VoLTE vs 1x Advanced

[bollar]

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.

Part of the problem is that Sprint's implementation is different than the rest of the world in some aspects. The iPhone, for example, supports HD Voice, but it's not compatible with Sprint's network. The same can be said for several Android phones.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[leozno1]

So another curiosity came up, currently Sprint's HD voice will require that the network support the capability as well as have all devices participating in the call to support the codec in order for it to work. This would mean that cross-carrier phone calls would be reduced to our standard call quality that we get now. What are the chances that other carriers will implement the same version of HD Voice as Sprint?

 

If it definitely won't happen, I suppose Sprint can use HD Voice as an incentive to pull subscribers from the other carriers by having vastly superior voice quality.

[WiWavelength]

What are the chances that other carriers will implement the same version of HD Voice as Sprint?

 

Zero. Even if they did, the benefits of HD Voice (EVRC-NW) are eliminated once the call has to be transcoded to hit the PTSN between the carriers' networks. The PTSN is still based on µ-law PCM, which has a reduced frequency range compared to that of EVRC-NW.

 

AJ

[leozno1]

Zero. Even if they did, the benefits of HD Voice (EVRC-NW) are eliminated once the call has to be transcoded to hit the PTSN between the carriers' networks. The PTSN is still based on µ-law PCM, which has a reduced frequency range compared to that of EVRC-NW.

 

AJ

 

So I suppose my closing thoughts may come well into play at that point. Use HD Voice as a perk to join Sprint. Lets see if it works at all.

 

Also, would VoLTE not be susceptible to the same reduced frequency of the PTSN if a cross carrier call is made?

[WiWavelength]

So I suppose my closing thoughts may come well into play at that point. Use HD Voice as a perk to join Sprint. Lets see if it works at all.

 

Are people really clamoring for HD Voice? Call me old fashioned, but AM radio should sound like AM radio, FM radio should sound like FM radio, and a phone call should sound like a phone call. I have no problem with that. In fact, the differences in fidelity are somewhat comforting. Sure, AT&T notoriously butchers even the sound of a basic phone call, but Sprint does not. The sound quality of an EVRC call on Sprint is typically quite fine.

 

Also, would VoLTE not be susceptible to the same reduced frequency of the PTSN if a cross carrier call is made?

 

Correct. As long as the PTSN uses µ-law PCM, then any call that is connected to a PTSN landline will subject to those limitations. Calls connected between different wireless carriers or VoIP providers might be subject to different interconnection standards, but I doubt it. As far as I know, µ-law PCM is still the lowest common denominator.

 

AJ

[leozno1]

Are people really clamoring for HD Voice? Call me old fashioned, but AM radio should sound like AM radio, FM radio should sound like FM radio, and a phone call should sound like a phone call. I have no problem with that. In fact, the differences in fidelity are somewhat comforting. Sure, AT&T notoriously butchers even the sound of a basic phone call, but Sprint does not. The sound quality of an EVRC call on Sprint is typically quite fine.

 

 

 

Correct. As long as the PTSN uses µ-law PCM, then any call that is connected to a PTSN landline will subject to those limitations. Calls connected between different wireless carriers or VoIP providers might be subject to different interconnection standards, but I doubt it. As far as I know, µ-law PCM is still the lowest common denominator.

 

AJ

 

Now that you mention that, I've heard many people mention that they are old fashioned in regards to using their phones for the purpose it was originally intended for, and that is to make phone calls. I have heard many people get into debates and VERY non "scientific" tests (calling each other and then swapping phones and comparing audio fidelity) about who's carriers have better call quality. There are many people that use their smartphones primary as "phones" and is perhaps a feature that would incentivize many users.

 

A way I see Sprint making this a major selling point and getting people more excited about HD Voice is perhaps setting up a little demo area in sprint stores where people can test it out and maybe kiosks at the mall or something. Because a way of making people want something is by showing them what they're missing.

[pyroscott]

 

Now that you mention that' date=' I've heard many people mention that they are old fashioned in regards to using their phones for the purpose it was originally intended for, and that is to make phone calls. I have heard many people get into debates and VERY non "scientific" tests (calling each other and then swapping phones and comparing audio fidelity) about who's carriers have better call quality. There are many people that use their smartphones primary as "phones" and is perhaps a feature that would incentivize many users.

 

A way I see Sprint making this a major selling point and getting people more excited about HD Voice is perhaps setting up a little demo area in sprint stores where people can test it out and maybe kiosks at the mall or something. Because a way of making people want something is by showing them what they're missing.[/quote']

 

I would have to say network coverage and reliability have been the most important things that I have considered when cell carrier shopping. The clarity of a phone call is not even on my radar...

[jamesinclair]

I would have to say network coverage and reliability have been the most important things that I have considered when cell carrier shopping. The clarity of a phone call is not even on my radar...

 

Thats because the clarity universally sucks.

 

Its not a marketing feature because there hasnt been anything to market, yes.

 

Think of the millions spent on "the largest network/4g network" ads.

 

98% of america doesnt leave their home town in a given year. Having a large network means diddly squat for them. If verizon has coverage in farmsville, ND, and AT&T doesnt....who cares? You'll never go there. But yet its a feature that can be marketed.

[Bob Newhart]

98% of america doesnt leave their home town in a given year.

 

I have told you 1 million times, do not exaggerate.

[pyroscott]

 

Thats because the clarity universally sucks.

 

Its not a marketing feature because there hasnt been anything to market' date=' yes.

 

Think of the millions spent on "the largest network/4g network" ads.

 

98% of america doesnt leave their home town in a given year. Having a large network means diddly squat for them. If verizon has coverage in farmsville, ND, and AT&T doesnt....who cares? You'll never go there. But yet its a feature that can be marketed.[/quote']

 

I'm talking about local coverage, not the bs advertising claims of these vultures. In my area, t-mobile has the most holes in coverage, AT&T and sprint have coverage almost everywhere in the area with AT&T serving up the lower quality network for voice reliability and Verizon is nearly everywhere (and LTE almost everywhere.) If I visit my parents in Wyoming, the choices are down to AT&T or Verizon and Verizon is head and shoulders above AT&T there.

 

While I am slightly concerned about coverage when I travel, I'm not going to base my decision on what an advertisement tells me. Also, I can easily deal with not having cell coverage when on vacation, not at home. Maybe I'm in the minority, but HD Voice seems like a gimmick that failed to make any excitement on the EVO LTE. It is something that could give sprint an advantage in the future when it is fully integrated.

 

As far as voice quality universally sucking, I agree that 8 years ago it was bad, but I don't think it is bad anymore. I can't think of the last time I had poor voice quality on a cell phone that wasn't coverage induced.

[bigsnake49]

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

 

Not to mention the much more efficient codecs for 1x Advanced vs VOLTE.

[kg4icg]

Part of the problem is that Sprint's implementation is different than the rest of the world in some aspects. The iPhone, for example, supports HD Voice, but it's not compatible with Sprint's network. The same can be said for several Android phones.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

That wasn't Sprints decision, that was Apple's. If you look carefully, you will notice that Apple's hd voice implementation doesn't work on any US carrier.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[leozno1]

That wasn't Sprints decision, that was Apple's. If you look carefully, you will notice that Apple's hd voice implementation doesn't work on any US carrier.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

And if you consider that Apple released the iPhone several months after Sprint had already outlined the idea of using HD Voice, it almost seems like they did it on purpose similar to Google's decision to not make an LTE Nexus 4. These US carriers are really starting to screw us over more than ever.

[compuwizz]

The reason that HD Voice isn't running on any US carriers is because they have to upgrade switching equipment to support the new voice codecs. The dual mics in the EVO just help with noise cancellation, but its not an HD call.

 

It *could* be possible to make an HD call between two different carriers if the carriers interconnected via IP based tandem instead of the PSTN. Right now every carrier in Canada supports HD Voice but only on their own network.

 

These HD islands are annoying however there are providers seeking to help interconnect each carrier and transcode possible different codecs.

 

For example, Inteliquent is allowing interconnects with HD codec options such as G.722 and AMR-WB. They would then transcode the call to the desired HD codec on the second leg of the call (for example a Sprint to VZW call).

 

The companies working on HD tandem interconnects already were alternative tandems to the major ones from Verizon/AT&T. Inteliquent (formerly Neutral Tandem), Intelepeer and Peerless Networks are allowing HD interconnects now.

 

Internationally, there are some carriers doing HD interconnects between themselves without a middle-man.

[Fraydog]

I'm bumping this because I wanted to say that I made an argument for VZW to implement EVRC-NW on HoFo. For a lot of the more rural customers in the VZW footprint, that would be a more of a boon than VoLTE.

 

VoLTE is a big bag of hurt right now.

[Fraydog]

http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php/1789097-AT-amp-T-LTE-rollout?p=15046913#post15046913

[MacPCS]

I agree with the minority on the need for HD Voice calls. For example, when you use FaceTime or Skype to make a call, the quality of audio is an order of magnitude better. Doesn't sound like it'd be that important, but if you're out on a business trip and you want to talk to your little baby kids then definitely you (and mores, they) can appreciate a more natural sounding conversation.

[utiz4321]

 

 

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

I thought sprint was the first carrier to release evdo.

[WiWavelength]

I thought sprint was the first carrier to release evdo.

 

No, definitely not.

 

If I recall correctly, one of the South Korean carriers, probably SK Telecom, was the first in the world to deploy EV-DO. In the US, Monet Mobile, a small market carrier, was the first to deploy EV-DO. Monet launched EV-DO in late 2002, just a few months after Sprint launched CDMA1X nationwide. However, Monet went bankrupt a few years later, as it was hamstrung by smaller markets and ill equipped to make the transition from EV-DO Rel 0 to Rev A.

 

VZW started EV-DO commercial trials in Washington, DC and San Diego in 2003-2004, then started expanding nationwide by 2004-2005. Sprint launched its first EV-DO markets in 2004 or 2005 and had most/all of its corporate footprint covered by 2006.

 

What Sprint may have accomplished first in the US is the launch of EV-DO handsets. Sprint first offered several Power Vision handsets from Samsung and Sanyo in November 2005. Monet had been a modem only carrier, and VZW's commercial trials had been modem only. However, I do not recall if VZW offered any EV-DO handsets prior to Sprint's Power Vision launch.

 

AJ

[MacinJosh]

No, definitely not.

 

If I recall correctly, one of the South Korean carriers, probably SK Telecom, was the first in the world to deploy EV-DO. In the US, Monet Mobile, a small market carrier, was the first to deploy EV-DO. Monet launched EV-DO in late 2002, just a few months after Sprint launched CDMA1X nationwide. However, Monet went bankrupt a few years later, as it was hamstrung by smaller markets and ill equipped to make the transition from EV-DO Rel 0 to Rev A.

 

VZW started EV-DO commercial trials in Washington, DC and San Diego in 2003-2004, then started expanding nationwide by 2004-2005. Sprint launched its first EV-DO markets in 2004 or 2005 and had most/all of its corporate footprint covered by 2006.

 

What Sprint may have accomplished first in the US is the launch of EV-DO handsets. Sprint first offered several Power Vision handsets from Samsung and Sanyo in November 2005. Monet had been a modem only carrier, and VZW's commercial trials had been modem only. However, I do not recall if VZW offered any EV-DO handsets prior to Sprint's Power Vision launch.

 

AJ

 

Power Vision and now Network Vision? Anyone see a correlation here? lol

[WiWavelength]

Power Vision and now Network Vision? Anyone see a correlation here? lol

 

 

AJ

[Destroyallcubes]

I guess I never thought about it but im thinking verizon is implementing the aws LTE for data, and the 700mhz LTE for voice. It would help rid the people off of the fcc's guidelined block C spectrum, except some rural areas. Maybe sprint could be thinking the same thing with the 800mhz spectrum?

[dmaxx67]

I would definitely rather have reliability over just using the new technology. I am amazed how far we have come in just the past ten years with cell service and even home broadband service.  

[strumgewr]

LTE advanced is actually supposed to have improved performance at cell edge. We will see. http://www.3gpp.org/lte-advanced

[maximus1987/lou99]

That wasn't Sprints decision, that was Apple's. If you look carefully, you will notice that Apple's hd voice implementation doesn't work on any US carrier.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

It works on Tmobile/ATT

 

http://gizmodo.com/5992454/t+mobiles-hd-voice-hands-on-a-sweeter+sounding-iphone