09-08-2017 11:09 AM
153 12345 ...
tools
  1. dksf42's Avatar
    Back to the "original topic":

    1) Verizon Hates Us where Verizon is US ONLY and the largest US Carrier

    2) This is just about the HP Elite x3 which both Microsoft and HP have "strictly focused on the Enterprise"!

    3) Since Verizon is US ONLY, THEN this thread and all comments "should be limited" to the US Enterprise Market and NOT "International"

    4) The "fact IS" that neither HP, nor Verizon, nor Microsoft for that matter have EVER OFFICIALLY stated that the HP Elite x3 WILL or WILL NOT "be an option" once the HP Elite x3 is officially launched IN THE US on August 29, 2016

    5) We are just a bunch of "pawns" on a very large chessboard to even say anything that is cast in concrete

    6) Therefore - I humbly submit - that we are just "speculating" and

    7) Having fun ... just like "do UFOs REALLY exist"?

    Anyone else who really want to see the HP Elite x3 on Verizon - one way or another ?
    Last edited by dksf42; 08-02-2016 at 03:35 PM.
    DavidinCT and aximtreo like this.
    08-02-2016 03:11 PM
  2. JM_Thomas's Avatar
    I just hope the x3 makes it to VZW, either in it's current form, or maybe a couple months later as a VZW "exclusive", as long as VZW doesn't hose it up like they have with other "exclusive" units.
    08-03-2016 12:45 PM
  3. DavidinCT's Avatar
    Verizon is KNOWN to be a PIA to get devices certified to work on their network. Crap I remember on the old Moto data (razor or even the v710 or other hot phones of the day). AT&T would get them, Verizon would not get them till about 6 months later. Always thought it was an exclusive thing but, years later I found out, MOST times, it was because of their certification process.

    Still today, new Android devices, or iPhone devices.....Verizon gets the models months in advance to do their certification process...the iPhone is the only one that Verizon bows to as new model will pass through quick if Apple sends it in late. A lot of OEMS want to release sooner and cant wait for Verizon to do their crap.

    It's a joke....AT&T takes 1/10 of the time, or something close...for testing and everything on new models. Never mind being fully open to any off the shelf GSM model, as long as it supports their network.
    RumoredNow, libra89 and aximtreo like this.
    08-03-2016 08:33 PM
  4. Y2HBK's Avatar
    Verizon is KNOWN to be a PIA to get devices certified to work on their network. Crap I remember on the old Moto data (razor or even the v710 or other hot phones of the day). AT&T would get them, Verizon would not get them till about 6 months later. Always thought it was an exclusive thing but, years later I found out, MOST times, it was because of their certification process.

    Still today, new Android devices, or iPhone devices.....Verizon gets the models months in advance to do their certification process...the iPhone is the only one that Verizon bows to as new model will pass through quick if Apple sends it in late. A lot of OEMS want to release sooner and cant wait for Verizon to do their crap.

    It's a joke....AT&T takes 1/10 of the time, or something close...for testing and everything on new models. Never mind being fully open to any off the shelf GSM model, as long as it supports their network.
    For what it's worth, I got the Marshmallow update on my Note 5 a LOT sooner than my co-worker on AT&T did.

    That being said, I made the jump to AT&T today. I haven't been with them since the days of the iPhone 3GS but hoping their service has improved. I'm sure AT&T is no spring chicken, but tired of getting nickel and dimed by Verizon while they put their corporate spin on it. Everyone at my work thinks I'm nuts but oh well.

    Looking forward to the 29th. The company I work for received a business quote from our vendor for our pricing on some of the units today so we will be getting a pre-order in soon.

    Unfortunately, I do have some bad news. According to our vendor and HP sales rep the lap dock has been delayed until October.
    ananve likes this.
    08-04-2016 02:06 PM
  5. FXi2's Avatar
    If this is indeed true then the OEMs should take them to court. But a single OEM would never do it. It would have to be a group of companies that get together and file a suit. The issue is that many of them won't do it as Verizon also provides free advertising for them. It's one of those scenarios where Verizon can continue to do bad things because of the benefits of following their tedious expectations.
    And what would a court do? Force VZ to accept the device in the case? And just how do you think those users would be treated? If you find your connection fritzy, do you think you could "prove" VZ was giving your device a kick now and then? No. The carriers are the top of the proverbial heap. Even Google Nexus is capitulating to VZ demands for the next generation. And what does VZ go and do with the money they take? They buy Yahoo so they can find new ways to deliver you ads. Do they improve service? Nope! Many manufacturers have let it be known that dealing with VZ certification is painfully difficult. And it's not the service level. It's the proprietary junk useless paperwork/rigamarole.
    This move by both HP and MS (HTC also had an activewear device they didn't certify on VZ) is starting to show that it's both a cost and time savings to skip the Red. And worse, they drop the entire CDMA channel by 2018 so where is the ROI on even bothering? It's funny but ATT is better positioned to drop 3G and move to a hybrid 4G/5G world than VZ is to drop CDMA and move to the same hybrid. Look at the sale of Fios assets and then look at the Yahoo purchase and you tell me exactly where VZ thinks they are going to make their cash in the next 10 years...marketing.
    RumoredNow likes this.
    08-06-2016 02:39 PM
  6. dksf42's Avatar
    I do NOT care "How Much Verizon Hates Us" as it sure looks like LG has figured out "HOW" to comply with the FCC 700MHz auction "conditions" and get their device CERTIFIED to "operate on Verizon"!

    https://opennetwork.verizonwireless....S988_4682.html

    Key Features
    •Dimensions: 149.4 X 73.9 X 7.3 mm
    •Air Interface: CDMA 1X/EVDO/eHRPD (BC0 / BC1), GSM(850/900/1800/1900) WCDMA Band 1/ Band 2/ Band 5 / Band 8 LTE Band 13 / Band4 / Band 2 / Band 5, Category 6


    Granted, it is Android but "WHY CAN'T HP or Microsoft do this"??
    08-06-2016 05:20 PM
  7. dksf42's Avatar
    ATTENTION HP and MICROSOFT "executives" - ANYBODY monitoring this thread???

    AND ... it gets even better as I wondered "WHY would LG go through ALL of the certification BS" and the phone is probably "old and out-of-stock"???

    WELL ... these are "very large, high volume online retailers for the US MARKET"

    1) https://www.amazon.com/LG-Unlocked-P...pUvbUpU3535414

    2) LG G5 RS988 32GB Smartphone (Unlocked, Titan) LGRS988.AUSATN B&H

    3) LG G5 RS988 32GB Smartphone (Unlocked, Titan)-Newegg.com

    MY FAVORITE IS Amazon ... VERIZON = FULLY COMPATIBLE



    screenhunter_229-aug.-06-15.55.jpg
    08-06-2016 05:56 PM
  8. dksf42's Avatar
    AND the BEST PART YET ... "Just below the Verizon Wireless - Fully Compatible" is a link to "View more compatibility detail" which yields this!!!

    ANYBODY from HP or Microsoft reading this ???

    screenhunter_233-aug.-06-16.16.jpg
    08-06-2016 06:17 PM
  9. Alain_A's Avatar
    ANYBODY from HP or Microsoft reading this ???

    Probably not
    08-08-2016 08:31 AM
  10. garak0410's Avatar
    The article seems suspicious. Why are there no comments? Why aren't the comments turned on?

    If true, what does certification cost? Maybe we have a Kickstarter and get the phones certified ourselves? I know it has been discussed endlessly, but I think I remember, that the 950 and 950 XL do not have the necessary CDMA radio frequencies? So certification would not be possible.

    Just wondering.
    I tried using a 950xl on Verizon...even so much as asking our business account rep to help...here's what they said:

    "Verizon does not add IMEIs toour database. The device manufacturers are the ones responsible forloading IMEIs into our data base. The best way to test if you can use adevice or not is just to put the existing active SIM card into the new device.However, I suspect you are right that the unlocked Lumia does not have a CDMAradio for voice services and it likely also doesnt have all the LTE bands weuse. "

    The key phrase for me was "The device manufacturers are the ones responsible for loading IMEIs into our data base" meaning that some blame could be on Microsoft.
    08-12-2016 09:50 AM
  11. RumoredNow's Avatar
    The key phrase for me was "The device manufacturers are the ones responsible for loading IMEIs into our data base" meaning that some blame could be on Microsoft.
    Meaning that they only activate devices that are submitted by OEMs and have no BYOD accommodation. Sure it looks like they blame Microsoft in part...

