USNMathiuz

I read somewhere that Verizon has also pushed back the release of the 735 to sometime in early '15.

Well, not only that.  Nokia and Verizon have EOL'ed the Icon (Lumia 929) less than a year after release.  Most of the offerings at Verizon have not received 8.1, including the entire offerings from Nokia.

Max, I am not trolling. There is a lot more that has to do with Nokia when it comes to CDMA. Let's start refreshing the entire Qualcommv Nokia by showing you the entire timeline of the issue

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL257876620080225?irpc=932

Also, let's talk about the allegations from Nokia saying Qualcomm charges too much for the licensing rights to CDMA technology, which Qualcomm legally owns as it created the technology. Nokia tried to shop around courts on this manner, and in many cases they were told the company as a whole was in danger, and offered Qualcomm over two billion dollars to settle all disputes, and finally end years of disputes in court.

Qualcomm is still in business as a whole, while Nokia really never recuperated (at least in the phone manufacturing division, which was sold to Microsoft). Nokia has not been seen with good eyes by the majority of the CDMA carrier community since then. Nokia thoughr entering the market by using Verizon would helped them, and it backfired as most carriers are in line with Sprint when it comes to CDMA standards, and it has been that way for several years. The CCA agreement alone proves this clearly, as well as having certain carriers like NTelos signing new agreements which benefit both Sprint and all participating regional carriers.

I am sorry if in any way I disrespected you or anyone, but Nokia/Windows Phone is a hot topic for me, especially when I have exposed a fraud from a certain website on this multiple times, and his last tactic was comparing me to a potato with earphones.

Also, Nokia demanding Apple and Samsung treatment to every CDMA carrier they negotiated with, and will not give devices to them after being released six months on Verizon.  Sprint, US Cellular, C Spire, Bluegrass, United Telecom, Open Mobile de Puerto Rico, NTelos, and several others agreed to that as long as Nokia uses Qualcomm certified CDMA radios and not their homemade radios.  Guess who walked out several times?  Elop and company at Nokia. 

If Nokia wanted to "stick it" to Sprint, they would had been smart enough to get several regional CDMA carriers and US Cellular to carry Lumia devices.  They failed to do so, even having help from a certain ediTROLL in chief from a certain website which considers S4GRU too Pro Sprint.

Nokia's CDMA devices weren't "years behind". They simply didn't want to pay Qualcomm for something that everyone elses network has for much less.

 

Nokia agreed to license patents from Qualcomm back when 3G was novel. But when GSM WCDMA rolled out (without the need for the extra fees), Nokia pushed back on Qualcomm. There's no reason to pay Qualcomm extra for their patents, when everyone has that technology now -- nothing in Qualcomm's proprietary airlink was significantly better anymore, than the non-proprietary international standard. 

 

Qualcomm refused to lower the rate, so Nokia stopped making the devices. And it didn't last forever, Nokia made devices for Verizon pretty recently.

 

To say that Nokia's radios were "behind", or that they "violated trust" is not accurate. Similarly, Microsoft didn't really prevent any second generation handsets, in fact they added CDMA support specifically for Verizon and Sprint. But they couldn't *make* anyone make devices for Sprint/Verizon

 

Source : http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/12/25/8396726/index.htm and http://www.infoworld.com/article/2656804/networking/update--nokia--qualcomm-squabble-over-cdma-license.html

 

 

Then explain why Nokia decided to manufacture homemade radios which were unlicensed just to avoid paying Qualcomm the required licensing fees.  By doing that, Qualcomm had the right to sue their pants off if they wanted.  Sprint, Verizon, US Cellular, and many regional carriers who sold Nokia devices at the time reported the radios being different to what Nokia listed (which is required by both Qualcomm and the FCC).  That is why Qualcomm sued Nokia in the first place, as what they were doing violates copyright laws on patents which Qualcomm solely owns as they created CDMA.  WCDMA is more GSM based than anything else, and not as used as Nokia mobile manufacturing division was hoping for. 

