Really Sprint?

[mrmdj31675]

Still does not excuse Microsoft for not meeting FCC/Qualcomm standards when they were pointed out to them nearly two years ago. The same was told to Google, anf they mostly addressed it for all CDMA devices with ICS from factory.

Also, My appologies for the comments earlier. I may have stepped out of line with what I have said.

 

[ShipWreck]

Well I hope MS and Sprint get this taken care of but this all makes sense now plus I have forgotten about all the FCC requirements with CDMA so forth. I just hope MS and Sprint gets some really nice hardware from HTC and not just a mid range device. Now with Samsung doing like Apple does with their Galaxies serious device plus Samsung kind of pulling away from WP Devices. I hope Sprint can get something with Nokia now since they said in the summer that they would have something from HTC and Samsung. Maybe this open the door for Nokia to get with Sprint but either way I will wait and see what Sprint does with WP Devices. I really don't want to go with anyone else due to I think Sprint still has the best rates with their plans than anyone else and I hope they can get a top end device from HTC like the new One coming out just in WP instead of Android. I have always been a big supporter of Sprint and MS but if they don't get a high end WP device I might have to look at another platform like Android which I per not too but might not have a chose if Sprint and MS don't get something going. Yes I could go with another carrier to get a good WP8 device but to me it's not worth paying $40-50 more a month to be data cap for a device. Basically paying more a month to get less so I will wait and see what they do this summer but it would be nice to know what kind of WP hardware they will bet getting before the summer so we all know what to be looking forward too. Thanks for all the info mrmdj31675.

 

[mrmdj31675]

Nokia needs to offer a major appology to all the CDMA carriers first (and ironically starts with Sprint) before they can get devices to the majority of the US providers. Unortunately, Nokia has no interest in expanding their offerings beyond three carriers for the time being.

 

[mrmdj31675]

Enthuz, you mention the lack of interest on the platform. These issues with Windows Phone were originally talked about and exposed back in the summer of 2011 when the FCC made the strong suggestion to them (and Google as well) to get with the times and use current Qualcomm standards (which now require 512bit minimum cell network encryption) in a way to meet future FCC requirements as well as bringing SVDO to the CDMA side (as it was finally made a reality late in 2010 by Qualcomm).

Lack of interest on WP on the CDMA side? How about explaining why there were only TWO devices, both made by HTC? Have in mind almost every contact based carrier carried the ARRIVE over the Trophy as Verizon did. Yes, it was "bulky" but also was the better device of the two. Ironically, there were no more CDMA devices in the US, and not even an effort to bring the platform to the CDMA side (which is much larger than GSM) of prepaid. Is Sprint "responsible" for this? Absolutely not!

This "holy war" against Sprint was because David Owens had the guts to go on record and say how bad the sales for Windows Phone have been for every carrier (and that includes the Nokia Lumia 900, taking nearly a year to sell 600k units on AT&T, compared to other high end devices which have sold 5-10 times that amount on that same carrier during the same period of time). Sorry, but the facts stack against the platform on everything that has gone wrong, and Microsoft still treats CDMA like a niche market in the US, when in reality that market holds nearly two thirds of the total cell phone lines in that same market.

Of course is far easier to blame the third largest carrier in the US because they refuse to accept any device on any platform not using Qualcomm coding and encryption standards.

 

[MFmonster]

I disagree with one thing and that is how Sprint handled WP and the Arrive device. They are not the only guilty party like you mentioned when it comes to the support of WP on the CDMA side.

Why did Sprint even carry a device then? There is more to the story than what you or I know. The lack of support from Sprint trickled down to the reluctance to sell the devcie to customers and made a push to get customers to turn in the device for something different despite excellent reviews. Every Sprint store I walked into did a disservice to WP, and honestly they even know anything about the device, WP7, and did everything in their power to NOT sell the device. This occurred with customer service as well and even made statements that WP7 and the arrive was very buggy and practically a broken mess. How could the Arrive even crack the top 10 devices with Sprint if they made sure it did not sell? My experience and first hand knowledge of this is not new and not unique.

If it all came down to one thing and that is the current Qualcomm standards then one would think this would have played out very differently.

 

[mrmdj31675]

Sprint did support the device when it was released, and promoted the device for the first two months. Also, the 512 bit encryption (as well as 1X Advanced, EVDO Revision B, and SVDO) came out months after HTC, and Microsoft were preparing to add CDMA support for WP7 (which at that time Qualcomm was months away to push new CDMA standards, which are what the FCC is strongly suggesting now). The Arrive and Trophy were ok (or so it was thought until the CDMA coding was studied, and it was found out to be subpar when compared to what almost every CDMA carrier was using in the US, and the three devices carried by Verizon still use that same coding which ironically is required by China Mobile in order to meet government standards in China because the government wants to know what their citizens say and do online. However, those do not even come close to meet what are more likely to be FCC requirements after meeting for a scheduled follow up hearing with companies behind the major four mobile operating systems, and only Microsoft remains non-compliant to the strong recommendation from the 2011 hearings. Coincidence or laziness by Microsoft? I say both, and perhaps they are being stubborn to work with Qualcomm to meet those standards and deadlines with the FCC, Sprint, HTC, Samsung, Nokia, and every CDMA carrier in the US (from US Cellular to Open Mobile de Puerto Rico, and every prepaid and postpaid CDMA carrier in between).Coincidence every CDMA carrier not having a WP8 device currently on their roster either carried the Arrive or was shun by Microsoft for being a prepaid CDMA carrier? Perhaps, and that has to be blamed on Microsoft for their lack of interest to expand their share in their own turf. The facts are there, and still points at Microsoft, and it will be more obvious if they can't get the proper coding out on an update prior to the beginning of summer and fails to meet them when they face questioning by the FCC, while also failing Sprint, HTC, Samsung, Nokia, Huawei, ZTE, and any other OEMs coming up with WP8 devices. Then, who will WPCentral's contributors and brass will blame this time? Sprint, FCC, Qualcomm, and CDMA 2000 cell technology along all the carriers in the US are obviously NOT going to be the ones to blame again, which on the first time was foolish to blame them knowing all the facts. I understand supporting a platform like Windows Phone, but to let the loyalty to it get in the way of the facts on why it has been mostly GSM oriented on a CDMA heavy country is absurd at the very least.