
I don't have any faith that the carriers will do the right thing FOR CONSUMERS in the near future, for 4G, 5G, or even 15G. The exclusivity deals, proprietary technologies and software used differentiate the carriers from each other. However the overall apathy on the customer experience, service, and price gouging (on SMS and termination fees, for example) are all disgraceful examples of what they have in common.
If there is to be any true competition amongst the U.S. carriers, it seems to me the first step toward this end is the adoption of one technology standard in the U.S. That standard is GSM, in my humble opinion. Don't adopt it because you want iPhone business, Verizon. Adopt it because it vastly improves your outdated technology and opens your network to far more customers than otherwise. It also gives you more flexibility in international markets and for world travelers.
Short of adopting only one standard, I wouldn't mind if the only two carriers in play were Verizon and AT&T. Verizon acquires Sprint and other CDMA wannabes. AT&T acquires T-Mobile and any other GSM vagrant offshoots (are there any?). Since all the carriers share the same bed (in monopolistic, price gouging ideology), I think elimination of the smaller fish will force the big fish to really start competing with each other for our business and THAT'S what's best for consumers - iPhone or no iPhone.
Conversely, in my opinion I think it'd be idiotic to adopt GSM this late in the game. My current CDMA provider in NZ thought about it, and even publicly announced a nationwide GSM rollout, only to later think about it properly and realise that it is an outdated technology and is certainly not the way forward (the provider has since "un-announced" the network and has dismantled the GSM sites that were installed between the two decisions).
We now have a brand-new nationwide WCDMA network that will be launched in June. There are many benefits of WCDMA over GSM, so in my opinion if the US was to standardise on a single technology now, that technology should be WCDMA.
That simply isn't true. In fact, there's no compelling reason to do it at all.
When LTE comes around and a sizable network exists, Verizon may well be a prime candidate for an iPhone. It won't be able to fall back on CDMA, but it wouldn't stop iPhone adoption, either, assuming Verizon got the timing right and/or arranged for roaming agreements for GSM fallback.
You realize that there are approximately four billion cellular phone users worldwide, and that except for those 450 million CDMA users, they're essentially all GSM-based networks, right? CDMA is a small and shrinking market, and Apple isn't anywhere near GSM saturation such that the opportunity cost of developing a CDMA version would be worth more than investing that same amount in improving availability of existing models.
Actualization rates are much lower than you think in these situations.
Spoken with true ignorance of what's involved in a "relatively simple fix". I don't know where people got the idea that electronics design and engineering is roughly as complex as assembling Ikea furniture, but it simply isn't true. Everything from performance characteristics and power consumption to packaging type, IC size and layout, heat dissipation, supply capacity, interference profiles and signal leakage, and a variety of more complex and esoteric issues is a factor in a "simple" component swap.
All of it is doable, but it is much more common for something not to be worthwhile practically, technologically, economically, and logistically than people commonly insist.
There are dozens of reasons why it doesn't make sense to bother.
When Apple runs out of room in the 3.4 billion GSM user category, they can worry about picking up a few million in the CDMA dead-end.
1) Apple didn't even have an iPhone design to show at the time.
2) Apple's other iPod-phone idea, the ROKR, sucked.
3) Apple didn't want to sell through Verizon's partners (a restriction that Apple later changed when their sales dropped off)
4) Apple didn't want to allow Verizon to sell ringtones, etc.
Also, Verizon would've required a 3G version like all their other smartphones, and instead Apple might've been talking about a crippled 2G radio like they gave ATT.
Verizon almost always requires A-GPS for their E911 system. Again, something the first iPhone model lacked.
Put all that together back in the summer of 2005, and the decision actually makes sense.
LTE is a totally new 4G implementation chosen by many GSM and CDMA carriers. It has nothing in common with either. The GSM myth arose because that group picked LTE first. However, CDMA carriers are implementing it first.
You're correct: both GSM and CDMA carrier models would require the old radio to fall back on. An LTE-only phone is many years away.
Hello, New Zealand! I guess opinions vary on CDMA vs GSM. I'll have to look into this wCDMA technology ... As for the US adopting one standard - it's really more of a pipe dream I have than anything. I can personally vouch for stronger and more consistent signals on my iPhone on GSM than I had with my series of Verizon phones in the New England, USA area.
I guess I fancied GSM was here to stay ... Apparently CDMA (and the next generation of it) is too ...
/Cheers!
Six of one, half dozen of the other. Steve already restricted the iPhone in far worse ways:
Verizon has limited GPS to their VZNavigator. Apple? No turn-by-turn navigation available at all. VZNavigator would actually be a godsend.
Verizon does not limit ringtones or Bluetooth on their smartphones, so that argument is totally bogus. Apple? Sorry again... years of crippled Bluetooth by their own choice.
Verizon allows you to use any theme, application, and backgrounding. Apple? Nope.
Verizon allows Slinging. Apple and ATT? Let's hope so.
