12-02-2015 10:33 PM
1,084 ... 3940414243 ...
tools
  1. DoctorPizza's Avatar
    Easier said than done. VoLTE is essentially VoIP over a wireless connection. It is completely digital and it is all data versus 3G which is not. To do so, Verizon would need to install converters to convert an all digital signal to analog. This is adds expense and reduces reliability. It is easier and cheaper to ditch the 3G network. To do that though takes time; Verizon needs to eventually replace EVERY handset. That takes time, and there are always going to be holdouts. Just look at the issues we had here in the US when we switched from analog to digital TV.
    Good grief. Calls over GSM and CDMA 2000 are also "completely digital". That's why they're "2G"; the first generation was made up of analogue networks (but they're all gone now). That's why bad signal causes signal drop outs rather than interference noises; that's what disrupted digital transmissions sound like: packet loss.

    Even the interconnects with the PSTN are all-digital. The US has operated on a packet-switched digital PSTN for decades; only the last leg (exchange to handset) is analogue, and that's where the analogue conversion is done.

    Avoiding conversions is why things like HD Voice only work when they can be negotiated end-to-end (and why they tend to only work when caller and receiver are on the same network, though as I mentioned in a previous post, cross-network VoLTE has been demonstrated, allowing cross-network HD Voice too).

    Verizon initially (in 2013) planned to offer pure LTE (no CDMA fallback) handsets in 2014. That hasn't come to pass, though the HTC A9 might finally do the job. The bridging from VoLTE to other networks, VoLTE to PSTN, and VoLTE to same network CDMA, should all be in place already.
    Laura Knotek and aximtreo like this.
    11-28-2015 03:47 PM
  2. RumoredNow's Avatar
    If you have VoLTE, why would VZW need to hand off the call to anyone else?
    VoLTE only connects to VoLTE. I'm not sure where your extra connectors are coming from when calling a non-VoLTE line? The well known "generosity" of Verizon I suppose?

    Yes VoLTE enabled handsets on VoLTE enabled networks can place calls to non-VoLTE lines. When that happens the phone drops down off LTE. You say the phone will drop to CDMA or GSM.

    The 950/XL does not have CDMA so it can't place the call with the Verizon network you have service with. Since you are saying that all is fine with a Vzw tower in site then the phone must be assumed to go to GSM. Whose GSM? Verizon doesn't have GSM. Are you sure you can Roam off Verizon when your phone is pinging a Verizon tower? I'm not.
    11-28-2015 05:16 PM
  3. DoctorPizza's Avatar
    VoLTE only connects to VoLTE. I'm not sure where your extra connectors are coming from when calling a non-VoLTE line? The well known "generosity" of Verizon I suppose?
    VoLTE can place calls that bridge to PSTN, CDMA, GSM, or any other phone technology. For HD Voice you'll need VoLTE end-to-end.

    Yes VoLTE enabled handsets on VoLTE enabled networks can place calls to non-VoLTE lines. When that happens the phone drops down off LTE. You say the phone will drop to CDMA or GSM.
    Why on earth would a phone need to drop back to CDMA or GSM? When you're calling a non-VoLTE line the call is bridged using what is essentially a SIP gateway. Your handset uses VoLTE, and hardware on the telco's network bridges that to PSTN or 3G as necessary. There's a whole set of complex standards that describe all the bits and pieces that make this work, built off IMS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_Multimedia_Subsystem).

    The 950/XL does not have CDMA so it can't place the call with the Verizon network you have service with. Since you are saying that all is fine with a Vzw tower in site then the phone must be assumed to go to GSM. Whose GSM? Verizon doesn't have GSM. Are you sure you can Roam off Verizon when your phone is pinging a Verizon tower? I'm not.
    You don't need to roam. Your premise--that it must be VoLTE end-to-end--is wrong. Just watch the video I linked in my previous post; it describes how VoLTE bridges to PSTN. Bridging to 2G/3G is functionally the same.
    Laura Knotek likes this.
    11-28-2015 07:21 PM
  4. RumoredNow's Avatar
    You don't need to roam. Your premise--that it must be VoLTE end-to-end--is wrong.
    And this bridge is 100% implemented across the Vzw Network? Not still rolling out? Verizon need do nothing on their end if a user has one of their SIMs? Because the people asking if the device will work want it to work now and they keep reading your posts, DoctorPizza, and assuming you are giving the go ahead when you post this sentiment repeatedly:
    Verizon supports VoLTE, which means that LTE is all you need for voice. I believe their VoLTE rollout is now nationwide, so in theory it's enough.
    I will say I don't follow Verizon that closely. I thought that the bridging was future forward planning still in the working stages.

    Remember please, no theory, just application. The title of the thread and what Verizon users are asking is "Will an "unlocked" 950XL work on Verizon?" "Should an "unlocked" 950XL work on Verizon?" is another question entirely. I hope you can appreciate the difference.
    mary beth hale likes this.
    11-28-2015 08:19 PM
  5. DoctorPizza's Avatar
    And this bridge is 100% implemented across the Vzw Network? Not still rolling out? Verizon need do nothing on their end if a user has one of their SIMs? Because the people asking if the device will work want it to work now and they keep reading your posts, DoctorPizza, and assuming you are giving the go ahead when you post this sentiment repeatedly:
    I would be astonished if VZW didn't have this capability in place, as without it, VoLTE is of next to no use at all--it can only kick in on VZW-to-VZW calls with both handsets on VoLTE. The ability to make VoLTE-to-PSTN and VoLTE-to-2G/3G calls is pretty fundamental.

    I will say I don't follow Verizon that closely. I thought that the bridging was future forward planning still in the working stages.
    As I say, it's possible that VZW's VoLTE rollout is behind schedule, as they had originally intended to launch pure-LTE phones by now. These have not materialized, and there is probably a reason for that. But until Microsoft does its part, we will never know, because VZW's hand will never be forced.
    Laura Knotek likes this.
    11-28-2015 09:21 PM
  6. RumoredNow's Avatar
    So, I;m still hearing should and I'm still betting won't.

    I would be astonished if VZW didn't have this capability in place, as without it, VoLTE is of next to no use at all--it can only kick in on VZW-to-VZW calls with both handsets on VoLTE. The ability to make VoLTE-to-PSTN and VoLTE-to-2G/3G calls is pretty fundamental.
    The thing is, for all the carriers, they won't worry about interoperability until late in the game. If a VoLTE enabled phone is not making a VoLTE to VoLTE call they can just scale it down their ladder without dropping a stitch. And that is where the 950/XL cannot follow on Verizon.

    *shrug*

    I just would hate to see someone buying one of these phones for the express purpose of running it on Verizon under a theory that Band 13 is all they will need and then come to find out they wasted their purchase and are now upset with Microsoft, Verizon, Windows Central and all the posters on WC that egged them on...
    11-28-2015 09:37 PM
  7. DoctorPizza's Avatar
    So, I;m still hearing should and I'm still betting won't.



    The thing is, for all the carriers, they won't worry about interoperability until late in the game. If a VoLTE enabled phone is not making a VoLTE to VoLTE call they can just scale it down their ladder without dropping a stitch. And that is where the 950/XL cannot follow on Verizon.

    *shrug*

    I just would hate to see someone buying one of these phones for the express purpose of running it on Verizon under a theory that Band 13 is all they will need and then come to find out they wasted their purchase and are now upset with Microsoft, Verizon, Windows Central and all the posters on WC that egged them on...
    Until Microsoft bothers to get the open access certification, Band 13 doesn't matter anyway. And with VZW now explicitly saying "it's up to Microsoft to get the certification" well...

    I mean, yes potentially it could be a bluff. Microsoft could get the phone validated, force VZW open access, and then VZW could turn around and say "hah! Fooled you! Our VoLTE implementation is useless". That is a thing that could happen. But I ask you why VZW would want to do that. It doesn't make VZW look good, because it exposes that their VoLTE rollout is worthless and that they're a long way from being able to offer an all-LTE network (which is what they, and all carriers, are aiming to do by the 2020s).
    Laura Knotek and dkediger like this.
    11-28-2015 09:45 PM
  8. RumoredNow's Avatar
    So we are back to won't and all the repetitions of "VoLTE is all you need" are meaningless in the end.

    Let's have a musical interlude, shall we?

