First Official iPhone 4 Teardown

On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 08:31:18 -0600, in <[email protected]>,
Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:

>In retrospect, I'd blame the Treo- as I said, my HTC Wizard was like that
>as well. Browsing or checking email virtually guaranteed missed calls.
>Switching to the HTC Kaiser/Tilt and now my X1 eliminated the problem.
>Maybe it was coincidence and it was something T-Mo did on the network end
>to prioritize voice, or increase the number of times it retried notifying
>a phone a call was coming in around the same time I ditched the Wizard,
>but in any case that frustration is finally history. After three years
>with the Wizard, I was actually startled when the Tilt rang one day while
>I was downloading something!
>
>It was actually the missed calls that prompted me to use a Visual
>Voicemail service (first Callwave's, now YouMail.) ...

FYI, T-Mobile has a very good visual voice mail app for Android.
Google Voice likewise.

--
Best regards,
John

"There are three kinds of men.
The one that learns by reading.
The few who learn by observation.
The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves."
-Will Rogers

---

› See More: First Official iPhone 4 Teardown

In message <[email protected]> John Navas
<[email protected]> was claimed to have wrote:

>No kidding. All of the major carriers and standards can handle
>simultaneous voice and data *if* your device has that capability.
>The usual problem is the device, not the carrier or the network.

I can't find any reference that CDMA/EVDO is capable of doing
simultaneous voice and data, do you have a cite?

CPOP doesn't count, that only provides interruptions but doesn't provide
true simultaneous service.

Theoretically EVDO rev B (or SVDO) might support this, but nobody seems
to have rolled it out yet.

http://www.evdoinfo.com/content/view/2861/64/ discusses this in greater
detail.

In message <[email protected]> John Navas
<[email protected]> was claimed to have wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 00:14:34 -0600, in <[email protected]>,
>Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>At 25 Jun 2010 04:28:33 +0000 Lewis wrote:
>>
>>> I almost never have problems with AT&T and 3G, but today I was in
>>> downtown and I could not get any data or cell signal for over an hour. I
>>> tried to send a message via twitter and it took 72 minutes to send, and
>>> in that 72 minutes my iPhone lost more than a third of its charge.
>>>
>>> I've never seen anything like that before.
>>
>>Yeah, nothing kills a phone battery faster than the pathetic and constant
>>search for signal when outside a service area! I was visiting family
>>back east last week and we took a four-hour whale watching cruise, much
>>of which was outside T-Mo's service area. The battery ran down to about
>>30% on both my WinMo phone and my wife's iPhone, after being charged to
>>full in the car on the drive to Provincetown.
>
>This varies considerably from phone to phone (whether the phone just
>listens ever so often, or goes into full power transmit mode) and from
>carrier to carrier (configuring phones for how often to register with
>the network). I've had phones that would flatten their batteries in a
>few hours of no signal, and other phones that would run for days with no
>signal.

Modern BlackBerry phones, for example, seem to only scan for the network
every few minutes. As a result it takes an extra couple minutes to find
the network after being out of coverage for a couple hours, but the
battery survives much better.

Compare this to a Treo, for example, which goes into super high power
"can anybody hear me?" mode the instant the network is gone and runs
through it's battery faster than talking on the device.

On 2010-06-25, Michelle Steiner <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Verizon's network is so **** they can't handle a call and a data
>> connection at the same time.
>
> BTW, won't that change with LTE?

It will because LTE voice is basically VoIP, as opposed to the way
voice is done on cell phone networks in use now. It does depend
on the device in the same way that you depend on your device not
to terminate Skype calls if you want to play with your browser
at the same time.

The bigger question for LTE is when they'll actually support voice.
Verizon says not before 2012, e.g.

<http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/27/verizon-looking-at-non-unlimited-plans-for-4g-data-will-use-lte/>

For LTE the Internet data service is the fundamental service provided
by the network and voice is an add-on on top of that. This is about
the opposite of the way all previous cell phone networks have worked,
and I suspect they are finding the voice part of LTE a bit challenging.

Dennis Ferguson

On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:25:35 -0600, in <[email protected]>,
"Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...

>> More likely GSM and then UMTS, as in Europe, with a solid single
>> standard that allows worldwide carrier mobility.
>
>How do you figure that? The Feds primary goal would be backwards
>compatibility with the existing analog handsets, which was far easier to
>accomplish with TDMA, which used the same channel spacing as AMPS.
>Worldwide interoperability wouldn't have any more a consideration for
>cellular than it was for television.

TDMA was a carrier issue, not a government issue, a big part of how we
wound up with the current mess that's finally getting straightened out
with LTE, the steady progress of GSM through UMTS. I think the
government would have favored the ITU approach, which would have made a
lot more sense for consumers.

>>>I used to believe the Feds should've mandated a standard but I now think
>>>I was wrong. Ironically the free-market did it by themselves although it
>>>took nearly two decades- it's "4G" LTE.
>>
>> The free market actually has a pretty dismal record of setting
>> standards, the government a pretty good record.
>
>Defined by what?

The chaos in market de facto standards, which invariably benefit
businesses looking for local monopolies than consumers.

>Take modems for example. Why
>stop at 56K? Modern digital lines could've certainly handled faster speeds,
>allowing dial up ISPs to have competed longer against broadband providers,
>but standards are standards...

Modems are limited to the 64Kbps channels in the long distance carrier
infrastruture. Faster speeds are simply not possible. The ITU
(government) was responsible for getting the best possible speeds out of
the existing infrastructure.

--
Best regards,
John

If the iPhone and iPad are really so impressive,
then why do iFans keep making excuses for them?

On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:31:19 -0600, in <[email protected]>,
"Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...

>> When selecting devices, check to see if the "class" of the device
>> supports simultaneous voice and data (in addition to the speed you
>> want), and keep in mind that implementation quality varies considerably.
>
>That's network dependant. There is no US GSM provider who supports
>simultaneous voice and GPRS/EDGE data.

AT&T supports simultaneous GSM voice and data (Class A and Class B), but
most handsets are only Class B or worse. Can't say for sure about
T-Mobile, but I'd guess(tm) it does too, since it uses the same base
station infrastructure.

>US carriers like to leapfrog- e.g.
>jumping to GPRS without bothering to support HSCSD.

HSCSD is a network abomination, consuming disproportionate resources.
GPRS is much more effecient and cost effective.

>I presume implementing
>simultaneous voice/data on GPRS was deemed an unnecessary hassle/expense
>with no competivite impetus (CDMA couldn't do it either, so why bother?) and
>expensive upgrades to UMTS on the horizon.

GPRS does support simultaneous voice and data.

--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>

"Good judgment comes from experience,
and a lot of that comes from bad judgment." -Will Rogers

On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 09:43:57 -0700, in
<[email protected]>, DevilsPGD
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In message <[email protected]> John Navas
><[email protected]> was claimed to have wrote:
>
>>No kidding. All of the major carriers and standards can handle
>>simultaneous voice and data *if* your device has that capability.
>>The usual problem is the device, not the carrier or the network.
>
>I can't find any reference that CDMA/EVDO is capable of doing
>simultaneous voice and data, do you have a cite?
>
>CPOP doesn't count, that only provides interruptions but doesn't provide
>true simultaneous service.
>
>Theoretically EVDO rev B (or SVDO) might support this, but nobody seems
>to have rolled it out yet.

That (SV-DO) is it.

--
Best regards,
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]

On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:44:15 -0600, in <[email protected]>,
"Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>>>> Verizon's network is so **** they can't handle a call and a data
>>>> connection at the same time.
>>>
>>>nospam is talking out of his ass, as usual.
>>
>> No kidding. All of the major carriers and standards can handle
>> simultaneous voice and data *if* your device has that capability.
>> The usual problem is the device, not the carrier or the network.
>
>No, the usual problem is network implementation. There's no percentage in
>adding features to devices if networks can't support it. Take "video
>calling" for example. My AT&T Tilt was a rebadged HTC Kaiser identical in
>every way except for the removal of the video calling front-camera and
>associated software that wouldn't function the US. Leaving it off saved
>AT&T any embarrassing "why doesn't the video call button work?" support
>calls. My Sony X1, a UK-model, has the camera and the software. I click
>"video call" occasionally to amuse myself with the "not supported by your
>operator" error message.
>
>Could a Verizon device theoretically be built to handle simultaneous
>voice/data? Sure, they could build two phone receivers in the same box or
>some such other kludge, but the network isn't designed to support
>simultaneous function regardless of what device you use.

I've heard that Verizon does now support SV-DO, but don't know for sure.

--
Best regards,
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]

In message <[email protected]> John Navas
<[email protected]> was claimed to have wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 09:43:57 -0700, in
><[email protected]>, DevilsPGD
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In message <[email protected]> John Navas
>><[email protected]> was claimed to have wrote:
>>
>>>No kidding. All of the major carriers and standards can handle
>>>simultaneous voice and data *if* your device has that capability.
>>>The usual problem is the device, not the carrier or the network.
>>
>>I can't find any reference that CDMA/EVDO is capable of doing
>>simultaneous voice and data, do you have a cite?
>>
>>CPOP doesn't count, that only provides interruptions but doesn't provide
>>true simultaneous service.
>>
>>Theoretically EVDO rev B (or SVDO) might support this, but nobody seems
>>to have rolled it out yet.
>
>That (SV-DO) is it.

I can't find any evidence of a rollout on Verizon or Sprint, or anywhere
else, for that matter.

I wouldn't expect TELUS or Bell to do it in Canada now that they've
built out a HSDPA+ network, and the few other CDMA networks out there
are smaller players so I wouldn't expect them to be bleeding edge.

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> with a solid single
> standard that allows worldwide carrier mobility.
>

Oh, wouldn't THAT be nice....same system...SAME BAND Worldwide!

Never happen......too logical and consumer friendly.


--
Creationism is to science what storks are to obstetrics...

Larry

In article <[email protected]>, Lewis
<[email protected]> wrote:

> >> Verizon's network is so **** they can't handle a call and a data
> >> connection at the same time.
>
> > If you're going to rant, get your facts straight. It has nothing to do
> > with the network and everything to do with the "air interface" (wireless
> > technology) they use. CDMA can't do both at the same time. GSM can. at&t
> > is GSM; Verizon is CDMA.
>
> Splitting hairs? The 'air interface' IS the network.

nope. the air interface is the technology (i.e., cdma, gsm) and the
network is the carrier behind it and how well they cover the areas in
which you travel. people don't care what the air interface is, but
whether they can make a call.

On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 12:22:25 -0600, in <[email protected]>,
"Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...

>> Modems are limited to the 64Kbps channels in the long distance carrier
>> infrastruture. Faster speeds are simply not possible. The ITU
>> (government) was responsible for getting the best possible speeds out of
>> the existing infrastructure.
>
>And improvements to the standard are impossible without implementing a new
>standard, which is impossible because the standards are government imposed.
>...

That standard was created by Bell Labs, not the government,
and there is zero interest in changing it. For higher speed there's
bonding with ISDN.

--
Best regards,
John

"Never attribute to malice that which can be
adequately explained by stupidity." [Hanlon's razor]

On 26 Jun 2010 00:28:49 GMT, in
<[email protected]>, Lewis
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In message <[email protected]>
> Steve Sobol <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected]ndmecopies says...
>
>>> Verizon's network is so **** they can't handle a call and a data
>>> connection at the same time.
>
>> If you're going to rant, get your facts straight. It has nothing to do
>> with the network and everything to do with the "air interface" (wireless
>> technology) they use. CDMA can't do both at the same time. GSM can. at&t
>> is GSM; Verizon is CDMA.
>
>Splitting hairs? The 'air interface' IS the network.

It's actually only a small part -- the majority of the network is in the
rest of the infrastructure.

--
Best regards,
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]

In message <[email protected]> John Navas
<[email protected]> was claimed to have wrote:

>On 26 Jun 2010 00:28:49 GMT, in
><[email protected]>, Lewis
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In message <[email protected]>
>> Steve Sobol <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> [email protected]ndmecopies says...
>>
>>>> Verizon's network is so **** they can't handle a call and a data
>>>> connection at the same time.
>>
>>> If you're going to rant, get your facts straight. It has nothing to do
>>> with the network and everything to do with the "air interface" (wireless
>>> technology) they use. CDMA can't do both at the same time. GSM can. at&t
>>> is GSM; Verizon is CDMA.
>>
>>Splitting hairs? The 'air interface' IS the network.
>
>It's actually only a small part -- the majority of the network is in the
>rest of the infrastructure.

It's still part of the network though.

Saying it isn't is like saying the support beams in your house aren't
part of the house -- It's a small part, but a surprisingly critical part
of the whole.

Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote in news:OeeVn.600$R87.484
@newsfe12.iad:

> At 25 Jun 2010 11:09:12 -0700 John Navas wrote:
>
>> >> When selecting devices, check to see if the "class" of the device
>> >> supports simultaneous voice and data (in addition to the speed you
>> >> want), and keep in mind that implementation quality varies
> considerably.
>> >
>> >That's network dependant. There is no US GSM provider who supports
>> >simultaneous voice and GPRS/EDGE data.
>>
>> AT&T supports simultaneous GSM voice and data (Class A and Class B),
but
>> most handsets are only Class B or worse. Can't say for sure about
>> T-Mobile, but I'd guess(tm) it does too, since it uses the same base
>> station infrastructure.
>
>
> From what I understand, Class A has to be network supported, and
judging
> by the questions and gripes of Nokia E-series users, neither AT&T nor
T-
> Mobile do. (The E series are class A handsets.)
>
>
>> >US carriers like to leapfrog- e.g.
>> >jumping to GPRS without bothering to support HSCSD.
>>
>> HSCSD is a network abomination, consuming disproportionate resources.
>> GPRS is much more effecient and cost effective.
>
>
> No argument from me- my point was just that AT&T and T-Mo had/have no
> incentive to improve GPRS/EDGE with Dual Transfer Mode support (what
> Nokia seems to call Class A) when launching a newer, better,
technology,
> just as they had no incentive to support HSCSD when newer, better GPRS
> was available.
>
>
>> >I presume implementing
>> >simultaneous voice/data on GPRS was deemed an unnecessary
> hassle/expense
>> >with no competivite impetus (CDMA couldn't do it either, so why
> bother?) and
>> >expensive upgrades to UMTS on the horizon.
>>
>> GPRS does support simultaneous voice and data.
>
>
> GPRS can support anything it likes, but the operator has to implement
it
> (just as UMTS "supports" video calling, but US carriers don't.) I
> couldn't find anyone on HoFo or XDA-devs who could get DTM to work on
> AT&T or T-Mo USA.
>
>
>

All these acronyms are giving me a headache like I used to get attending
a Naval Shipyard meeting.....

--
Creationism is to science what storks are to obstetrics...

Larry