12-10-2011 08:01 AM
94 1234
tools
  1. kg4icg's Avatar
    Now here is something funny to think about. VZW laying out there ultimatum to Microsoft and celebrating and bragging about there LTE network. Everytime VZW Braggs about said LTE network, it goes down. Case in point today for example.
    starblade876 likes this.
    12-07-2011 06:59 PM
  2. Reflexx's Avatar
    Now here is something funny to think about. VZW laying out there ultimatum to Microsoft and celebrating and bragging about there LTE network. Everytime VZW Braggs about said LTE network, it goes down. Case in point today for example.
    Haha. I noticed that. Twitter feed was blowing up!
    12-07-2011 07:28 PM
  3. Joelist's Avatar
    Except that there have not been that many outages. They have every right to be proud of their LTE network - it performs at a very high level and they have a much more extensive rollout than anyone expected. This is only the second outage - they had one in April and now today.

    If you really want to talk outages try being on BlackBerry - they had constant BIS outages that were much more damaging than this LTE issue because all of the network communications were routed through BIS.
    12-07-2011 09:47 PM
  4. N8ter's Avatar
    As to simultaneous voice and data, I get that right now on my HTC Thunderbolt even when on 3G (if not in an LTE area). That phone is unique however in that it achieves this by having SVDO in addition to voice and LTE - so it has a different technology package.

    I can also note that dual core is not required for LTE, indeed the Thunderbolt as well as others are single core (Samsung Fascinate and LG's LTE phone at least).

    Also, my brother has the iPhone on AT&T so I was indeed able to directly compare it with my old (pre-LTE) phones before. The only one that did not smoke the iPhone was the BB Storm 2. My Win Mobile phones (I typically used Opera Mobile on them) smoked the iPhone and my HTC Incredible did also.

    I would have to attribute it in part to HTC bringing over their experience in Windows Mobile to Android (HTC Androids are extensively modded - Sense is more than a skin). They rewrote some of the graphics drivers, baked in ActiveSync and also reworked the Android Browser. So if you have to go Android I recommend HTC as it is by far the smoothest and most polished.

    That said, I do agree with VZW here. What they did was not super belligerent just straightforward. They said in a forthright manner what they needed from Microsoft. And as HTC, Motorola, and LG all have already deployed extremely successful LTE hardware the ball is in Microsoft's court to get the proper support into the OS.
    The Thunderbolt we talked about on XDA has an MDM8655 Single Core in it, yes. However, I don't think it would look good to move into LTE using more old hardware. It will just stink to consumers. They already get enough flack for the hardware they're using in current phones...

    The Fascinate has a Hummingbird SoC and it is not an LTE device. It's a 1st Gen Galaxy S variant comparable to the Captivate/Vibrant/Epic 4G. All of those are HSPA/EvDo devices with no HSPA+ or LTE in them. The Epic 4G does have a WiMax radio in it, however.

    A CDMA phone will never smoke a GSM device in data download/upload speeds where that GSM device gets decent coverage. Coverage varies from area to area. You use the carrier that gives you the best experience based on where you live and where you travel.

    In Lafayette, La T-Mobile has HSPA+ and my Vibrant got almost 4Mbps down. At the Verizon store (Lafayette is not necessarily a small and certainly not an ignorable market) their phones were struggling to keep 3 bars of 3G. The speeds weren't even comparable. AT&T devices were getting 2.5-3 Mbps down, and Sprint phones were dog slow. CDMA is slow. Always has been. The beauty of Verizon's CDMA network was never their data speeds. It was the coverage and reliability of the signal, as well as CDMA's better penetration into buildings compared to GSM in many cases.

    Now that the smartphone market is growing at an amazing rate and people are doing a lot more and a lot more varied content consumption on those devices, the need for speed is as high as ever. EvDo just doesn't cut it. iPhone users on Verizon are there cause the network is reliable, and those on Sprint almost unanimously love the lower prices (T-Mobile does not have an iPhone).

    CDMA phones for some manufacturers, like RIM, were also favorably spec'd compared to their GSM twins. Blackberries for Sprint and Verizon, especially Curve Models, routinely shipped with twice the storage and RAM of the GSM variants.
    Last edited by N8ter; 12-07-2011 at 09:56 PM.
    12-07-2011 09:50 PM
  5. Joelist's Avatar
    Hi N8ter!

    I mistyped earlier, it is the Charge not the Fascinate. Anyway the point was the dual core is not required for LTE.

    And yes I smoked his iPhone constantly with my EVDO Verizon phones (except as I said the Storm 2). I would have pages up and navigating while he was still waiting for them to fully render. And yes the Verizon reliability is way superior to AT&T - the running joke for years was that the biggest problem with the iPhone was the little "AT&T" in the upper left hand corner. And this happened with the iPhone 3G. 3GS and 4.

    Remember I am a WP fan here. To me it should not be necessary for an OEM to perform major surgery on the OS to get it to perform well on the phone (like HTC had to do). Their Sense surgery on Android is far more extensive than Sense was on Win Mobile where it was more of a UI replacement (and a very good UI replacement).

    The thing is, Motorola, HTC and Samsung all have LTE chipsets and hardware ready to go right now - they're selling them hand over fist. Granted Motorola is owned by Google so we won't see anything out of them but Android, but HTC and Samsung are both there.

    MS needs to get their roadmap moving and accelerate it if need be to deliver LTE, Dual Core and higher resolution support to the OEMs sooner rather than later. Once that is done getting current generation tech Windows Phones to market is not that hard as the OEMs already have hardware sets they can use.
    12-07-2011 11:20 PM
  6. scottcraft's Avatar
    N8ter I agree that the attraction of cdma is network reliability and building penetration. I live around Lake Charles, LA and I have few issues with dropped calls compared to friends on AT&T. I've never compared data speeds, but I have no trouble streaming YouTube and music here and Lafayette. I am looking forward to 4G though. The Verizon store here has told me sometime this summer it will be here. In the meantime they are selling 4G androids like hotcakes.

    Sent from my Windows 7 Phone using Board Express
    12-07-2011 11:39 PM
  7. KingCrimson's Avatar
    So far no one is describing a scenario of how Windows Phone can get significant market share. It seems DOA.
    12-08-2011 02:46 AM
  8. Joelist's Avatar
    Actually they are.

    Step One: Get the drivers for LTE, dual core and more advanced displays incorporated into the OS.

    Step Two: OEMs can now deploy WP7 LTE phones to Verizon which for WP7 is pretty much uncovered ground.

    Step Three: If (and here the big IF) the phones are good phones and if their rollout is promoted well then they will sell well.

    Result, increased market share.
    12-08-2011 03:07 AM
  9. Reflexx's Avatar
    So far no one is describing a scenario of how Windows Phone can get significant market share. It seems DOA.
    The thread isn't titled, " Describe a scenario where Windiws Phine could get significant market share." So the conclusion you're coming to based on what's in this thread is perplexing.
    12-08-2011 07:18 AM
  10. strictlystyles's Avatar
    Um has anybody including Verizon realized that the OS just cant handle LTE at this time? Forcing LTE on the OS at this time will just make bad phones with terrible customer satisfaction, and will forever place "sucks" in the minds of Verizon WP7 phone owners, so it doesn't make any sense to push something that wont work at this time.

    Plus they have said before that this was on their roadmap, so cant Verizon just be a bit more positive about the OS, being the HUGE corporation Microsoft is? Especially since full LTE adoption is at least 4-5 years away.

    Verizon will be kicking themselves in the *** yet AGAIN if Microsoft comes out on top in the next few years.
    Last edited by strictlystyles; 12-08-2011 at 05:07 PM.
    12-08-2011 04:45 PM
  11. N8ter's Avatar
    N8ter I agree that the attraction of cdma is network reliability and building penetration. I live around Lake Charles, LA and I have few issues with dropped calls compared to friends on AT&T. I've never compared data speeds, but I have no trouble streaming YouTube and music here and Lafayette. I am looking forward to 4G though. The Verizon store here has told me sometime this summer it will be here. In the meantime they are selling 4G androids like hotcakes.

    Sent from my Windows 7 Phone using Board Express
    I lived near Lafayette, went out sometimes in Lake Charles and Baton Rouge.

    A GSM device (T-Mobile or AT&T) will steamroll the 3G speeds of a CDMA device in Lafayette. Lafayette is an HSPA+ market for both T-Mobile and AT&T, and 3G HSPA devices benefit from the enhanced backhaul. My AT&T and T-Mobile devices could easily get 3Mbps down. The max theoretical of a CDMA Rev. A device is 3.1 Mbps down and about 1Mbps up. My Vibrant was routinely 1Mbps above both of those in Lafayette and even in Scott, La outside of Lafayette.

    There is no way for a CDMA phone to outperform that, because it's a theoretically impossibility given the cell radio in them. There are people who got over 5.5 Mbps down on a Vibrant on 3G. That's almost twice the theoretical maximum speed of a CDMA device.

    The only time a CDMA phone will outperform a GSM phone for 3G speeds is if it's a slower 3.2 mbps 3G GSM device (likely in a decently conjested area - these are devices like a Samsung Jack or Blackberry Curve 3G), or the CDMA network is factorably underused compared to the GSM network in that area, allowing the CDMA phone to get higher speeds by virtue of that component.

    HSPA/HSPA+ has always had higher speeds. That is why AT&T was consistently the fastest rated 3G network prior to the HSPA+ and LTE "4G" roll-outs, despite their issues (and they've put up tons of towers since then). Verizon and Sprint were almost always slower than both AT&T and T-Mobile.

    It's not even really debatable, TBQH...

    Like I said, there are areas where CDMA may sport higher speeds than GSM. That all depends on the area and network load. However, all things being equal, HSPA/HSPA+ will embarass CDMA's 3G speeds - easily. This is fact.

    People picked Verizon because their network is rock solid for calls and things like that. 3G speeds only really became a huge focus for consumers in the past 2-2.5 years when people started streaming tons of media nad things to their phone.

    You can stream YouTube HQ without any issues on a phone with a sub-1Mbps connection, and you can stream whole Netflix Movies on a 1Mbps internet connection through WiFi (been there, done that), so that doesn't really say anything for a network speed comparison. That can often be written off as "placebo."

    Example: http://www.freshnessmag.com/2011/02/...3g-speed-test/
    Last edited by N8ter; 12-08-2011 at 04:51 PM.
    12-08-2011 04:45 PM
  12. scottcraft's Avatar
    I think, but I'm not sure, that HSPA+ is available in Lake Charles. I would love to have those speeds, but I'm not going back to AT&T. Of course, I never had a smartphone until Verizon, so the slower speeds I have and lack of simultaneous voice and data are things I'm accustomed to.

    Sent from my Windows 7 Phone using Board Express
    12-08-2011 04:57 PM
  13. scottcraft's Avatar
    Just wanted to add that I'm not debating whether or not gsm is faster than cdma, that's a given. My point about watching youtube is that the slower speeds offered by Verizon are adequate for what the average user uses a phone for, especially considering the network reliability advantages in some areas.

    Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
    12-08-2011 05:12 PM
  14. Joelist's Avatar
    And I wind up having to go back to my real life experience with the two. I was on VZW went to AT&T then came back to Verizon. My brother is still tethered to AT&T and with these situations we were able to directly compare. Amd my verizon phones uniformly were both much more stable on the network and were faster than his iPhone (they pulled up pages faster and did not have the iPhone tendency to pull up only what you could instantly see on the tiny screen but start rerendering when you tried to scroll).

    And the LTE not only outperforms even the LTE on AT&T in areas like building penetration it has been rolled out way faster than anyone expected. They have had two outages each lasting about 18 hours - not bad with such a huge rollout.
    12-08-2011 08:28 PM
  15. N8ter's Avatar
    Just wanted to add that I'm not debating whether or not gsm is faster than cdma, that's a given. My point about watching youtube is that the slower speeds offered by Verizon are adequate for what the average user uses a phone for, especially considering the network reliability advantages in some areas.

    Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
    We know. Side conversations spring up all the time in threads. But it is a factor to Verizon because without LTE their data speeds are an embarassment compared to T-Mobile and AT&T. Sprint is the same way, that is why they barged forward with "4G" before all the others with WiMax.
    12-08-2011 09:34 PM
  16. N8ter's Avatar
    And I wind up having to go back to my real life experience with the two. I was on VZW went to AT&T then came back to Verizon. My brother is still tethered to AT&T and with these situations we were able to directly compare. Amd my verizon phones uniformly were both much more stable on the network and were faster than his iPhone (they pulled up pages faster and did not have the iPhone tendency to pull up only what you could instantly see on the tiny screen but start rerendering when you tried to scroll).

    And the LTE not only outperforms even the LTE on AT&T in areas like building penetration it has been rolled out way faster than anyone expected. They have had two outages each lasting about 18 hours - not bad with such a huge rollout.
    Nevermind... You're right. Your CDMA 3G totally smokes AT&T in a bad AT&T coverage area. Congratulations.

    Nevermind the fact that AT&T has always had a higher rated 3G network than Verizon even before the HSPA+ backhaul upgrades, T-Mobile as well... HSPA devices in good coverage can get median speeds that are above the theoretical maximum for CDMA Rev A devices. I dunno why I'm even trying. Let's just get back on topic now :P

    P.S.
    (Those are just iPhone 4's, not 4S so just normal 3G EvDo/HSPA on both)

    The 4Mbps speeds the iPhone 4 for AT&T got are over 1Mbps over the theoretical maximum for the Verizon iPhone (3.1Mbps).

    ---

    You're not following the thread, sir/madam... AT&T didn't really need to RUSH to get LTE out, because they're a GSM network. They could, like T-Mobile, just upgrade their backhaul to enable HSPA+ speeds. T-Mobile has 42Mbps max theoretical speeds and AT&T has at least 21Mbps max theoretical HSPA+ speeds. They really, just simply, didn't have the urgent need to roll out LTE the way Sprint and Verizon do, because even without LTE AT&T and T-Mobile phones could get 4-5x higher download and twice or more the upload speeds of a Sprint or Verizon EvDo Rev A device.

    CDMA has always been better at penetration due to lower frequencies used and the frequencies tend to have a larger reach than GSM (therefore they need less tower density to obtain optimal coverage compared to GSM networks). We've already gone over that. LTE is somewhat similar.

    There are AT&T and T-Mobile HSPA+ devices getting 10Mbps download speeds. Really, it wasn't as big a deal for them to roll out LTE as it was for the CDMA networks. CDMA was awesome before the "smartphone revolution" and resulting "data crunch," when people used their phones almost primarily to just make calls and send texts (no one cared about things like Simultaneous Voice and Data back then, remember?). Once ~2008 or so rolled around, the slow 3G speeds on Verizon and Sprint started to become an issue for a lot of people.

    Part of the reason why most AT&T iPhone users stayed with AT&T, despite their bad reputation and Verizon (and later Sprint) getting the iPhone, is because the 3G speeds are phenomenal compared to Verizon and Sprint...

    18 hour LTE outages are terrible regardless of how fast or wide you roll your network out, Lol. Speaking of rolling out, I think you need to do some research on how Wireless Carriers are regulated. You almost speak as if Spectrum is infinite and they can pop up a tower (or start emitting frequencies) whenever and whereever they want...
    Last edited by N8ter; 12-08-2011 at 10:01 PM.
    12-08-2011 09:36 PM
  17. scottcraft's Avatar
    I've read somewhere that Verizon has a faster ping than at&t which allows a Verizon phone to start loading a page faster, but the AT&T phone will load the entire page faster. Not sure if this applies to AT&T enhanced 3G.

    Sent from my Windows 7 Phone using Board Express
    12-08-2011 10:04 PM
  18. Joelist's Avatar
    I'm in Chicago, so if that is a bad coverage area for AT&T they are in big trouble. I've also seen the same effect in Indianapolis and Los Angeles. Maybe this is part of their dreadful service rankings both in surveys and in things like Consumer Reports and also how Verizon was able to make itself the biggest US smartphone player without the iPhone (they had already passed AT&T - the iPhone was gravy).

    I don't understand the tone of some of the responses - it feels like there is wagon circling going on. Verizon's remarks were spot on - even big time Windows Phone supports (like the site I linked) have stated this.

    For all of its innovation and flat out having a better thought out UI concept WP7 is flatlining at 1.5% of the market. They need devices on Verizon because it is the biggest carrier and they can't realistically shut themselves out of that market. Verizon gave Microsoft a matter of fact statement of reality. To wit:

    "We've communicated to Microsoft that LTE is critical to us," Verizon Wireless chief market officer Marni Walden told CNET. "We need to see a timeline that makes sense if we want to continue to represent them."

    LTE is VZW's direction going forward on mobile data networks. It is going over VERY well and what VZW is looking for is a sensible timeline for LTE support in WP7 - in other words the current timeline is not sensible. And lest we forget MS blew this earlier too when they failed to have CDMA ready for the initial launch. Unfortunately WP7 has been hurt by Microsoft's usual inability to move fast and be decisive in areas not Office and PC Operating Systems.
    12-08-2011 11:41 PM
  19. scottcraft's Avatar
    Joelist I agree that WP7 needs LTE on Verizon. My next phone will be LTE capable, I only hope its a windows phone.

    Sent from my Windows 7 Phone using Board Express
    12-08-2011 11:48 PM
  20. naplesbill's Avatar
    Just to be clear, Verizon became larger than AT&T by buying Alltel. They did not do it by adding customers one at a time. Their network is not perfect and really sucks in many parts of Florida. Having used both, side by side for almost 2 years, I can say without a doubt that AT&T UMTS/HSDPA kill Verizons CDMA. Verizon NEEDS LTE for this reason.

    Sent from my PI39100 using Board Express
    12-09-2011 07:11 AM
  21. Winterfang's Avatar
    I'm going with Verizon on this one. Microsoft shouldn't be wasting their time, they can't afford it, not when they are on last place.

    Make a Lumia 800 LTE and bring it to the states.
    12-09-2011 07:24 AM
  22. Reflexx's Avatar
    I don't know what gives people the impression that MS is just wasting time twiddling their thumbs. There isn't a magic wand that they can wave to instantly create all the upgrades while at the same time keeping the code clean, light, and fast.
    12-09-2011 10:47 AM
  23. N8ter's Avatar
    I've read somewhere that Verizon has a faster ping than at&t which allows a Verizon phone to start loading a page faster, but the AT&T phone will load the entire page faster. Not sure if this applies to AT&T enhanced 3G.

    Sent from my Windows 7 Phone using Board Express
    Correct. The CDMA connection is more reliable (faster connects/pings), but the HSPA connection has much faster speed.

    The only time the CDMA connection would be superior is if the ping difference was very dramatic and you were using your phone to tether a laptop for gaming (FPS/MMORPG) - assuming the PING was < 100. 200+ PINGs can make you uncompetitive in some games.
    12-09-2011 11:36 AM
  24. N8ter's Avatar
    I don't know what gives people the impression that MS is just wasting time twiddling their thumbs. There isn't a magic wand that they can wave to instantly create all the upgrades while at the same time keeping the code clean, light, and fast.
    Also keep in perspective they launched the platform without CDMA support for several months...
    12-09-2011 11:38 AM
  25. Joelist's Avatar
    Also keep in perspective they launched the platform without CDMA support for several months...
    Which was stupid on their part. It basically killed any chance of the initial launch getting them a good market share. But then again the marketing execution on the launch was horrid too.

    They would have been better off to delay the launch until they were ready to go on both GSM and CDMA, Then they could have rolled out on all major carriers using the same marketing campaign and gotten better results.
    12-09-2011 01:08 PM
94 1234
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD