Question about LTE roll out.

[boomhower]

The iphone thread got me thinking and here are some of the results.

As we all know Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile are going with LTE for 4G while Sprint has gone with Wimax. Everyone keeps saying LTE will be rolled out in 2011. My question is what kind of roll out is going to be. Is going to the major markets with a few smaller areas. If that's the case they are still going to have CDMA around for the non-LTE area. My situation for instance. I live in city of ~12,000 and have a neighboring city around 20 miles away. But from here you have to drive a hour and a half to get to charlote. Fayettevile is around a hour so. Raligh is a pretty good haul.


Are they going to be able to support these city right off the back or if we are going suffer with CDMA for months or years. A CDMA iphone would make sense here. LTE isn't everywhere and we still need to see phones. Why go ahead and do them both. Have the high speed for those that can use it and the vanilla CMDA for EVDO users. The costs can also be shared with Sprint to get teh CDMA version to them. For whatever damn reason the are going with wimax, they are going to have CDMA around for a long time. My understainding is LTE does voice and data by itself where as wimax is data only so they are going to have to keep CMDA for the voice or try VOIP for the voice, I dont have a clue how that would work out.

I guess what I am getting at, is that there is still plenty of life left in CMDA for Apple to make a ton of money. Doing the R&D to swap GSM to CDMA isn't that bad. Many companies have a ton of experience in. Heck they may want to go poach some engineers from HTC for task. I just don't think the hardware side is problem, its just easy to use as a reason to wait. Once the ipad fires up in full bloom AT&T and it upgrades are going to start crying.

 

[Pliablemoose]

You and I think alike

They'll be running CDMA on the network for years...

 

[idiotekniQues]

you guys both know that all 4 carriers in the US are running CDMA networks?

 

[Pliablemoose]

you guys both know that all 4 carriers in the US are running CDMA networks?

I was under the impression that Verizon, Sprint, US Cellular, Cricket, and Metro PCS were the only ones.

ATT & TMobile are CDMA?

 

[idiotekniQues]

I was under the impression that Verizon, Sprint, US Cellular, Cricket, and Metro PCS were the only ones.

ATT & TMobile are CDMA?

AT&T and T-Mobile's 3G networks are WCDMA. I know it is different than the cdma used by sprint and verizon but it is still a form of CDMA technology.

"WCDMA

(Wideband Code Division Multiple Access)

Wideband CDMA is a third-generation (3G) wireless standard which utilizes one 5 MHz channel for both voice and data, initially offering data speeds up to 384 Kbps. WCDMA is the 3G technology used in the US by AT&T and T-Mobile.

See: 3G

There are several newer technologies that offer much faster data speeds, such as HSDPA, HSUPA, and HSPA. These do not replace WCDMA, but rather build on and enhance WCDMA. Therefore any phone with HSDPA also includes WCDMA by definition."

 

[bearxor]

There really isn't any point in a GSM vs CDMA argument anymore. W-CDMA (UMTS) has a lot of CDMA2k fetures rolled in it while the base is compatible with GSM and LTE is the next progression of that. That's why it's easily a natural progression for Verizon and AT&T to both shift to LTE.

So, in the sense of AT&T and T-Mobile using CDMA, it's partially true. I feel like the two technologies (W-CDMA and CDMA2k) are so similar that it's not even worth arguing over anymore.

The odd one out here is Sprint, because WiMax isn't a transitional upgrade from CDMA2k. I don't think WiMax will make it with virtually every carrier in the world going LTE and I think that will be the downfall of Sprint. The handset manufacturers will decide Sprint's fate.

I see a severe shortage of cool phone on Sprint's network in the next 2-6 years. The majority of people (including me *cough*iPhone*cough*) in America choose their carrier based off the phone selection. Price, coverage and call quality are secondary, IMO and these are three area where, I feel, Sprint excells, but not having the cool phones that AT&T and Verizon have is going to hurt.

It's too bad because it was just a few years ago that Sprint was the place to go for cool phones, especially smart devices. I'm very interested to see if Sprint can make it to 2016 where they will simply have to switch network technologies again or start rolling out their own brand of phones that they manufacture. (Sprint Touchpoint 3?)

AT&T and T-Mobile's 3G networks are WCDMA. I know it is different than the cdma used by sprint and verizon but it is still a form of CDMA technology.

I think an accurate quick description would be that it is base GSM technology with CDMA enhancements.

 

[Slick5150]

AT&T and T-Mobile's 3G networks are WCDMA. I know it is different than the cdma used by sprint and verizon but it is still a form of CDMA technology.

"WCDMA

(Wideband Code Division Multiple Access)

Wideband CDMA is a third-generation (3G) wireless standard which utilizes one 5 MHz channel for both voice and data, initially offering data speeds up to 384 Kbps. WCDMA is the 3G technology used in the US by AT&T and T-Mobile.

See: 3G

There are several newer technologies that offer much faster data speeds, such as HSDPA, HSUPA, and HSPA. These do not replace WCDMA, but rather build on and enhance WCDMA. Therefore any phone with HSDPA also includes WCDMA by definition."

Well, no. While they share a similar name, the WCDMA implementation used by AT&T and T-Mobile is known as UMTS, which is essentially the 3G version of the 2G GSM network. UMTS' direct competitor is CDMA2000, which in the US is implemented as EVDO by Verizon and Sprint.

So, no, not all 4 carries are CDMA. AT&T and T-Mobile are UMTS/GSM, while Verizon and Sprint are EVDO/CDMA.

Going back to the OP, LTE is an extension of the UMTS standard, while WiMax is really an extention of the 802.11 (WiFi) standards. currently LTE's specs offer higher bandwidth, but an updated 802.16m WiMax standard should bump it's speeds all the way up to a (theoretical) gigabit.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Apple has a contract with AT&T on the iPhone. This isn't an issue of technology (although, with LTE tech we will be able to put the iPhone on any carrier that uses LTE as we currently can put the iPhone on T-Mobile for example).

Apple and AT&T have an exclusive contract, and that won't be changing. The only thing that will change with this is that a jailbroken iPhone can be used with more networks than simply AT&T/T-Mobile. Why would Apple put R&D $ into a EoL tech that would basically violate any sort of "non-compete" type clause they have in the AT&T/iPhone deal they have?

 

[idiotekniQues]

Well, no. While they share a similar name, the WCDMA implementation used by AT&T and T-Mobile is known as UMTS, which is essentially the 3G version of the 2G GSM network. UMTS' direct competitor is CDMA2000, which in the US is implemented as EVDO by Verizon and Sprint.

So, no, not all 4 carries are CDMA. AT&T and T-Mobile are UMTS/GSM, while Verizon and Sprint are EVDO/CDMA.

Going back to the OP, LTE is an extension of the UMTS standard, while WiMax is really an extention of the 802.11 (WiFi) standards. currently LTE's specs offer higher bandwidth, but an updated 802.16m WiMax standard should bump it's speeds all the way up to a (theoretical) gigabit.

unfortunately, when you need to use some CDMA technology to make your network 3G speeds, yes, you are using a form of CDMA technology on your network, no matter how much you try to deny it. WCDMA is what is used for UMTS technology by AT&T and T-Mo.

the point is that people say CDMA is bad but have no clue what they are talking about when all 4 carriers are using potent technology that works, you can't just say cdma sucks just like you can't say GSM sucks, which people tend to do, for no real rhyme or reasons.

 

[Slick5150]

Apple has a contract with AT&T on the iPhone. This isn't an issue of technology (although, with LTE tech we will be able to put the iPhone on any carrier that uses LTE as we currently can put the iPhone on T-Mobile for example).

Apple and AT&T have an exclusive contract, and that won't be changing. The only thing that will change with this is that a jailbroken iPhone can be used with more networks than simply AT&T/T-Mobile. Why would Apple put R&D $ into a EoL tech that would basically violate any sort of "non-compete" type clause they have in the AT&T/iPhone deal they have?

Yes and no. First, nobody is sure when AT&T/Apple's deal ends. It's thought to end this year sometime. And it wouldn't be much work involved in putting an EVDO/CDMA radio in the iPhone to make it work on Verizon's network.

Second, just because companies use the same technology (LTE) doesn't mean the phone will automatically work on one or the other. While yes, you can use an iPhone on T-Mobile, you can only use it on their older 2G/EDGE network because the iPhone's radio doesn't work w/ the frequency T-Mobile uses for their 3G network.

I haven't seen what the implementation plans are yet for Verizon/AT&T/T-Mobile as far as their LTE networks will be concerned.

 

[Slick5150]

unfortunately, when you need to use some CDMA technology to make your network 3G speeds, yes, you are using a form of CDMA technology on your network, no matter how much you try to deny it. WCDMA is what is used for UMTS technology by AT&T and T-Mo.

the point is that people say CDMA is bad but have no clue what they are talking about when all 4 carriers are using potent technology that works, you can't just say cdma sucks just like you can't say GSM sucks, which people tend to do, for no real rhyme or reasons.

Well, I agree with the idea that neither CDMA or GSM "suck". They're just 2 different means to the same end. The deciding factor on whether a network is "good" or not will depend on coverage of towers and, do some extent, what frequencies are being used as some are better at penetrating buildings than others.

But I still think you're stating a confusing argument that UMTS and EVDO are built off the same standards. They simply aren't.

 

[idiotekniQues]

Well, I agree with the idea that neither CDMA or GSM "suck". They're just 2 different means to the same end. The deciding factor on whether a network is "good" or not will depend on coverage of towers and, do some extent, what frequencies are being used as some are better at penetrating buildings than others.

But I still think you're stating a confusing argument that UMTS and EVDO are built off the same standards. They simply aren't.

i didnt say evdo and umts are built off of the same standards. i said UMTS uses some CDMA technology to get 3G speeds. and it does. it is an evolution from GSM.

so in a sense, everybody is running some kind of CDMA in their networks. cdma, from what i know, is how the information is sent across the entire frequency spectrum - it chops up the data into numerous pieces, and the correct data is grabbed by the phone with the correct code, vs chopping up data by time over a very specific frequency.

just to show that really, saying CDMA is a poor technology is really just kind of silly. it can refer to numerous things, but in the end, being stuck on CDMA is a nonsensical statement.

it also proves that going with code division multiple access was a smarter choice than going with the time division multiple access that GSM originally went with.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Yes and no. First, nobody is sure when AT&T/Apple's deal ends. It's thought to end this year sometime. And it wouldn't be much work involved in putting an EVDO/CDMA radio in the iPhone to make it work on Verizon's network.

Second, just because companies use the same technology (LTE) doesn't mean the phone will automatically work on one or the other. While yes, you can use an iPhone on T-Mobile, you can only use it on their older 2G/EDGE network because the iPhone's radio doesn't work w/ the frequency T-Mobile uses for their 3G network.

I haven't seen what the implementation plans are yet for Verizon/AT&T/T-Mobile as far as their LTE networks will be concerned.

Well, yeah. I was trying to simplify things with some assumptions.

First was that when the exclusive contract ends (since nobody, save Apple and AT&T, knows for sure when that will be just that it will happen), Apple will not develop for CDMA. If they wanted to go with Verizon they would go with LTE tech. Yes, it would just require putting the radio in to get it to work, but I doubt they would put $/time into doing that when the LTE conversion should happen soon on Verizon. Apple is a company that would rather take the loss from not creating CDMA phones, to instead have a big deal with the LTE rollout and make it a reason to buy the iPhone with the LTE network on Verizon.

Secondly, since we don't know if all carriers will use the same LTE tech and if the exlusive phones stuff will remain. Currently, if you want X phone you have to go with Y network tech. I personally don't have any expectations that will change, but I hope it does with LTE. I doubt Verizon/AT&T would choose to use the same tech, because that means carriers won't matter for phones. Any phone on any network is a negative for the companies (especially AT&T/iPhone, but Verizon would suffer losses as well), and I highly doubt that will happen. Now, assuming that I'm wrong and they all will work together so we have basically 2 networks LTE and WiMAX (where LTE just dominates), then the iPhone for LTE would be workable on any carrier save Sprint/WiMAX.

Regardless of all that though, there won't be an iPhone on CDMA. As somebody else already said, we won't see a Verizon based iPhone until LTE is rolled out at the earliest.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

i didnt say evdo and umts are built off of the same standards. i said UMTS uses some CDMA technology to get 3G speeds. and it does. it is an evolution from GSM.

so in a sense, everybody is running some kind of CDMA in their networks. cdma, from what i know, is how the information is sent across the entire frequency spectrum - it chops up the data into numerous pieces, and the correct data is grabbed by the phone with the correct code, vs chopping up data by time over a very specific frequency.

just to show that really, saying CDMA is a poor technology is really just kind of silly. it can refer to numerous things, but in the end, being stuck on CDMA is a nonsensical statement.

it also proves that going with code division multiple access was a smarter choice than going with the time division multiple access that GSM originally went with.