Insider rumors claim ATT gets a cut already, and other country's carriers do the same.
The key for Apple users is options. America is a big place and different providers have strengths in different areas. Having said that, it also seemed like the Verizon guy was trying to cover his butt by giving his own version of why Verizon never seriously considered the iPhone. Kind of reminds me of Western Union turning down Bell's offer to buy his funny new telephonic device.
Baltimore's 4G is WiMax with Sprint, not Verizon with LTE.
As someone else stated, a majority of LTE that Verizon and AT&T are going to use makes use of the 700mhz spectrum. They can't use that right now because it's still being used by analog TV. Thanks to everyone bitching about switching TV they pushed back the mandatory digital switch. With the TV transition push back comes an LTE push back. You can't roll something out if you don't have the frequency to use it with available. I know what Verizon says, but I highly, highly doubt you'll see anything close to a nationwide LTE rollout in 2010. Hell, the way things are going there still might be analog TV using 700mhz in 2010
Do we think 4G will sound better? I have used my cell phone (and this counts many phones from many cell providers) for over half of my calls and it rarely sounds as good as a landline. This is a fact that I dismiss because of the convenience but it is still true.
Why is everyone buying this?
Sounds like the exact same BS that Adobe is spouting about Flash on the iPhone -- Verizon has nada, zip, zippo and is making hard to disprove statements to pacify its stockholders for having missed the iPhone gravy train.
I seriously doubt there is any kind of in the works Apple/Verizon negotiation much less agreement for a future Verizon iPhone.
Sounds like the exact same BS that Adobe is spouting about Flash on the iPhone -- Verizon has nada, zip, zippo and is making hard to disprove statements to pacify its stockholders for having missed the iPhone gravy train.
I seriously doubt there is any kind of in the works Apple/Verizon negotiation much less agreement for a future Verizon iPhone.
If this is true then next time I need a new phone, I will be getting an iPhone, most definitely.
So it seems the government ruined it for us again. Stupid TV switch delay. And since this 4G network doesn't seem to be in full use at any time in the next year or so.
I'm more interested to see if Apple will lock with At&t again for another year past 2010. I'd really like to see them say no so maybe the GSM networks here would offer much better rates over At&t. Ultimately I want it on verizon. The service has just been better for me.
I'm more interested to see if Apple will lock with At&t again for another year past 2010. I'd really like to see them say no so maybe the GSM networks here would offer much better rates over At&t. Ultimately I want it on verizon. The service has just been better for me.
Not true -- turn by turn navigation is in iPhone 3.0 (a free update, lest you think Apple held it back to milk the customers. Best guess, not ready for prime time tech, and Apple insisting on features working 100% or not all.
Bluetooth: total red herring: 1) it is being uncrippled in iPhone 3.0 and 2) it was completely unnecessary for ringtones or other file transfers since they were done on the iPhone via USB or WiFi. In the case of the phones where VZW cripples BT, they have no other way of installing ringtones (other than by paying $$$ to VZW).
Yes and by similar reasoning AT&T turning down the iPhone would have made just as much sense. Face it AT&T was smart, Verizon -- not so much. If AT&T manages to fix their network (a Major IF, I know), Verizon will be totally screwed.kdarling said:
Always on internet device.
I don't really care about an iPhone per-se, but an always available internet device (like the iPod Touch) with reasonably bandwidth would be really compelling. When WiMax (4G, whatever) becomes available, I think Apple might consider a device like that, but unlocked to work on ANY network.
So long as it's not sold as a "phone" but rather more like a device with a "wireless modem" built in, they shouldn't run up against some provider worried about Skype becoming more popular than their own service...
I don't really care about an iPhone per-se, but an always available internet device (like the iPod Touch) with reasonably bandwidth would be really compelling. When WiMax (4G, whatever) becomes available, I think Apple might consider a device like that, but unlocked to work on ANY network.
So long as it's not sold as a "phone" but rather more like a device with a "wireless modem" built in, they shouldn't run up against some provider worried about Skype becoming more popular than their own service...
Yeah! Screw AT&T! I get no service where I live, and they overcharge a lot. Here's hoping Verison keeps it under $80/month
Are you serious? Compare a current BlackBerry unlimited data plan, and comparable voice plan with Verizon, and AT&T. Verizon's start at $100/month for 450 minutes, where as T-Mo and AT&T Start at $70/Month for the same minutes/data. For $110/month, I can double the minutes on voice with AT&T/T-Mo.
Shouldn't spout how much cheaper another service is, until you've actually done some checking.
Its nothing more than Verizons wack attempt to try to keep customers interested in the iphone from leaving for the next two years, and at the same time a backhanded way of apologizing to Apple (we want you now.)
Fact of the matter is there many reasons why this addition of Verizon wont happen, the simplest is Apple will want the user experience the same across all carriers, and i just dont see Verizon giving into Apples demands.