1. crackcookie's Avatar
    Are phones like the 8330 already on 3g for verizon and sprint? But still 3g for ATT?

    I saw 3g qualcomm on the back on a 8330 on a verizon phone, so it has 3g type speeds right? But it is unable to go online and talk at the same time, which GSM 3g can do.

    I thought only phones with the 9000 or above are able to be 3g, or did Verizon manage to throw in 3g to the Curve due to its late release?
    05-10-09 01:59 PM
  2. gotblackberry's Avatar
    3G (EVDO) has been around since 2002..
    05-10-09 02:23 PM
  3. TwinsX2Dad's Avatar
    It is a CDMA thing. It has nothing to do with the release.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    05-10-09 03:00 PM
  4. crackcookie's Avatar
    Okay, so Verizon has been 3g since conception, or since 2002?

    What about sprint?

    And what are the comparable speeds compared to that of ATT 2g and 3g and call quality
    05-10-09 03:40 PM
  5. gotblackberry's Avatar
    You can search for the thread "Verizon Wireless 3G" that twin made. It is very informative.

    Verizons 3G is EVDO. The reason it can not do voice + data at the same time is because of CDMA, not the speed or version.
    05-10-09 03:55 PM
  6. TwinsX2Dad's Avatar
    Okay, so Verizon has been 3g since conception, or since 2002?
    No, as 3G didn't exist at VZW's inception. It was phased in beginning in 2002.
    What about sprint?
    Similar timetable to VZW's conversion - maybe 6 months behind.

    And what are the comparable speeds compared to that of ATT 2g and 3g and call quality
    CDMA 3G speed smokes that of the GSM carriers, because of its all-digital spread spectrum technology.
    You can search for the thread "Verizon Wireless 3G" that twin made. It is very informative.
    I agree - no need to rewrite it all here.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    05-10-09 05:01 PM
  7. sprke81's Avatar
    CDMA 3G speed smokes that of the GSM carriers, because of its all-digital spread spectrum technology.
    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    So your saying that ATT is flat out lying when they advertise that they have "the fastest 3G network" ?
    05-10-09 05:19 PM
  8. giantfan30's Avatar
    here is what EVDO.com had to say about the differences in speeds
    and it should be blatantly obvious what direction their info would be slanted in
    to the OP TwinsX2Dad is a VZW fanboy and an unbiased opinion cannot be had from him
    anyway here is what EVDO.com says >>

    HSPA (AT&T 3G): 700-1700kbps Down; 500-1200kbps upload
    EVDO Rev A: 600Kbps - 1,400Kbps Down ; 500Kbps-800Kbps Up
    EVDO Rev 0: 400 - 1000Kbps Down ; 50 - 100Kbps Up
    EDGE (AT&T 2G): 50Kbps - 100Kbps Down/Up
    1xRTT: 50Kbps - 100Kbps Down/Up
    of course signal strength is a major factor in what speeds will be available
    05-10-09 05:30 PM
  9. giantfan30's Avatar
    here is what gizmodo.com had to say about the topic in Dec 2008..this is obviously only in major cities


    These results aren't so random when you plot them on the map. Besides proving that Sprint is a serious contender in almost any location—and should be taken seriously as a 3G and 4G data service provider, no matter what your feelings are about its basic phone service—we have confirmed what we thought, that the regional Bell heavies (and the former GTE) hold their own where their real estate holdings are most vast.

    AT&T had troubles in the Northeast and Chicago, but down the coast in Raleigh and over in Austin, it's probably no surprise that the southern Bell conglomerate came out victorious. On the West Coast, it was a toss-up except in Portland, where Verizon couldn't quite keep it together.

    Upload Performance
    What are more surprising are the upload performance results: AT&T totally kicked *** here, winning six cities and barely losing to Sprint in the other two. Verizon was the slowpoke here, though it did nudge Sprint out of the way twice, and beat it soundly
    Last edited by giantfan30; 05-10-09 at 05:36 PM.
    05-10-09 05:33 PM
  10. giantfan30's Avatar
    So your saying that ATT is flat out lying when they advertise that they have "the fastest 3G network" ?
    thats what happens when you rely on fanboys for your info...they say ANYTHING to make the company/product they are a fanboy of look better

    here in about a post or 2 he will claim that he is an expert because he works for some company or the other and his opinion is the only one that is valid
    05-10-09 05:41 PM
  11. TwinsX2Dad's Avatar
    You might try posting some real-world data instead of Gizmodo 'testing' that was proven wrong long ago. I'm
    N fact, your second post disproves your first. Maybe a little discernment and objectivity in what you're looking for, instead of searching for "AT&T wins" or "Sprint is faster."

    As to your first assertion from about AT&T being faster, you might try looking at real-world, as opposed to theoretical maximums.

    And, for purposes of full disclosure, my company's carrier revenue this past year was AT&T: 39%, VZW: 32%, Sprint: 11% Other/International: 22%. And yes, that does add up to more than 100% due to domestic carrier contracts outside the US.

    I have testing contracts for many carriers and manufacturers and prefer WinMo devices to BlackBerry.

    Fanboy? Why don't you try ad-hominem attacks you have a hope and a prayer of having stick.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    05-10-09 05:43 PM
  12. Branta's Avatar
    On topic and polite please, or the thread closes
    05-10-09 05:49 PM
  13. giantfan30's Avatar
    ..great for you and your company.....
    like i said before ..you are a fanboy...anybody that reads your post history will come to no other conclusion
    every other test that anybody else has done is not valid because they dont fit your agenda....
    you are predictable and there is no doubt in my mind where you stand when it comes to comparisons between ATT and VZW
    i gave the OP an unbiased opinion and he can go read the websites and articles i posted and form his own opinion on the matter..you can keep cheerleading for VZW

    THE END
    05-10-09 05:57 PM
  14. john.coleman's Avatar
    Not to fuel the fire here, but to me, a lot of the issues around this topic come in with how fuzzy of a term "3G" is. That is, to my understanding anyway, "3G" simply speaks to a network's ability to perform above a fairly modest (in this day and age) data speed threshold. It is not a quality rating. Whether or not a carrier is "3G", does not guarantee high-quality and/or necessarily high-speed real-world performance. Additionally, there can be a night and day real-world difference between two networks that are both "3G". To me, the fact that "3G" has become such a garbage-can term does explain why it can be so easily manipulated into marketing hyperbole, and thus why it has created a lot of confusion and misinformation among consumers.
    05-10-09 06:44 PM
  15. gotblackberry's Avatar
    So your saying that ATT is flat out lying when they advertise that they have "the fastest 3G network" ?
    Yes, they're flat out lying. Just like when they said they had the fewest dropped calls. We sued them and they were forced to take it down.
    05-10-09 08:05 PM
  16. TwinsX2Dad's Avatar
    Not to fuel the fire here, but to me, a lot of the issues around this topic come in with how fuzzy of a term "3G" is. That is, to my understanding anyway, "3G" simply speaks to a network's ability to perform above a fairly modest (in this day and age) data speed threshold. It is not a quality rating. Whether or not a carrier is "3G", does not guarantee high-quality and/or necessarily high-speed real-world performance. Additionally, there can be a night and day real-world difference between two networks that are both "3G". To me, the fact that "3G" has become such a garbage-can term does explain why it can be so easily manipulated into marketing hyperbole, and thus why it has created a lot of confusion and misinformation among consumers.
    Bingo - the term 3G is currently a minimum data speed rating. Nothing more than that. You can have 3G networks running at 144kbps and another running at 1Mbps - both are still 3G.

    Some companies (one I will not name, but whose initials are AT&T) have tried to get people to think 3G is things it is not. 3G is not simultaneous voice/data capability. It is not something one carrier can use over another (unless you're trying to slam 3G-less T-Mobile). Yet AT&T has been trying for years to claim 3G is all of those things and uses that as a basis for its untrue advertising claim.

    They've tried to rewrite the definition of 3G, saying it is data connection while you're on the phone and charging that is the true 3G - by this flawed definition, AT&T is the fastest 3G network out there. Unfortunately, the standards organizations (you know, the folks who created the term & standard) never meant it to mean what AT&T claims it does.

    AT&T 3G is available to less than 30% of its customers and runs at an average speed of 300-450kbps - peak 500kbps. VZW's 3G network covers over 70% of its customers and runs between 450kbps-1Mbps - peak 2.1Mbps. I don't have my journals wth me, so I may be a hair off on those numbers, so don't scream that I once said figures a little different - these are close enough and day to day results do vary slightly anyway.

    I guess if I had enough money, I could convince you the noontime sky is purple with pink polka-dots - but the Man upstairs might have something to say about that.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    05-10-09 09:33 PM
  17. sprke81's Avatar

    AT&T 3G is available to less than 30% of its customers and runs at an average speed of 300-450kbps - peak 500kbps. VZW's 3G network covers over 70% of its customers and runs between 450kbps-1Mbps - peak 2.1Mbps. I don't have my journals wth me, so I may be a hair off on those numbers, so don't scream that I once said figures a little different - these are close enough and day to day results do vary slightly anyway.



    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    Ok its fairly common knowledge that HSDPA+ is supposed to be a lot faster then what the speeds are that you quoted above and faster then evdo rev a.
    So my question is why is it? Is it ATT and the way they handle their network or why is the actual speeds so much lower then the what they could be. I guess to put it simply is it because ATT has problems or is that actually HSDPA real speeds and if it is why are they so much lower then theoretical speeds.
    05-11-09 01:53 AM
  18. StayFly's Avatar
    att is faster but very limited very but verizon is very consistent and cover more area. sprint being better than Verizon is unbelievable in any field.
    05-11-09 02:10 AM
  19. TwinsX2Dad's Avatar
    Ok its fairly common knowledge that HSDPA+ is supposed to be a lot faster then what the speeds are that you quoted above and faster then evdo rev a.
    So my question is why is it? Is it ATT and the way they handle their network or why is the actual speeds so much lower then the what they could be. I guess to put it simply is it because ATT has problems or is that actually HSDPA real speeds and if it is why are they so much lower then theoretical speeds.
    It is somewhat a catch-22 of GSM. With GSM, you have a hard limit on the number of channels available. To make it simple, let's say a tower has ten channels, each able to handle one line. Since the tower frequency bandwidth is finite (this is true whether GSM or CDMA), each of the channels also has a finite bandwith capacity. In this case, 10% of the total tower frequency bandwidth. Now let's say the tower frequency bandwidth is 5000Mbps, meaning each channel can handle a maximum bandwidth of 500Mbps, and probably less, as we know a variety of things can obstruct the 'perfect signal' and slow things down a bit. Using this as a base, we can see that no matter what the theoretical maximum is, each channel can only handle 500Mbps.

    So how do we get closer to the theoretical maximum? With GSM, we reduce the number of channels, which opens up more bandwidth per channel. Let's say we cut the number of channels in half & simply assume we will now see 1000Mbps per channel. Each user would then have faster throughput, but then the tower would only be able to handle half the number of transmissions. This means we then have to increase our installations to service the same number of customers on the network.

    With CDMA, we do not have a set number of channels, as the technology uses a digital spread spectrum. Multiple devices can use the same bandwidth - the total bandwidth per installation starts out higher than a similar GSM installation - and the digital signal isn't put through a narrow channel.

    With GSM, the tower is split into these hard channels, which means if one user is running full tilt, they are still capped in bandwidth speed, even if there is no ome else on the tower at that moment. With CDMA, each user can use most of the tower bandwidth (up to device limits) and if traffic increases, available bandwidth drops automatically.

    The spread spectrum is cool all on its own. Think of a football field. There are multiple groups on the field - some milling about, while others are sitting aroung talking. You need to get from one end zone to the other. There are no restrictions other than the groups of people on the field. You start off and come across a group, you simply move to an open area & continue on your way, much like TO in his prime. You will get to the other end in no time. Add more people trying to get from one end to the other - some will head through the crowds, thile others will stop to join the existing groups. You could continue adding people until the field was completely jammed.

    With GSM, let's take the same football field, but now there are walls forming hallways from endzone to endzone, each just wide enough for one person to get through at a time. We have the same number of people on the field as in the CDMA scenario, but now they are grouped in these hallways. You head down a hallway, but hit a group. So, you choose another hallway. If you've ever gotten a network busy intercept on GSM (they are very common), you hit a full hallway or channel. Your subsequent hallways are all in use until you finally find one you can pass through.

    If you have ten hallways, you will only be able to handle a maximum of ten total making their way through to the other side. CDMA doesn't have these hallways or channels - you might have a straight shot to the other end or you might have to go around come obstacles. As the football field nears capacity, you will have less room to maneuver, but until the crowd is all shoulder to shoulder, you can make it through. It doesn't matter if groups huddled together or are moving around. Get the groups, or users on GSM and you can't move around - if it is easier, think Walmart aisles at Christmastime.

    So AT&T's culpability in this is keeping costs down - it isn't due to ineptitude. If they wanted to up the speed, they could, but their costs would rise & potentially make their price uncompetitive. Personally, I am pretty certain the theoretical maximum is what they are basing their 'fastest network' claims on. This still doesn't cut it for me, as only a tiny portion of their network is capable of it. And, when you get right to it, unless you're tethering, you might not see a huge difference, especially with BlackBerry.

    I realize this is a bit simplistic, but I think more folks might understand it than if I went into technicalities with it.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    05-11-09 04:10 AM
  20. awledbetter's Avatar
    awesome!!!!!!!!
    05-11-09 04:11 AM
  21. john.coleman's Avatar
    Agreed, that was totally awesome. Thank you for taking the time to explain that so clearly.
    05-11-09 10:53 AM
  22. alleycat0124's Avatar
    ... Think of a football field. ...
    Very well said.
    Great analogy.
    05-11-09 12:37 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD