Said:the President of Verizon

[riffdex]

fixed it, second AT&T was supposed to be LTE. And yes, VZW will soon have it. Not having LTE is probably why they turned down the iPhone in the first place.

AT&T doesn't have LTE yet
The most likely reason that VZ turned down the iPhone in the first place is because Apple demanded it not be completely controlled by the carrier. Verizon would have wanted a lot of bloatware installed, and I doubt VZ would have ever considered releasing a phone without the "Verizon Wireless" branding on the back. AT&T made a few compromises to get the iPhone but it made them a lot of profit eventually.

 

[ekyle]

AT&T doesn't have LTE yet
The most likely reason that VZ turned down the iPhone in the first place is because Apple demanded it not be completely controlled by the carrier. Verizon would have wanted a lot of bloatware installed, and I doubt VZ would have ever considered releasing a phone without the "Verizon Wireless" branding on the back. AT&T made a few compromises to get the iPhone but it made them a lot of profit eventually.

Ah crap, you're right. I was thinking that is what they were using for simultaneous data and voice

 

[Palmetto Fellow]

Ah crap, you're right. I was thinking that is what they were using for simultaneous data and voice

AT&T uses two different radios for their simultaneous voice and data feeds. The voice rides on GSM and the data rides on a CDMA type of infrastructure.

AT&T's 3G UMTS is a CDMA technology from what I recall reading.

 

[ekyle]

AT&T uses two different radios for their simultaneous voice and data feeds. The voice rides on GSM and the data rides on a CDMA type of infrastructure.

AT&T's 3G UMTS is a CDMA technology from what I recall reading.

Yep, sorry about that. Confused myself. I just read a little on it again

 

[tommy_ed]

Only because AT&Ts network sucks. VZ could have handled it

They'll be able to handle it after LTE is implemented.

No they couldn't have.

yes, i'm sure they could have, and can. Go back to page one and read my earlier post. Verizon's CDMA network can handle almost quadruple the number of users per tower than AT&T's GSM technology can. Click on OTD's link to IOWA's article "Why CDMA is better than GSM" below my post

 

[Snow_Fox]

whether or not they would have been able to handle the initial upsurge in use is up for debate..

sure they can handle 4x as many people..

But, what happens when people have 4x as much data to use?

 

[tommy_ed]

whether or not they would have been able to handle the initial upsurge in use is up for debate..

sure they can handle 4x as many people..

But, what happens when people have 4x as much data to use?

i guess im just still trying to figure out how iphone users use more data than android users? I think it would be about the same.

 

[riffdex]

i guess im just still trying to figure out how iphone users use more data than android users? I think it would be about the same.

They don't

Android users gobble more data than iPhone users - Technology & science - Wireless - msnbc.com
Verizon users outpace iPhone owners in data usage - CNN.com

 

[Hrethgir]

whether or not they would have been able to handle the initial upsurge in use is up for debate..

sure they can handle 4x as many people..

But, what happens when people have 4x as much data to use?

Well, I guess the ability to handle 4x as many people would probably play into that. Either way, Verizons network can handle more than AT&Ts network, and that is why the iPhone would have been better on Verizon instead of AT&T. Half the reason I bailed early on my iPhone 3Gs was to get away from AT&T, just too many call quality and dropped call issues. And I'd been with AT&T for 10+ years. Their network just can't handle what iPhone users are doing, while Verizons can. I'm new to Verizon, but from day 1, the wife and I have been very happy and impressed with the call quality, and unlike AT&T users who have been having more and more problems as the iPhone got more popular, I haven't been hearing the same thing from Verizon users as Android gains popularity, and I don't thing Android is sipping bandwidth compared to the iPhone.

 

[tommy_ed]

They don't

Android users gobble more data than iPhone users - Technology & science - Wireless - msnbc.com
Verizon users outpace iPhone owners in data usage - CNN.com

so if verizon can handle more and more droid users daily, and no bogging down whatsoever has been noticeable, why would it be bogged down by users that use less data?

 

[riffdex]

so if verizon can handle more and more droid users daily, and no bogging down whatsoever has been noticeable, why would it be bogged down by users that use less data?

My point exactly. (Snow_Fox is the one who said that VZ would be bogged down).

 

[tommy_ed]

My point exactly. (Snow_Fox is the one who said that VZ would be bogged down).

well i feel stupid now

 

[riffdex]

well i feel stupid now

Haha it's all good man

 

[IOWA]

IOWA have a opinion here?

Sure I do!

NSFW - Language.

Spoiler

 

[Aero1]

cdma >> gsm

Nah. That is like saying French is better than English. The answer is: it depends.

http://androidforums.com/lounge/82363-why-cdma-better-than-gsm.html

I dont find that compelling in the least. It is fairly partisan. There are a few CDMA advantages but the argument made in that post doesn't emphasize the two key massive GSM advantages over CDMA, a) the huge number of phones on GSM b) interoperability of GSM while traveling.

I have CDMA because of Sprints pricing. I suspect that is the case for many.

 

[OfTheDamned]

Nah. That is like saying French is better than English. The answer is: it depends.

I dont find that compelling in the least. It is fairly partisan. There are a few CDMA advantages but the argument made in that post doesn't emphasize the two key massive GSM advantages over CDMA, a) the huge number of phones on GSM b) interoperability of GSM while traveling.

I have CDMA because of Sprints pricing. I suspect that is the case for many.

Unless they are Verizon customers where Sprint's prices wouldn't really matter.

 

[riffdex]

Nah. That is like saying French is better than English. The answer is: it depends.

I dont find that compelling in the least. It is fairly partisan. There are a few CDMA advantages but the argument made in that post doesn't emphasize the two key massive GSM advantages over CDMA, a) the huge number of phones on GSM b) interoperability of GSM while traveling.

I have CDMA because of Sprints pricing. I suspect that is the case for many.

There are a lot of fair points in that article that show how CDMA is a superior technology to GSM. I don't find it very partisan. GSM definitely has a few advantages as you mentioned. But these are all artificial advantages, arising from the fact that the European governments banded together to kill CDMA in Europe. Technologically speaking though, CDMA is better than GSM.