    Imagine you pulled into the JimmyGas station and the pump refused to activate. The attendant tells you that even though the nozzle fits and your car will run the type of gas you want to pump, the problem is that your car manufacturer did not submit your make and model to their database so you simply can not get any gas until they do so...

    Is that your car manufacturer's fault? Do you place the blame with them?
    libra89 and aximtreo like this.
    08-12-2016 12:05 PM
  12. tgp's Avatar
    The key phrase for me was "The device manufacturers are the ones responsible for loading IMEIs into our data base" meaning that some blame could be on Microsoft.
    I don't think that's totally accurate. Microsoft no doubt deserves part of the blame, but not because they did not submit the IMEIs.

    There is a growing list of factory unlocked devices that work on Verizon under BYOD. However, it does seem that the IMEI needs to be present in Verizon's database for them to activate a device. They can add it for you and activate your device, if your device is compatible. You can, however, take an already active Verizon SIM card and put it in any compatible device and it will work.

    In short, there is nothing Verizon can do to activate the Lumia 950/XL in its current state, even if they wanted to. It is not compatible. Now, maybe it could be made to be compatible, or maybe Verizon made some decisions in the past that resulted in it being incompatible. But as it stands now, as far as we know it is not compatible because CDMA is not enabled.

    Imagine you pulled into the JimmyGas station and the pump refused to activate. The attendant tells you that even though the nozzle fits and your car will run the type of gas you want to pump, the problem is that your car manufacturer did not submit your make and model to their database so you simply can not get any gas until they do so...
    This situation is more like 30 years ago when leaded gasoline was being phased out. The pump nozzles for unleaded gas were smaller, and the car manufacturers put a restriction under the gas cap so the larger pump nozzles for leaded gas didn't fit. The car could technically run on leaded gas, but the manufacturers made so you couldn't put leaded gas in it.
    Laura Knotek and aximtreo like this.
    08-12-2016 01:08 PM
  13. RumoredNow's Avatar
    This situation is more like 30 years ago when leaded gasoline was being phased out. The pump nozzles for unleaded gas were smaller, and the car manufacturers put a restriction under the gas cap so the larger pump nozzles for leaded gas didn't fit. The car could technically run on leaded gas, but the manufacturers made so you couldn't put leaded gas in it.
    Right. I lived through it as an adult of driving age with a valid license, so I know exactly what you are talking about.

    However, we aren't looking at old SIM cards and slots that are of a size that has been phased out. Verizon doesn't offer SIM cards in a proprietary size that non-Vzw phones can't accept do they? The Verizon "nozzle" will​ fit and that is why I included it in my analogy.
    tgp and aximtreo like this.
    08-12-2016 01:41 PM
  14. tgp's Avatar
    Right. I lived through it as an adult of driving age with a valid license, so I know exactly what you are talking about.

    However, we aren't looking at old SIM cards and slots that are of a size that has been phased out. Verizon doesn't offer SIM cards in a proprietary size that non-Vzw phones can't accept do they? The Verizon "nozzle" will​ fit and that is why I included it in my analogy.
    I see what you're saying, but I think you're taking the analogy more literal than I meant it! The "nozzle" isn't the SIM card; the "nozzle" is CDMA, or the CDMA hardware.

    As the 950/XL is currently, Verizon could not activate it if they wanted to. Well, they could maybe get data to work, but CDMA which Verizon uses for voice and SMS is not enabled.

    This is where my leaded vs unleaded nozzle analogy comes in. Microsoft put the "restriction under the gas cap" in the 950/XL by leaving the CDMA disabled, even though the hardware is there. Could they have enabled it? Probably. Why didn't they? We have no idea. They don't need Verizon's approval as far as we know.

