- 11-07-2012, 02:48 PM #79
Brmiller, just stop being a hater! You know Nextel's iDen network is a GSM based network that cannot be upgraded in order to provide 3G data speeds, which is the secondary reason why Nextel is being decommissioned in the US (besides Sprint wanting to use the 800MHz spectrum.
And if you were bashing Blackberry, they still have at least 3-5 times the marketshare Windows Phone currently has, and that is not Sprint's fault (because you will have to blame all CDMA carriers in the US market)
- 11-07-2012, 06:06 PM #80
Heavens no. I would never bash RIM.
In fact, that three to five times market share BlackBerry sounds like an excellent handset for conscientious CDMA users who demand only the highest-quality 512 bit encryption for their 1xRTT data plans. I cannot understand why anybody would want to bother with Windows Phones when one has the option of CDMA and BlackBerry with Qualcomm encryption technology! :D
Contrarians can always embrace the Palm Centro -- another cutting-edge CDMA device.
- 11-08-2012, 09:02 AM #81
Now that shows how immature you are. Since you want to continue the Sprint bashing (when in reality every CDMA carrier not announcing any WP8 devices at launch should be your actual rant, as well as wpcentral), you have gone to all low levels knowing you still cannot bring a decent counter argument to my points. Microsoft is still the one to blame for their lack of CDMA support.
They can code CDMA the GSM carrier way by using 2005 coding and encryption, but when nearly all CDMA carriers are requiring OEMs to have 512bit encryption and current coding which allows them to offer SVDO. Eventually, either Microsoft kills the platform or actually decides to get people which are CDMA oriented to code CDMA devices to what US based CDMA carriers want, and not what AT&T and T-Mobile think what CDMA should be because is far easier to code that way.
I would suggest you to check Qualcomm's website, or any sites dedicated to CDMA technology to see why CDMA carriers are demanding current qualcomm Standards over GSM carrier standards.
- 11-08-2012, 11:44 AM #82
CDMA is a dead-end legacy technology that is being phased out (rapidly) by the largest carrier. It's as relevant as WiMax.
Within 24 months, Verizon will be completely VoLTE and CDMA will be left for prepaid and old devices. Verizon will begin shutting off CDMA towers in 2014 and plans to have the entire network closed down by 2021 (at the latest).
Sprint? They'll rapidly go down the same route.
- 11-08-2012, 11:56 AM #85
- 11-08-2012, 11:59 AM #86
- 11-08-2012, 03:05 PM #87
If course you will say CDMA is lost when you stick to EVDO Revision A. You won't even recognize a 1X Advanced and EVDO Revision B which are key components of SVDO, which currently exsist on Sprint and coming to Verizon as well. SVDO is a work in progress which is capable of delivering speeds and functionality the way HSPA+ does for GSM. If the US carriers are so wrong when choosing technology, why only bash Sprint? Why not bash USCC, MetroPCS, C Spire, nTelos, Premier, Movida, Ting, Credo, Virgin Mobile, Boost, and the rest of the CDMA carriers which have 2/3 of the total cellphone lines in the US?
Obviously, there are some people as members and mods here who are still hurt because Windows Phone is heading the WebOS way, but unlike WebOS, WP has ignored the CDMA majority in the US because of coding and encryption required by those same carriers. Unless you can explain why only is this site (or should I say some members and mods) are just plain old bashing Sprint, but don't do the same thing for other CDMA carriers, I will consider that as an agenda?
- 11-08-2012, 03:48 PM #89
And as far as the conspiracy theory being discussed here, I must be lost, because Verizon has SVDO functioning on their network and it's not a mechanism to obtain faster speeds. It literally only refers to simultaneous voice and data, as described here: CDG : Technology : Simultaneous Voice and Data (SVDO).
Additionally, the iPhone 5 doesn't support 1X Advanced or EV-DO Rev. B (or SVDO) and is heavily promoted on Sprint (reference: Sprint confirms its HD Voice is incompatible with the iPhone 5 - Engadget).
