Related
I wonder what that means for us HD7 WP7 users. I also wonder if the bands will remain the same forever, or if there will be changes down the road. Could this be one possible reason for the delay of updates on WP7? My guess is yes, because two WP7 carriers in such talks would push everything else aside to complete them.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/20/atandt-agrees-to-buy-t-mobile-from-deutsche-telekom/
MartyLK said:
I wonder what that means for us HD7 WP7 users. I also wonder if the bands will remain the same forever, or if there will be changes down the road. Could this be one possible reason for the delay of updates on WP7? My guess is yes, because two WP7 carriers in such talks would push everything else aside to complete them.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/20/atandt-agrees-to-buy-t-mobile-from-deutsche-telekom/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The acquisition or merger will not be complete till sometime next year.
There is nothing to suggest that this news will hinder the update plans.
lqaddict said:
The acquisition or merger will not be complete till sometime next year.
There is nothing to suggest that this news will hinder the update plans.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Only thing, though, as was the case with Sony and RIM, when two companies are involved with other dynamics, current affairs tend to take a back seat. That's how it was with Sony while they were in legal proceedings with RIM over some issue I can't remember. But when the proceedings were completed, RIM started putting out all manner of new devices and Sony started putting out some new portable stuff.
This blows. I currently have the HD7 on T-mobile. I hate At&T and would want to move to Sprint if this goes through.
thats until verizon buys sprint.. then we will have to choose virgin mobile or metro pcs
vHatch said:
This blows. I currently have the HD7 on T-mobile. I hate At&T and would want to move to Sprint if this goes through.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The only thing bad about AT&T compared to T-Mobile is the pricing, and the fact that T-Mobile has free roaming to make up for their terrible Voice Coverage (Data Coverage is still pretty crappy).
AT&T Actually has been putting up new towers here, T-Mobile, Sprint, and Verizon haven't been adding anything and none of them get any coverage here: T-Mobile Roams and that's free so if you only need voice coverage I guess it works. AT&T put up a new 3G tower a mile away.
It won't mean anything for AWS Band phone users.
The same thing happened when AT&T Brought Cingular, and Sprint brought Nextel. There are still iDen phones out there working, almost a decade or so later...
HoorayBeer said:
thats until verizon buys sprint.. then we will have to choose virgin mobile or metro pcs
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Metro PCS practically doesn't exist around here, and Virgin/Boost are both terrible around here because Sprint has terrible coverage. Almost as bad as T-Mobile, with only 1/3rd the 3G speeds and worse phone choices.
Hopefully the influx of customers into AT&T and the larger infrastructure leads them to compete more rigorously with Verizon when it comes to pricing, since in about 2 years or so they can mitigate a lot of the coverage differences...
HoorayBeer said:
thats until verizon buys sprint.. then we will have to choose virgin mobile or metro pcs
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
MetroPCS is a subsidy of Sprint.
Not sure who owns Virgin though.
Sent from my Bionix powered Vibrant
1 GSM provider, damn.
AT&T phone selection sucks.
lqaddict said:
MetroPCS is a subsidy of Sprint.
Not sure who owns Virgin though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Where did you get that information? I knew Boost was a part of Sprint, but MetroPCS?
xmckinzie said:
Where did you get that information? I knew Boost was a part of Sprint, but MetroPCS?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My bad, I was thinking of Boost Mobile. The PCS in the name suggested that it was Sprint (Sprint PCS with the red wings and a pin )
Any way MetroPCS footprint is sooooo small they might as well get under Sprint.
vetvito said:
1 GSM provider, damn.
AT&T phone selection sucks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Compared to T-Mobile's selection, AT&T's selection is much better...though I do agree their selection could be much better with more desired smartphones.
Metro PCS, and Cricket are all under Leap Wireless, I think. Yes they are small.
I hope AT&T grandfather us T-Mobile users in. AT&T plans are outrageous.
vetvito said:
1 GSM provider, damn.
AT&T phone selection sucks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What? AT&T actually has a better selection of phones than Verizon. The only thing that sucked was their selection of Android phones, but that was remedied quickly after they lost iPhone exclusivity.
They have the best selection of Blackberries.
They've generally carried more Windows Mobile and Symbian Phones than the competitors.
They have the iPhone, and they have both mid-range and high end Android phones.
They carried the Pre and Pixi Plus.
Now that they've lost iPhone exclusivity, their phone selection actually got better.
One has to be blind to actually say AT&T's phone selection sucks. They are the only carrier without a clear bias when it comes to smartphone OSes. Yes, they pushed their exclusive iPhone, but they carry/carried literally everything else from Android to WP7... Verizon and T-Mobile (and now even Sprint) all seem to care pretty much only about Android. Verizon cares about the iPhone because they wanted to leech customers from AT&T, but I guess that didn't work as planned since the lines were embarassingly thin when that launched...
Also, LTE is a GSM technology so eventually every major carrier will migrate to that. AT&T (GSM) buying T-Mobile (GSM) just makes it easier for them to transition to LTE, gives them greater capacity, and gives them the largest 4G LTE coverage area of all the major carriers.
Also, I believe Virgin is owned by Sprint as well.
I got away from Cingular/AT&T as fast as I could in the past. I despised their service, their pricing, and their overall level of customer support. I could not stand the position I was in with them, and honestly, I've never had a single problem with T-Mobile...
However, I am not as pessimistic about this announcement as the rest of the T-Mobile world is. I see this as a potential win-win for both parties, which will eventually become one. T-Mobile has the right idea for everything plan oriented in my eyes, but they've never had the superior budget and revenue that AT&T and Verizon have. This allows them to have the cash flow to implement ideas. I do think AT&T has seen T-Mobile's success, which is obviously why they went after them. I do believe they will incorporate the best of both worlds... these companies aren't juggernauts because they've made the wrong decisions their entire existence... I promise you that. It also gives them both a much stronger spectrum and coverage. There are places I have perfect service and an AT&T user didn't, and vice versa... This eliminates that... It'll obviously take a great deal of time, but it's going to improve the service.
