1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Expecting Cell Phone Forums? We recently moved Verizon specific content to VerizonForums.com. If you previously had an account on CPF, it has been transferred!
    Dismiss Notice

ATT vs. Verizon

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by Brian Grigg, Jun 16, 2004.

  1. I do not know of any gsm carriers in the USA that have launched
    wcdma. If you do, who are they, and where? I was also under the
    impression that a phone could not maintain the call while switching from
    wcdma to gsm, or the other way.


    JatJatIan wrote:

    > Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<F2iCc.15132$Wr.3839@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
    >
    >>Correct, wcdma is not Verizon/Sprint PCS 3G CDMA.
    >> But as for a wcdma falling back to gsm for voice when there is no
    >>wcdma signal, I doubt it. I think that if not at the same time it will
    >>be very soon after wcdma is launched, the launching carrier will turn
    >>the gsm completely off. I doubt there will be dual mode gsm/wcdma phones.

    >
    >
    > All current UMTS (WCDMA) phones I am aware of (about half a dozen) as well
    > as UMTS networks support fall-back to GSM, both when the phone is idle
    > and is moved to a non-UMTS area, or during a call. Most if not all
    > have an indicator to say if you are on 3G or 2G. Some phones (e.g.
    > some of the LGE) allow you to select which network type you want.
    > The added cost to support GSM is quite low in a phone.
    >
    > A UMTS-only phone isn't marketable anywhere today, nor will be it for
    > some time to come. GSM operators cannot afford to swith to UMTS that
    > quickly -- it is a very complex process.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Jatian
     



    › See More: ATT vs. Verizon
  2. I do not know of any gsm carriers in the USA that have launched
    wcdma. If you do, who are they, and where? I was also under the
    impression that a phone could not maintain the call while switching from
    wcdma to gsm, or the other way.


    JatJatIan wrote:

    > Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<F2iCc.15132$Wr.3839@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
    >
    >>Correct, wcdma is not Verizon/Sprint PCS 3G CDMA.
    >> But as for a wcdma falling back to gsm for voice when there is no
    >>wcdma signal, I doubt it. I think that if not at the same time it will
    >>be very soon after wcdma is launched, the launching carrier will turn
    >>the gsm completely off. I doubt there will be dual mode gsm/wcdma phones.

    >
    >
    > All current UMTS (WCDMA) phones I am aware of (about half a dozen) as well
    > as UMTS networks support fall-back to GSM, both when the phone is idle
    > and is moved to a non-UMTS area, or during a call. Most if not all
    > have an indicator to say if you are on 3G or 2G. Some phones (e.g.
    > some of the LGE) allow you to select which network type you want.
    > The added cost to support GSM is quite low in a phone.
    >
    > A UMTS-only phone isn't marketable anywhere today, nor will be it for
    > some time to come. GSM operators cannot afford to swith to UMTS that
    > quickly -- it is a very complex process.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Jatian
     
  3. I do not know of any gsm carriers in the USA that have launched
    wcdma. If you do, who are they, and where? I was also under the
    impression that a phone could not maintain the call while switching from
    wcdma to gsm, or the other way.


    JatJatIan wrote:

    > Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<F2iCc.15132$Wr.3839@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
    >
    >>Correct, wcdma is not Verizon/Sprint PCS 3G CDMA.
    >> But as for a wcdma falling back to gsm for voice when there is no
    >>wcdma signal, I doubt it. I think that if not at the same time it will
    >>be very soon after wcdma is launched, the launching carrier will turn
    >>the gsm completely off. I doubt there will be dual mode gsm/wcdma phones.

    >
    >
    > All current UMTS (WCDMA) phones I am aware of (about half a dozen) as well
    > as UMTS networks support fall-back to GSM, both when the phone is idle
    > and is moved to a non-UMTS area, or during a call. Most if not all
    > have an indicator to say if you are on 3G or 2G. Some phones (e.g.
    > some of the LGE) allow you to select which network type you want.
    > The added cost to support GSM is quite low in a phone.
    >
    > A UMTS-only phone isn't marketable anywhere today, nor will be it for
    > some time to come. GSM operators cannot afford to swith to UMTS that
    > quickly -- it is a very complex process.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Jatian
     
  4. In article <s0oDc.14804$w07.3415@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
    > I do not know of any gsm carriers in the USA that have launched
    >wcdma.


    AT&T Wireless hasn't launched yet. However, UMTS the network is up
    and working in a few markets. Should launch very soon in those
    markets.

    I expect to be using EDGE for most of my data needs for the next year
    or so. Then we'll see, maybe I'll end up switching to EV-DO or maybe
    I'll go with UMTS. Right now, EDGE is the fastest data network
    available in most places I travel to.
     
  5. In article <s0oDc.14804$w07.3415@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
    > I do not know of any gsm carriers in the USA that have launched
    >wcdma.


    AT&T Wireless hasn't launched yet. However, UMTS the network is up
    and working in a few markets. Should launch very soon in those
    markets.

    I expect to be using EDGE for most of my data needs for the next year
    or so. Then we'll see, maybe I'll end up switching to EV-DO or maybe
    I'll go with UMTS. Right now, EDGE is the fastest data network
    available in most places I travel to.
     
  6. In article <s0oDc.14804$w07.3415@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
    > I do not know of any gsm carriers in the USA that have launched
    >wcdma.


    AT&T Wireless hasn't launched yet. However, UMTS the network is up
    and working in a few markets. Should launch very soon in those
    markets.

    I expect to be using EDGE for most of my data needs for the next year
    or so. Then we'll see, maybe I'll end up switching to EV-DO or maybe
    I'll go with UMTS. Right now, EDGE is the fastest data network
    available in most places I travel to.
     
  7. In article <s0oDc.14804$w07.3415@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
    > I do not know of any gsm carriers in the USA that have launched
    >wcdma.


    AT&T Wireless hasn't launched yet. However, UMTS the network is up
    and working in a few markets. Should launch very soon in those
    markets.

    I expect to be using EDGE for most of my data needs for the next year
    or so. Then we'll see, maybe I'll end up switching to EV-DO or maybe
    I'll go with UMTS. Right now, EDGE is the fastest data network
    available in most places I travel to.
     
  8. JatJatIan

    JatJatIan Guest

    Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<s0oDc.14804$w07.3415@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
    > I do not know of any gsm carriers in the USA that have launched
    > wcdma. If you do, who are they, and where? I was also under the
    > impression that a phone could not maintain the call while switching from
    > wcdma to gsm, or the other way.


    AWS has announced trials which are currently in preperation. Cities
    mentioned have been San Francisco, Seattle, Dallas, San Diego, and
    Miami, but I don't which are real. Cingular has announced their first
    UMTS trial will be in Atlanta, later this year. Of course, Cingular
    plans to acquire AWS. I haven't heard anything from T-Mobile (US).
    When they will offer commercial service to the public is anyone's guess.

    Cingular has also announced HSDPA which is the UMTS feature to do
    really high speed data (many Mbps) efficiently (like CDMA2000 EV-DO
    but with higher bandwidth). Without HSDPA, you are limited to 384K
    downlink -- this is what Vodaphone is doing in Europe using PCMCIA
    cards for laptops and it still beats GPRS/GSM by a mile.

    Yes, there is handover from UMTS to GSM and the other direction, for
    both voice and data (GPRS sessions). The GSM network requires
    some smallish upgrade to be able to talk to the UMTS network to
    coordinate the handover -- overall it is a tricky procedure.
    GSM->UMTS handover is viewed as less important, as in the early
    deployments, you would not find an area that was only had UMTS
    coverage. The UMTS phones will try to stay on UMTS, and only go to
    GSM if they have to.

    Regards,
    Jatian
     
  9. JatJatIan

    JatJatIan Guest

    Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<s0oDc.14804$w07.3415@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
    > I do not know of any gsm carriers in the USA that have launched
    > wcdma. If you do, who are they, and where? I was also under the
    > impression that a phone could not maintain the call while switching from
    > wcdma to gsm, or the other way.


    AWS has announced trials which are currently in preperation. Cities
    mentioned have been San Francisco, Seattle, Dallas, San Diego, and
    Miami, but I don't which are real. Cingular has announced their first
    UMTS trial will be in Atlanta, later this year. Of course, Cingular
    plans to acquire AWS. I haven't heard anything from T-Mobile (US).
    When they will offer commercial service to the public is anyone's guess.

    Cingular has also announced HSDPA which is the UMTS feature to do
    really high speed data (many Mbps) efficiently (like CDMA2000 EV-DO
    but with higher bandwidth). Without HSDPA, you are limited to 384K
    downlink -- this is what Vodaphone is doing in Europe using PCMCIA
    cards for laptops and it still beats GPRS/GSM by a mile.

    Yes, there is handover from UMTS to GSM and the other direction, for
    both voice and data (GPRS sessions). The GSM network requires
    some smallish upgrade to be able to talk to the UMTS network to
    coordinate the handover -- overall it is a tricky procedure.
    GSM->UMTS handover is viewed as less important, as in the early
    deployments, you would not find an area that was only had UMTS
    coverage. The UMTS phones will try to stay on UMTS, and only go to
    GSM if they have to.

    Regards,
    Jatian
     
  10. JatJatIan

    JatJatIan Guest

    Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<s0oDc.14804$w07.3415@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
    > I do not know of any gsm carriers in the USA that have launched
    > wcdma. If you do, who are they, and where? I was also under the
    > impression that a phone could not maintain the call while switching from
    > wcdma to gsm, or the other way.


    AWS has announced trials which are currently in preperation. Cities
    mentioned have been San Francisco, Seattle, Dallas, San Diego, and
    Miami, but I don't which are real. Cingular has announced their first
    UMTS trial will be in Atlanta, later this year. Of course, Cingular
    plans to acquire AWS. I haven't heard anything from T-Mobile (US).
    When they will offer commercial service to the public is anyone's guess.

    Cingular has also announced HSDPA which is the UMTS feature to do
    really high speed data (many Mbps) efficiently (like CDMA2000 EV-DO
    but with higher bandwidth). Without HSDPA, you are limited to 384K
    downlink -- this is what Vodaphone is doing in Europe using PCMCIA
    cards for laptops and it still beats GPRS/GSM by a mile.

    Yes, there is handover from UMTS to GSM and the other direction, for
    both voice and data (GPRS sessions). The GSM network requires
    some smallish upgrade to be able to talk to the UMTS network to
    coordinate the handover -- overall it is a tricky procedure.
    GSM->UMTS handover is viewed as less important, as in the early
    deployments, you would not find an area that was only had UMTS
    coverage. The UMTS phones will try to stay on UMTS, and only go to
    GSM if they have to.

    Regards,
    Jatian
     
  11. JatJatIan

    JatJatIan Guest

    Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<s0oDc.14804$w07.3415@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
    > I do not know of any gsm carriers in the USA that have launched
    > wcdma. If you do, who are they, and where? I was also under the
    > impression that a phone could not maintain the call while switching from
    > wcdma to gsm, or the other way.


    AWS has announced trials which are currently in preperation. Cities
    mentioned have been San Francisco, Seattle, Dallas, San Diego, and
    Miami, but I don't which are real. Cingular has announced their first
    UMTS trial will be in Atlanta, later this year. Of course, Cingular
    plans to acquire AWS. I haven't heard anything from T-Mobile (US).
    When they will offer commercial service to the public is anyone's guess.

    Cingular has also announced HSDPA which is the UMTS feature to do
    really high speed data (many Mbps) efficiently (like CDMA2000 EV-DO
    but with higher bandwidth). Without HSDPA, you are limited to 384K
    downlink -- this is what Vodaphone is doing in Europe using PCMCIA
    cards for laptops and it still beats GPRS/GSM by a mile.

    Yes, there is handover from UMTS to GSM and the other direction, for
    both voice and data (GPRS sessions). The GSM network requires
    some smallish upgrade to be able to talk to the UMTS network to
    coordinate the handover -- overall it is a tricky procedure.
    GSM->UMTS handover is viewed as less important, as in the early
    deployments, you would not find an area that was only had UMTS
    coverage. The UMTS phones will try to stay on UMTS, and only go to
    GSM if they have to.

    Regards,
    Jatian
     
  12. David S

    David S Guest

    On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:08:47 GMT, "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.thanks.com> chose
    to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

    >"David S" <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote in message
    >>
    >> If it is still related, why on Earth would AT&T want to get into bed with
    >> one of its biggest rivals?

    >
    >Sprint has excess capacity that it can sell to AT&T.
    >
    >Sprint will derive revenue from wholesaling to AT&T, rather than see AT&Ts
    >customers making their calls on some other network.
    >
    >Sprint will have a 5-year deal where AT&T will not switch their customers to
    >any other network, AT&T's or anyone else's.
    >
    >Sprint will earn revenue with which to continue building out their existing
    >network.
    >
    >Sprint is already in the wireless wholesale business (they provide service
    >for Virgin Mobile). If Sprint declined AT&T's business, chances are that
    >some other carrier would take it--and Sprint would see the revenues go to
    >someone else.
    >
    >Sprint will ensure that AT&T does not become an outright competitor for at
    >least 5 years. Better for Sprint to get SOME of the revenue from AT&T's
    >customers than to get NONE of it.


    All of which answers why Sprint would want to get in bed with AT&T. But my
    question was why AT&T would want to get in bed with Sprint.

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "Two fried eggs in the gloaming -- that's all I saw ... Voyeurs will have
    left the Gielgud Theater sorely frustrated." - A London drama critic on
    Jerry Hall's nude scene in 'The Graduate'
     
  13. David S

    David S Guest

    On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:08:47 GMT, "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.thanks.com> chose
    to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

    >"David S" <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote in message
    >>
    >> If it is still related, why on Earth would AT&T want to get into bed with
    >> one of its biggest rivals?

    >
    >Sprint has excess capacity that it can sell to AT&T.
    >
    >Sprint will derive revenue from wholesaling to AT&T, rather than see AT&Ts
    >customers making their calls on some other network.
    >
    >Sprint will have a 5-year deal where AT&T will not switch their customers to
    >any other network, AT&T's or anyone else's.
    >
    >Sprint will earn revenue with which to continue building out their existing
    >network.
    >
    >Sprint is already in the wireless wholesale business (they provide service
    >for Virgin Mobile). If Sprint declined AT&T's business, chances are that
    >some other carrier would take it--and Sprint would see the revenues go to
    >someone else.
    >
    >Sprint will ensure that AT&T does not become an outright competitor for at
    >least 5 years. Better for Sprint to get SOME of the revenue from AT&T's
    >customers than to get NONE of it.


    All of which answers why Sprint would want to get in bed with AT&T. But my
    question was why AT&T would want to get in bed with Sprint.

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "Two fried eggs in the gloaming -- that's all I saw ... Voyeurs will have
    left the Gielgud Theater sorely frustrated." - A London drama critic on
    Jerry Hall's nude scene in 'The Graduate'
     
  14. David S

    David S Guest

    On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:08:47 GMT, "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.thanks.com> chose
    to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

    >"David S" <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote in message
    >>
    >> If it is still related, why on Earth would AT&T want to get into bed with
    >> one of its biggest rivals?

    >
    >Sprint has excess capacity that it can sell to AT&T.
    >
    >Sprint will derive revenue from wholesaling to AT&T, rather than see AT&Ts
    >customers making their calls on some other network.
    >
    >Sprint will have a 5-year deal where AT&T will not switch their customers to
    >any other network, AT&T's or anyone else's.
    >
    >Sprint will earn revenue with which to continue building out their existing
    >network.
    >
    >Sprint is already in the wireless wholesale business (they provide service
    >for Virgin Mobile). If Sprint declined AT&T's business, chances are that
    >some other carrier would take it--and Sprint would see the revenues go to
    >someone else.
    >
    >Sprint will ensure that AT&T does not become an outright competitor for at
    >least 5 years. Better for Sprint to get SOME of the revenue from AT&T's
    >customers than to get NONE of it.


    All of which answers why Sprint would want to get in bed with AT&T. But my
    question was why AT&T would want to get in bed with Sprint.

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "Two fried eggs in the gloaming -- that's all I saw ... Voyeurs will have
    left the Gielgud Theater sorely frustrated." - A London drama critic on
    Jerry Hall's nude scene in 'The Graduate'
     
  15. David S

    David S Guest

    On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:08:47 GMT, "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.thanks.com> chose
    to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

    >"David S" <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote in message
    >>
    >> If it is still related, why on Earth would AT&T want to get into bed with
    >> one of its biggest rivals?

    >
    >Sprint has excess capacity that it can sell to AT&T.
    >
    >Sprint will derive revenue from wholesaling to AT&T, rather than see AT&Ts
    >customers making their calls on some other network.
    >
    >Sprint will have a 5-year deal where AT&T will not switch their customers to
    >any other network, AT&T's or anyone else's.
    >
    >Sprint will earn revenue with which to continue building out their existing
    >network.
    >
    >Sprint is already in the wireless wholesale business (they provide service
    >for Virgin Mobile). If Sprint declined AT&T's business, chances are that
    >some other carrier would take it--and Sprint would see the revenues go to
    >someone else.
    >
    >Sprint will ensure that AT&T does not become an outright competitor for at
    >least 5 years. Better for Sprint to get SOME of the revenue from AT&T's
    >customers than to get NONE of it.


    All of which answers why Sprint would want to get in bed with AT&T. But my
    question was why AT&T would want to get in bed with Sprint.

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "Two fried eggs in the gloaming -- that's all I saw ... Voyeurs will have
    left the Gielgud Theater sorely frustrated." - A London drama critic on
    Jerry Hall's nude scene in 'The Graduate'
     
  16. It sounds like you are saying that not only are there no gsm
    carriers that have launched wcdma, but they are only "planning" field
    trials. When they finally get around to launching actual wcdma network,
    I think my earlier suppositions may still be true.


    JatJatIan wrote:

    > Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<s0oDc.14804$w07.3415@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
    >
    >>I do not know of any gsm carriers in the USA that have launched
    >>wcdma. If you do, who are they, and where? I was also under the
    >>impression that a phone could not maintain the call while switching from
    >>wcdma to gsm, or the other way.

    >
    >
    > AWS has announced trials which are currently in preperation. Cities
    > mentioned have been San Francisco, Seattle, Dallas, San Diego, and
    > Miami, but I don't which are real. Cingular has announced their first
    > UMTS trial will be in Atlanta, later this year. Of course, Cingular
    > plans to acquire AWS. I haven't heard anything from T-Mobile (US).
    > When they will offer commercial service to the public is anyone's guess.
    >
    > Cingular has also announced HSDPA which is the UMTS feature to do
    > really high speed data (many Mbps) efficiently (like CDMA2000 EV-DO
    > but with higher bandwidth). Without HSDPA, you are limited to 384K
    > downlink -- this is what Vodaphone is doing in Europe using PCMCIA
    > cards for laptops and it still beats GPRS/GSM by a mile.
    >
    > Yes, there is handover from UMTS to GSM and the other direction, for
    > both voice and data (GPRS sessions). The GSM network requires
    > some smallish upgrade to be able to talk to the UMTS network to
    > coordinate the handover -- overall it is a tricky procedure.
    > GSM->UMTS handover is viewed as less important, as in the early
    > deployments, you would not find an area that was only had UMTS
    > coverage. The UMTS phones will try to stay on UMTS, and only go to
    > GSM if they have to.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Jatian
     
  17. It sounds like you are saying that not only are there no gsm
    carriers that have launched wcdma, but they are only "planning" field
    trials. When they finally get around to launching actual wcdma network,
    I think my earlier suppositions may still be true.


    JatJatIan wrote:

    > Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<s0oDc.14804$w07.3415@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
    >
    >>I do not know of any gsm carriers in the USA that have launched
    >>wcdma. If you do, who are they, and where? I was also under the
    >>impression that a phone could not maintain the call while switching from
    >>wcdma to gsm, or the other way.

    >
    >
    > AWS has announced trials which are currently in preperation. Cities
    > mentioned have been San Francisco, Seattle, Dallas, San Diego, and
    > Miami, but I don't which are real. Cingular has announced their first
    > UMTS trial will be in Atlanta, later this year. Of course, Cingular
    > plans to acquire AWS. I haven't heard anything from T-Mobile (US).
    > When they will offer commercial service to the public is anyone's guess.
    >
    > Cingular has also announced HSDPA which is the UMTS feature to do
    > really high speed data (many Mbps) efficiently (like CDMA2000 EV-DO
    > but with higher bandwidth). Without HSDPA, you are limited to 384K
    > downlink -- this is what Vodaphone is doing in Europe using PCMCIA
    > cards for laptops and it still beats GPRS/GSM by a mile.
    >
    > Yes, there is handover from UMTS to GSM and the other direction, for
    > both voice and data (GPRS sessions). The GSM network requires
    > some smallish upgrade to be able to talk to the UMTS network to
    > coordinate the handover -- overall it is a tricky procedure.
    > GSM->UMTS handover is viewed as less important, as in the early
    > deployments, you would not find an area that was only had UMTS
    > coverage. The UMTS phones will try to stay on UMTS, and only go to
    > GSM if they have to.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Jatian
     
  18. It sounds like you are saying that not only are there no gsm
    carriers that have launched wcdma, but they are only "planning" field
    trials. When they finally get around to launching actual wcdma network,
    I think my earlier suppositions may still be true.


    JatJatIan wrote:

    > Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<s0oDc.14804$w07.3415@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
    >
    >>I do not know of any gsm carriers in the USA that have launched
    >>wcdma. If you do, who are they, and where? I was also under the
    >>impression that a phone could not maintain the call while switching from
    >>wcdma to gsm, or the other way.

    >
    >
    > AWS has announced trials which are currently in preperation. Cities
    > mentioned have been San Francisco, Seattle, Dallas, San Diego, and
    > Miami, but I don't which are real. Cingular has announced their first
    > UMTS trial will be in Atlanta, later this year. Of course, Cingular
    > plans to acquire AWS. I haven't heard anything from T-Mobile (US).
    > When they will offer commercial service to the public is anyone's guess.
    >
    > Cingular has also announced HSDPA which is the UMTS feature to do
    > really high speed data (many Mbps) efficiently (like CDMA2000 EV-DO
    > but with higher bandwidth). Without HSDPA, you are limited to 384K
    > downlink -- this is what Vodaphone is doing in Europe using PCMCIA
    > cards for laptops and it still beats GPRS/GSM by a mile.
    >
    > Yes, there is handover from UMTS to GSM and the other direction, for
    > both voice and data (GPRS sessions). The GSM network requires
    > some smallish upgrade to be able to talk to the UMTS network to
    > coordinate the handover -- overall it is a tricky procedure.
    > GSM->UMTS handover is viewed as less important, as in the early
    > deployments, you would not find an area that was only had UMTS
    > coverage. The UMTS phones will try to stay on UMTS, and only go to
    > GSM if they have to.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Jatian
     
  19. It sounds like you are saying that not only are there no gsm
    carriers that have launched wcdma, but they are only "planning" field
    trials. When they finally get around to launching actual wcdma network,
    I think my earlier suppositions may still be true.


    JatJatIan wrote:

    > Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<s0oDc.14804$w07.3415@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
    >
    >>I do not know of any gsm carriers in the USA that have launched
    >>wcdma. If you do, who are they, and where? I was also under the
    >>impression that a phone could not maintain the call while switching from
    >>wcdma to gsm, or the other way.

    >
    >
    > AWS has announced trials which are currently in preperation. Cities
    > mentioned have been San Francisco, Seattle, Dallas, San Diego, and
    > Miami, but I don't which are real. Cingular has announced their first
    > UMTS trial will be in Atlanta, later this year. Of course, Cingular
    > plans to acquire AWS. I haven't heard anything from T-Mobile (US).
    > When they will offer commercial service to the public is anyone's guess.
    >
    > Cingular has also announced HSDPA which is the UMTS feature to do
    > really high speed data (many Mbps) efficiently (like CDMA2000 EV-DO
    > but with higher bandwidth). Without HSDPA, you are limited to 384K
    > downlink -- this is what Vodaphone is doing in Europe using PCMCIA
    > cards for laptops and it still beats GPRS/GSM by a mile.
    >
    > Yes, there is handover from UMTS to GSM and the other direction, for
    > both voice and data (GPRS sessions). The GSM network requires
    > some smallish upgrade to be able to talk to the UMTS network to
    > coordinate the handover -- overall it is a tricky procedure.
    > GSM->UMTS handover is viewed as less important, as in the early
    > deployments, you would not find an area that was only had UMTS
    > coverage. The UMTS phones will try to stay on UMTS, and only go to
    > GSM if they have to.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Jatian
     
  20. Jeremy

    Jeremy Guest

    "David S" <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote in message
    news:loltd053b02v4pkp7ko1pejecho58765op@4ax.com...
    > On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:08:47 GMT, "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.thanks.com>

    chose
    > to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:
    >
    > >"David S" <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote in message
    > >>
    > >> If it is still related, why on Earth would AT&T want to get into bed

    with
    > >> one of its biggest rivals?

    > >
    > >Sprint has excess capacity that it can sell to AT&T.
    > >
    > >Sprint will derive revenue from wholesaling to AT&T, rather than see

    AT&Ts
    > >customers making their calls on some other network.
    > >
    > >Sprint will have a 5-year deal where AT&T will not switch their customers

    to
    > >any other network, AT&T's or anyone else's.
    > >
    > >Sprint will earn revenue with which to continue building out their

    existing
    > >network.
    > >
    > >Sprint is already in the wireless wholesale business (they provide

    service
    > >for Virgin Mobile). If Sprint declined AT&T's business, chances are that
    > >some other carrier would take it--and Sprint would see the revenues go to
    > >someone else.
    > >
    > >Sprint will ensure that AT&T does not become an outright competitor for

    at
    > >least 5 years. Better for Sprint to get SOME of the revenue from AT&T's
    > >customers than to get NONE of it.

    >
    > All of which answers why Sprint would want to get in bed with AT&T. But my
    > question was why AT&T would want to get in bed with Sprint.
    >


    That part is simple: because AT&T needs to put customers on a network that
    is already built out. There is no way that they can start from scratch, and
    get any customers.

    The deal with Sprint runs 5 years. If AT&T wants to build a network of
    their own, they can do so while simultaneously building their customer base.

    I do not think it is feasible for any company to start building a new
    network now, because there are already established choices for consumers.
    It was easier to do it when digital was new. But who is going to leave
    their present carrier to go to some new one that will require years before
    they can offer decent coverage.

    There is also the issue of FCC licenses. Sprint is already up and running.
    There might not be any licenses available in many areas for a new carrier.

    Sometimes it makes more sense to "rent," rather than to "own."
     

Welcome to VerizonForums!

Unfortunately you can't reply until you log in or sign up.


Forgot your password?