According to PhoneScoop:
"Today (January 5, 2010) T-Mobile announced that it has upgraded its entire 3G network to HSPA 7.2Mbps (peak speeds). That's an improvement from 3.6Mbps, and should allow for faster wireless downloads. T-Mobile also pointed out that its 3G footprint now covers some 200 million Americans. T-Mobile also said that it plans to be the first U.S. carrier to deploy HSPA+ across its network by mid 2010. T-Mobile currently has an HSPA+ trial under way in Philadelphia. Once fully enabled, HSPA+ will offer up to 21Mbps downloads."
This is great news for many of T-Mobile’s 3G subscribers, but not all of them. While the network supports the higher speeds, some T-Mobile 3G handsets do not. Here is the list of T-Mobile’s 3G handsets and their supported network throughput.
HSPA 7.2 (High Speed Packet Access)
T-Mobile Dash 3G
T-Mobile G1
T-Mobile myTouch 3G
HTC Touch Pro2
Motorola CLIQ
Sidekick LX 2009
T-Mobile webConnect
T-Mobile webConnect Jet
These devices can download data at speeds up to 7.2Mbps and upload at up to 1.8Mbps. In all honesty, these speeds are theoretical. Real world performance will be slightly slower. Other HSPA 7.2 networks are seeing roughly 3Mbps download speeds and 1Mbps upload speeds in real world usage. At 3Mbps, it would take 8 seconds to download a 3 MB file, or the equivalent of a 3 minute MP3 track.
HSDPA 3.6 (High Speed Download Packet Access)T-Mobile Tap
BlackBerry Bold 9700
Samsung Behold II
Samsung Comeback
Samsung Gravity 2
Samsung Highlight
Samsung Memoir
Samsung t659
Sony Ericsson Eqiunox
These phones can download data at speeds up to 3.6Mbps and upload at up to 384Kbps. As with HSPA, these speeds are theoretical. Real world performance will be in the neighborhood of 1Mbps download and 100Kbps upload. At 1Mbps, it would take 24 seconds to download a 3 MB file, or the equivalent of a 3 minute MP3 track.
UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunications System)Samsung t639
Samsung t819
Samsung Behold
Nokia 3711
The theoretical speeds for early 3G devices using UMTS are 384Kbps for the uplink and downlink. Most UMTS users are seeing speeds in the area of 100Kbps. At 100Kbps, it would take 4 minutes to download a 3 MB file, or the equivalent of a 3 minute MP3 track.
NOTE: Operating systems, processor speeds, and even display components can impact the apparent speed of any wireless device. Don’t think that your BlackBerry Bold 9700 is outdated or slow because other devices move data through the air faster than yours. Use these numbers to compare Beholds to Behold IIs or T-Mobile’s HTC Touch Pro2 (at 7.2Mbps maximum) to Verizon’s Touch Pro2 (at 3.1Mbps maximum). As Albert Einstein (or the punk band Cigar) would point out, speed is relative.
Happy new year T-Mobile 3G subscribers!
Showing posts with label 3G. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 3G. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Verizon Opens Up?
A Windows Mobile perspective
Have you heard the news? Verizon Wireless is going to open its wireless network to phones using GSM technology. This is big news for Pocket PC users because some of the new Pocket PC phones will work with your choice of wireless carrier, as long as your carrier uses GSM. You see Verizon and Sprint use CDMA for their network technology. There is nothing wrong with CDMA except that GSM (Global System for Mobile) is the de-facto wireless standard outside of the United States. So how do I know this is going to happen, a Vodafone spokesperson said so. Who is Vodafone? Vodafone is owner of 45% of Verizon Wireless and one of the biggest GSM network operators in the world. When asked when Verizon planned to implement their break with CDMA, Verizon’s spokeswoman said “We are talking 2004, 2005. By that point who knows what will happen.”
Huh?
Sorry, I was stuck in a bit of a time warp. You see the previous paragraph describes actual news from 2001. Despite Vodafone’s pushing and prodding, Verizon didn’t switch to GSM technology in 2001, 2004 or 2005. But, if you haven’t heard, Vodafone is pushing Verizon to toy with GSM technology yet again. Vodafone and Verizon have jointly announced their intention to trial LTE (Long Term Evolution) technology. This is the 4th generation choice of the GSM community.
So, why is Verizon entertaining a move to GSM again in 2008? It makes sense from a business operations standpoint. Vodafone and Verizon have been fighting over technologies since their marriage in 1999. Vodafone even courted the old AT&T Wireless before it was acquired by Cingular. To work towards common goals instead of different ones will help both companies run more efficiently. It also makes sense that Verizon would explore other network options since Sprint has already announced its break from CDMA for the world of WiMax for its 4th generation technology. If Verizon stayed the course with CDMA technologies, it would account for the vast majority of U.S. CDMA sales. On one hand, it would give them control over which handsets they wanted from whichever manufacturers that they chose. On the other hand, as one of the last holdouts in the CDMA camp, the number of manufacturers willing to bet their futures on one large customer would surely dwindle. In effect, Verizon would be the big fish in a small and shrinking pond. Now, this may not sound bad to some CEOs, but there is another reason to question Verizon’s loyalty to CDMA going forward.
Up to this point, I have discussed “openness” as it pertains to network technology, or, which handsets work on which networks. Another aspect of “openness” in the wireless world pertains to handset technology, or, what applications work on what handsets. This may seem like a moot point for those of us in the Windows Mobile world. For the most part, Pocket Outlook works the same on a Sprint Touch as it does on the unlocked HTC Touch. The fact of the matter is that a lot of development goes on behind the screen to make sure that you see it that way. Because the wireless technologies are different between GSM and CDMA, so is the coding for some bandwidth intensive applications. If the people who develop new applications could focus on one technology instead of two, manufacturers and wireless carriers would spend a lot less time on handset and application testing. If Verizon becomes the lone CDMA carrier in the U.S., even more developers and handset manufacturers will choose to focus on just one technology, and it won’t be CDMA.
So, what are the benefits to you if Verizon does change to a GSM technology? The most important benefit for everyone is “openness”. O.K., that sounds sort of existential. Let me explain. For over a decade, wireless phone users around the world have been able to buy the handset they wanted and use it with the carrier they wanted. While this freedom is more a result of an open business model than a network infrastructure, GSM and its SIM card technology have been enablers of that freedom. This openness is evident in the number of “unlocked” GSM Windows Mobile devices that are featured in this magazine every issue. If Verizon moves to a GSM technology, a world of devices will be opened up to their customers. The expanded product line for Verizon, combined with its willingness to let you bring another carrier’s handset with you as a customer will give you, as prospects or customers, more choices in handsets and carriers. To summarize my existential start to this section, more openness for Verizon equals more choices for you, the customer.
Will Verizon move to LTE and the GSM family? I don’t really know. As we have discussed, there are a lot of good reasons for them to do so. Then again, most of these reasons are the same reasons for Verizon to do it 7 years ago. Despite all of the posturing of Verizon towards GSM, a Verizon Wireless spokesman recently emphasized that the company is “working closely with Vodafone for next-generation technology. We have not made a technology decision.”
Have you heard the news? Verizon Wireless is going to open its wireless network to phones using GSM technology. This is big news for Pocket PC users because some of the new Pocket PC phones will work with your choice of wireless carrier, as long as your carrier uses GSM. You see Verizon and Sprint use CDMA for their network technology. There is nothing wrong with CDMA except that GSM (Global System for Mobile) is the de-facto wireless standard outside of the United States. So how do I know this is going to happen, a Vodafone spokesperson said so. Who is Vodafone? Vodafone is owner of 45% of Verizon Wireless and one of the biggest GSM network operators in the world. When asked when Verizon planned to implement their break with CDMA, Verizon’s spokeswoman said “We are talking 2004, 2005. By that point who knows what will happen.”
Huh?
Sorry, I was stuck in a bit of a time warp. You see the previous paragraph describes actual news from 2001. Despite Vodafone’s pushing and prodding, Verizon didn’t switch to GSM technology in 2001, 2004 or 2005. But, if you haven’t heard, Vodafone is pushing Verizon to toy with GSM technology yet again. Vodafone and Verizon have jointly announced their intention to trial LTE (Long Term Evolution) technology. This is the 4th generation choice of the GSM community.
So, why is Verizon entertaining a move to GSM again in 2008? It makes sense from a business operations standpoint. Vodafone and Verizon have been fighting over technologies since their marriage in 1999. Vodafone even courted the old AT&T Wireless before it was acquired by Cingular. To work towards common goals instead of different ones will help both companies run more efficiently. It also makes sense that Verizon would explore other network options since Sprint has already announced its break from CDMA for the world of WiMax for its 4th generation technology. If Verizon stayed the course with CDMA technologies, it would account for the vast majority of U.S. CDMA sales. On one hand, it would give them control over which handsets they wanted from whichever manufacturers that they chose. On the other hand, as one of the last holdouts in the CDMA camp, the number of manufacturers willing to bet their futures on one large customer would surely dwindle. In effect, Verizon would be the big fish in a small and shrinking pond. Now, this may not sound bad to some CEOs, but there is another reason to question Verizon’s loyalty to CDMA going forward.
Up to this point, I have discussed “openness” as it pertains to network technology, or, which handsets work on which networks. Another aspect of “openness” in the wireless world pertains to handset technology, or, what applications work on what handsets. This may seem like a moot point for those of us in the Windows Mobile world. For the most part, Pocket Outlook works the same on a Sprint Touch as it does on the unlocked HTC Touch. The fact of the matter is that a lot of development goes on behind the screen to make sure that you see it that way. Because the wireless technologies are different between GSM and CDMA, so is the coding for some bandwidth intensive applications. If the people who develop new applications could focus on one technology instead of two, manufacturers and wireless carriers would spend a lot less time on handset and application testing. If Verizon becomes the lone CDMA carrier in the U.S., even more developers and handset manufacturers will choose to focus on just one technology, and it won’t be CDMA.
So, what are the benefits to you if Verizon does change to a GSM technology? The most important benefit for everyone is “openness”. O.K., that sounds sort of existential. Let me explain. For over a decade, wireless phone users around the world have been able to buy the handset they wanted and use it with the carrier they wanted. While this freedom is more a result of an open business model than a network infrastructure, GSM and its SIM card technology have been enablers of that freedom. This openness is evident in the number of “unlocked” GSM Windows Mobile devices that are featured in this magazine every issue. If Verizon moves to a GSM technology, a world of devices will be opened up to their customers. The expanded product line for Verizon, combined with its willingness to let you bring another carrier’s handset with you as a customer will give you, as prospects or customers, more choices in handsets and carriers. To summarize my existential start to this section, more openness for Verizon equals more choices for you, the customer.
Will Verizon move to LTE and the GSM family? I don’t really know. As we have discussed, there are a lot of good reasons for them to do so. Then again, most of these reasons are the same reasons for Verizon to do it 7 years ago. Despite all of the posturing of Verizon towards GSM, a Verizon Wireless spokesman recently emphasized that the company is “working closely with Vodafone for next-generation technology. We have not made a technology decision.”
Thursday, January 13, 2005
Maybe you don't get what you pay for
Verizon Wireless customers are suing the mobile service provider, claiming that it is selling a cell phone with fewer Bluetooth short range radio features than they expected, the plaintiffs' lawyer said on Thursday.
There are two interesting points to this story.
The first point is that Verizon is a technological contradiction. The company that is blazing the "3G" trail in the United States with MB per second performance in several major markets, is the same company that introduced its Bluetooth phone 2 years later than everyone else, and then doesn't support it once its out. Here is my first hand experience with this phenomena. I had a customer who wanted the Verizon Bluetooth phone mentioned in this article. He wanted to use it as a wireless modem for his computer. I had setup dozens of Bluetooth phones as modems, so I said "no problem" and drove to his office to get him on the road to wireless bliss. After about half an hour of trying different configurations, reading the manual (in that order), and sitting on hold with Verizon Customer Care, I was told that Verizon did not support using the phone as a modem using Bluetooth. As a geek, I don't take "it can't be done" as an answer. I take it as a challenge. I tried a couple more things, and then some other things, and then some time on hold with Motorola. I wanted to see if the feature was still present even if Verizon didn't support it. It wasn't. A couple more calls confirmed that the only Bluetooth feature Verizon supported was the wireless headset. My customer ended up paying extra for a phone with Bluetooth, and then extra again for a cable to get his phone and computer to talk to each other.
Kudos to Verizon's Network team. Raspberries to Verizon's Product team.
Now don't cancel your plans to buy a Verizon Bluetooth phone because of my little tirade. The second point I want to illustrate is that geeks will buy anything sparkley based on anything another geek says even if the vendor doesn't say it does what it doesn't. Got that? Let me illustrate. In 1997, Nokia introduced the 6100 series phone in Europe. It had an infrared port on it so that you could connect it to your computer as a wireless modem. When they released the U.S. model (6190), they used the same housing, infrared window and all. They omitted the actual IR module from inside the phone though. Nokia never said the phone was IR compatible. The carriers never said it was IR compatible. Some geek on some bulletin board said it was. The internet was awash with geeks lamenting the hours they were spending trying to get the missing IR port to work. There were bounties for information leading to the discovery of the secret to IR on the 6190. Some phone geeks were convinced that Nokia and the carriers were keeping the IR function a secret because if word got out, people might actually use it. Heaven help us! I'm convinced that these are the same people who thought that Capricorn One was a documentary, Elvis is a Unix programmer at AOL, and that Verizon is now intentionally pissing off customers because it's good P.R..
Here are some hard truths for the geeks and blog readers out here in cyberspace.
1) Blog is not necessarily equal to Fact. Forum posting is not always the same as Reality. And (gulp) some bloggers and forum posters are merely self proclaimed experts who's technical education comes from spending too much disposable income on too many bleeding edge gadgets, and playing with them until too early in the morning. These "experts" put more faith in Engadget than they do the product feature list, and consider the technical specs mere marketing propaganda. Of course I'm only speculating on this since I have no first hand experience to base this on. Honest!
2) Many (not all) technology sales people actually do know their products. Yes, even retail employees can often contribute some technical knowledge to your buying decision. Ask them about features before you drop your hard earned cash, and hours of frustration, on the latest gadget. And if the product doesn't do what you thought it would . . . return it. It's cheaper than a lawyers hourly rate for a law suite you have no chance to win.
I wonder if these people will sue the lawyers when they lose because they told them they "might" win.
There are two interesting points to this story.
The first point is that Verizon is a technological contradiction. The company that is blazing the "3G" trail in the United States with MB per second performance in several major markets, is the same company that introduced its Bluetooth phone 2 years later than everyone else, and then doesn't support it once its out. Here is my first hand experience with this phenomena. I had a customer who wanted the Verizon Bluetooth phone mentioned in this article. He wanted to use it as a wireless modem for his computer. I had setup dozens of Bluetooth phones as modems, so I said "no problem" and drove to his office to get him on the road to wireless bliss. After about half an hour of trying different configurations, reading the manual (in that order), and sitting on hold with Verizon Customer Care, I was told that Verizon did not support using the phone as a modem using Bluetooth. As a geek, I don't take "it can't be done" as an answer. I take it as a challenge. I tried a couple more things, and then some other things, and then some time on hold with Motorola. I wanted to see if the feature was still present even if Verizon didn't support it. It wasn't. A couple more calls confirmed that the only Bluetooth feature Verizon supported was the wireless headset. My customer ended up paying extra for a phone with Bluetooth, and then extra again for a cable to get his phone and computer to talk to each other.
Kudos to Verizon's Network team. Raspberries to Verizon's Product team.
Now don't cancel your plans to buy a Verizon Bluetooth phone because of my little tirade. The second point I want to illustrate is that geeks will buy anything sparkley based on anything another geek says even if the vendor doesn't say it does what it doesn't. Got that? Let me illustrate. In 1997, Nokia introduced the 6100 series phone in Europe. It had an infrared port on it so that you could connect it to your computer as a wireless modem. When they released the U.S. model (6190), they used the same housing, infrared window and all. They omitted the actual IR module from inside the phone though. Nokia never said the phone was IR compatible. The carriers never said it was IR compatible. Some geek on some bulletin board said it was. The internet was awash with geeks lamenting the hours they were spending trying to get the missing IR port to work. There were bounties for information leading to the discovery of the secret to IR on the 6190. Some phone geeks were convinced that Nokia and the carriers were keeping the IR function a secret because if word got out, people might actually use it. Heaven help us! I'm convinced that these are the same people who thought that Capricorn One was a documentary, Elvis is a Unix programmer at AOL, and that Verizon is now intentionally pissing off customers because it's good P.R..
Here are some hard truths for the geeks and blog readers out here in cyberspace.
1) Blog is not necessarily equal to Fact. Forum posting is not always the same as Reality. And (gulp) some bloggers and forum posters are merely self proclaimed experts who's technical education comes from spending too much disposable income on too many bleeding edge gadgets, and playing with them until too early in the morning. These "experts" put more faith in Engadget than they do the product feature list, and consider the technical specs mere marketing propaganda. Of course I'm only speculating on this since I have no first hand experience to base this on. Honest!
2) Many (not all) technology sales people actually do know their products. Yes, even retail employees can often contribute some technical knowledge to your buying decision. Ask them about features before you drop your hard earned cash, and hours of frustration, on the latest gadget. And if the product doesn't do what you thought it would . . . return it. It's cheaper than a lawyers hourly rate for a law suite you have no chance to win.
I wonder if these people will sue the lawyers when they lose because they told them they "might" win.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
