Verizon's Wi-Fi Calling Coming to Galaxy S6 on Monday, iPhone 'Early Next Year'

[iGeek2014]

In the UK Orange had "Wi-Fi Calling" on Blackberry devices many years ago.

When EE launched the service again it was provisionally the iPhone before it was extended to other qualifying phones.

Similarly Vodafone UK launched it on the iPhone 6s/6s Plus in September with a view to extend it to the Samsung Galaxy S6 "soon".

 

[Gasu E.]

I am on AT&T which is only a little cheaper, but their network now is as good as verizon.

Not where I live (Boston inner suburbs). We have both ATT and Verizon, and Verizon has much better coverage where we live. There is a part of our house without an effective signal for ATT.

 

[kdarling]

But why not the iPhone 6 and 6s at the same time? AT&T had no problems doing so.

If it was that easy, they'd do it at the same time. Probably some kind of testing schedule delay.

People are just being silly now.

If the rollout order was reversed, with the iPhone ready first, would you want it to be held back until the Android phones were all ready? Of course not.

 

[Swift]

Wifi calling is the best-- in fact, in my house, which is a little set back from the street, it's the only way I could make calls. For years, I paid AT&T extra per month for the little micro tower that would take my calls in my rooms and feed them over my Internet connection. They charged me, and then they said, as long as I was in my house, I had unlimited calling!! For free!! Well, I have 4000 rollover minutes from my minimal "talking on the phone" account. I usually spend about an hour a month on the phone. Who says the iPhone is a phone? So now, I can take my wifi iPad to the store, blocks away from home, and make a free call from wherever I am with wifi. Don't even need my phone with me. And no more money to that stupid micro tower.

 

[kazmac]

Not where I live (Boston inner suburbs). We have both ATT and Verizon, and Verizon has much better coverage where we live. There is a part of our house without an effective signal for ATT.

Ditto where I work (NYC) and live (Long Island suburbs), it's the same. AT&T coverage is nowhere near as good as Verizon. Very happy with Verizon. No bs with customer service either.

 

[PJWilkin]

In the UK Orange had "Wi-Fi Calling" on Blackberry devices many years ago.

When EE launched the service again it was provisionally the iPhone before it was extended to other qualifying phones.

Similarly Vodafone UK launched it on the iPhone 6s/6s Plus in September with a view to extend it to the Samsung Galaxy S6 "soon".

If memory serves, EE originally announced it'd be for iPhone ... then after much delay they heavily advertised it'd be launched with the Galaxy S6

iPhone users were able to take advantage of it finally being available on EE.

 

[ElZeus]

Does wifi calling save battery life when the phone is idle compared to just being on mobile network? My home is near a dead spot so my battery life suffers here, everywhere else it's great.

 

[DudeDad]

I use ATT, but I've been making wifi calls with my Vonage app for awhile....helped when I was overseas....

 

[69Mustang]

That's cool unfortunatly in att you are still paying even on wifi.

Sucks for those on ATT. Both my kids phones are on MVNO's. Saves me greatly. My teenager has an iP6 so I couldn't go with Republic (Motorola E, G, and X only) for her but $45/month total for 10GB isn't bad (she pays her own bill too). If my job didn't pay for my phone, I would go with an MVNO as well.

That's exactly what Samsung did. And that's why it took so long for them to announce it after they got the waiver. They were trying to sell early access to the highest bidder. It has nothing to do with testing it out on a few devices at a time. It's about money. It's always about money.

Did you pull this out of your butt or is there actual evidence Samsung paid for early access? I mean, you stated it so emphatically that one would think you knew it to be true.

So how does Apple having most money play into Samsung getting this feature from Verizon first?

It doesn't at all. Just like there's nothing that I know of that says Samsung paid for early access. Neither quote we responded to relied on anything factual. Just good ole supposition dressed in a declarative statement.

 

[imlynxy]

Not where I live (Boston inner suburbs). We have both ATT and Verizon, and Verizon has much better coverage where we live. There is a part of our house without an effective signal for ATT.

I have the opposite situation I live North of Boston and have perfect att, poor VZW and a bit better T-mo in my place

 

[campyguy]

It beats me why anyone still uses Verizon.

My company and I are based in the Pacific NW, and work in ID, MT, and CA also. T-Mo coverage has holes in it that are bigger than some Eastern states and rarely works indoors. Nobody I know or work with uses T-Mobile, not one person. I tried their Test Drive - the coverage was lousy, dropped calls indoors, and had continual "ticking" during calls.

Driving through the Seattle and Portland metro areas, I couldn't keep a connection on the two T-Mo handsets we tested. Rural service with T-Mo is a really bad joke. I wanted to like their service, but it's prime-time for urban dwellers or those living East of the Mississippi. Never mind the lousy overseas-based CS.

I have 23 lines with UL data and calling on VZW, all on contract - averaging about $60 per line, which I think T-Mo couldn't beat with a really big stick in a well-lit room if they tried. I do pay more per line, but IMHO and for what I need it's better than paying something for nothing, as in T-Mo's crappy service here in the NW and Western States. I'd sign up for Cricket before T-Mo, any day.

 

[SlipperySlop]

Not where I live (Boston inner suburbs). We have both ATT and Verizon, and Verizon has much better coverage where we live. There is a part of our house without an effective signal for ATT.

Where I live and work, Verizon signal sucks bad tires. ATT signal is 5/5 in both places. ATT is clearly so superior to Verizon.

 

[m85476585]

On Android I can already do wifi calling using Google Hangouts plus Google Hangouts Dialer. It only works for outgoing calls (unless you also do Google Voice), but it works really well. Call quality is way better than on the cell network. It looks like it works for iPhones too: https://support.google.com/hangouts/answer/3437917?hl=en

It's way better than proprietary carrier wifi calling that only works on some phones and requires carrier support. This should work on any phone that supports wifi and the Hangouts app.

You can verify your number so caller ID works as expected. It's free for the US and Canada, and generally 1 cent per minute international.

 

[upnorth85]

I have had Wi-Fi calling on T-mobile since the days of BlackBerry. One of the reasons I delayed changing from Samsung to iPhone is because of the missing Wi-Fi calling on iPhone. The Wi-Fi calling on Blackberry was UMA and had good handshake from Wi-Fi to tower connection in both directions. This is not the case in the current Wi-Fi calling systems.

 

[shareef777]

That's not entirely right. Apple's selling point isn't on the specs or hardware, but rather the experience. That's how they can get away with asking the same (or more) for products that feature less powerful hardware. Anecdotally, in my short time with the Note 4, I found it to lag and not be smooth despite that "more powerful" hardware it featured. I was really surprised.

You're talking about pennies to double the base to 32GB. Which, considering the upgrade issues users have experienced in the past, would undoubtedly help the experience. They didn't for profit. Not saying it's wrong. Just that the idea that a business limits technological progress for profits isn't limited to Verizon/Samsung. Every single business will limit what they include in their products to some degree to increase profits. We all know this and no one can argue that it's wrong. But when Verizon/Samsung do this, there seem to be some 'fans' that start spewing drivel about how that's wrong.

 

[shareef777]

Why is it ridiculous that those kinds of business deals have been around for a long time?

Not because they've been around a long time, but because EVER successful business completes such deals. Even Apple.

 

[avanpelt]

I ported my family's last line out of Verizon earlier today. They're just resting on their laurels at this point -- and have been doing so for a long time while the other carriers are continuing to add consumer-friendly features and expand their networks.

I with T-Mo was a viable option but their coverage issues are an issue for me. Sprint is never going to see another dime from me. That leaves AT&T; and they seem like the best of all possible scenarios for my family, at least.

AT&T's coverage rivals Verizon moreso than the other carriers and they're rolling out new features that actually benefit the consumer much faster than Verizon is (Wi-Fi Calling, Rollover Data, etc.) Thanks to their acquisition of that carrier in Mexico, AT&T's new Mexico roaming bonus at no extra cost is a nice perk too.

I chuckle every time I see one of Verizon's "better matters" commercials. The only way Verizon is actually "better" than their competition is coverage and the competition is gaining ground with every month that passes. "Better" means more than just a pervasive network. It means giving customers features they want in a timely manner.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

I ported my family's last line out of Verizon earlier today. They're just resting on their laurels at this point -- and have been doing so for a long time while the other carriers are continuing to add consumer-friendly features and expand their networks.

I with T-Mo was a viable option but their coverage issues are an issue for me. Sprint is never going to see another dime from me. That leaves AT&T; and they seem like the best of all possible scenarios for my family, at least.

AT&T's coverage rivals Verizon moreso than the other carriers and they're rolling out new features that actually benefit the consumer much faster than Verizon is (Wi-Fi Calling, Rollover Data, etc.) Thanks to their acquisition of that carrier in Mexico, AT&T's new Mexico roaming bonus at no extra cost is a nice perk too.

I chuckle every time I see one of Verizon's "better matters" commercials. The only way Verizon is actually "better" than their competition is coverage and the competition is gaining ground with every month that passes. "Better" means more than just a pervasive network. It means giving customers features they want in a timely manner.

T-Mobile calling in North America is the same. No one can match that. Mexico to Canada you are on the same T-Mobile plan.

All 3 carriers have spotty coverage, more than you folks clearly know, and much of it has to do with physical terrains. Talking about inner cities is a moot point. Every carrier has issues with city densities ramping up. That will change soon, for all of the carriers.

The Rural and Mountain terrains are a permanent problem, both for cost to build out and the immovable mountains and deep valleys.

There will never be blanket coverage, period. With building designs you also have drops in coverage rapidly, especially concrete reinforced structures. The only way that changes is with MESH networks bridging the gap that become a national and global standard, and force the telcos to connect and comply with: in short, not their own proprietary standards.

 

[KUguardgrl13]

It beats me why anyone still uses Verizon.

I've switched to T-Mobile ages ago and have been so much happier. And T-Mobile is generally cheaper. And it's had Wi-Fi calling for a long time now.

You've never driven through the middle of Iowa, have you. Coverage is crappy unless you have Verizon. My fiancé has T-Mobile, and last time we drove from KC to Chicago his phone had to jump to a regional partner network. Meanwhile I had LTE for most of the drive with occasional drops to 3G and 1X. Driving the other direction to Dallas is much the same. But that's the I-35 corridor for you.

Aside from that, my fiancé is pretty happy with T-Mobile for the price. He left AT&T because he was tired of their CS bull****.

As for me, I'm still on a Verizon family plan, and my dad has been with them for a good 15 years. The coverage has been good for us living in different cities and my dad traveling for his job. So far the features of other carriers haven't beat out Verizon's coverage, and the price has never been a concern except when one of us causes overages.

 

[sparky08]

Apple leads the way again!

 

[I7guy]

You've never driven through the middle of Iowa, have you. Coverage is crappy unless you have Verizon. My fiancé has T-Mobile, and last time we drove from KC to Chicago his phone had to jump to a regional partner network. Meanwhile I had LTE for most of the drive with occasional drops to 3G and 1X. Driving the other direction to Dallas is much the same. But that's the I-35 corridor for you.

Aside from that, my fiancé is pretty happy with T-Mobile for the price. He left AT&T because he was tired of their CS bull****.

As for me, I'm still on a Verizon family plan, and my dad has been with them for a good 15 years. The coverage has been good for us living in different cities and my dad traveling for his job. So far the features of other carriers haven't beat out Verizon's coverage, and the price has never been a concern except when one of us causes overages.

It's posts like the one you responded to that make me wonder. T-Mobile has come a long way but it doesn't match Verizon coverage. Maybe for someone it doesn't need to as they rarely move their physical location. But I'm all over the country both in densely populated areas as well as rural and desert and I don't want to have to worry about coverage.

 

[2457282]

I don't know where you live but AT&T is NOT as good as Verizon in much or even most of the country except for cities larger that 100,000.

I had AT&T from the iPhone 3 until two years ago after having Sprint first. In the urban areas it was great but it didn't work well in the rural areas.

I now live in a rural area in a village of about 3,000 people. Verizon is still the only real option. AT&T advertised they had two new towers in our county. Friends said it only helped on the major Interstate that runs through the county. That Interstate is ten miles from our village.

So please don't claim that Verizon isn't tops in coverage from rural areas.

This post is being written by a person who had to hold his nose to switch to Verizon. I was with Sprint from the day they opened shop until buying the iPhone 3 and then I was with AT&T. Both are superior to Verizon in (most) urban areas.

At the national level, I think I could successfully argue that AT&T is as good as Verizon, but at a local level you are correct that it will depend on how far you are from a tower. If where you live you cannot get vendor A then they suck. in this case, for you, that is AT&T. Where I live, I can get all of them since I am in a big city. Here, the difference is not noticeable. So your point is fair.

 

[2457282]

I don't know where you live but AT&T is NOT as good as Verizon in much or even most of the country except for cities larger that 100,000.

I had AT&T from the iPhone 3 until two years ago after having Sprint first. In the urban areas it was great but it didn't work well in the rural areas.

I now live in a rural area in a village of about 3,000 people. Verizon is still the only real option. AT&T advertised they had two new towers in our county. Friends said it only helped on the major Interstate that runs through the county. That Interstate is ten miles from our village.

So please don't claim that Verizon isn't tops in coverage from rural areas.

This post is being written by a person who had to hold his nose to switch to Verizon. I was with Sprint from the day they opened shop until buying the iPhone 3 and then I was with AT&T. Both are superior to Verizon in (most) urban areas.

At the national level, I think I could successfully argue that AT&T is as good as Verizon, but at a local level you are correct that it will depend on how far you are from a tower. If where you live you cannot get vendor A then they suck. in this case, for you, that is AT&T. Where I live, I can get all of them since I am in a big city. Here, the difference is not noticeable. So your point is fair.

 

[macduke]

I'm not sure why Verizon is treating iPhone users like second class citizens over Android when time and time again research (and even internal reports from Google given during court proceedings) have shown that iOS users are far more lucrative customers. This feature would be quite welcomed in the new building I work in. I'll not often miss phone calls, but during those calls they sometimes cut out a lot.

I'm looking forward to seeing what T-Mobile offers Verizon users to switch. I can deal with a little bit of reduced coverage in areas I never go, which effectively cuts my bill in half. And from what I can see, 700MHz benefits 6s users like me quite a bit. Between that and WiFi calling I'm good to go (although my wife doesn't have a 6s so we're holding out hope for the 4" 6c with a new LTE chip). We originally moved to Verizon from AT&T because my wife had to travel a lot for work but now she works at home.

 

[ignatius345]

For those who have wifi calling on your network: is it the same quality as cell-based calling, or is it better?

I use Facetime Audio for calls whenever possible (ie whenever calling someone else on an iOS device or Mac), would love it if calls switched to high-quality audio automatically when wifi is available on both ends...