Sprint's decision to not carry WP8 is theirs and theirs alone.
Last edited by fierywater; 11-08-2012 at 03:53 PM. Reason: said something wrong
- 11-08-2012, 03:56 PM #90
I'll even grant that Microsoft doesn't give a damn about supporting 1X Advanced or EV-DO Rev. B, and there's a damned good reason for it: no major carrier requires either (see Sprint carrying the iPhone 5) and things are obviously progressing towards the elimination of CDMA-based technologies (see Verizon's eventual move to VoLTE). Honestly, I'm shocked that HTC bothered to make the Evo 4G LTE support 1X Advanced. Why waste time on niche features that will only affect a fraction of the market, even in CDMA strongholds such as the U.S.?
- 11-09-2012, 09:00 AM #91
Because CDMA still is Dominant, and not a niche market. Also add Motorola, LG, and Samsung to the SVDO campaign. Apple does support SVDO, but that chip was programmed more for China Than the US, which is something it will be addressed on their next device. And just to let you know, most CDMA carriers do require 512bit encryption since they use the same standards Qualcomm, Sprint and Verizon require on their current infrastructure. VoLTE is the future, but it will still need GSM or CDMA backup in case of local, regional, or national failure. Just depending on a data only network is not smart.
Now, why Sprint is still the only carrier bashed here? There are plenty of CDMA carriers to bash and criticize for not carrying WP8, and even WP7. Also, care to explain why Nokia refused to make CDMA variants for the WP7 based Lumia devices when MetroPCS inquire them about the Lumia 900, but sure made them for China?
- 11-09-2012, 09:48 AM #93
- 11-10-2012, 10:52 AM #97
Because Sprint leads the holdout of the majority of CDMA carriers which did not want to have WP8 devices at launch, and that makes the usual suspects at technocove, phonearena, and here at wpcentral as upset as people were on hpcentral when it came to the pre3 which was never launched. Same tactics, same style of smear reporting, same juvenille articles like the one about Ting, same spamming and TROLLING to Sprint's social media with threats to leave and promote other carriers as if people would leave Sprint in the millions because no WP8 devices at launch and no WP7 devices after the arrive (knowing no other OEM bothered to ask Verizon, Sprint and USCC if they wanted CDMA variants of their devices due to theor decision on how bad sales were for WP7 devices on the states or simply microsoft discouraging or prohibiting anyone besides HTC to deal with CDMA carriers in the US).
But then again, I am a CDMA fanboy because I have stated many facts and none of the WP defenders can come out with a semi-decent argument to what seems to be obvious reasons why CDMA carriers outside of Verizon jumping on WP8 at launch, yet for me to request articles about the lack of choices for WP7 devices and the noticeable lack of technical (excluding OS updates) and marketing support from Microsoft as they provide GSM carriers is a mortal sin, because is easier to pick on Sprint (including their prepaid companies and MVNOs) rather than address the issue head on. This is problematic in my honest opinion.
- 11-10-2012, 03:43 PM #99
What is worth having a high end device when not properly coded for the specifications of a carrier? Ask Verizon how does it really feel about having three undercoded and underencrypted devices, which is why no other CDMA carrier will touch WP8 anytime soon, starting with Sprint and US Cellular.
Brmiller, you really need to bring a valid argument to each point i have countered and still have not brought any sense to the discussion. Sorry, but FACTS are overwhelming. Sprint nor any carrier using CDMA 2000 technology who has decided to sit for the WP8 launch will keep their stand in regards in forcing Microsoft code properly and give the same exact technical and marketing support they give to AT&T and T Mobile.
Oh, by the way, MetroPCS did made a request for enough Lumia 900 devices, but Lumia REFUSED because they would not build CDMA 2000 based devices with US carrier specification (the same goes to all their line of WP7 devices).