Verizon lowers the boom (so to speak)

[N8ter]

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/2011/02/18/att-iphone-vs-verizon-iphone-nationwide-3g-speed-test/

 

[scottcraft]

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

 

[scottcraft]

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

 

[Joelist]

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.

 

[N8ter]

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.

 

[N8ter]

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.S. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yL0kYAMH8Ts
(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...

 

[scottcraft]

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

 

[Joelist]

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.

 

[scottcraft]

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

 

[naplesbill]

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

 

[Winterfang]

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.

 

[Reflexx]

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.

 

[N8ter]

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.

 

[N8ter]

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...

 

[Joelist]

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.

 

[threed61]

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

AT&T is a composite of Southwest Bell and at least a dozen companies which they acquired, including AT&T, from which they got the name. They also added 1.5 million customers from the Alltel merger due to antitrust issues. Since that merger closed 3 years ago, Verizon has continued to grow, just like SBC/AT&T, mostly at the expense of smaller companies.
You mentioned your distrust of the Consumer Reports survey that had Verizon at the top in consumer satisfaction and AT&T at the bottom among nationwide carriers, well try the even larger JD Power survey, same result. Try almost any consumer survey not paid for by AT&T, same result. They blow Verizon away in data speed, but still have a ways to go to catch up in reliability of network.
You compared Verizon to Apple, and thats quite accurate. They have a 'do it our way or go away' attitude, and charge higher prices for less choice and more bloatware.
However, for consumers outside of Texas, when you need a call or an internet connection to go through, VZW is usually the more reliable choice.
I'm still planning to switch from VZW to AT&T to get a better smartphone and speeds, but I may keep a VZW dumbphone line to make sure I can get calls when I really need them.

 

[naplesbill]

AT&T is a composite of Southwest Bell and at least a dozen companies which they acquired, including AT&T, from which they got the name. They also added 1.5 million customers from the Alltel merger due to antitrust issues. Since that merger closed 3 years ago, Verizon has continued to grow, just like SBC/AT&T, mostly at the expense of smaller companies.
You mentioned your distrust of the Consumer Reports survey that had Verizon at the top in consumer satisfaction and AT&T at the bottom among nationwide carriers, well try the even larger JD Power survey, same result. Try almost any consumer survey not paid for by AT&T, same result. They blow Verizon away in data speed, but still have a ways to go to catch up in reliability of network.
You compared Verizon to Apple, and thats quite accurate. They have a 'do it our way or go away' attitude, and charge higher prices for less choice and more bloatware.
However, for consumers outside of Texas, when you need a call or an internet connection to go through, VZW is usually the more reliable choice.
I'm still planning to switch from VZW to AT&T to get a better smartphone and speeds, but I may keep a VZW dumbphone line to make sure I can get calls when I really need them.

All those reliability surveys are based on a sampling. I would have to guess that where I live would not be included in that sampling and that most of FL is probably in the same boat. It seems that the East and West coast cities are the bigger barometers for these types of surveys.

When it comes to where I live and work in FL, AT&T is far more reliable and faster. I cannot either make or maintain calls in half the places I tend to go with Verizon. So the bottom line on this issue is to figure out who is best where you spend most of your time.

AT&T was bigger than Verizon up until Verizon bought Alltel. This is the truth. Verizon and AT&T have both gobbled up other providers over the years. Trying to say that Verizon is better because they bought more subscribers is not a good argument and was my only point in that regard.

 

[threed61]

All those reliability surveys are based on a sampling. I would have to guess that where I live would not be included in that sampling and that most of FL is probably in the same boat. It seems that the East and West coast cities are the bigger barometers for these types of surveys.

When it comes to where I live and work in FL, AT&T is far more reliable and faster. I cannot either make or maintain calls in half the places I tend to go with Verizon. So the bottom line on this issue is to figure out who is best where you spend most of your time.

AT&T was bigger than Verizon up until Verizon bought Alltel. This is the truth. Verizon and AT&T have both gobbled up other providers over the years. Trying to say that Verizon is better because they bought more subscribers is not a good argument and was my only point in that regard.

Even though they have a rather negative reputation with consumers, the vast majority of AT&T customers are satisfied. Since they generally get their lowest marks for customer service, I'm surprised they haven't worked harder to clean that up. Prior to 2009, Sprint was in a similar situation and has made great strides in consumer surveys.
Getting back to the story that inspired the thread, I think VZW is right, MS needs to speed up its timeline, and find a way to introduce 1 or 2 'standout' devices. The one's we've seen so far just blend into Android landscape. Getting the media to talk about a must-have phone does more than any paid advertising.

 

[timberwolf211]

I too agree with Verizon. Its not a bad thing for us a consumer. The only thing that is frustrating is waiting for a LTE Windows phone. I was a android user and was ready to move to another android device. But then I started reading about the windows phone and became hooked. I was really hoping a big windows screen phone with LTE was going to come out. But then my current android died. And I got a **** of a deal on the Trophy. Could not be more happy or excited. I have had this phone for 4 days and I am more impressed than I could have imagined. I think MS needs to encourage more manufactures other than Nokia to make phones with the OS on it. But I really believe that next year will be a blow out year for the Windows Phone. I also think that Blackberry is on the way out and MS will take that spot and start moving into Ios and Android territory.
But when I went to get my Trophy the guy at the Verizon store was like you want what? But then the store could not match the deal I could get online so I just ordered it.

 

[threed61]

I too agree with Verizon. Its not a bad thing for us a consumer. The only thing that is frustrating is waiting for a LTE Windows phone. I was a android user and was ready to move to another android device. But then I started reading about the windows phone and became hooked. I was really hoping a big windows screen phone with LTE was going to come out. But then my current android died. And I got a **** of a deal on the Trophy. Could not be more happy or excited. I have had this phone for 4 days and I am more impressed than I could have imagined. I think MS needs to encourage more manufactures other than Nokia to make phones with the OS on it. But I really believe that next year will be a blow out year for the Windows Phone. I also think that Blackberry is on the way out and MS will take that spot and start moving into Ios and Android territory.
But when I went to get my Trophy the guy at the Verizon store was like you want what? But then the store could not match the deal I could get online so I just ordered it.

Welcome to the forum!