    Your phrase an in above post "Meaning that they only activate devices that are submitted by OEMs and have no BYOD accommodation." is totally false. I have put my Verizon SIM card in 3 different Nexus models, and Verizon wouldn't have know that their IMEIs existed until the devices were active on their network. I had an interesting experience at the beginning of Verizon's BYOD program. I wanted to get a new SIM card because the one I had was a micro SIM cut down to nano. It worked fine, but micro SIMs are a bit thicker and on some devices it is difficult to get them in. I went to a store, and they said they could not activate a new SIM card because they didn't officially support my device, although it worked perfectly. I had to go home and grab a spare Verizon branded phone. I put my SIM card in that, and then they could give me a new SIM card. Again, that was awhile ago when the BYOD Verizon capable devices were new, and I think it's different now.

    The iPhone system is interesting; the model Verizon sells is the exact same model as the factory unlocked version. As far as I know, the only difference is that Verizon has the IMEIs of the ones they sell in their database. They will activate a factory unlocked BYOD iPhone which is not in their database, but they need to enter it first.

    And hey, don't get me wrong; I am not out to praise Verizon for using CDMA while most of the rest of the world uses GSM (although CDMA does have some benefits that make Verizon's service more valuable). I would like the option to any unlocked phone that comes down the pike. There is a list of factory unlocked devices that work on Verizon, but although it is growing, it is still rather short at the moment at about 15 or so devices.

    I think this hurts more on Microsoft fan forums because a WP/W10M device is not on the list, and some people live and work in areas where they have no other good option for carriers. Where I live, AT&T's coverage is almost as good as Verizon's, and T-Mobile has greatly improved in the last couple years to where they would be viable. But between us and our relatives in other states that we visit regularly, Verizon is the only common carrier. We have other options, they have other options, but Verizon is the only one that works at all locations.

    Either way, in a few years this will be moot. Verizon will eventually be fully GSM like everyone else. But as it stands today, they're not. If vendors wish to participate, it is up to them to work with it. Apple did it, Google did it (through Motorola, Huawei, and LG Nexus devices), Motorola did it, and Samsung did it. Microsoft could probably do it too if they wanted to bad enough. I think the issue is more political than technological.
    libra89 and aximtreo like this.
    08-12-2016 02:20 PM
  15. dksf42's Avatar
    SOON ... the "US Elite x3" unit will be shipping and into the hands of "reviewers" and "engineers" that will dissect it to bits!

    According to the mid-July Reddit session - with the brave HP Sales guy - the CDMA radio is "on-board" but NOBODY asked about LTE Band 13 = Verizon?

    So ... stay tuned, as this about to get FINALLY surfaced!
    tgp and kurtd like this.
    08-12-2016 02:23 PM
  16. RumoredNow's Avatar
    I see what you're saying, but I think you're taking the analogy more literal than I meant it! The "nozzle" isn't the SIM card; the "nozzle" is CDMA, or the CDMA hardware.
    CDMA is a component in the "gas."

    Radio is the engine and needs to be tuned for the gas (signal) so it can burn it (use it compatibly).
    Signal is the gas that runs the service.
    The SIM is the nozzle through with the service (or gas) flows into the (engine) radio.

    As you have pointed out, if one has a valid SIM and inserts into a device with a capable radio it will work. But what if I don't have a valid SIM that I've used on an approved device? The SIM fits, but does nothing correct? Can I walk into the Verizon store and activate a device that isn't "approved" just by purchasing a plan and getting a SIM?

    You are outlining a workaround and an exception (iPhone), not IMHO a real BYOD plan that asks only will the nozzle (SIM) fit and can the engine (radio) use the gas (signal)?

    So you are tricking the "nozzle" (SIM) by inserting it into a preapproved "fuel intake" (SIM slot) of a "car" (phone) with an "engine" (radio) that is already approved... Let's go back to JimmyGas (Verizon)...

    Tommy pulls into JimmyGas in a Ford Escort that is in the JimmyGas database, puts the nozzle in the filler tube and bing-bong the pump is activated. He pulls forward and his confederate pulls up to the same pump and fuels up a Chevrolet Impala that isn't in the JimmyGas database by using the preactivated nozzle. Later on, Steve pulls into JimmyGas and he has never been there before. The pump doesn't work. But Steve goes inside and the attendant tells him, "Hey, you have a Ferarri. We honor all Ferraris here, let me just put your VIN in our system." Steve then pumps his gas and races off. Poor Tammy pulls in with a Chevrolet Impala that is the same as the one Tommy tricked JimmyGas into fueling and she can't get the pump to work. The attendant tells her, "Your car maker has to give us all the VIN numbers so our nozzle will recognize you car." Tammy leaves without getting gas because she isn't a customer already and has no access to the trick Tommy used...

    Meanwhile, over at Pedro'sPetrol they are just letting people drive up and pump unleaded into any car that runs it. There is no database check before your fuel will flow...

    In my analogy CDMA is not the nozzle. That doesn't quite fit. It's more like a fuel additive or ethanol.

    The restriction isn't "under the gas cap" it is at the "nozzle" and is ostensibly to ensure that the "engine" can consume the "fuel" and the database becomes an extra hindrance for those that want to build a car capable of using the "fuel." It's an extra step that doesn't need to be there. It may be to "protect" the consumer on the surface so that they don't accidentally try to use a device that won't work, but the reality is that it hampers consumer choice and freedom. Where the analogy breaks down is that if you run the wrong fuel in a vehicle it damages the engine. If you put an incompatible SIM in a phone it just doesn't work. It won't damage the device.

    No one is suggesting that Verizon has to supply signal to devices not capable of receiving their signal, but there is no parallel in GSM based carriers. If the Sim fits and the signal can be accessed you just do it and go. No workaround, no asking to have an IMEI approved before you connect.

    It should be no big deal as the Verizon SIM isn't going to damage a phone without the right radio. No harm no foul, yet they act like the database measure is there to protect the consumer. It isn't. It's only there to preserve their model of selling branded phones.

    There is a restriction somewhere... I just don't think all OEMs are interested in complying with what the restrictor asks to have it lifted. I guess some would blame them, but I can't. Those that do blame the OEM seem to be the ones using the restrictive system.
    08-12-2016 03:44 PM
  17. tgp's Avatar
    ^^ OK, you made my head spin. You're wildly overengineering this analogy!

    I just don't think all OEMs are interested in complying with what the restrictor asks to have it lifted.
    I guess that Apple, Samsung, LG, Motorola, Huawei, etc are interested in complying, and Microsoft isn't.

    But I still don't think what you wrote here is very accurate. If you're talking about "lifting" CDMA, that's more than Verizon simply saying "Sure go ahead". Verizon is working CDMA out of their system, but until that happens, it is necessary for OEMs to work with it.

    Other than Apple, the OEMs, including Microsoft, are using the same hardware. Motorola, LG, Huawei, and Samsung set the CDMA switch to the "ON" position, but Microsoft left it set at "OFF". What does Verizon have to do with this other than politics? As far as we know, Verizon cannot refuse a compatible device.

    In a nutshell, other OEMs are working with the Verizon situation as it currently stands, but Microsoft isn't. Why aren't they? The answer probably lies somewhere between your opinion and mine. You place the blame on Verizon, and I place (most of) the blame on Microsoft. I could place it all on Verizon, IF other OEMs weren't already doing what Microsoft isn't.
    Laura Knotek, libra89 and aximtreo like this.
    08-12-2016 04:01 PM
  18. RumoredNow's Avatar
    Other than Apple, the OEMs, including Microsoft, are using the same hardware. Motorola, LG, Huawei, and Samsung set the CDMA switch to the "ON" position, but Microsoft left it set at "OFF". What does Verizon have to do with this other than politics? As far as we know, Verizon cannot refuse a compatible device.
    Right, but obviously there is something there to switch "off" the interest for Microsoft, HP and others from wanting to participate in the Verizon system. Surely it isn't a decision to limit the availability solely for the sake of limiting availability. There must be a cost benefit analysis somewhere that provides the insight that "off" Verizon saves more $ than "on" Verizon would gain.

    Microsoft has attracted many OEM partners to make Windows Mobile devices. None of them that are entering or already doing business in the US market are interested in Verizon compatibility right now other than LG which has been testing a budget device placed exclusively with Verizon. It very likely is not political for each and every OEM other than LG. Alcatel One Touch seems to have an exclusivity with T-Mo so that may be politically and financially motivated. Acer isn't coupling with any carriers, yet they didn't decide that "on" Verizon is a move they want to make. Likewise BLU, Coship, Yezz, Xiaomi, etc...

    I don't think Verizon is providing any additional reasons for "on" when it comes to Windows Devices. I still can't blame the OEMs. I'd love to see Vzw get some W10M phones. I'm all for it. The more the merrier. But I can also envision reasons and concerns that make a decision to become Verizon compatible more effort than it is worth in the long run so assigning blame to an OEM that didn't do it makes little sense to me.


    And I stick by the analogy. SIM is the nozzle. Not CMDA.
    Last edited by RumoredNow; 08-12-2016 at 09:27 PM.
    tgp and libra89 like this.
    08-12-2016 04:37 PM
  19. tgp's Avatar
    And I stick by the analogy. SIM is the nozzle. Not CMDA.
    I agree with everything in your post, except this! ;-) I mean, your analogy is fine in certain cases, but it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. The physical shape of the SIM card, or even the SIM card itself, has nothing to do with anything. I can put diesel or kerosene or even milk in my tank, but the vehicle won't run.

    Microsoft is purposely making so their hardware doesn't support CDMA, when we know it can because other manufacturers are doing it with the same hardware. Car manufacturers made so you could not put leaded gas in the car even though we know it would run fine. Both are making a conscious effort to disallow something that we know could work.
    RumoredNow and aximtreo like this.
    08-12-2016 07:00 PM
  20. RumoredNow's Avatar
    You ever use a Ford Flex-Fuel vehicle? It can run unleaded or ethanol blend right off the dealer's lot, just pump either in.

    CDMA is like ethanol. Some phones can run it, most can't without a conversion in the "engine." HP Elite X3 needs a conversion in the SoC to tune it to run CDMA. That doesn't mean it isn't a phone, just like a vehicle that can't burn ethanol is still a car. Bottom line, the X3 is not currently positioned to use CDMA no matter what analogy is applied...

    That's more than enough divergence in this thread for me and I'll leave it there.

    I'll let others get back to the topic at hand: who hates whom and where the smoking gun is that killed HP Elite X3 on Vzw.
    tgp, xandros9, Guytronic and 2 others like this.
    08-12-2016 09:31 PM
  21. Alex Zapata's Avatar
    I suppose this is as good of a time as any to chime in here: where to begin...

    So yes, there IS a proverbial "ON" switch for CDMA devices. Being that Qualcomm owns the patent on CDMA, the switch is effectively a licensing fee. You don't pay the fee you don't get CDMA. End of story. This is entirely at the discretion of manufacturer (i.e. Apple, Microsoft, HP, etc...). In the cases of the 950 and 950XL, MS decided NOT to pay that fee and have the CDMA radios activated in the first place. That being said, pretty much any Qualcomm SOC is capable of CDMA (there might be a few exceptions that I'm not aware of).

    Traditionally, if you wanted to get a device on Verizon or Sprint, you had to go through their testing process, and Verizon was a stickler about those things in that it cost a TON of money. More recently though, the FCC ruled that CDMA networks must let ANY CDMA-capable device on their network. There's a bit more to that though. Originally (in the US at least), CDMA operators relied on a whitelist of ESNs or MEIDs to manage approved devices. The problem with this is that for the longest time, only the carrier had the power to decide which devices they allowed on which meant that you were at the mercy of your carrier. The "solution" to that is that they now allow the manufacturers to enter the IMEIs of capable devices into their whitelist (this will probably go away once legacy CDMA networks get shut down). The problem here is that there's still a lot of hurdles to jump through. If you're Apple or Samsung then it's probably not a huge deal. But the royalties to Qualcomm can start adding up pretty quickly. The last I read it was something in the ballpark of 5% of either the wholesale or retail cost of the device.

    So, for a device to work on a CDMA network, they first have to pay a royalty to Qualcomm, pay for certification (either 1st or 3rd party), deal with the FCC certification and costs, and then try to sell it. Again, for someone like Apple, not a huge deal because sales are pretty much guaranteed. That being said, for HP to as of now not support Verizon on a business/enterprise-focused device seems rather strange.

    That being said, I keep reading nonsense about features like Wifi-calling and VoLTE that go something along the lines of "well those features require custom firmware and/or a custom OS build and blah blah blah" and yet.... I can buy any iPhone since the 5S, pretty much any Nexus since the Nexus 6, an HTC A9, some of the Moto devices, and at least 2 BlackBerry devices that I know of that support most of those features on at least 1 or 2 carriers in the US. The effort for these things falls on the manufacturers. I can understand if there's a question of ROI when you look at the cost of certification and royalties and whatnot, but it still falls on the carrier to make these decisions.

    For all I know, everything I've said could be absolute and utter nonsense, but it seems to be the state of affairs to the best of my knowledge.
    08-30-2016 09:11 PM
  22. tgp's Avatar
    For all I know, everything I've said could be absolute and utter nonsense, but it seems to be the state of affairs to the best of my knowledge.
    This is pretty accurate based on what I've discovered. I suppose we outsiders will never know why Microsoft and HP did not enable CDMA on their devices. Is it because of projected low sales volume? It could be, but yet Google does it for Nexus devices, and their sales are relatively small.

    In fact, if the royalty is per device, a lot of that is "wasted" on devices that are not used on Verizon, Sprint, or US Cellular. I wonder if they could designate some of them as CDMA enabled and pay the royalty only on devices sold for CDMA carriers. Maybe charge a little extra to cover the cost?
    08-30-2016 09:23 PM
  23. Alex Zapata's Avatar
    In fact, if the royalty is per device, a lot of that is "wasted" on devices that are not used on Verizon, Sprint, or US Cellular. I wonder if they could designate some of them as CDMA enabled and pay the royalty only on devices sold for CDMA carriers. Maybe charge a little extra to cover the cost?
    That's a good question. Because you have to pay for FCC certification on every SKU it may be cheaper to just certify one device for every network. If you do carrier exclusives for every network you then have to deal with the potential for custom ROMs and the dev teams that have to deal with that. I have to admit I really like the fact that I can buy an iPhone or Nexus and switch to pretty much any network i want without having to get a new device (with the exception of something like Google Fi) so to that end having one device on every network is beneficial to both the manufacturer and the consumer. Then again, I'm not privy to the discussions and decisions at HP.
    aximtreo likes this.
    08-30-2016 10:04 PM
  24. dksf42's Avatar
    This is pretty accurate based on what I've discovered. I suppose we outsiders will never know why Microsoft and HP did not enable CDMA on their devices. Is it because of projected low sales volume? It could be, but yet Google does it for Nexus devices, and their sales are relatively small.

    In fact, if the royalty is per device, a lot of that is "wasted" on devices that are not used on Verizon, Sprint, or US Cellular. I wonder if they could designate some of them as CDMA enabled and pay the royalty only on devices sold for CDMA carriers. Maybe charge a little extra to cover the cost?
    BRAVO to both of you guys for raising this back up!!! The "Title of this Thread" IS "Verizon hates us" was from a "very brave a courageous" HP sales rep - see the beginning of this thread ...

    The QUESTION was asked "ARE the CDMA radios On-BOARD" and his answer was YES!

    The "specific question" about Band 13 was NEVER asked nor answered!

    As you guys so accurately stated = "WHAT ELSE could be the problem BESIDES "Verizon hates us"???

    Anyone???
    08-31-2016 06:16 PM
  25. Alex Zapata's Avatar
    dksf42

    As far band 13, that's a very good question. Assuming the sales rep was correct in stating that CDMA is onboard (which according to the specs from HP so far it isn't, but maybe they have insider info?) it would be kinda pointless if the device doesn't have band 13 since the VAST majority of Verizon's network runs on that. Your guess is as good as mine.
    08-31-2016 06:41 PM
153 12345 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Woot! Verizon backup device (735) not to shabby at all
    By ElronTheElder in forum Nokia Lumia 730 & 735
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 08-30-2016, 10:20 AM
  2. How Do I Use Two External Displays with my HP Laptop?
    By Windows Central Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-22-2016, 04:06 AM
  3. The US Lumia 950 XL now has double-tap to wake firmware on WDRT
    By WindowsCentral.com in forum Windows Central News Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-21-2016, 11:20 AM
  4. MSN Weather on Xbox One gives us an early look at Universal Apps on the console
    By WindowsCentral.com in forum Windows Central News Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-21-2016, 05:30 AM
  5. Verizon expected to crack down on unlimited customers using 'extraordinary amount of data'
    By WindowsCentral.com in forum Windows Central News Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-20-2016, 05:42 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD