So, ignoring bands...which technology has the best building penetration?

[Nickel]

Sprint would have been able to deploy 3xEV-DV in all markets. But VZW sway over economy of scale nipped that in the bud.

 

AJ

Yeah, I know why it failed, I was more wondering if had Verizon picked EV-DV if both Sprint and Verizon would have better performing 3G networks.

[The Dave]

What is the difference between EV-DO and EV-DV?

[Nickel]

What is the difference between EV-DO and EV-DV?

DO= Data Only, DV= Data and Voice, also EV-DV has capacity for higher speeds than EV-DO.  

[Ascertion]

DO= Data Only, DV= Data and Voice, also EV-DV has capacity for higher speeds than EV-DO.

Is EvDv similar to EvDo RevB?

[Nickel]

Is EvDv similar to EvDo RevB?

No, I don't think so but I'm struggling to find any info on it (since no one deployed it) but I think Rev B provided higher speeds.

[Paynefanbro]

DO= Data Only, DV= Data and Voice, also EV-DV has capacity for higher speeds than EV-DO.

 

Wasn't the O in EVDO changed to Optimized.

[Nickel]

Wasn't the O in EVDO changed to Optimized.

I believe it was, yes.

[The Dave]

Fancy. Kinda similar to how racing stripes make a car go faster. Sprint should be the first carrier with LTE-O, then.

[Thomas L.]

Is EvDv similar to EvDo RevB?

EvDo Rev. B allows multiple carriers to be used at the same time along with addition optimizations and upgrades that increase data speeds quite a bit. EvDv on the other hand allowed voice and data on the same carrier if I remember correctly.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4

 

 

[WiWavelength]

EvDo Rev. B allows multiple carriers to be used at the same time along with addition optimizations and upgrades that increase data speeds quite a bit. EvDv on the other hand allowed voice and data on the same carrier if I remember correctly.

 

EV-DO Rev B is too often confused with EV-DO Multi carrier.  The two are not necessarily conjoined.   The same would have held true for EV-DV.  Multi carrier would have been an option.

 

AJ

[Nickel]

EV-DO Rev B is too often confused with EV-DO Multi carrier.  The two are not necessarily conjoined.   The same would have held true for EV-DV.  Multi carrier would have been an option.

 

AJ

Is there any place that goes into detail on EV-DV? I can't find anything since it was killed off so long ago.

[MacPCS]

Is there any place that goes into detail on EV-DV? I can't find anything since it was killed off so long ago.

yes, barely.

 

http://www.phonescoop.com/glossary/term.php?gid=152

 

 

 

Part of a family of cdma2000 1x digital wireless standards. 1xEV-DV is a "3G" standard.

EV-DV stands for "EVolution, Data and Voice". It addresses both data and voice, unlike 1xEV-DO, which only addresses data natively.

 

1xEV-DV development is currently stalled, having been mostly superseded (before it was even launched) by 1xEV-DO Revision A + VoIP technology.

 

1xEV-DV combines the high-speed HDR technology from 1xEV-DO with the widely-deployed 1xRTT standard. It integrates seamlessly with 1xRTT, providing full backward-compatibility and simultaneous voice and data.

 

There are two versions of 1xEV-DV: "Revision C" and "Revision D".

 

Revision C provides high speeds only for the forward link, meaning only "download" speeds are faster. The reverse link ("upload") is the exact same as the existing 1xRTT standard.

 

Revision D provides fast data speeds in both directions, making it ideal for applications such as video conferencing and uploading large files (such as photos from megapixel camera phones). Revision D also integrates MEID natively.

[Nickel]

yes, barely.

 

http://www.phonescoop.com/glossary/term.php?gid=152

Yea, I found that too. I guess I was more wondering how EV-DV would have fared against HSPA. 

[MacPCS]

Yea, I found that too. I guess I was more wondering how EV-DV would have fared against HSPA.

Still not well. Better than EV-DO but probably not much better at all.

 

But what's the point?

[Deval]

Still not well. Better than EV-DO but probably not much better at all.

 

But what's the point?

 

Prior to the huge boom in LTE/4G, the biggest complaint business customers had, and the main selling point of GSM based carriers was the concept of simultaneous voice and data. While us 1%'ers would not care much about it, that feature was something that a lot of folks wanted. 

 

I moved someone over from AT&T to Sprint a year or so ago, and the first thing she mentioned to me was that she could no longer be on the phone and look up movie tickets. I had to explain to her the differences between Sprint and AT&T, since she was just basing the experience off the 3G indicator on the iPhone.

[MacPCS]

Prior to the huge boom in LTE/4G, the biggest complaint business customers had, and the main selling point of GSM based carriers was the concept of simultaneous voice and data. While us 1%'ers would not care much about it, that feature was something that a lot of folks wanted.

 

I moved someone over from AT&T to Sprint a year or so ago, and the first thing she mentioned to me was that she could no longer be on the phone and look up movie tickets. I had to explain to her the differences between Sprint and AT&T, since she was just basing the experience off the 3G indicator on the iPhone.

right. That's really the only benefit we would have gotten and that has a very subjective value associated with it.

 

It would be better, yes. But data speeds I'm not sure would be any different whatsoever.