I won't be 'jumping ship' like the Magenta lovers on TmoNews are announcing... I'm looking forward to the positives. I'm also looking forward to the decrease in Android superiority in my handset selection. I guess time will tell all.
FiyaFleye said:
I got away from Cingular/AT&T as fast as I could in the past. I despised their service, their pricing, and their overall level of customer support. I could not stand the position I was in with them, and honestly, I've never had a single problem with T-Mobile...
However, I am not as pessimistic about this announcement as the rest of the T-Mobile world is. I see this as a potential win-win for both parties, which will eventually become one. T-Mobile has the right idea for everything plan oriented in my eyes, but they've never had the superior budget and revenue that AT&T and Verizon have. This allows them to have the cash flow to implement ideas. I do think AT&T has seen T-Mobile's success, which is obviously why they went after them. I do believe they will incorporate the best of both worlds... these companies aren't juggernauts because they've made the wrong decisions their entire existence... I promise you that. It also gives them both a much stronger spectrum and coverage. There are places I have perfect service and an AT&T user didn't, and vice versa... This eliminates that... It'll obviously take a great deal of time, but it's going to improve the service.
I won't be 'jumping ship' like the Magenta lovers on TmoNews are announcing... I'm looking forward to the positives. I'm also looking forward to the decrease in Android superiority in my handset selection. I guess time will tell all.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Problem is if this is the kind of thing you get from at&t now, how much worse will it be when they have more customers and have to throttle everybody: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KupMmHfRWzQ&feature=player_embedded#at=12. Tmobile has been good with not messing with phone capability or trying to hoodwink customers, with only at&t as the sole GSM provider there is no choice for anyone who travels a lot and wants to avoid ridiculous roaming fees.
efjay said:
Problem is if this is the kind of thing you get from at&t now, how much worse will it be when they have more customers and have to throttle everybody: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KupMmHfRWzQ&feature=player_embedded#at=12. Tmobile has been good with not messing with phone capability or trying to hoodwink customers, with only at&t as the sole GSM provider there is no choice for anyone who travels a lot and wants to avoid ridiculous roaming fees.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AT&T has proven to take good qualities and utilize them... Like Rollover when they acquired (re-aquired?) Cingular. You have to understand, they are going to have T-Mobile towers now, already running HSPA+ which keeps getting better... I'm sure in this year they are going to be getting their HSPA up to T-Mobile standards so when they switch happens its perfect. Then you have an amazing infrastructure to establish your LTE network. I'm personally being optimistic here... You gain nothing in life being pessimistic, especially about a service you're bound to.
Unsatisfied with the customer service and network stability of AT&T... Not sure what would happen when T-mobile users are added in.
Also I'm worried if AT&T would have less motivation to build tower after T-Mobile is acquired.
amtrakcn said:
Unsatisfied with the customer service and network stability of AT&T... Not sure what would happen when T-mobile users are added in.
Also I'm worried if AT&T would have less motivation to build tower after T-Mobile is acquired.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AT&T & T-Mobile aren't the only competing mobile providers... AT&T still has a variety of other carriers to compete with. To think they're going to stand around and do nothing now is ridiculous, and honestly, Verizon is their bigger competition... this just gives AT&T more towers and more power to implement features... Also provides T-Mobile's know-how and very well created/handled HSPA+...
This is great news for me as a AT&T customer where I work which is in an Automotive Paint shop AT&T barely comes in but T-Mobile comes in great so hopefully the towers will share the same signals...
We do however have a contract with Verizon and they have equipment within our facility that boosts the CDMA signal which we have found does sometimes cancel out the GSM network but on rare occasions...
I just prefer AT&T as I use Uverse and love it and really like the rollover minute plan and how I can use the free wifi everywhere through AT&T...
My main concern is since AT&T bought T-Mobile how long will it take before AT&T will be able to start accessing the T-Mobile towers and vice versa?
Hi - I'm looking for some good answers - I think I know the basics...
After much shopping, I bought 2 of these...
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=170623785892&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT
(HTC Touch Pro 2 s - the wife likes for our phones to match so I can teach, set up, etc...)
I think they are called T7373 SEA's South East Asia Versions, and I flashed to 2.07.707/4.49.25.91 radio just fine to get current at WM6.5. (I like factory ROM's - the books work, etc - despite my appreciation for the effort to cook.)
Now - I'm currently ATT, and when they go to Data Plan me, I'm going to T-Mobile prepaid.
So - I get to looking at 3g frequencies - of course!
The book for the device says 900/2100 HSPA/WCDMA.
The sellers' ad says
3G Network HSDPA 900 / 2100
HSDPA 850 / 1900 / 2100 or HSDPA 1700 / 2100
(It's not really clear what the 'or' means)
Now, I'm not *****ing at the seller, I want to really understand, and they knew I was US and they asked ATT or Tmobile.
Would they like have reached into one of three bins, to sell me one of three truly different hardware phones - OR - picked a phone up and flashed it (Radio or full ROM) to my provider, or did they just configure the existing system so it picked Tmobile and its freqs for instance? (When the phone boots, it asks T-Mobile or 2 other Asian-sounding systems) How else could the phones do as advertised? (9/21, 8.5/19, or 17/21)
If the frequencies are not a settings, but a ROM/Radio issue, can I load the 'other US guys' flash and have it work?
If not, does anyone know what really is changed in the hardwares (I imagine the antennas' length might vary by X%, but then here that's % of mms.)
Thanks - great answers and experience really appreciated!!
The device in the picture of the ad is a European unbranded model (RHOD100). It's 3G frequencies are on the 2100MHz band. If they sent you the one pictures, you will not get 3G with any US provider. AT&T uses 850MHz and 1900MHz for their 3G service, while T-Mobile uses 1700/2100MHz. 3G radios are hardware dependent, not software dependent. This means that you must purchase the device that contains the radio for the 3G service you wish to use. They will work on 2G networks anywhere in the world. 3G is really the only difference between carriers.
The AT&T device is the RHOD300 model, also known as the Tilt 2. The T-Mobile version is the RHOD210.
The short answer is that if they send you the exact device in the picture from the ad, you will only be able to get 3G in some parts of Asia and Europe.
The description on the eBay listing is just cut and paste from somewhere (like HTC's website), so that is why it says "or" for the 3G bands. One is for the Euro model, the other is for the Asia model. Either way, neither have the correct bands to give you 3G on AT&T or T-Mobile. And as cajun mentioned, bands are hardware dependent, and there is no way to change it.
If you want 3G on AT&T, you need to buy the AT&T branded Tilt2. But since they will be able to read the IMEI number of the phone (since its ATT branded), they will probably add a smartphone data plan very quickly. So its probably not even worth getting a Tilt2, if you don't want a smartphone data plan. If you want 3G on T-Mobile, you need to buy a T-Mobile branded TP2.
Bottom line, if the phones you bought are unbranded, then they don't have the correct hardware to get 3G on either AT&T or T-Mob.
THX
Hey guys(?) thanks, I think I understand.
So - basically the ad HAS to be a lie, at least for 3G.
So I'm still wondering... What does HTC actually change in the phones - a crystal (I doubt this in modern times), a chip, a pack, an antenna length? There is a small area in the phone that looks 'potted' we used to call it.
They are way too pretty, and way too functional 'as is' to mess with (so I'm not gonna go module or whatever shopping), and we are pretty much 'emergency only' web people (for maps, pizza places, etc) and 2G will be fast enough. The value of a keyboard for texting, the Windows interoperability, and no damn contract is good enough.
We are deciding which ROM level we want before we try ATT to see if they know the numbers... T-Mobile prepaid is the backup plan.
THX
tshephard said:
Hey guys(?) thanks, I think I understand.
So - basically the ad HAS to be a lie, at least for 3G.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A lie in that it looks like a lazy cut and paste, with either no proof-reading to catch the error, or a seller that does not fully understand what he is selling. They are a high volume seller, and also just used stock photos (not photos of the actual item), so its just a rushed auction posting. I don't think it was an intentional lie meant to mislead you. But if you want to dispute the sale, I think you have very good grounds, since the information in the auction is incorrect, and its actually impossible to tell what exact model (Euro or Asian) they are selling from the description.
AT&T most likely won't be able to correlate the IMEI with the right phone brand/model. But I've seen cases where they think its a smartphone, but the wrong one, and try to add a smartphone plan. I read a post where a guy was using a Nexus One, and their system was reading it as a Blackberry. I think he just told them it was an unlocked dumbphone, and they removed the smartphone plan.
Please Correct me if I'm wrong...
presently I'm using Sprint Touch Pro 2, and I have read on the internet that it is possible to work with AT&T or T-Mobile (which uses different technology other than Sprint's CDMA) after proper unlocking. Is it possible?
Regards.
chris8989 said:
presently I'm using Sprint Touch Pro 2, and I have read on the internet that it is possible to work with AT&T or T-Mobile (which uses different technology other than Sprint's CDMA) after proper unlocking. Is it possible?
Regards.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, but you will not be able to use any other network's 3G service. The best you will get is EDGE on another network.
To follow up...
ATT stuck me on $25 Smartphone within 24 hours. (We went to $15 later, and they dropped us to a $10 cheaper talk plan.) For this particular set of phones, apparently the first 8 or so digits of the IMEI is phone type (which they clearly knew from Tilt 2's) and the rest is item serial number. Couldn't argue there...
Speeds, freqs... I don't get a clear definition of G's anywhere, but I show a H before I long on, and another H with bars as I use data. I have used cellular data at up to 1.1mbs per speed sites - I don't know if that's over E, or G, or H but it seems pretty fast to me. All that's on ATT, when I went to the T-Mobile store and tried their card, the best I got was 200kbs on about 5 tries.
Love the phones, added HTC task manager pulldown, and 1.6 VC from here - THX
tshephard said:
To follow up...
ATT stuck me on $25 Smartphone within 24 hours. (We went to $15 later, and they dropped us to a $10 cheaper talk plan.) For this particular set of phones, apparently the first 8 or so digits of the IMEI is phone type (which they clearly knew from Tilt 2's) and the rest is item serial number. Couldn't argue there...
Speeds, freqs... I don't get a clear definition of G's anywhere, but I show a H before I long on, and another H with bars as I use data. I have used cellular data at up to 1.1mbs per speed sites - I don't know if that's over E, or G, or H but it seems pretty fast to me. All that's on ATT, when I went to the T-Mobile store and tried their card, the best I got was 200kbs on about 5 tries.
Love the phones, added HTC task manager pulldown, and 1.6 VC from here - THX
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
G stands for GPRS, and it is a 2G service. It stands for General Packet Radio Service. It is the slowest data service you can get with speeds normally under 50Kbps. It is occasionally known as 2.5G service.
E stands for EDGE. It stands for Enhanced Data Rates for GSM Evolution. It was a revision to the 2G service implementation and features speeds from about 100Kbps to 250Kbps depending on location, service provider, and signal. It is occasionally referred to as a pre-3G technology. It fits in the ITU's definition of 3G, but few people refer to it as such. It is normally marketed as 2.9G.
UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunications System) was a revision to the voice service, and did not address much data-wise. This was the first widespread usage of the term and use of 3G. It is normally the service that your device is using when it shows the 3G icon. 3G speeds are normally 350Kbps - 500Kbps.
H stands for HSPA. It stands for High Speed Packet Access. It is one step higher than what is commonly known as 3G.It is also known as 3.5G. It features speeds closer to 1.5Mbps. HSPA is normally grouped in with 3G service when it is being discussed.
As for your test with T-Mobile, that wasn't really a fair comparison since you can't get 3G speeds on a Tilt2 on T-Mobile's network. You can only ever get EDGE service. Therefore, you were comparing AT&T's 3G service to T-Mobile's EDGE service. This is like trying to race a Mustang with a Moped. If you get the Rhod210 model, you will get the faster connection with T-Mobile. There isn't much to compare between AT&T and T-Mobile. AT&T 3G speeds are slower than T-Mobile. The services are also much cheaper on T-Mobile.
THX for reply, I generally understood all the abbreviations, but like you said - the marketing hype really seems to very from the technology.
If I saw, regularly, over 1 mbs and the H bars to the right of the H block, do ya' think I was H/HSPA over 8.5/9/19/21 freqs?
tshephard said:
THX for reply, I generally understood all the abbreviations, but like you said - the marketing hype really seems to very from the technology.
If I saw, regularly, over 1 mbs and the H bars to the right of the H block, do ya' think I was H/HSPA over 8.5/9/19/21 freqs?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
On AT&T it would be HSPA on the 850MHz and/or 1900MHz frequencies. T-Mobile uses 1700MHz for HSDPA and 2100MHz for HSUPA. The frequencies for 2G services are all the same for everyone. This is why you will get up to EDGE service with any GSM carrier, but never 3G service unless you buy a device that explicitly supports that carrier's 3G service.
Official Sprint Answer:
Sprint is committed to delivering the highest quality network experience. Our Network Vision plan will improve your network experience, but it does not include any EVDO Rev B launch. Sprint has evaluated EVDO Rev B and chosen to go directly to 4G connections. Since we are not launching EVDO Rev B, none of our handsets supports EVDO Rev B.
It looks like maybe no Rev. B after all. Hopefully they'll push 4G LTE and keep going.
FINALLY! Thank goodness. Let's stick a fork in this horse.
BTW, where is your source? (I know others will ask)
Just throwing this out there bit talked to a sprint rep at my local corporate store and guy said that lte is not faster than wimax infact wimax is true 4g and he told me that lte is like turning your volume to 11 and is just a little better than 3g. Said lte will most likely cover more areas but wimax is still a lot faster.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
corybucher said:
Just throwing this out there bit talked to a sprint rep at my local corporate store and guy said that lte is not faster than wimax infact wimax is true 4g and he told me that lte is like turning your volume to 11 and is just a little better than 3g. Said lte will most likely cover more areas but wimax is still a lot faster.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What good is speed if hardly anybody can get it? Give me more coverage!
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk
corybucher said:
Just throwing this out there bit talked to a sprint rep at my local corporate store and guy said that lte is not faster than wimax infact wimax is true 4g and he told me that lte is like turning your volume to 11 and is just a little better than 3g. Said lte will most likely cover more areas but wimax is still a lot faster.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
not surprising that a Sprint rep would say that..unfortunately, the truth seems to be just the opposite in the real world, based on everything I have read about Verizons LTE, and my friends who have it say the same thing..makes Sprints non sense look lame compared to it..
and just like i said in the other thread.....you people were freaking out over a baseless rumor
now how many of these idiots actually turned there phones back in
---------- Post added at 04:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 PM ----------
corybucher said:
Just throwing this out there bit talked to a sprint rep at my local corporate store and guy said that lte is not faster than wimax infact wimax is true 4g and he told me that lte is like turning your volume to 11 and is just a little better than 3g. Said lte will most likely cover more areas but wimax is still a lot faster.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
getting your info from a sprint rep is like getting info from sarah palin about the economy....
Neither the LTE that's being rolled out by Verizon and ATT or sprints current Wimax meet the international standard that 4g is supposed to be.
But the LTE technologies being rolled out are a step in the right direction.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using XDA App
spencer88 said:
What good is speed if hardly anybody can get it? Give me more coverage!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Word! I'll take any form of 4G in San Diego, even if I have to follow a donkey around with a WiMax tower, built by a few guys behind a 7-11 with straws and Big Gulp cups, strapped to its back.
corybucher said:
Just throwing this out there bit talked to a sprint rep at my local corporate store and guy said that lte is not faster than wimax infact wimax is true 4g and he told me that lte is like turning your volume to 11 and is just a little better than 3g. Said lte will most likely cover more areas but wimax is still a lot faster.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is simply idiotic. It makes no sense.
Sprint's WiMax implementation sucks. Putting LTE on those same frequencies would also suck. Maybe worse.
It's not the protocol it's the spectrum. Clearwire/Sprint's WiMax is on a handful of razor-thin bands on high frequencies. It's not surprising that it sucks so much and the word "WiMax" has nothing to do with it.
imtjnotu said:
and just like i said in the other thread.....you people were freaking out over a baseless rumor
now how many of these idiots actually turned there phones back in
Haha right. All that bull**** about rev b and the **** ain't even happening. U said it correctly. The people who returned their phones based on that are IDIOTS
sent from my DAMN phone!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wimax doesn't HAVE to be any worse than LTE or suck -- Clear just did a crap job of deploying the most minimal subset of the standard possible. WiMax CAN do soft hand-offs... Clear just didn't bother buying the software license to enable it to work, and instead chose to deploy them the cheapest way possible, and configured them to act like wifi access points that just happen to have ~1km footprints).
There's nothing magic about Verizon's LTE -- they have more backhaul, and allocated more bandwidth to it than Clear did. Sprint LTE can suck every bit as badly as Sprint/Clear Wimax does, and it won't be any more compatible with AT&T or Verizon's LTE than Sprint phones are with their 3G service.
LTE's standard-ness is wildly over-hyped, and almost completely meaningless in the US. In Europe and Asia, it might matter and mean something. Unfortunately, America's wireless phone market is as messed up as Japan's, and unlikely to ever change. If Sprint bought and merged with T-Mobile, and deployed a nationwide unified network with CDMA2000 voice & 1xRTT, legacy GSM & GPRS/EDGE, EVDO (rev.A, B, and Advanced), WiMax, AND LTE... AT&T and Verizon would still manage to find ways to be incompatible with it and each other, because they don't WANT their networks to be commodity-like wireless pipes to the internet where consumers can switch service providers at will and without repercussions.
IMHO, the best thing Sprint could possibly DO right now is repurpose the Wimax for backhaul, and use it to fully saturate their EVDO spectrum (and, once the furor over rev.B dies down, quietly enable and advertise it with some stupid name like "Ultim8 Vision" since their new tower hardware is almost certainly capable of it). Deploying two separate loosely stapled-together data networks was just about the worst idea in mobile phone history, especially when you consider that the move was 100% marketing and had nothing to do with real-world performance.
In most places, unless you're having a picnic lunch outdoors next to the tower, you'd get better sustained performance from Rev.A with enough backhaul bandwidth to fully saturate it, let alone Rev.B -- and unlike Sprint's disastrous experiment with 4G, your phone wouldn't spend half its time madly thrashing back and forth between 3G and 4G trying to make up its mind which one it wants to use (leaving you without network access for 10-30 seconds or more each time). For proof, just look at T-Mobile in places like Chicago. Same un-sexy UMTS as before, but in places where they've put it to full use and squeezed every bit of performance out of it they can, it blows Sprint's 4G away in real-world usability.
Concise and all encompassing. I couldn't have said it better my self. Meaning I actually do not have it in my own capacity to say it better, or even as well, myself.
Your presence in our forum is an asset. You truly know what's up.
That said, I couldn't agree more...lol
I talked to a sprint from corp in lisa angeles he told me lte and wimax have almost the same speeds and lte can go further
corybucher said:
Just throwing this out there bit talked to a sprint rep at my local corporate store and guy said that lte is not faster than wimax infact wimax is true 4g and he told me that lte is like turning your volume to 11 and is just a little better than 3g. Said lte will most likely cover more areas but wimax is still a lot faster.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sent from my SPH-D710 using XDA App
Verizon's current LTE and Sprint's WIMAX are not true 4G. LTE Advanced and WIMAX 2 (802.16m) are the true 4G standards.
F that true 4g stuff. They are the 4th major data network type for their respectable providers
Sent from my SPH-D710 using XDA App
bitbang3r said:
Wimax doesn't HAVE to be any worse than LTE or suck -- Clear just did a crap job of deploying the most minimal subset of the standard possible. WiMax CAN do soft hand-offs... Clear just didn't bother buying the software license to enable it to work, and instead chose to deploy them the cheapest way possible, and configured them to act like wifi access points that just happen to have ~1km footprints).
There's nothing magic about Verizon's LTE -- they have more backhaul, and allocated more bandwidth to it than Clear did. Sprint LTE can suck every bit as badly as Sprint/Clear Wimax does, and it won't be any more compatible with AT&T or Verizon's LTE than Sprint phones are with their 3G service.
LTE's standard-ness is wildly over-hyped, and almost completely meaningless in the US. In Europe and Asia, it might matter and mean something. Unfortunately, America's wireless phone market is as messed up as Japan's, and unlikely to ever change. If Sprint bought and merged with T-Mobile, and deployed a nationwide unified network with CDMA2000 voice & 1xRTT, legacy GSM & GPRS/EDGE, EVDO (rev.A, B, and Advanced), WiMax, AND LTE... AT&T and Verizon would still manage to find ways to be incompatible with it and each other, because they don't WANT their networks to be commodity-like wireless pipes to the internet where consumers can switch service providers at will and without repercussions.
IMHO, the best thing Sprint could possibly DO right now is repurpose the Wimax for backhaul, and use it to fully saturate their EVDO spectrum (and, once the furor over rev.B dies down, quietly enable and advertise it with some stupid name like "Ultim8 Vision" since their new tower hardware is almost certainly capable of it). Deploying two separate loosely stapled-together data networks was just about the worst idea in mobile phone history, especially when you consider that the move was 100% marketing and had nothing to do with real-world performance.
In most places, unless you're having a picnic lunch outdoors next to the tower, you'd get better sustained performance from Rev.A with enough backhaul bandwidth to fully saturate it, let alone Rev.B -- and unlike Sprint's disastrous experiment with 4G, your phone wouldn't spend half its time madly thrashing back and forth between 3G and 4G trying to make up its mind which one it wants to use (leaving you without network access for 10-30 seconds or more each time). For proof, just look at T-Mobile in places like Chicago. Same un-sexy UMTS as before, but in places where they've put it to full use and squeezed every bit of performance out of it they can, it blows Sprint's 4G away in real-world usability.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Clears coverage could be the exact same as Verizon's LTE and it would still be garbage due to the frequency its on.
---------- Post added at 05:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:22 AM ----------
Tuffgong4 said:
Verizon's current LTE and Sprint's WIMAX are not true 4G. LTE Advanced and WIMAX 2 (802.16m) are the true 4G standards.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you think consumers give a damn about this? Honestly...
bitbang3r said:
Wimax doesn't HAVE to be any worse than LTE or suck -- Clear just did a crap job of deploying the most minimal subset of the standard possible. WiMax CAN do soft hand-offs... Clear just didn't bother buying the software license to enable it to work, and instead chose to deploy them the cheapest way possible, and configured them to act like wifi access points that just happen to have ~1km footprints).
There's nothing magic about Verizon's LTE -- they have more backhaul, and allocated more bandwidth to it than Clear did. Sprint LTE can suck every bit as badly as Sprint/Clear Wimax does, and it won't be any more compatible with AT&T or Verizon's LTE than Sprint phones are with their 3G service.
LTE's standard-ness is wildly over-hyped, and almost completely meaningless in the US. In Europe and Asia, it might matter and mean something. Unfortunately, America's wireless phone market is as messed up as Japan's, and unlikely to ever change. If Sprint bought and merged with T-Mobile, and deployed a nationwide unified network with CDMA2000 voice & 1xRTT, legacy GSM & GPRS/EDGE, EVDO (rev.A, B, and Advanced), WiMax, AND LTE... AT&T and Verizon would still manage to find ways to be incompatible with it and each other, because they don't WANT their networks to be commodity-like wireless pipes to the internet where consumers can switch service providers at will and without repercussions.
IMHO, the best thing Sprint could possibly DO right now is repurpose the Wimax for backhaul, and use it to fully saturate their EVDO spectrum (and, once the furor over rev.B dies down, quietly enable and advertise it with some stupid name like "Ultim8 Vision" since their new tower hardware is almost certainly capable of it). Deploying two separate loosely stapled-together data networks was just about the worst idea in mobile phone history, especially when you consider that the move was 100% marketing and had nothing to do with real-world performance.
In most places, unless you're having a picnic lunch outdoors next to the tower, you'd get better sustained performance from Rev.A with enough backhaul bandwidth to fully saturate it, let alone Rev.B -- and unlike Sprint's disastrous experiment with 4G, your phone wouldn't spend half its time madly thrashing back and forth between 3G and 4G trying to make up its mind which one it wants to use (leaving you without network access for 10-30 seconds or more each time). For proof, just look at T-Mobile in places like Chicago. Same un-sexy UMTS as before, but in places where they've put it to full use and squeezed every bit of performance out of it they can, it blows Sprint's 4G away in real-world usability.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very nicely put even though I am quite sad about no rev b which I think would be a good idea to help with speed and capacity they are applying 1x advanced which will help capacity issues and enable simultaneous voice and data which will be nice. But the combined tower spectrums once phones come out with chips that will take advantage of it it should increase data speeds and coverage greatly the problem now is the wait they need to hurry up and get every one off Nextel, and start the conversion.
Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk
I would be more than happy if they just fixed Rev A to work at a reasonable speed like 1.5-2M (which is what Verizon is providing in my area).
As to "true" 4G, I don't think anybody really cares, they just want something that works, not some experiment where you turn it on to run speed tests and brag to your friends, then turn it off because your battery will die or because you don't get signals indoors.
Gotta love how in all the discussion about frequency strength, frequency distance, speed, technology etc; people tend to forget the meaning of G in 2g, 3g and 4g is GENERATION.
To arbitrarily define how fast something should be to be considered a new "generation" should be insulting and stupid to pretty much everyone. It'd be like saying Generation X were just Baby Boomers 2g because they weren't good enough to be their own generation.
Put a sock in it. 4th generation of mobile networks = 4g. Nuff said.
AbsolutZeroGI said:
Gotta love how in all the discussion about frequency strength, frequency distance, speed, technology etc; people tend to forget the meaning of G in 2g, 3g and 4g is GENERATION.
To arbitrarily define how fast something should be to be considered a new "generation" should be insulting and stupid to pretty much everyone. It'd be like saying Generation X were just Baby Boomers 2g because they weren't good enough to be their own generation.
Put a sock in it. 4th generation of mobile networks = 4g. Nuff said.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"Quoted for the truth"
LOVE the "Baby Boomers 2G analogy"!
I guess all the BS marketing hype by the phone carriers has actually worked on the mindless lemmings that walk among us..
Would it ever be possible for Verizon to become a cdma provider? I know nothing about how it works honestly but if its something they could chnagr and keep existing network they could if they'd have to start over obviously not. Just curious since where I live Verizon is the only choice but GSM just beats cdma on many levels. Sorry if this is in the wrong section or if it sounds as dumb as I fear it does.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using XDA
No. They're (effectively) never going to drop CDMA. For the foreseeable future they will be using CDMA as a legacy fallback network. Eventually they'll push to VoLTE (Voice over LTE) and start to phase out sales of new CDMA devices, but that's far into the future. They still have to support millions of legacy CDMA devices.
Verizon is too large with too big of a user base to pivot to GSM. Honestly at this point even if they wanted to (they don't), it wouldn't be worth the time and effort considering they're pushing LTE as their next network technology. It'd just be a complete waste of time.
Damn. Reading about all the new nexus devices being only cdma has me hating where I live as T-Mobile or att would have no service 90% of the time.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using XDA
Verizon is switching to GSM since they are moving to lte and the lte voice. They'll never go backwards to hspa though, and they likely will keep their cdma network for more than 5 years.
Notice new Verizon phones have sim cards?
RogerPodacter said:
Verizon is switching to GSM since they are moving to lte and the lte voice. They'll never go backwards to hspa though, and they likely will keep their cdma network for more than 5 years.
Notice new Verizon phones have sim cards?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ya isn't lte the GSM type tech and umb or whatever its called was the cdma technology.
I was reading that vodafone (one of the biggest carriers in the world, GSM, has stock in verizon) and Verizon decided together that lte was the future instead of the cdma version.
Even with the switch to LTE, Verizon's LTE operates in the 700MHz band, which none of the GSM/LTE networks will be compatible with. The result will in all likelihood be two separate LTE networks.
With the investment that Verizon already has in their 700MHz equipment, it is highly unlikely for them to make a switch.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using XDA
cslester said:
Even with the switch to LTE, Verizon's LTE operates in the 700MHz band, which none of the GSM/LTE networks will be compatible with. The result will in all likelihood be two separate LTE networks.
With the investment that Verizon already has in their 700MHz equipment, it is highly unlikely for them to make a switch.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using XDA
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ATT is 700mhz as well.
Cdma keeps connection when traveling between towers much more reliably as well.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
adrynalyne said:
ATT is 700mhz as well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But different "parts" of 700mhz.
I don't know whether or not cell phone providers actually do this, (I'm not terribly familiar with how they work) but you can fit multiple carrier signals into the same frequency by adjusting the phase and polarity.
I know satellite providers do this. The even transponders use linear polarity (modulating based on variable strength of the signal,) and the odd ones use circular polarity (modulating based on the directional vector at a given point in time.) In addition to that (and I don't think satellite providers do this yet) you can add a second linear modulation with a phase shift of 90 degrees to add yet another carrier signal.
adrynalyne said:
ATT is 700mhz as well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, AT&T uses A & B blocks in lower 700MHz. VZW is C-Block Upper 700MHz. While you could probably make an LTE radio that combines the Lower A, B and C (lower C =! upper C), getting all four bands to play nice is going to be very difficult.
blackhand1001 said:
Cdma keeps connection when traveling between towers much more reliably as well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So does GSM, as long as it's operating in UMTS mode (which it will, unless you're making a voice call on T-Mobile from an airboat 5 miles south of Alligator Alley (I-75) in the middle of the Florida Everglades & barely have a viable signal to begin with, in which case it will fall back to legacy TDMA-based 1G GSM).
I know satellite providers do this. The even transponders use linear polarity (modulating based on variable strength of the signal,) and the odd ones use circular polarity (modulating based on the directional vector at a given point in time.) In addition to that (and I don't think satellite providers do this yet) you can add a second linear modulation with a phase shift of 90 degrees to add yet another carrier signal.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They could... except then your phone would only work when uplinked & downlinked through a fixed, securely-mounted antenna. Doppler shift does terrible things to phase-based modulation. Just ask anybody who's ever tried to watch an 8VSB-modulated ATSC TV transmission during a hurricane (when the transmission antenna is wobbling) or from a moving vehicle. In theory, there are exotic antenna designs that can untangle polarized signals while moving by simultaneously receiving multiple phases & using a DSP to separate them out "after the fact", but they're *way* out of the current realm of viability for mass-market consumer electronics, and WAY more demanding than a 2" metal stub embedded inside your phone.
Truth be told, spectrum isn't the problem. Tower density is. The nice thing about CDMA is that you can literally fix almost any bandwidth problem just by throwing more tower sites at it & letting the network sort itself out like magic. CDMA has very few "hard" limits. Some, like 1.25MHz or 5MHz channel pairs, are carved in stone and can't be engineered around. Once you're in the club and own the spectrum, though, it's really just a question of "what kind of tower density are you willing to pay for. Crowded mall? Give it its own cell. More-crowded mall? Spread a dozen picocells around it, especially the food court.
Verizon is unlikely to ever support legacy GSM or UMTS directly, and can really only evolve into LTE going forward. Sprint could, in theory, buy T-Mobile, and instantly consolidate GSM/UMTS into any cell site where it has deployed Network Vision (~3% of the US, so far) as long as it had the use of T-Mobile's spectrum, with little more than a site visit, software upgrade, and some software reconfiguration. Verizon can't do that, because it ALREADY upgraded its network, and has too much in sunk costs to scrap everything and redo every cell site the way Sprint is (and MUST). Truth be told, Sprint won't do it either unless it merges with T-Mo, and the feds are unlikely to allow it (it's not 100% impossible, but VERY unlikely to happen unless there were simultaneously a merger between US Cellular, MetroPCS, Sprint's "rural" partner networks, and/or Cincinnati Bell (to preserve the status quo Quadropoly).
AT&T and Cingular switched to GSM because they had no meaningful upgrade path from TDMA. In fact, AT&T was actually planning to switch to CDMA until they bought Cingular, and altered their plans only because Cingular was already deploying GSM. In theory, Sprint+Tmo (with the spectrum of both) could semi-gracefully migrate towards GSM with backwards compatibility for CDMA2000 voice and 1xRTT (like Telus did in Canada), but NOBODY could really get away with "flipping a switch" and forcing a wholesale changeover anymore. Hell, Sprint doesn't even have enough Nextel customers left to pay the electric bill for their added tower costs, and the official iDEN sunset is STILL two years away.
For well over a year now Sprint customers have been dealing with sluggish 3G and 4G WiMAX data speeds. Network woes for America’s third largest wireless carrier have worsened over the past six months or so, as the carrier’s outdated WiMAX 4G offerings were halted in an effort to focus on building a new 4G LTE network. While this decision has good intentions, it has left the bulk of Sprint’s customers stranded on its old, overcrowded CDMA 3G network. However, all hope may not be lost for Sprint and its customers, as the troubled carrier has pledged to deploy its new LTE services by mid-2012, which is literally a couple of weeks away. Set to hit Atlanta, Baltimore, Houston, Dallas, Kansas City, and San Antonio, the question remains if Sprint’s new network setup can hold its own with already established 4G LTE from its competition.
In an effort to answer this burning question, PCMag recently spent some candid time with Sprint’s new LTE network and ran several tests comparing it to both Verizon’s and AT&T’s LTE services. The tests were conducted in Atlanta, Georgia in five different locations using a “specially provisioned” LG Viper 4G LTE phone and a PC Mag’s in-house Sensorly app, along with Ookla’s Speedtest.net app.
The results reveal that Sprint’s LTE is indeed fast, but not quite as fast as peak speeds seen on AT&T’s and Verizon’s networks. This is to be expected, due to Sprint decision to use 5MHz channels band instead of the 10MHz channels that its competition uses. However, the networks still appear to be very competitive. Using the Sensorly speed test app in four different test locations, PCMag found that Sprint’s network produced an average download speed between 9 and 13Mbps, which is on a par with AT&T’s 5MHz channel LTE. Sprint’s download speeds peaked at 26.5Mbps, which also remained competitive with AT&T’s peak 5MHz speeds of around 27.8Mbps.
Surprisingly Sprint’s network speeds were comparable to Verizon’s 10MHz setup, but keep in mind that Verizon’s network is already used by its customers, while Sprint’s was near empty and in a controlled testing environment. In regards to upload speeds, Sprint’s LTE averaged 2.19Mbps, which remained consistant with its own WiMAX 4G, AT&T’s LTE, T-Mobile HSPA+, but was still slower than Verizon.
Obviously focused on LTE, Sprint is aggressively pushing new LTE-capable phones such as the Galaxy Nexus, LG Viper, and HTC EVO 4G LTE, but as it stands these new devices are stuck in the mud on Sprint’s 3G network until its 4G LTE network goes live for customers. While Sprint has committed to a midyear LTE deployment, the carrier has remained coy about its complete network release schedule. This restrictive strategy places a great deal of Sprint’s customers in the dark about their network’s future, and the carrier runs the risk of losing customers to existing LTE networks offered by its competitors.
While Sprint continues to remain in network limbo, its biggest beacon of hope for its customers is its noted commitment to true unlimited data. This is something that its major competitors have abandoned and will likely be Sprint’s saving grace if the carrier’s data speeds are attractive to consumers. However, if Sprint doesn’t deliver on its promises sooner than later, the only speed the carrier will be experiencing is a rapid loss of existing customers.
Source:http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2405675,00.asp
Good article and nice find, but...
Did you paraphrase the article?
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
squshy 7 said:
Good article and nice find, but...
Did you paraphrase the article?
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The article is from techno Buffalo but they were not the actual testers so I put the original source if somebody wanted to read the full article
Sent from my GS2 the next big thing
Well its a win win when lte is live everywhere it will be easing congestion but otherwise if people leave in droves it will still free resources LOL
But unlimited data is the only thing keeping anyone here anyway
I rather have slow steady unlimited than capped super sonic speeds
Sent from my SPH-D710 using XDA
If those are the speeds they're getting with nobody on the network, then that's poor.
Imagine when it actually launches, even in only the 6 initial markets and millions actually start using it...
LordLugard said:
If those are the speeds they're getting with nobody on the network, then that's poor.
Imagine when it actually launches, even in only the 6 initial markets and millions actually start using it...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think it will hold up
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
revamper said:
I think it will hold up
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think so too. The network is still growing so I doubt it'll be that slow.
Plus, once your above a consistent 4-5Mbps that holds while actually moving itll only ever make a noticable difference whike downloading ROMs, and that will still be WiFi recommended.
Those speeds arent good at all though, my WiMAX is right there with it. The difference will be in the connectivity while mobile.
auau465121 said:
For well over a year now Sprint customers have been dealing with sluggish 3G and 4G WiMAX data speeds. Network woes for America’s third largest wireless carrier have worsened over the past six months or so, as the carrier’s outdated WiMAX 4G offerings were halted in an effort to focus on building a new 4G LTE network. While this decision has good intentions, it has left the bulk of Sprint’s customers stranded on its old, overcrowded CDMA 3G network. However, all hope may not be lost for Sprint and its customers, as the troubled carrier has pledged to deploy its new LTE services by mid-2012, which is literally a couple of weeks away. Set to hit Atlanta, Baltimore, Houston, Dallas, Kansas City, and San Antonio, the question remains if Sprint’s new network setup can hold its own with already established 4G LTE from its competition.
In an effort to answer this burning question, PCMag recently spent some candid time with Sprint’s new LTE network and ran several tests comparing it to both Verizon’s and AT&T’s LTE services. The tests were conducted in Atlanta, Georgia in five different locations using a “specially provisioned” LG Viper 4G LTE phone and a PC Mag’s in-house Sensorly app, along with Ookla’s Speedtest.net app.
The results reveal that Sprint’s LTE is indeed fast, but not quite as fast as peak speeds seen on AT&T’s and Verizon’s networks. This is to be expected, due to Sprint decision to use 5MHz channels band instead of the 10MHz channels that its competition uses. However, the networks still appear to be very competitive. Using the Sensorly speed test app in four different test locations, PCMag found that Sprint’s network produced an average download speed between 9 and 13Mbps, which is on a par with AT&T’s 5MHz channel LTE. Sprint’s download speeds peaked at 26.5Mbps, which also remained competitive with AT&T’s peak 5MHz speeds of around 27.8Mbps.
Surprisingly Sprint’s network speeds were comparable to Verizon’s 10MHz setup, but keep in mind that Verizon’s network is already used by its customers, while Sprint’s was near empty and in a controlled testing environment. In regards to upload speeds, Sprint’s LTE averaged 2.19Mbps, which remained consistant with its own WiMAX 4G, AT&T’s LTE, T-Mobile HSPA+, but was still slower than Verizon.
Obviously focused on LTE, Sprint is aggressively pushing new LTE-capable phones such as the Galaxy Nexus, LG Viper, and HTC EVO 4G LTE, but as it stands these new devices are stuck in the mud on Sprint’s 3G network until its 4G LTE network goes live for customers. While Sprint has committed to a midyear LTE deployment, the carrier has remained coy about its complete network release schedule. This restrictive strategy places a great deal of Sprint’s customers in the dark about their network’s future, and the carrier runs the risk of losing customers to existing LTE networks offered by its competitors.
While Sprint continues to remain in network limbo, its biggest beacon of hope for its customers is its noted commitment to true unlimited data. This is something that its major competitors have abandoned and will likely be Sprint’s saving grace if the carrier’s data speeds are attractive to consumers. However, if Sprint doesn’t deliver on its promises sooner than later, the only speed the carrier will be experiencing is a rapid loss of existing customers.
Source:http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2405675,00.asp
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'll have to disagree on a couple points. The truly unlimited data was the first enticing thing to bring me to Sprint in the first place. Second, was the fact that they have the least demanding credit assessment. AT&T wanted me to pay a deposit of $146+, more or less, asking for my landline that I owe them on still. Verizon? Don't get me started there.. after my credit assessment through them, they wanted over $1G for the deposit.. I laughed and immediately went to AT&T's go phone at that time. Limited in data, yes, but the only way I could get on a cell with poor credit, as Sprint was wanting a $100 deposit, not bad, but being unsure of where my next funding was coming from, this did not bode well. It was a couple years before I tried Sprint again, and found out, not only did I have no deposit this time, I could trade in my old AT&T go phone, and got a nice credit towards a descent phone within my price range, the Nexus S 4G. On top of that, Sprint works with several companies to offer an employment discount, mine being 17%, something AT&T has abandoned for a LOT of employers.
Now, let's talk about customer service. IMHO, Sprint is unmatched in providing excellent customer service (in fact, I just found out recently, they've been ranked #1 in this department). Something you won't find with the other 2. They let me know of services they offer, that in order to get it out of AT&T or Verizon, you have to go through an area manager - not something a LOT of people want to deal with. Verizon? The sales rep that ran my credit couldn't understand half of what I was saying. With Sprint, I have only gotten a foreign rep* ONE time (out of the maybe, 15, times, I've had to call in), and they STILL were able to CLEARLY understand the problem I was having and easily helped me to resolve it.
So the bottom line here is, they have too many ups to have the down of their technology being a little behind, to lose too much of a customer base.
I know your article is put together from research and comment follow-ups to the testing articles, but it is still a good write-up, nonetheless.
BTW, if you've looked a little more recently, July 15th is the rollout date for the above mentioned cities, for LTE. Fortunately, I just happened to be in Metro ATL.
Well, that sums up my rebuttle. (however, that's spelled) Please don't take it personally. I'm just preaching from personal experience.
Peace,
~WickiD_D~
* edited to add: I mean no disrespect, no racism, and no stereo-typing in any way. I just think that there are a LOT of people who will agree that there is a natural language barrier that can occur when calling a customer service line, and it makes it very difficult to resolve customer service issues, at those times, for both the caller and the rep, because of it. I sincerely apologize if I offended anyone in any way, because I know we all come from different parts of the world in this forum, and would never intentionally want to hurt anyone here..