[Chopper110]

My question is as above?

I need to know as I am really peed off with RIM not having this on the 9900.

[Skeevecr]

Didn't the 9900 get it added in the bb7.1 updates?

I would expect that uma will not be a high priority for them in these devices due to so few carriers being interested in supporting it globally.

[Paintedeyes]

9900 has software UMA and not hardware. To me it doesn't seem as reliable as my 9700 UMA

[Rello]

Didn't the 9900 get it added in the bb7.1 updates?

I would expect that uma will not be a high priority for them in these devices due to so few carriers being interested in supporting it globally.

Exactly

@OP,
As much as I love UMA and wish it were to be there at launch, I can't see it happening. Only Tmobile supports it (in the US) so I can't see it being of high importance for the US models. Can't speak on elsewhere though

[lnichols]

I wish it did and hope it does. My kid's 9360 with true UMA works much better than the faux UMA implementation in the 9900. Hopefully RIM realized all the deficiencies that were in the 9900 (Camera, UMA, etc.) and realized that the flagship phone should be superior in every way to your non flagship offerings.

[EGerhardt]

I may be wrong here, but I don't think there is any such things as hardware UMA. You need a handset that is UMA enabled in the software, but otherwise it's essentially just VoIP connected to the appropriate network, right? There's just better and worse implementations of it, not hardware and software.

[dd3]

I have repeatedly asked this and still await an answer. there IS hardware implementation for UMA, that's why the software variants dont do handoff between mobile and wifi and calls get dropped and why its not called UMA on the 9900. The later/smaller bold 9970? my other half has, had UMA properly implemented again, so I live in hope they will have learnt from their mistakes. It is certainly a selling point to carriers who have already invested in the UMA architecture if the handsets support it fully so I would hope and expect it to remain implemented, however rim have made mistakes and may do so again, only way to know is try one...

[Skeevecr]

It is not that there is any actual uma hardware, it is simply that some chipsets offer better support and the one used in the 9360, 9790 etc. is better than the one from qualcomm that supplied the chipset for the 9900.

As far as it being a selling point to those carriers that have implemented it, the major problem is that on a global basis there are just too few carriers that care about it, can anyone name any carriers besides T-Mobile US that actually push this stuff anymore, certainly in europe it was mostly orange and orange france and neither of them seem interested now.

Also, the idea that it is a mistake for Rim to choose higher performing chipsets despite their inability in this extremely niche area is a fairly laughable one, millions of potential customers would much prefer a good lte chipset over one that supported uma better.

[EGerhardt]

It is not that there is any actual uma hardware, it is simply that some chipsets offer better support and the one used in the 9360, 9790 etc. is better than the one from qualcomm that supplied the chipset for the 9900.

As far as it being a selling point to those carriers that have implemented it, the major problem is that on a global basis there are just too few carriers that care about it, can anyone name any carriers besides T-Mobile US that actually push this stuff anymore, certainly in europe it was mostly orange and orange france and neither of them seem interested now.

Also, the idea that it is a mistake for Rim to choose higher performing chipsets despite their inability in this extremely niche area is a fairly laughable one, millions of potential customers would much prefer a good lte chipset over one that supported uma better.

Indeed. While I couldn't say for sure, I've heard that no android handsets offer 'true' UMA that will handoff between wifi and mobile network, and iPhones don't either. The facility is there to make calls over wifi (which is what most people think UMA is anyway), just not to originate on Wifi and move to 3G, or vice versa. Basically UMA has fallen away because it was losing carriers money. People who talked on their phones constantly and had wifi (where DOESN'T have wifi nowerdays?) could talk for thousands of minutes per month, but be on the cheapest tariff; not good for the phone company. And knowing all this device manufacturers can't be bothered engineering it into their new phones.

UMA is something that the few carriers who offer it bring up sometimes, but I don't think its really changing people's minds on who to buy from. Since there is ubiquitous wifi, its bad for the carriers, which is why they offer Femtocells and signal boosters and what have you instead. Exact same technology from a networks standpoint, but it uses your minutes and is compatible with every handset.

There's no way that RIM would sacrifice anything else they want in a chip to get better UMA performance. Given that they are already juggling cost per unit, battery life, performance as well as intangibles like how easily they can develop for one chipset over another, and there is almost no room for compromise on any of those... finding a chip that checks all those boxes and has good UMA performance, that would be extremely tough, and probably not even worth the cost of finding it. There will certainly be a reasonable implementation of Wifi calling. It might not be that great, but it'll work I'm sure. Getting that 'true' UMA experience would take time and money and benefit practically no-one.

[JR A]

Indeed. While I couldn't say for sure, I've heard that no android handsets offer 'true' UMA that will handoff between wifi and mobile network, and iPhones don't either. The facility is there to make calls over wifi (which is what most people think UMA is anyway), just not to originate on Wifi and move to 3G, or vice versa. Basically UMA has fallen away because it was losing carriers money. People who talked on their phones constantly and had wifi (where DOESN'T have wifi nowerdays?) could talk for thousands of minutes per month, but be on the cheapest tariff; not good for the phone company. And knowing all this device manufacturers can't be bothered engineering it into their new phones.

UMA is something that the few carriers who offer it bring up sometimes, but I don't think its really changing people's minds on who to buy from. Since there is ubiquitous wifi, its bad for the carriers, which is why they offer Femtocells and signal boosters and what have you instead. Exact same technology from a networks standpoint, but it uses your minutes and is compatible with every handset.

There's no way that RIM would sacrifice anything else they want in a chip to get better UMA performance. Given that they are already juggling cost per unit, battery life, performance as well as intangibles like how easily they can develop for one chipset over another, and there is almost no room for compromise on any of those... finding a chip that checks all those boxes and has good UMA performance, that would be extremely tough, and probably not even worth the cost of finding it. There will certainly be a reasonable implementation of Wifi calling. It might not be that great, but it'll work I'm sure. Getting that 'true' UMA experience would take time and money and benefit practically no-one.

T-Mobile, the only carrier in the US that offers UMA, stil counts minutes used over wifi as minutes from your plan. So there is no cost benefit to the consumer for using wifi nor does it lost T-mobile money. If anything it should save them money since it frees up their towers...

[EGerhardt]

That I did not know. I've been told a lot of times that UMA was losing carriers money, and I'm damn near certain that Orange (the only carrier here who offers it) used to let you use it that way.

Either way, femtocells are a way better way to offer the same service because it's not reliant on the device to perform well, plus networks mostly charge for them and make money both ways.

[eve6er69]

BBm voice is a work around for that also.


Sent using Tapatalk

[Chopper110]

Well, I heard today from Orange (EE) that they will not be supporting hardwear based UMA on BB10.

Well, thats six of us off to another service provider within the next week.

[Skeevecr]

Well, I heard today from Orange (EE) that they will not be supporting hardwear based UMA on BB10.

Well, thats six of us off to another service provider within the next week.

Seems an odd reason to move when none of the other UK carriers offer the feature either.

[ThaMunsta]

The 9900 didn't have UMA at launch but I loaded a leaked OS that had it about 3 or 4 months after. An Official Rogers 7.0 OS release had it, as well as the 7.1 release which of course also brought WiFi hotspot. I agree the 9700 seemed to have better UMA stability and hope the Z10 will also.

I don't expect UMA to be there at launch, but I have my hopes up and also am aware it likely won't be as simple as with the 9900 where I just downloaded a leak and installed it. OTA OS updates might kill that off, but IDK yet.

[sbx9900]

T-Mobile, the only carrier in the US that offers UMA, stil counts minutes used over wifi as minutes from your plan. So there is no cost benefit to the consumer for using wifi nor does it lost T-mobile money. If anything it should save them money since it frees up their towers...

IF the TMO subscriber has wifi hotspot subscription, which has an additional fee on top of the regular subscription, then wifi calling/UMA calling is not counted against airtime minutes of your plan. If the subscriber has an unlimited airtime minutes plan, it is senseless to subscribe to wifi calling hotspot.

However, the real value of wifi calling is in making calls to the US when the subcsriber is abroad. As long as the phone is connected to wifi and the radio is turned off to make sure that the call is not made through network connection, the network cannot recognize that the call is originating from outside the US, thus saving the subscriber a ton of $$$ when making calls, although airtime is counted against his plan minutes.

Based on this advantage, it is better for the subscriber to have wifi calling (which gets disconnected when out of wifi range), not UMA ( which transfers to network connection if wifi signal becomes weak) to ensure that he does not get roaming charges in case the call is handed off to network connection when wifi signal gets weak.

[EGerhardt]

IF the TMO subscriber has wifi hotspot subscription, which has an additional fee on top of the regular subscription, then wifi calling/UMA calling is not counted against airtime minutes of your plan. If the subscriber has an unlimited airtime minutes plan, it is senseless to subscribe to wifi calling hotspot.

However, the real value of wifi calling is in making calls to the US when the subcsriber is abroad. As long as the phone is connected to wifi and the radio is turned off to make sure that the call is not made through network connection, the network cannot recognize that the call is originating from outside the US, thus saving the subscriber a ton of $$$ when making calls, although airtime is counted against his plan minutes.

Based on this advantage, it is better for the subscriber to have wifi calling (which gets disconnected when out of wifi range), not UMA ( which transfers to network connection if wifi signal becomes weak) to ensure that he does not get roaming charges in case the call is handed off to network connection when wifi signal gets weak.

I knew that wifi calling worked out badly for the carriers . Thanks for clearing up exactly how.

Seems an odd reason to move when none of the other UK carriers offer the feature either.

Well that depends. If you stayed with Orange when the signal at home sucks because UMA picked up the slack, then without it you might well be screwed and be better off on another network. Come to vodafone! We have cookies!

[Skeevecr]

Fair enough, I forgot the variable quality of the uk carriers even with them all claiming to cover 99% of the population.

[EGerhardt]

Fair enough, I forgot the variable quality of the uk carriers even with them all claiming to cover 99% of the population.

Yeah coverage here is weird to say the least, and definitely gets screwy inside buildings. At home, there's nowhere at all that gives me a 3G signal, which isn't an issue because I have wifi, and still have EDGE to make calls and such, but there are some places here with no signal. At uni when I lived in a block of apartments there was literally no signal outside of a 2 foot bubble around the windows. I stuck my windscreen holder to the window and left my phone in it until I got a signal booster. Now, thats more the exception than the rule, but there are plenty of people who have less extreme versions of that; no signal in certain rooms, or none upstairs and so forth. All the networks have those kinds of problems, but it tends to be that what effects one isn't exactly the same as effects another (a frequency thing maybe?) so you can get radically different results depending on your carrier.

Edit -

And unlike in the US, being out in countryside normally actually means you get more/better signal than in towns. Since we have roughly the surface area of Texas, but three times the people there are (for the most part) enough towers to cover everyone even out in dinky little villages and out there there isn't as much stuff to get in the way.

[Chopper110]

Seems an odd reason to move when none of the other UK carriers offer the feature either.

Not an odd reason at all when the 02 signal hits our home like a tonne of bricks when the Orange (EE) is non existant.
Orange (EE) have a huge amount of customers who rely heavily on UMA, they have shafted the lot of us.

[sarahrich]

My town is exactly the opposite, really good EE and 02 signal and really rubbish 3- which a lot of people I know are on and are jumping ship from, I do live in a rural area however in between two cities and only one of those two cities has 4G at the moment. I'd like to stay with EE/Orange for BB10 but I'd jump to another network if I had to.. Or can't I just keep my Sim if I'm buying PAYG?

Edit- my UMA does not work well, the browser on my phone will not use the internet or anything full stop when connected to wifi..

[dd3]

Im on orange and used to rely on UMA, now suffering an iphone (but have instructed company to order me a z10 - order went in today )

I have a nextivity box here now which works really well to boost the 3G signal in my house and has the added bonus of not being phone specific.

[rider997]

T-Mobile, the only carrier in the US that offers UMA, stil counts minutes used over wifi as minutes from your plan. So there is no cost benefit to the consumer for using wifi nor does it lost T-mobile money. If anything it should save them money since it frees up their towers...

Actually T-Mobile has, in the past, offered an "unlimited UMA calling" plan option for $10/month, so you're about half right :-)
To the best of my knowledge, this plan only exists as a grandfathered option and isn't currently offered.

[Xopher]

One of the nice benefits of UMA is being able to make local calls while out of the country. It was something I used to get around international roaming charges. Even though it still used minutes, it was a lot less expensive than international roaming charges.

[PFman]

I've been waiting for BB10 for 6 months - purchased a 9360 as a temporary device last year.

Really glad I checked in here today. I was about to go pay for an unlocked z10 from EE today - I use my 9360 everyday all day for work and the main reason I have the BB is UMA in my office which has zero cell coverage.

UMA is a deal breaker for me and the principal (only) reason I'm still using a blackberry (been using them for years for work - I have a personal S3 which is useless during the working day but fine at night and out of the office). I need to be able to receive calls on my mobile number between 7 am and 6pm.