    DavidinCT and libra89 like this.
    11-28-2015 09:57 PM
  9. Kevin Rush's Avatar
    (Posted, again, to follow this thread! Please do not remove.)
    11-28-2015 10:23 PM
  10. RumoredNow's Avatar
    (Posted, again, to follow this thread! Please do not remove.)
    For the life of me, I don't know why you need a null post. Just use subscribe.

    capture.png
    maevinj likes this.
    11-29-2015 01:08 AM
  11. gernerttl's Avatar
    Until Microsoft bothers to get the open access certification, Band 13 doesn't matter anyway. And with VZW now explicitly saying "it's up to Microsoft to get the certification" well...
    Yes, it's up to Microsoft to get the certification, just like EVERY other OEM. Why would Microsoft be treated any differently?

    As to, it being a bluff? You lost me with that one. Who's bluffing? Verizon or Microsoft?
    11-29-2015 01:10 AM
  12. Bobvfr's Avatar
    Don't think MS is bluffing, they have just said "Up yours" Verizon and from what I have seen from over in the UK, the way Verizon handled the Icon I am 100% behind MS on this.

    But this is straying OT, the topic is "Will" not why.
    11-29-2015 02:57 AM
  13. dkediger's Avatar
    Don't think MS is bluffing, they have just said "Up yours" Verizon and from what I have seen from over in the UK, the way Verizon handled the Icon I am 100% behind MS on this.

    But this is straying OT, the topic is "Will" not why.
    As well as saying that to their users on Verizon. Its a dangerous game when the open access certification route is available - even encouraged now according to Verizon.

    The Icon treatment via in-store sales is/was different. That was all about in store resources and 3 rd party (partner stores) just blowing it off. This is all about Microsoft blowing it off now as well....
    11-29-2015 10:50 AM
  14. gernerttl's Avatar
    Don't think MS is bluffing, they have just said "Up yours" Verizon and from what I have seen from over in the UK, the way Verizon handled the Icon I am 100% behind MS on this.
    Being an Icon owner I know all of the issues it has, and based on other posts and reports. It's the other way around. The Icon and the 930 (which didn't sell very well either), were the last Nokia flagships before the Microsoft/Nokia deal finalized. It was Nokia not Verizon who chose not to include microSD card support in the design, as well as other things it were missing, like Glance. Yes, the Icon didn't sell very well, but that had more to do with the device than with Verizon not pushing it. There were SEVERAL Verizon commercials here in the US touting the phone. Had the Icon been released with WP8.1/Denim, I'm certain it would have sold better. The thing that hampered the Icon was WP8.0, not Verizon.

    But this is straying OT, the topic is "Will" not why.
    Now we know both. It will not work on Verizon's network because Microsoft never ran it through Verizon's certification process. As to why Microsoft chose not to? That is a question for a different thread to discuss.
    Laura Knotek, tgp and aximtreo like this.
    11-29-2015 02:08 PM
  15. Generalheed's Avatar
    Being an Icon owner I know all of the issues it has, and based on other posts and reports. It's the other way around. The Icon and the 930 (which didn't sell very well either), were the last Nokia flagships before the Microsoft/Nokia deal finalized. It was Nokia not Verizon who chose not to include microSD card support in the design, as well as other things it were missing, like Glance. Yes, the Icon didn't sell very well, but that had more to do with the device than with Verizon not pushing it. There were SEVERAL Verizon commercials here in the US touting the phone. Had the Icon been released with WP8.1/Denim, I'm certain it would have sold better. The thing that hampered the Icon was WP8.0, not Verizon.



    Now we know both. It will not work on Verizon's network because Microsoft never ran it through Verizon's certification process. As to why Microsoft chose not to? That is a question for a different thread to discuss.
    So now that we finally have confirmation from 2 major carriers that it was Microsoft that purposefully made the 950's an AT&T exclusive, I guess there's only one reasonable thing left to do... Everyone grab your torches and pitchforks, we're going on a road trip to Microsoft HQ!
    aximtreo and DavidinCT like this.
    11-29-2015 03:08 PM
  16. DoctorPizza's Avatar
    Yes, it's up to Microsoft to get the certification, just like EVERY other OEM. Why would Microsoft be treated any differently?

    As to, it being a bluff? You lost me with that one. Who's bluffing? Verizon or Microsoft?
    Verizon, as in, they're saying "Microsoft needs to get the phone open access certified" and maybe Microsoft will do that and then Verizon will turn around and say "haha it still won't work you idiots, there's no CDMA and we don't support VoLTE-only devices".
    Laura Knotek and aximtreo like this.
    11-29-2015 03:23 PM
  17. gernerttl's Avatar
    Verizon, as in, they're saying "Microsoft needs to get the phone open access certified" and maybe Microsoft will do that and then Verizon will turn around and say "haha it still won't work you idiots, there's no CDMA and we don't support VoLTE-only devices".
    I posted a while back how SoC works. What part of that did you not understand? The Snapdragon SoC family has ALL of the radios built in. In fact, the SD810, which is in the 950XL, is the same exact chip that's in my HTC One M9...which is a Verizon phone. The 950 has the same SoC as the LG G4; which is ALSO on Verizon. Qualcomm disabled the CDMA radio via firmware at Microsoft's request. Hardware wise there is no difference between the SD810 on a 950XL and the M9...it's all firmware.

    All Microsoft has to do is ask Qualcomm to update the firmware to enable CDMA, include Verizon's CDMA key (which is baked into that same firmware). Then include that in the OS/firmware build to Verizon for testing and certification. Microsoft CHOSE to not make a Verizon variant, not Verizon.

    https://www.qualcomm.com/products/sn...processors/808
    http://www.gsmarena.com/lg_g4-6901.php
    http://www.gsmarena.com/lg_g4_dual-7253.php
    http://www.gsmarena.com/microsoft_lu...l_sim-7632.php
    http://www.gsmarena.com/microsoft_lumia_950-7262.php

    https://www.qualcomm.com/products/sn...processors/810
    http://www.gsmarena.com/htc_one_m9-6891.php
    http://www.gsmarena.com/microsoft_lu...l_sim-7631.php
    http://www.gsmarena.com/microsoft_lumia_950_xl-7263.php
    Last edited by gernerttl; 11-30-2015 at 01:29 AM.
    11-30-2015 01:15 AM
  18. editguy's Avatar
    So now that we finally have confirmation from 2 major carriers that it was Microsoft that purposefully made the 950's an AT&T exclusive, I guess there's only one reasonable thing left to do... Everyone grab your torches and pitchforks, we're going on a road trip to Microsoft HQ!
    And neither of those carriers have any interest in Windows phones. Legere just shot off his mouth because he's a media w h o r e. I'm on Tmo and I appreciate that he has somewhat helped change the way carriers are operating. But he cares nothing for Windows Phones. And I can't take Verizon seriously when they kept referring to Nokia in their statement. They apparently don't even know who manufactures WP, so they obviously have zero interest.
    MikeSo, theefman and IndyJG like this.
    11-30-2015 02:23 AM
  19. HoosierDaddy's Avatar
    Microsoft CHOSE to not make a Verizon variant, not Verizon.
    Well I see you are putting your mat to good use:

    a01f74a338d7cc8d2eaeb00c15d21d82.500x469x1.jpg

    Yes, Microsoft chose to not spend money getting the phones certified RIGHT AFTER Verizon told Microsoft they would NOT allow the phones on if Microsoft insisted on updating the OS on Microsoft's schedule, which is an absolute necessity.

    Your honor, I'm innocent. The alleged victim CHOSE to give me their wallet, right after I said "your money or your life".
    11-30-2015 05:36 AM
  20. psurob55's Avatar
    This thread....is still going?

    Amazing. LOL

    As much as I wanted to blame Verizon for all of this, it really looks like it's MS hanging us out to dry. Enable the bands via firmware, certify it, and stop screwing over your fans. You know....those same "fans" this phone was for?

    I'll be back when the app gap is addressed and/or the surface phone. Til then, it's time to move to a platform that can actually make my life easier, instead of one that constantly inconveniences me.

    S6 Edge Plus, here I come. :)
    11-30-2015 09:20 AM
  21. psurob55's Avatar
    Well I see you are putting your mat to good use:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	a01f74a338d7cc8d2eaeb00c15d21d82.500x469x1.jpg 
Views:	35 
Size:	102.5 KB 
ID:	117892

    Yes, Microsoft chose to not spend money getting the phones certified RIGHT AFTER Verizon told Microsoft they would NOT allow the phones on if Microsoft insisted on updating the OS on Microsoft's schedule, which is an absolute necessity.

    Your honor, I'm innocent. The alleged victim CHOSE to give me their wallet, right after I said "your money or your life".
    +1000 rep for office space reference. lol
    DavidinCT likes this.
    11-30-2015 09:26 AM
  22. Generalheed's Avatar
    And neither of those carriers have any interest in Windows phones. Legere just shot off his mouth because he's a media w h o r e. I'm on Tmo and I appreciate that he has somewhat helped change the way carriers are operating. But he cares nothing for Windows Phones. And I can't take Verizon seriously when they kept referring to Nokia in their statement. They apparently don't even know who manufactures WP, so they obviously have zero interest.
    Yes it's true that Verizon and T-Mobile haven't been the most friendly carriers of Windows Phones in the past, and I'm sure they couldn't care less about Windows Phones. But that doesn't mean Microsoft had to disable the CDMA radio. Like many of their competitors, Microsoft could've just made the 950 a globally unlocked phone that works on any carrier in the world. The iPhone does it as well as the Nexus and I'm sure many other phones out there too. Verizon even said if Microsoft had it certified, they wouldn't stop the 950 from working on their network. They just didn't really want to carrier it in store. Therefore, Microsoft bares most of the blame here as they deliberately disabled the CDMA radio. Unless Microsoft is planning a Verizon exclusive 959 or something like that, there's absolutely no excuse to not make the 950 a universal phone like pretty much every competitor has done with their phones.
    dkediger, illidanx and Williaml99 like this.
    11-30-2015 12:05 PM
  23. gernerttl's Avatar
    Well I see you are putting your mat to good use:
    Yes, Microsoft chose to not spend money getting the phones certified RIGHT AFTER Verizon told Microsoft they would NOT allow the phones on if Microsoft insisted on updating the OS on Microsoft's schedule, which is an absolute necessity.
    Eh? You got it backwards. To get the 950/950XL certified on Verizon's network, Microsoft needed to submit it for testing MONTHS before release date. Like about the time Microsoft sent it to AT&T for approval. Since Microsoft never ran it through Verizon's certification, Verizon COULDN'T certify them, and therefore won't allow them on its network.
    Laura Knotek likes this.
    11-30-2015 01:27 PM
  24. gernerttl's Avatar
    Yes it's true that Verizon and T-Mobile haven't been the most friendly carriers of Windows Phones in the past, and I'm sure they couldn't care less about Windows Phones. But that doesn't mean Microsoft had to disable the CDMA radio. Like many of their competitors, Microsoft could've just made the 950 a globally unlocked phone that works on any carrier in the world. The iPhone does it as well as the Nexus and I'm sure many other phones out there too. Verizon even said if Microsoft had it certified, they wouldn't stop the 950 from working on their network. They just didn't really want to carrier it in store. Therefore, Microsoft bares most of the blame here as they deliberately disabled the CDMA radio. Unless Microsoft is planning a Verizon exclusive 959 or something like that, there's absolutely no excuse to not make the 950 a universal phone like pretty much every competitor has done with their phones.
    In the case of the Nexus there are numerous builds:
    https://developers.google.com/android/nexus/images

    In other words, there is no "one ring to rule them all." I'm not sure about Apple, but I'm willing to put a steak dinner on the fact that Apple has different builds to make the iPhone/iPad work on different carriers.


    The same goes for other OEM's like LG, Samsung, HTC, etc. They have to provide different builds for each of their devices to work on the different carriers.

    So, again, why would Microsoft be any different?
    11-30-2015 02:09 PM
  25. Laura Knotek's Avatar
    In the case of the Nexus there are numerous builds:
    https://developers.google.com/android/nexus/images

    In other words, there is no "one ring to rule them all." I'm not sure about Apple, but I'm willing to put a steak dinner on the fact that Apple has different builds to make the iPhone/iPad work on different carriers.


    The same goes for other OEM's like LG, Samsung, HTC, etc. They have to provide different builds for each of their devices to work on the different carriers.

    So, again, why would Microsoft be any different?
    The Moto X Pure Edition that I just got last month works on any US carrier out of the box.
    920Walker likes this.
    11-30-2015 02:15 PM
1,084 ... 3940414243 ...

Similar Threads

  1. 950/950XL - QI charging...1.0 or 1.2 ?
    By DavidinCT in forum Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-26-2016, 06:43 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-05-2015, 04:19 AM
  3. Day time while running/exercising on Band 2
    By smatofu in forum Microsoft Band & Band 2
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 10-09-2015, 09:07 AM
  4. Will we be able to preorder online at MS Store?
    By jlangner in forum Microsoft Lumia 950
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-08-2015, 09:41 PM
  5. Why won't my computer wake from sleep mode after installing Windows 10?
    By Windows Central Question in forum Windows 10
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-06-2015, 08:16 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD