Jump to content

Is Sprint planning to upgrade their Network to SVDO?


Recommended Posts

Since I read an article of HTC Evo 4G LTE. This phone feature a HD voice which is support by 1X Advanced which is SVDO. Correct? Do LG Viper 4G LTE and other 4G LTE smartphones support SVDO?

 

I read the PDF regarding 1X Advanced. there is the PDF link if you want to read ;)http://www.howardfor...93&d=1304602440

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, HD Voice has nothing to do with SVDO. And SVDO is not a network upgrade, per se; rather, it is a device capability.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

over at anandtech they have confirmed the codec that is being used:

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5726/sprint-hd-voice-on-htc-evo-4g-lte-is-evrcnw-1x-advanced

 

For the HTC EVO 4G LTE, HD Voice consists of one part common mode noise rejection using two microphones (something we've seen ship on high-end smartphones for a while now), and one part 1x-Advanced.

 

I reached out to Qualcomm and asked what voice codec was being used in conjunction with Sprint's HD Voice branding on the HTC EVO 4G LTE, and learned that EVRC-NW (Service Option 73) is being used. EVRC-NW (Narrowband-Wideband), as the name suggests, includes both the EVRC-B rates with narrowband 8 KHz sampling, and EVRC-WB rates with 16 KHz sampling all under one umbrella.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other threads have said that it capitalizes on the efficiency of 1x advanced... so, would expect that your phone is defaulted to only use it when it recognizes you connected via cdma 1x advanced ... a call initiated in 1xA to another party would be subject to any of the various compression standards the receiver may be using.. I would think the sprint users clarity would be high, but that probably depends on the phones settings ( whether or not it goes HD with 1xa on its end, or requires the receiver to also be 1xa). The press release says it has to be evo to evo, so we should assume the latter for now. Have also read here that 1xa 's default compression will be more similar to att and verizon than we are now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

got word today from someone that SVDO is NOT being pursued anymore as its too costly and battery consuming...VoLTE, LTE Advanced, 1x advanced, HD Voice, and so on are whats slated with Do-Advanced being discussed still last he herd...

 

take it for what its worth but this guy hasn't led me wrong before...hes a lil more removed from Sprint now than before so to say but still in the loop tech wise some considering who he works for supplies a component to device OEM's...

 

imho SVDO is nothing to get all ruffled over really...and in due time with VoLTE they can do SVLTE and get the same thing in a sense from what i've briefly read...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

got word today from someone that SVDO is NOT being pursued anymore as its too costly and battery consuming...VoLTE, LTE Advanced, 1x advanced, HD Voice, and so on are whats slated with Do-Advanced being discussed still last he herd...

 

take it for what its worth but this guy hasn't led me wrong before...hes a lil more removed from Sprint now than before so to say but still in the loop tech wise some considering who he works for supplies a component to device OEM's...

 

imho SVDO is nothing to get all ruffled over really...and in due time with VoLTE they can do SVLTE and get the same thing in a sense from what i've briefly read...

 

SVLTE is where the future is at. Once we all are on LTE, who cares about simultaneous 3G and voice?

 

Robert

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SVLTE is where the future is at. Once we all are on LTE, who cares about simultaneous 3G and voice?

 

Robert

 

exactly and with the rate of the LTE/Network Vision Deployment it makes perfect sense to what the guy told me about abandoning SVDO...just not worth it in the end...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, HD Voice has nothing to do with SVDO. And SVDO is not a network upgrade, per se; rather, it is a device capability.

 

AJ

i wonder why they dont put this in more phones

 

off topic but can you check your dm. i sent you something

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't say that I have ever felt the need to use both voice and data at the same time.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

 

Simultaneous voice & data is the one and only thing I really miss since I left at&t. I do get it with WiMax every so often, but not enough, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't say that I have ever felt the need to use both voice and data at the same time.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

 

Me neither, but I ported my girlfriend's family over from T-mobile and AT&T to Sprint (all iPhones now), and the one comment they all made was that they got used to sim-voice/data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me neither, but I ported my girlfriend's family over from T-mobile and AT&T to Sprint (all iPhones now), and the one comment they all made was that they got used to sim-voice/data.

 

Maybe part of my reasoning is that I only use about 200 minutes per month. That isn't a whole lot of time to feel deprived of the internet. I'm sure I would get used to it if I had it and then miss it if it was gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe part of my reasoning is that I only use about 200 minutes per month. That isn't a whole lot of time to feel deprived of the internet. I'm sure I would get used to it if I had it and then miss it if it was gone.

 

LOL...good point. Though I carry 2 phones daily, so I get "sim voice/data", just with 2 phones ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other threads have said that it capitalizes on the efficiency of 1x advanced... so, would expect that your phone is defaulted to only use it when it recognizes you connected via cdma 1x advanced ... a call initiated in 1xA to another party would be subject to any of the various compression standards the receiver may be using.. I would think the sprint users clarity would be high, but that probably depends on the phones settings ( whether or not it goes HD with 1xa on its end, or requires the receiver to also be 1xa). The press release says it has to be evo to evo, so we should assume the latter for now. Have also read here that 1xa 's default compression will be more similar to att and verizon than we are now.

1xA's default vocoder is EVRC-B, which is the standard for Verizon in most areas. Some people prefer it over EVRC, and it does sound very good, but I personally prefer EVRC. AT&T uses an AMR vocoder though upgraded from GSM's horrible original versions, it's still very, very poor in comparison. There are newer AMR versions with "HD voice" capabilities that Verizon plans to use when rolling out VoLTE this October.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SVLTE is where the future is at. Once we all are on LTE, who cares about simultaneous 3G and voice?

 

Robert

 

Not only that, but until we get there, we should have simultaneous voice and LTE, just like we do with WiMax, right? And maybe with a lower frequency that provides better indoor signals, hopefully a better LTE footprint with fewer gaps, better chipsets in the phones, and bigger batteries like in the Evo LTE, leaving LTE on all the time will be more viable.

 

Simultaneous 3G and voice would be nice for fallback, but if it diverts resources from more long term efforts, it makes sense for them to skip it. If it could be done at minimal cost as a part of the upgrades, that'd be one thing, but it sounds like that's not the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simultaneous 3G and voice would be nice for fallback, but if it diverts resources from more long term efforts, it makes sense for them to skip it. If it could be done at minimal cost as a part of the upgrades, that'd be one thing, but it sounds like that's not the case.

 

As has been stated many times, SVDO is not a network upgrade, so it does not add cost nor divert resources. Rather, SVDO is a device capability, typically enabled through separate modems for CDMA1X and EV-DO.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

As has been stated many times, SVDO is not a network upgrade, so it does not add cost nor divert resources. Rather, SVDO is a device capability, typically enabled through separate modems for CDMA1X and EV-DO.

 

AJ

 

Not a routine "cost" but there's still a cost for having it on the handset hardware...

 

Though that previous "cost" with having to add the MDM chip to achieve this feature is somewhat mitigated by using the new S4 chips evidently...

 

There's always a cost for things one way or another to an extent.

 

 

I do wonder the amount of difference in data used on VZ once they introduced SVDO handsets versus how it was before...personally I'd think the difference would be negligible but u never know as having the ability to do it might drive more data use than before...

 

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1xA's default vocoder is EVRC-B, which is the standard for Verizon in most areas. Some people prefer it over EVRC, and it does sound very good, but I personally prefer EVRC. AT&T uses an AMR vocoder though upgraded from GSM's horrible original versions, it's still very, very poor in comparison. There are newer AMR versions with "HD voice" capabilities that Verizon plans to use when rolling out VoLTE this October.

 

It is important to note, however, that EVRC-NW "HD Voice" does not require Network Vision nor CDMA1X Advanced; EVRC-NW is based on the same 9.6 kbps Rate Set 1 as is EVRC. "HD Voice" comes from greater voice data compression, not from higher rate voice data. So, as long as the BSC/MSC has been updated to decode, transcode, or pass EVRC-NW as necessary, then "HD Voice" should be functional even in those markets that Network Vision has not yet reached.

 

AJ

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • I think it is likely that T-Mobile will be forced to honor any existing US cellular roaming agreements in those areas as a condition of them taking over the spectrum.  In that case, there would be no improvement of service unless T-Mobile improves the service offering in those areas.
    • My understanding is the MNO carriers are the one who have objected to the use of cell phones in commercial planes.  I understand that it ties down too many cell phones at once, thus I can not see this changing. However this depends on how it is structured. Use of a different plmn for satellite service might make it possible for planes only to connect with satellite. Private pilots have been using cellphones in planes for many decades. Far fewer phones at a lower altitude.
    • On Reddit, someone asked (skeptically) if the US Cellular buyout would result in better service.  I'd been pondering this very issue, and decided to cross-post my response here: I've been pondering the question in the title and I've come to the conclusion that the answer is that it's possible. Hear me out. Unlike some of the small carriers that work exclusively with one larger carrier, all three major carriers roam on US Cellular today in at least some areas, so far as I know. If that network ceases to exist, then the carriers would presumably want to recover those areas of lost service by building out natively. Thus, people in those areas who may only have service from US Cellular or from US Cellular and one other may gain competition from other carriers backfilling that loss. How likely is it? I'm not sure. But it's definitely feasible. Most notably, AT&T did their big roaming deal with US Cellular in support of FirstNet in places where they lacked native coverage. They can't just lose a huge chunk of coverage whole still making FirstNet happy; I suspect they'll have to build out and recover at least some of that area, if not most of it. So it'd be indirect, but I could imagine it. - Trip
    • Historically, T-Mobile has been the only carrier contracting with Crown Castle Solutions, at least in Brooklyn. I did a quick count of the ~35 nodes currently marked as "installed" and everything mapped appears to be T-Mobile. However, they have a macro sector pointed directly at this site and seem to continue relying on the older-style DAS nodes. Additionally, there's another Crown Castle Solutions node approved for construction just around the corner, well within range of their macro. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Verizon using a new vendor for their mmWave build, especially since the macro site directly behind this node lacks mmWave/CBRS deployment (limited to LTE plus C-Band). However, opting for a multi-carrier solution here seems unlikely unless another carrier has actually joined the build. This node is equidistant (about five blocks) between two AT&T macro sites, and there are no oDAS nodes deployed nearby. Although I'm not currently mapping AT&T, based on CellMapper, it appears to be right on cell edge for both sites. Regardless, it appears that whoever is deploying is planning for a significant build. There are eight Crown Castle Solutions nodes approved for construction in a 12-block by 2-block area.
    • Starlink (1900mhz) for T-Mobile, AST SpaceMobile (700mhz and 850mhz) for AT&T, GlobalStar (unknown frequency) for Apple, Iridium (unknown frequency) for Samsung, and AST SpaceMobile (850mhz) for Verizon only work on frequency bands the carrier has licensed nationwide.  These systems broadcast and listen on multiple frequencies at the same time in areas much wider than normal cellular market license areas.  They would struggle with only broadcasting certain frequencies only in certain markets so instead they require a nationwide license.  With the antennas that are included on the satellites, they have range of cellular band frequencies they support and can have different frequencies with different providers in each supported country.  The cellular bands in use are typically 5mhz x 5mhz bands (37.5mbps total for the entire cell) or smaller so they do not have a lot of data bandwidth for the satellite band covering a very large plot of land with potentially millions of customers in a single large cellular satellite cell.  I have heard that each of Starlink's cells sharing that bandwidth will cover 75 or more miles. Satellite cellular connectivity will be set to the lowest priority connection just before SOS service on supported mobile devices and is made available nationwide in supported countries.  The mobile device rules pushed by the provider decide when and where the device is allowed to connect to the satellite service and what services can be provided over that connection.  The satellite has a weak receiving antenna and is moving very quickly so any significant obstructions above your mobile device antenna could cause it not to work.  All the cellular satellite services are starting with texting only and some of them like Apple's solution only support a predefined set of text messages.  Eventually it is expected that a limited number of simultaneous voice calls (VoLTE) will run on these per satellite cell.  Any spare data will then be available as an extremely slow LTE data connection as it could potentially be shared by millions of people.  Satellite data from the way these are currently configured will likely never work well enough to use unless you are in a very remote location.
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...