If the AT&T/T-Mobile USA went through...

[xcharles718]

How you you guys believe things would've changed in regards to the current american wireless environment?

 

 

I think that the SoftBank deal might've happened a lot sooner.

[S4GRU]

How you you guys believe things would've changed in regards to the current american wireless environment?

 

 

I think that the SoftBank deal might've happened a lot sooner.

 

I don't know if there would have been a SoftBank deal at all.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

 

 

[newboyx]

 

I don't know if there would have been a SoftBank deal at all.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

The CEO of Softbank said as much (I think). He stated that if AT&T bought T-Mobile the American wireless industry would have had no interest to him.

 

Sent from a phone using an app. That is fancy!

 

 

[S4GRU]

The CEO of Softbank said as much (I think). He stated that if AT&T bought T-Mobile the American wireless industry would have had no interest to him.

 

Sent from a phone using an app. That is fancy!

Yes, I remember that now. It probably was buried deep in my subconscious and that's why I have the opinion that I do.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 on Tapatalk

 

 

[Jrome.brooks]

It wouldn't have changed nothing

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ascertion]

It wouldn't have changed nothing

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To have a monopoly on gsm technology and shutting out the smaller carrier than Sprint? Sprint wouldn't stand a chance.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[Jrome.brooks]

All it would do is having more people with bad reception ....

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ascertion]

All it would do is having more people with bad reception ....

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bad reception or not, At&t with T-Mobile combined would have over twice the amount of customers, twice the revenue. This would make it much cheaper for at&t to upgrade its network and get more device selection that it can buy in bulk. Customers must not care much about gsm voice quality, if there's that many on the gsm network.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[nahum365]

 

Bad reception or not, At&t with T-Mobile combined would have over twice the amount of customers, twice the revenue. This would make it much cheaper for at&t to upgrade its network and get more device selection that it can buy in bulk. Customers must not care much about gsm voice quality, if there's that many on the gsm network.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

Nobody cares about the voice quality anymore. It's a about the data. Which isn't very good on AT&T... Averaging 2Mbps down on HSPA+ isn't my idea of "4G". I'd prefer my 2Mbps speeds on a carrier who cares about its network and customers.

[gusherb]

Nobody cares about the voice quality anymore. It's a about the data. Which isn't very good on AT&T... Averaging 2Mbps down on HSPA+ isn't my idea of "4G". I'd prefer my 2Mbps speeds on a carrier who cares about its network and customers.

 

On top of bad VQ and disappointing "4G" speeds is the lack of a consistent, strong signal with twice as many towers as Verizon who has better coverage with fewer towers across the suburbs. AT&T has by far the worst coverage in the Chicago suburbs out of the big 4.

[iansltx]

I care about voice quality. One of the reasons I have Sprint over AT&T, which actually has better coverage out in this neck of the woods.

[Boosted20V]

The CEO of Softbank said as much (I think). He stated that if AT&T bought T-Mobile the American wireless industry would have had no interest to him.

 

Sent from a phone using an app. That is fancy!

 

I remember hearing this comment and if true, I can only glean from this that eventually he will try to bring T-Mobile under Softbank ownership as well. That would form a nice competitor to ATT/VZ.

[nahum365]

 

 

On top of bad VQ and disappointing "4G" speeds is the lack of a consistent, strong signal with twice as many towers as Verizon who has better coverage with fewer towers across the suburbs. AT&T has by far the worst coverage in the Chicago suburbs out of the big 4.

 

Coverage isn't a problem on any carriers (except T-Mobile) here in Baltimore. It's the quality of the coverage that matters here. Where TMo has coverage, it's pretty good, at least data wise. Voice isn't good, but that's expected of any GSM carrier. AT&T voice isn't great either, but they also have consistency problems for data. I would be getting 3mbps down one day, and .5mbps the next. Sprint, well you all know. Great voice, horrible data. Getting better now though. A lot better.

[gusherb]

Coverage isn't a problem on any carriers (except T-Mobile) here in Baltimore. It's the quality of the coverage that matters here. Where TMo has coverage, it's pretty good, at least data wise. Voice isn't good, but that's expected of any GSM carrier. AT&T voice isn't great either, but they also have consistency problems for data. I would be getting 3mbps down one day, and .5mbps the next. Sprint, well you all know. Great voice, horrible data. Getting better now though. A lot better.

 

In this area T-Mobile has impressive coverage, and phenomenal voice quality (better then Sprint) It goes like this here: Coverage wise T-Mobile, Sprint, Verizon, AT&T. VQ wise T-Mobile, Sprint, Verizon, AT&T. Sprint 3G is alot better around Chicago then it was a month ago.

AT&T is by far the one with the big coverage problems here in the suburbs, why? seems like they seriously mismanage the network. They have far more then enough towers to surpass all other carriers in coverage with their 850 spectrum and 700 for LTE, but in reality it's the total opposite. But quite interestingly they had great coverage here for years! then all the sudden around the beginning of this year it tanked, all over the Chicago suburbs.

[S4GRU]

In this area T-Mobile has impressive coverage, and phenomenal voice quality (better then Sprint) It goes like this here: Coverage wise T-Mobile, Sprint, Verizon, AT&T. VQ wise T-Mobile, Sprint, Verizon, AT&T. Sprint 3G is alot better around Chicago then it was a month ago.

AT&T is by far the one with the big coverage problems here in the suburbs, why? seems like they seriously mismanage the network. They have far more then enough towers to surpass all other carriers in coverage with their 850 spectrum and 700 for LTE, but in reality it's the total opposite. But quite interestingly they had great coverage here for years! then all the sudden around the beginning of this year it tanked, all over the Chicago suburbs.

 

I have a hard time anyone thinking that Tmo has better voice quality than Sprint. Are you saying that they have better voice coverage, perhaps? Or combining voice quality/coverage together into some sort of cohesive metric? I've never used Tmo before, but that is about to change with the Nexus 4 I ordered. However, I do not expect Tmo to have better voice quality.

 

Robert

[gusherb]

I have a hard time anyone thinking that Tmo has better voice quality than Sprint. Are you saying that they have better voice coverage, perhaps? Or combining voice quality/coverage together into some sort of cohesive metric? I've never used Tmo before, but that is about to change with the Nexus 4 I ordered. However, I do not expect Tmo to have better voice quality.

 

Robert

 

As usual it's very dependent upon the handset. My experience is with just a cheap Tracfone LG420G that operates on T-Mobile. It used to operate on AT&T GSM before until I had to have them send me a new SIM card which turned out to be a TMO one. Anyway when I made my first call on it the quality blew me away (just like Sprint's quality did the first time I made a call on their network)

 

T-Mobile Edge to me compares well to Sprint and the main differences are it's very natural sounding and lacks the bright metallic sound that is the characteristic of CDMA. They were both loud and insanely clear without having to crank the handset volume, CDMA of course has the signal advantage since it retains a clear call all the way til you practically are losing signal, though I found that I was able to hold a clear call on that LG420G with just one bar on TMO Edge.

 

What it comes down to is picking which you prefer. They both sound very very good. I prefer the sound of POTS and VOIP using the G.711 codec and TMO AMR-FR Edge resembles that most. But in the end VQ is not a deciding factor between those two, I love them both.

[dmchssc]

T-Mobile might have their 2G network configured to use full-rate because most of the load has moved to 3G. Sprint, especially in spectrum-constrained Chicago, may have to use higher compression modes in some areas.

[iansltx]

CDMA uses EVRC or SMV codecs (pretty sure 99% of phones use EVRC or a variation thereof stil). EVRC encodes at ~8.5 kbps.

 

By contrast, GSM/WCDMA networks can use AMR-HR or AMR-FR (Half Rate or Full Rate). T-Mobile tends to use Full Rate. AT&T uses half-rate, generally speaking. Which is why their network sounds like crap.

 

AMR-HR compresses audio down to 5.6 kbps or so. Full Rate? Around double that...more than the bits per second of EVRC or SMV.

[WiWavelength]

What it comes down to is picking which you prefer. They both sound very very good. I prefer the sound of POTS and VOIP using the G.711 codec and TMO AMR-FR Edge resembles that most. But in the end VQ is not a deciding factor between those two, I love them both.

 

To add a minor correction, EDGE is a data standard, an 8-PSK modulation enhancement to GPRS. It has nothing to do with GSM voice quality.

 

AJ

[WiWavelength]

CDMA uses EVRC or SMV codecs (pretty sure 99% of phones use EVRC or a variation thereof stil). EVRC encodes at ~8.5 kbps.

 

If I am not mistaken, VZW's default codec now is EVRC-B. That may explain why VZW's voice quality is generally lower than that of Sprint, which still defaults to standard EVRC. Newer codecs do not necessarily bring better quality; rather, they bring greater data compression with acceptable quality.

 

By contrast, GSM/WCDMA networks can use AMR-HR or AMR-FR (Half Rate or Full Rate). T-Mobile tends to use Full Rate. AT&T uses half-rate, generally speaking. Which is why their network sounds like crap.

 

I believe an old enough handset on T-Mobile can still use even EFR, which is a fixed rate codec equivalent to the highest variable rate in AMR-FR.

 

AJ

[gusherb]

To add a minor correction, EDGE is a data standard, an 8-PSK modulation enhancement to GPRS. It has nothing to do with GSM voice quality.

 

AJ

 

Yeah I'm aware that Edge is a data standard and has nothing to do with voice. Was using it as reference to the 2G GSM standard.

 

If I am not mistaken, VZW's default codec now is EVRC-B. That may explain why VZW's voice quality is generally lower than that of Sprint, which still defaults to standard EVRC. Newer codecs do not necessarily bring better quality; rather, they bring greater data compression with acceptable quality.

 

 

 

I believe an old enough handset on T-Mobile can still use even EFR, which is a fixed rate codec equivalent to the highest variable rate in AMR-FR.

 

AJ

 

My GS3 is configured for EVRC-B. Some observations is that my cousin with a GS3 on Verizon talking to her is still quite hard as it's muffled and garbles alot. My dad has a Tracfone LG235C that operates on Verizon and it's clear and sounds very good with no garbling at all. I wonder if the LG235C is using a different codec or is just that much better as a phone then a GS3. My GS3 performs very well on Sprint with the stock voice codec configurations. I've tried 13k or QCELP13 and it did not perform nearly as well on that phone as the stock setting - EVRC-B.

 

When doing some research I've found various forum posts from places up to 10 years ago describing Verizon sound quality to sound like just as it does now. They seem to have never allowed the highest rate on any codec they've used. and I thought Sprint was using EVRC-B just like VZW is now.

[Tomas]

My Motorola XT897 is set to default to EVRC, it has EVRC-B available, but it is disabled. This is the "stock" setting on this device. Sounds pretty good.

 

Sent from Photon Q LTE - Tapatalk

 

 

[MacinJosh]

My Viper is set to EVRC, but EVRC-B is enabled by factory default.

 

Sent from my LG-LS840 Viper 4G LTE using Forum Runner

[WiWavelength]

Regardless of default settings, I bet that your CDMA1X engineering screens, while in call on the Sprint native network, indicate Service Option #3 (SO00003). And that is bog standard EVRC. If you get any other Service Option, be sure to let us know.

 

AJ

[gusherb]

Regardless of default settings, I bet that your CDMA1X engineering screens, while in call on the Sprint native network, indicate Service Option #3 (SO00003). And that is bog standard EVRC. If you get any other Service Option, be sure to let us know.

 

AJ

 

I just made a call and checked mine and get service option 68. Not sure what that means but it's not #3 like you say.