4ringsnbr

The Viper shows 7 hour battery life on Sprint's website. I imagine it could be higher if SVDO wasn't there, or maybe it would stay the same.

 

Sent from Joshs iPhone 3Gs using Forum Runner

The power usage would only be greater during the SVDO operation. If you're not doing both together (like 99% of the time), the SVDO capability doesn't impact battery life.

More battery use though?

Yes-- SVDO or SVLTE does burn the battery faster, but generally these modes lower total power output to comply with the SAR testing limits. The FCC approval documents would show you under which modes / frequency combos the handset lowers the radio power in SVDO operation-- and some handsets MAY not have to. Regardless, you're powering two basebands and will use more power.

I have verified that the LG Viper is capable of doing simultaneous voice and data without LTE and WiFi. I set Network Mode to CDMA/EvDo auto and made sure that Wifi was off. I called another phone and left the connection open. I was able to visit multiple websites.

 

From what I have read internally, the reason this works is because EVDO and 1xRTT operate completely independently. The chips are completely separate.

 

Pretty cool, anyway.

Yeah-- I mentioned the SVDO testing and capability of the Viper when it was FCC approved back in January. The Qualcomm S3 SoC has a CDMA baseband integrated that processes the 1x (SMS / Voice) carrier while the MDM9600's LTE/CDMA baseband handles the EVDO 3G (or LTE 4G) data duties. I'm not sure if they use separate transceivers or combine in something like a Qualcomm RTR8605 used in the Thunderbolt (which also does SVDO). As long as they have two separate baseband processors, the radio parts aren't as big of a deal.

Sure, for transmission, we have QPSK, which carries two bits per symbol, 8-PSK, which carries three bits per symbol, and 16-QAM, which carries four bits per symbol. Heck, with LTE now, we have 64-QAM, which carries six bits per symbol. But I fail to see how RF modulation is at all relevant to this discussion.

 

AJ

I agree-- and for the reverse link on EVDO Rev. A, we're limited to 8-PSK and 16-QAM on the forward link. The transmitted data far, far exceeds the amount actually processed and used in the device. I was merely pointing out that nitpicking the transmission rate versus the transmitted total is pointless. The ISP (Sprint in this case) like every other ISP I can think of uses the proper binary-based definition for network data transceived. I'm well aware of the IEC's introduction of the Mebi- and Kibi- SI prefixed in 2000 to try to "simplify" measurement of computer data; however, aside from hard drive manufacturers as pointed out in this thread, nobody uses this new "standard". The guy that is arguing is short-changing himself from Sprint's 300 megabyte per month data roaming limit anyway-- by my calculations, he would short-change himself by 14,572,800 bytes using his rather than Sprint's (and everyone else's) definition of KB, MB.

What Wiwavelength pointed out was how Sprint tracks data usage not how it measures data transmission.

Actually, the data transmission is modulated with CDMA, which means it is spread over 1.2288 mcps (far greater than the data rate). What they track is just as they state: 1KB = 1024 bytes, 1MB = 1024 KB, 1GB = 1024 MB. This is the data transmitted over the network. The same definition is used by AT&T U-verse, Verizon on their data plan usage widget, and Cox on their usage widget. As numerous people on this thread have tried to tell you, this is the proper (and billed) measurement for multiples of computer data. You're wrong.

As they should since they have demodulated the signal received. Two different animals: modulated signal vs. demodulated signal.

 

 

 

 

I know how they work internally, usually better than some people. I use to dabble in x86 assembler back in the day, mainly 16bit.

Regardless of what you want to call it modulated or not, a kilobit (or kilobyte) as measured by Sprint or any ISP, is 1024 bits (or bytes) as noted above. And that is the proper unit of measure.... oh, and I did assembly and ML programming on 8-bit, 16-bit, and 32-bit processors.

PRL is a binary file. It can be edited in QPST or some versions of CDMA workshop. These are specialty software tools from Qualcomm. Internally, the PRL is two databases: an acquisition records table indexed to a root record and a system table that is processed by a phone from top to bottom that directs it to scan various acquisition records for 1x then for EVDO carriers. I use QPST to modify existing (or create new from scratch) PRL files that can be loaded into any CDMA cell phone. For LTE phones, the SIM contains the PRL and is automatically updated by the network. It cannot (or should not) be loaded or modified in any other way.

 

 

So where you are getting this 2^10 increment stuff is beyond me.

The 2^10 increment "stuff" is how the kernel network monitors actually count the bits at the software level. If they are now reporting wrong to artificially inflate the figures like the hard disk manufacturers started doing, "buyer beware". In the code, if you open a terminal emulator in android (or Linux) to look at the network interface status, it WILL count network transfers with kilobits as 1024 bits, etc. That's how computers work internally.

I posted 2 links saying the exact same thing. It is a standard.

 

Just did a speed test at Speedtest.net and it says in kbits down 30408. I have a 30Mbps line 30408/1000=30.408 Mbps. Changed it back to Mbps on their site and it says 30.41 (rounded off). So obviously they are dividing by 1000.

 

Check the weblinked png drawing-- you'll find it doesn't match what the screen shows-- app bug in some versions. Network rates are always given in 2^10 increments rather than the 1000 between.

Nope, they are in powers of 10.

 

http://searchstorage...ta-and-all-that

 

 

 

Original link I gave says the same thing.

Don't trust Wikipedia with everything. Network links are quoted in binary. If in doubt on Speedtest and other apps, change their reporting from kbps to mbps. You'll see that all of them figure 1024 kbps = 1 mbps. The only place of significance that uses the 1000 bits / kilobit (power of 10) is hard drives so they can sell you an inflated size.

I went to sprint, the nexus didn't arrive today. Play some minutes with the viper, a nice budget phone, it doesnt have any toogle for LTE or 4g, only find under mobile networks an option to choose between 3g/evdo-lte and 3g/evdo...

That's the way all LTE phones (at least all VZW LTE phones are). Go to settings, wireless & networks... On my MAXX, your choice is CDMA/LTE or CDMA only. Most people keep it on CDMA only unless they have a big battery like the MAXX-- I leave mine on LTE all day.

You won't miss it when LTE goes live nationwide.

 

Sent from Joshs iPhone 3Gs using Forum Runner

It's really a shame WiMax wasn't deployed in a better frequency spectrum. WiMax has higher data capacity than LTE (128 mbps in a 20 MHz carrier versus LTE's 108 mbps in a 20 MHz carrier), but deployment is really the key.

Thanks for the information. I learn a lot about how this stuff works everyday just reading the news and posts by you guys.

 

Another question then, if I got a SVDO phone, say the EVO 4G LTE, would I get better reception since it would be able to lock onto that channel 500 at the same time?

No... channel 500 would still give you better signal strength, but this is an EV carrier used only for data. The 1x connection would go through your other channel (325 or 350) at the same strength that channel has-- and this is where your voice signal goes. Apparently, the EV carrier is on a closer tower or has many fewer users than the 1x channel. A new phone with SVDO (or not) won't change this at all.

Her CDMA RSSI was slightly higher but I suspect it was from a higher Ec/Io number on the nexus. Also, it almost looked like we were connected to different towers.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Do more comparisons in many other places side-by-side. On average, you'll find the Samsung will tend to have a lower signal strength on CDMA / 3G. Perhaps not ALWAYS, but typically. I really wanted to get a GNex over my RAZR MAXX, but there is NO way I'll ever have a non-Qualcomm chip handling my calls-- the LTE data I'm not as particular about.

4G core?

 

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk 2

LTE and eHRPD use the PDN Gateway architecture IP core network to get to the internet. Any PSTN failover happens in the PDN gateway as a separate link. The old EVDO carriers are tied to both the eNodeB (where they're now called eHRPD) and the existing HA (home agent) gateway that ties to the PSTN and the 1x carrier network. LTE is tied ONLY to the eNodeB and PDN gateway network, which it shares only with eHRPD. eHRPD exists only to make LTE (4G) / EVDO (3G) transitions smooth and seamless, retaining the same IP address & subnet. The OLD EVDO (only-- non- eHRPD) / 1x network MUST be separate.

I'd like to see the proof that the LTE chip actually gets poorer CDMA connections. Sounds like rumormongering.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

It's not the LTE chip that is an issue-- the Nexus uses Samsung's CMC221 for that task... it is the CDMA (1x/EVDO) 3G chip that has an issue. And a friend of mine who works for Verizon confirmed that they did have slightly more reception issues with the GNex on 3G / 1x versus the HTC and Moto handsets. Compare your 3G CDMA signal strength with an HTC or Moto handset on Verizon in the same spot and you'll see a couple (1 - 5) dBm worse signal on average.

The LTE chip (CMC221) has nothing at all to do with your CDMA connections. On the GNex that comes from the Via Telecom CBP 7.1 which provides the 3G EVDO and 1x CDMA voice connection. This chip was also used on the Droid Charge and both handsets have a ton of posts documenting user issues with the CDMA signal quality on these handsets-- this is old news. The LTE performance of the GNex is top notch.

yeah, it uses a VIA CDMA chip and a Samsung LTE chip

 

Not sure why they have to put a qualcomm sticker on every phone...

Qualcomm invented CDMA and anybody's CDMA modem must pay Qualcomm royalties. It's one of the reasons CDMA didn't take over globally despite its superiority over GSM. It's bad news that the Sprint version still has that VIA chip-- it gives poorer CDMA connections in marginal (-90 dBm and below) signal areas. There were numerous complaints with the Verizon version, but Sprint has even more marginal to poor signal areas since its 1x carriers are all on PCS (right now at least) instead of Cellular 850.

Not sure what is going on - activated a co-workers galaxy nexus who is on a standard 69.99+10 plan and it made him re-signup for a 69.99+10 plan.

 

Very strange. Normally when I do ESN swaps online it just swaps the phone over, doesn't make you sign up for a plan again.

The 69.99 + 10 plan isn't SERO... that's the plan I had with my EVO-- and I got tired of paying $80 a month for dialup 3G... so now I pay about $10 more for great service (and 4G) with Verizon. SERO plans are so cheap if I had one I would've toughed it out with Sprint-- especially since I could force roam on Verizon 3G. But the regular "civilian" plans, the cost difference between Sprint and AT&T / Verizon is almost negligible.

Dunno, it's not looking good. I've been on the phone with account services for over 20 minutes.

My gut tells me that SERO plans will not work for LTE service. WIth the introduction of LTE, they have an opportunity to call all accounts "new" just like when WiMax started, everyone had to have the $10 fee. I think Sprint would love to get rid of SERO and SERO-P since they don't make money off those plans. I think they'd be stupid to do this-- most people I know who are still on Sprint are only because of SERO.

FCC knows exactly how many subs VZN has.

 

I think the bigger question isn't if VZN will get the spectrum purchase approved - it is the cable companies + VZN partnership that faces bigger hurdles.

I agree... Verizon (landline) with FiOS is a direct competitor to some of the cablecos that Verizon Wireless is trying to pair up with.... the partnership will be tenuous at best. I think VZW really wants to BUY the spectrum-- the long term partnership is probably not high on their priority list.

With Network Vision towers having their radios(?) installed up high near the panels instead of on the ground in the cabinets, what does this mean to signal strength? I've read there should be a 20% increase in signal strength, but what exactly does that mean? If I currently get 90 dbm signal reading, what should I expect after Network Vision upgrades are complete?

A 20% increase would take you from -90 dBm to -89 dBm or so. Every 6 dBm is a doubling (or halving) of signal strength. In other words, a -84 dBm signal would be twice the strength (100% stronger) of a -90 dBm signal. It's a logarithmic scale.

Funny because the 93 million came from Verizon's own earnings press release. Verizon didn't mention wholesale customers in its news releases or the financials they put out. Will have to wait and see their 10-Q and see if there's more info.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/24/verizon-releases-q4-results-sees-jump-in-revenue-broadband-sub/

If you see the 4Q11 press release linked above, they had 92.2 million RETAIL connections and 108.7 million TOTAL wireless connections at the end of 2011. The 93 million number is RETAIL customers.

Here in the next month or so when I get my EVO 4G LTE I'll be saying ---

 

"I don't always surf on the net and talk at the same time, but when I do it's on Sprint 4G LTE."

 

 

Don't mean to burst your bubble, but you won't have Sprint 4G LTE in some areas for a while-- Kansas City maybe by September, other areas maybe a year or more. Regardless, the LTE EVO does do SVDO, so you can talk and surf on 3G with it.

• 93 million total customers.
  

 

I wish the authors of the article had been more precise. They have 93 million RETAIL customers. Their total wireless customer count was 108 million at the end of the year. They should have between 109 - 110 million TOTAL customers now (including wholesale).

Completely disagree with your statement. There are huge barriers for entry in the wireless carrier space of which your statement does not apply which is why the government and the FCC needs to become involved. I don't care if someone came up with a new invention in wireless to be more spectrally efficient because at the end of the day they will still need spectrum. Without spectrum this new invention is going to be mean diddly squat because it would be all gobbled up by Verizon and AT&T. This crap happened before with the Ma Bell situation and had to be broken up. Without checks and balances, Verizon and AT&T could easily form a duopoly which is bad for the consumer. I always laugh when I hear people do not want competition like its a good thing.

 

In the grocery market sector, I am glad I see Walmart and Target offering produce and deli (in Walmart at least) to compete with the supermarket chains like Safeway, Albertsons, Vons, Ralphs, Stater Bros. I always felt that the supermarkets chains were usually a rip off and I find myself buying a lot of stuff from Walmart and Target just because I have choice. Choice is always good for the consumer just like it is in the wireless space.

You're assuming the next leap in communication requires electromagnetic fields to communicate. I think we'll move beyond that. Consider quantum entanglement (Einstein's "spooky action at a distance") for the next phase of communications. You would have limitless range communication at faster than the speed of light (that one is still being debated), bandwidth only limited by the number of fermion particles used, and a device that cannot be cloned or eavesdropped upon unless you had a particle accelerator handy. We're still in our infancy understanding these concepts and the science behind this, but no more so than we were a century ago when Tesla invented radio (credit often falsely given to Marconi) using EM waves. There are many possibilities out there-- we never know what may be next!

Besides, I think you misunderstood the gist of my message-- I'm all in favor of competition-- it does make things (generally) better for the consumer, and the struggle of companies against one another gives us more value and typically better service. I was pointing out that some consipracy theorists on this thread have suggested that Verizon is somehow colluding with AT&T to shutout everyone else. I'm simply pointing out that those two compete, not cooperate. AT&T is the one company Verizon considers a threat and vice-versa. If both companies were smart, they'd stay wary of Sprint and T-Mobile since the underdogs can sweep the rug out from underneath their competetors if they're underestimated.