VoLTE vs 1x Advanced

[WiWavelength]

Good question. I don't know anything about 1xA/VoLTE voice hand offs. I think it would be a challenge. VoLTE being all IP. It may require an eHRPD kind of system like EVDO/LTE data hand off.

 

Another nail in the coffin. Down with VoLTE. Death to VoLTE. Voice and data should be kept separate but equal.

 

 

AJ

[Boosted20V]

Another nail in the coffin. Down with VoLTE. Death to VoLTE. Voice and data should be kept separate but equal.

 

 

AJ

 

Realistically though, I don't see how carriers can move 100% to LTE given its coverage limitations. From your technical understanding of LTE, do you think there will be revisions to the LTE standards which will improve this?

 

EDIT - Also, wasn't there talk of the FCC freeing up some ~600mhz spectrum? That would certainly help.

[EndlessDissent]

EDIT - Also, wasn't there talk of the FCC freeing up some ~600mhz spectrum? That would certainly help.

 

Kind of. It's only 300MHz, and it's mostly AWS, so it doesn't really help Sprint much.

 

http://www.androidce...m-carriers-2015

 

 

Edit: Found the source article. I was kind of wrong, I guess. The part concerning Sprint:

 

"But first, the agency expects to sell licenses for a band that Sprint Nextel has been seeking to bolster its LTE service. The proceeds from the so-called AWS-2 H-Block auction would fund a nationwide public safety network and help to pay down the federal deficit.

 

There was some good news for Dish Network. Genachowski said he expects the FCC later this year to lift restrictions that have prevented Dish from using 40MHz of satellite spectrum for a land-based LTE network. However, if it follows through on the H-Block auction that Sprint has been clamoring for, the agency will have to move Dish's spectrum up by 5MHz. Dish opposes that move because the current LTE standard lines up with the band it already has."

Edited October 7, 2012 by EndlessDissent

[leozno1]

 

 

With 28nm chips, it seems like CDMA and LTE battery life have been the same. I stay in CDMA/LTE mode on my GS3, and do not notice a difference in battery life whether I have a 3G or 4G connection. However, if I have a weak 3G connection, my battery will drain pretty fast.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

 

Yea but remember when we are talking about voice we are talking about CDMA not EVDO. I don't know if you have ever tried it but if you use your phone and turn off mobile data so your phone could do strictly voice and text only, battery life increases drastically as opposed to if you have 3G turned on. Qualcomm's 28nm chips are awesome and they have managed to bring LTE battery life close to EVDO ranges but Idk if they can rival the energy efficiency of 1x just yet.

[leozno1]

 

 

Exactly. This is a commonly misunderstood point. VoLTE tower spacing is significantly tighter on the same frequency as 1x. VoLTE is only good to approximately -93dBm RSSI, whereas 1x voice can be used to roughly -103dBm. 10dBm is huge and represents a lot of coverage difference.

 

Sprint would have to run VoLTE on LTE 800 just to get in the ballpark of CDMA 1900 coverage. And then it would be nowhere near as good as 1x is on 800.

 

Robert via ICS Kindle Fire using Tapatalk

 

Do you know if the standard for LTE Advanced would improve on the technology's ability to maintain a connection when you have a weak signal or is -93dBm As good as it's gonna get for LTE?

[S4GRU]

 

Yea but remember when we are talking about voice we are talking about CDMA not EVDO. I don't know if you have ever tried it but if you use your phone and turn off mobile data so your phone could do strictly voice and text only' date=' battery life increases drastically as opposed to if you have 3G turned on. Qualcomm's 28nm chips are awesome and they have managed to bring LTE battery life close to EVDO ranges but Idk if they can rival the energy efficiency of 1x just yet.[/quote']

 

I misunderstood your initial point was to compare voice only battery life between 1x and VoLTE. In this context, you are absolutely correct. But with data remaining on and in standby, most of the new LTE devices show little difference in battery drain between CDMA only and CDMA/LTE. EVDO is a relatively large drain when parked and not in use.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

[S4GRU]

 

Do you know if the standard for LTE Advanced would improve on the technology's ability to maintain a connection when you have a weak signal or is -93dBm As good as it's gonna get for LTE?

 

I am not aware of anything in the LTE-A standard that would improve its fragile signal propagation. If anything, the more data we cram into a signal, the stronger signal it takes to deliver it.

 

LTE-Advanced does not offer any spectral efficiencies over LTE. It just allows faster data rates through increased MIMO support, carrier aggregation and other technical modifications. LTE Advanced is just LTE Release 10. Sprint is currently deploying LTE Release 9. It can upgrade to Release 10 with a software upgrade.

 

But until carriers/OEM's start selling devices that can support 4x4 MIMO and/or Carrier Aggregation, there will be few benefits to the consumer for LTE-A networks. And the biggest stumbling blocks for increased MIMO support and CA in devices is real estate. We all will need to carry the Note to fit it all. Or a Tablet.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

[WiWavelength]

Do you know if the standard for LTE Advanced would improve on the technology's ability to maintain a connection when you have a weak signal or is -93dBm As good as it's gonna get for LTE?

 

No. I have posted this numerous times, but we may need to add it to the FAQ or write an article on it. While LTE UEs may improve over time, LTE Advanced will not help with weak signal. If anything, it will make matters worse because LTE Advanced switches the uplink structure to OFDMA, which requires greater peak to average signal power. In other words, the LTE Advanced uplink will have an even tougher task maintaining a connection. And the uplink tends to be the weak link, since small mobile devices tend to be power limited. Now, what I do not know, though, is whether LTE Advanced devices can revert to LTE and its SC-FDMA uplink structure if power is too limited to support uplink OFDMA.

 

AJ

[JeffDTD]

From someone who understands much less technologically...

 

All this talk about LTE fragility and inferiority makes me want to shake every last one of the sh*teater critics and trolls who taunted and shamed sprint for using wimax and not bandwagoning before they did..... increased site density or sub 1k mhz spectrum is the only way to match volte to pcs voice? Sounds like a big bag of undercooked rubbish as an " end all be all" upgrade path for all the carriers

[Fraydog]

Maybe the rest of the industry doesn't want to be beholden to Qualcomm, which has a nasty history regarding IP. Ask Ericsson.

[llk121]

One thing to keep in mind is that AMR-WB / VoLTE has a higher MOS than any CDMA codec on the market - even EVRC-B.

 

AMR at full rate as it stands is higher quality than EVRC. Anyone who has a Tmobile 3G handset can attest to this, as they use the full rate.

[WiWavelength]

One thing to keep in mind is that AMR-WB / VoLTE has a higher MOS than any CDMA codec on the market - even EVRC-B.

 

AMR at full rate as it stands is higher quality than EVRC. Anyone who has a Tmobile 3G handset can attest to this, as they use the full rate.

 

AMR-FR codecs run at 50 percent greater max bit rate (~12 kbps) than do EVRC codecs (~8 kbps), so AMR-FR codecs are also less efficient.

 

AJ

[llk121]

AMR-FR codecs run at 50 percent greater max bit rate (~12 kbps) than do EVRC codecs (~8 kbps), so AMR-FR codecs are also less efficient.

 

AJ

 

It certainly is but as a user, I'm more concerned about call quality. Heck, I have my CDMA handset set to use QCELP 13k and the quality is close to g711.

 

Traditional CDMA was always excellent at handling calls, it's keeping up with data where it fell short.

Edited October 9, 2012 by llk121

[WiWavelength]

It certainly is but as a user, I'm more concerned about call quality. Heck, I have my CDMA handset set to use QCELP 13k and the quality is close to g711.

 

The problem is that quality and capacity are a balancing act. Not all subs can use 13K QCELP, lest network capacity be cut by roughly 50 percent. But that quality/capacity balance may be less of a problem for T-Mobile, which requires a disproportionate amount of spectrum to service its much smaller sub base.

 

AJ

[leozno1]

The problem is that quality and capacity are a balancing act. Not all subs can use 13K QCELP, lest network capacity be cut by roughly 50 percent. But that quality/capacity balance may be less of a problem for T-Mobile, which requires a disproportionate amount of spectrum to service its much smaller sub base.

 

AJ

 

Yea it's easy to just throw spectrum away and use so much capacity on voice and HSPA+ 42 when you have substantially less customers than larger competitors.

[PythonFanPA]

Saw this on BGR today in case someone missed it regarding the subject at hand (RE: Verizon):

 

http://www.bgr.com/2012/10/09/verizon-voice-over-lte-launch-date-late-2013/

[leozno1]

Another nail in the coffin. Down with VoLTE. Death to VoLTE. Voice and data should be kept separate but equal.

 

 

AJ

 

At least I'm not the only skeptic out there about VoLTE. People just hear that term and just think things will be all rainbows and unicorns but don't know what the downside of it would be, which appears to be reduced coverage.

[Thomas L.]

I think you'll see a lot more people becoming more skeptical as they learn more about LTE. From what I see of the technical specifications of LTE, it looks like it was designed to avoid issues that are common in dense urban areas (issues like multipath), e.g. Europe and Asian large metros, not for wide coverage which is much more of a concern in the US. CDMA has been and continues to be a pretty exemplary voice technology, and it's going to be tough to replace it with LTE and maintain the same coverage... If VoLTE really does end up being the replacement for CDMA voice, the only solution I can see is increasing tower density or just accepting diminished rural coverage.

 

Was there any technology based on CDMA that was competing with LTE at any point that would have given superior,CDMA like coverage along with similar data speeds as LTE?

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Xparent ICS Blue Tapatalk 2

[NiteSnow]

I think you'll see a lot more people becoming more skeptical as they learn more about LTE. From what I see of the technical specifications of LTE, it looks like it was designed to avoid issues that are common in dense urban areas (issues like multipath), e.g. Europe and Asian large metros, not for wide coverage which is much more of a concern in the US. CDMA has been and continues to be a pretty exemplary voice technology, and it's going to be tough to replace it with LTE and maintain the same coverage... If VoLTE really does end up being the replacement for CDMA voice, the only solution I can see is increasing tower density or just accepting diminished rural coverage.

 

Was there any technology based on CDMA that was competing with LTE at any point that would have given superior,CDMA like coverage along with similar data speeds as LTE?

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Xparent ICS Blue Tapatalk 2

 

CDMA Rev. C (IIRC)

[Rawvega]

Yep, EVDO rev. C also known as UMB. Qualcomm probably killed it off when VZW announced that they were going with LTE.

 

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[WiWavelength]

 

CDMA Rev. C (IIRC)

Yep, EVDO rev. C also known as UMB. Qualcomm probably killed it off when VZW announced that they were going with LTE.

 

Not exactly, guys. UMB was OFDMA based, just like WiMAX and LTE.

 

AJ

[WiWavelength]

Was there any technology based on CDMA that was competing with LTE at any point that would have given superior,CDMA like coverage along with similar data speeds as LTE?

 

Once upon a time, there was the prospect of CDMA2000 Rev D, otherwise known as EV-DV. Like W-CDMA/HSPA, EV-DV would have conveyed both voice (circuit switched) and data (packet switched) over the same carrier -- no SVDO necessary. Channel configurations would have included 1xEV-DV, 2xEV-DV, and 3xEV-DV. Sprint could have deployed 3xEV-DV in even its most spectrum limited 10 MHz markets (e.g. Fort Wayne) because EV-DV maintained full backward compatibility with existing cdmaOne and CDMA2000 devices.

 

What happened to EV-DV? To some extent, VZW killed it. VZW decided to go ahead with EV-DO because the EV-DV standard had not been finalized. Sprint intended to wait for EV-DV but then found VZW gaining too much head start, so Sprint jumped over to EV-DO. And the rest is history.

 

AJ

[WiWavelength]

For VoLTE, SRVCC (Single Radio Voice Call Continuity) is required to hand down VoLTE to W-CDMA. Apparently, SRVCC imposed a pause of greater than a second as the handoff between airlinks occurred. So, now eSRVCC is a new and improved version that reduces the interruption to *only* 300 msec.

 

http://gigaom.com/eu...ial-deployment/

 

VoLTE? No thanks. CDMA1X is just dandy.

 

AJ

[leozno1]

I'm sure if every one heard what Sprint's HD Voice sounds like they wouldn't care about VoLTE. I have heard nothing but awesome things about it so if 1x Advanced provides greater coverage and has more capacity than VoLTE while offering comparable call quality then I'll take it.

[ericdabbs]

Sprint needs to deploy more HD voice devices. Having just the EVO 4G LTE phone with HD voice is not enough. Sprint needs to spread the love of more HD voice devices so that more and more Sprint customers who talk to each other can reap the benefits.