Not really.

What it proves is that some companies were "ahead of the curve" by adopting CDMA based tech earlier. It does not say that that CDMA>TDMA for the time they were developed and used. TDMA worked, and worked well for what it was intended to do. Now that the market has evolved since that tech was devloped and has become much more data-centric. Both techs work, it's just that CDMA is better for the next generation based off what we have seen.

Both work, and both work well. Saying one was the better choice than the other for the time they were devloped and used is just stupid.

 

[frostedflakes]

I *thought* I read at one point in time that Verizon was planning to be fully transitioned to LTE by 2013. Don't quote me on that, though.

 

[idiotekniQues]

Not really.

What it proves is that some companies were "ahead of the curve" by adopting CDMA based tech earlier. It does not say that that CDMA>TDMA for the time they were developed and used. TDMA worked, and worked well for what it was intended to do. Now that the market has evolved since that tech was devloped and has become much more data-centric. Both techs work, it's just that CDMA is better for the next generation based off what we have seen.

Both work, and both work well. Saying one was the better choice than the other for the time they were devloped and used is just stupid.

sure it does. i didn't say GSM didn't work, it did work well and served its purpose on one of the most successful wireless technologies of its time- but the fact that you can't deny is the code division multiple access turned out to be a better way to divy up information across frequency than time division did. therefore that shows making a smarter choice as that's the way it evolved for all technologies years later. that shows the smarts. what is amazing is that you admit cdma was 'ahead of the curve' - and then deny what i said. we said the same thing. being ahead of the curve is essentially making a smarter more forward looking decision. so really, you agreed with me, then said it was stupid. pretty wacky.

 

[zerocool84]

I *thought* I read at one point in time that Verizon was planning to be fully transitioned to LTE by 2013. Don't quote me on that, though.

Well we all know that's never going to happen with any company. They are all going to need to keep their old networks for years to come to support the millions of people that keep their old phones.

 

[coolVariable]

Pretty sure Apple is not going to bring the iphone out for verizon/sprint.

1. They get a pretty sweet deal by keeping it exclusive.
2. Why make a phone that can only be used in 1 country? (the current iphone is the closest thing to a world phone for 3G frequencies ... 850+1900+2100 pretty much give you 3G access in any country in the world)
3. If at all, I can see Apple creating a phone that also supports AWS (in addition to its current 3G frequencies) ... making the iphone also compatible with TMUS.

 

[jersiq]

sure it does. i didn't say GSM didn't work, it did work well and served its purpose on one of the most successful wireless technologies of its time- but the fact that you can't deny is the code division multiple access turned out to be a better way to divy up information across frequency than time division did. therefore that shows making a smarter choice as that's the way it evolved for all technologies years later. that shows the smarts. what is amazing is that you admit cdma was 'ahead of the curve' - and then deny what i said. we said the same thing. being ahead of the curve is essentially making a smarter more forward looking decision. so really, you agreed with me, then said it was stupid. pretty wacky.

Actually, it wasn't any forward thinking. In both cases, the providers have to do quite a bit of infrastructure change. In Verizon's case, it's an entirely new path, whereas the non-CDMA operators will have a slightly easier time upgrading.

Heck, even EVDO uses TDM on the forward link to increase robustness.

And LTE is based off of OFDMA (forward link, Flash OFDM on the reverse link), hence the need for infrastructure changes. The transmitters would be too awkward to support the CDMA chip rates and LTE chip rates. Interoperability and seamless roaming with 3g networks were a feature of the carriers demanding it.

But yeah OP, expect concurrent networks, and I think they said they won't be built until 2013.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Actually, it wasn't any forward thinking. In both cases, the providers have to do quite a bit of infrastructure change. In Verizon's case, it's an entirely new path, whereas the non-CDMA operators will have a slightly easier time upgrading.

Heck, even EVDO uses TDM on the forward link to increase robustness.

And LTE is based off of OFDMA (forward link, Flash OFDM on the reverse link), hence the need for infrastructure changes. The transmitters would be too awkward to support the CDMA chip rates and LTE chip rates. Interoperability and seamless roaming with 3g networks were a feature of the carriers demanding it.

But yeah OP, expect concurrent networks, and I think they said they won't be built until 2013.

He beat me to it.

We agree that CDMA is better tech, but when CDMA was developed it wasn't planned to be used in 4G networks. We have discovered that CDMA is better for the types of networks we have evolved to use, but they weren't planned to be ahead of the curve as it appears you are claiming. If they were making a smarter more forward looking decision, then they would have gone with a tech that required less expense to go to LTE then they have to.

If it really was a "smarter forward looking decision", then why will it be a more costly upgrade for CDMA based networks? My point is simply that they didn't go with CDMA because they strategically planned and knew it would be better in the long run.

This is kind of a pointless argument though

 

[frostedflakes]

Well we all know that's never going to happen with any company. They are all going to need to keep their old networks for years to come to support the millions of people that keep their old phones.

Huh? The LTE network will be backwards compatible with CDMA2000, so that's not an issue. Besides, most people update their phone every two years (or earlier) anyway.

edit: Actually reading your reply in the context of my original post, I think I see what you're saying now. What I meant was that they would have full LTE coverage by 2013. The CDMA2000 hardware will still be around for backward compatibility, though, I don't think they intend to have an LTE *only* network as early as 2013. It was only around 2008 that most providers fully phased out their analog AMPS/1G systems.

 

[idiotekniQues]

He beat me to it.

We agree that CDMA is better tech, but when CDMA was developed it wasn't planned to be used in 4G networks. We have discovered that CDMA is better for the types of networks we have evolved to use, but they weren't planned to be ahead of the curve as it appears you are claiming. If they were making a smarter more forward looking decision, then they would have gone with a tech that required less expense to go to LTE then they have to.

If it really was a "smarter forward looking decision", then why will it be a more costly upgrade for CDMA based networks? My point is simply that they didn't go with CDMA because they strategically planned and knew it would be better in the long run.

This is kind of a pointless argument though

i agree that we can't know if they planned on going with CDMA because they strategically planned and knew it would be better in the long run - although I am sure we can read and find out - forward looking companies have road maps for years ahead on upcoming technology adaptation. so it is possible they knew, or it is possible they did not know.

but when you pick between two things, and pick the one that is proved to work better down the road, in this case how to divy up data across spectrum, most people usually consider that the smarter move. you knew something then that was the most adaptable to future use. i'm not sure why nobody wants to give this little bit of credit, where credit is due. companies and platforms can live and die based upon these decisions that years later decide what works and what doesnt.

 

[zerocool84]

Huh? The LTE network will be backwards compatible with CDMA2000, so that's not an issue. Besides, most people update their phone every two years (or earlier) anyway.

edit: Actually reading your reply in the context of my original post, I think I see what you're saying now. What I meant was that they would have full LTE coverage by 2013. The CDMA2000 hardware will still be around for backward compatibility, though, I don't think they intend to have an LTE *only* network as early as 2013. It was only around 2008 that most providers fully phased out their analog AMPS/1G systems.

Oh ok I thought that's what you meant, get rid of the older CDMA and use only LTE.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

i agree that we can't know if they planned on going with CDMA because they strategically planned and knew it would be better in the long run - although I am sure we can read and find out - forward looking companies have road maps for years ahead on upcoming technology adaptation. so it is possible they knew, or it is possible they did not know.

but when you pick between two things, and pick the one that is proved to work better down the road, in this case how to divy up data across spectrum, most people usually consider that the smarter move. you knew something then that was the most adaptable to future use. i'm not sure why nobody wants to give this little bit of credit, where credit is due. companies and platforms can live and die based upon these decisions that years later decide what works and what doesnt.

True decisions made now can have ramifications for years down the road. If they actually made that for strategic reasons, then I'd give them credit. As of now though, I'm not going to give them really any credit for it. If they had created their network to be cheaper to upgrade to LTE, then I'd give them credit but as it stands that's not the case.

Luck and strategery are different things

 

[uli2000]

Even when LTE goes live, don't look for LTE phones right away. We will see data devices like what Sprint/Clear is doing with WiMax. The chipsets will be too big for phones at first so we will see data cards and devices w/ LTE built in (laptops/netbooks/ipad?) before we start seeing phones. And afaik, Verizon already has a small LTE network live in Boston for testing.