 

Qualcomm has the legal right to charge what they feel is right as they own the patents, and Nokia knew they had to settle rather than ending being a division of Qualcomm.  When Qualcomm created and legally patented the technology, they did their homework.  Nokia knew grandstanding with counterclaims which were bogus by Elop and company was going to be their own downfall.  They never recuperated from that major financial hit they took by settle all cases against them, while saying investing on CDMA manufacturing was a waste (which was more of an act to say "screw you" to the CDMA carriers in the US, knowing they were going to lose their market presence by 80%, as they sold mostly CDMA devices in the US market).

 

In regards to Microsoft, they have not been very cooperative with CDMA carriers in general, as the presence on regional and prepaid carriers is non existent outside of US Cellular.  The carriers which participated for Windows Phone 7 have been very unwilling to deal with Microsoft because of the HTC Arrive debacle of being unsupported after Mango (which many people think it was Sprint who EOL the device for all of them), while an older Trophy with less impressive specs was supported.  The regionals, which most of them are partners with Sprint under the CCA agreement, will not carry a device which would not be to par to Sprint's network configuration, bands, and CDMA code requirements.  China Mobile CDMA on a Qualcomm CDMA carrier?  NOT happening, and Microsoft did not fix the CDMA code until GDR2 for 8.0, jut to meet QUALCOMM standards, while getting devices sold on Sprint and US Cellular.

 

 

Yes, Microsoft could not force any OEM to make CDMA variants for the second generation WP7 devices.  They actually DISCOURAGED IT, as Microsoft did this as a way to retaliate against the Qualcomm CDMA community for exposing their security flaws WP7 had with the CDMA code they used and sneaked through the FCC.  Why did it take Microsoft two long years to make Windows Phone Qualcomm CDMA compliant?  Because they had no one Qualcomm CDMA certified to code properly for Windows Phone.  Have in mind Microsoft had a position for a Qualcomm CDMA certified coder available as late as February of last year to be hired to work at Team Windows Phone, especially when they were given a deadline of June 2013 to have the code implemented, as well as meeting deadlines for Sprint, US Cellular, HTC, and Samsung.

 

 

Let's compare a homemade CDMA radio by Nokia for the current three devices sold on Verizon, and let's compare it to a radio from HTC, Samsung, or Qualcomm.  The coding and functions on the Nokia radios is three to five years behind compared to what Qualcomm mandates, and is more towards use in places like China and North Korea with governments wanting to know what their citizens say, and not for use in the US where identity security is a must.  Check CDMA forums so you can get into details for each, and why Nokia had no other choice to either get them from a Qualcomm compliant vendor, or perhaps get up to par with code, as getting a device or two on Sprint gives them a one way key to enter the prepaid and regional CDMA market.

 

By the way, those three devices by Nokia sold on Verizon will not roam on neither CDMA network in Puerto Rico (Sprint and Open Mobile), and need SIM cards from Claro to get home service via prepaid.  Believe me when I say techs at Sprint Caribe and Open Mobile tried for nearly a year to make the Lumia devices work via CDMA roaming, and the radios used by Nokia didn't support the feature as it should due to security reasons with the radios themselves (and Qualcomm CDMA networks forbidding access), as they probably used a code for them which is 3-5 years behind current Qualcomm CDMA coding.

 

 

When Sprint and Nokia make up after all these years.

The problem has always been Nokia since they decided to manufacture unauthorized CDMA radios just to circumvent paying Qualcomm for use of patented technology in regards to CDMA.  Sprint, as well as every CDMA carrier in the US selling Nokia devices noticed the unauthorized radios, which led Qualcomm to sue them.  Nokia had to settle as their counter lawsuits were destined to fail, and perhaps end up becoming a division of Qualcomm.  You can do a search on your search engine of your choice for Qualcomm v. Nokia

Instead of Nokia fixing relations with Qualcomm CDMA carriers, Elop and company at once was Nokia's mobile manufacturing division decided to make their Lumia line pretty much GSM exclusive (which was also the story for second generation Windows Phone 7 devices), while giving Qualcomm CDMA carriers the two finger salute by only releasing the Lumia 900T for China Mobile, and later releasing the 928, 929, and 822 on Verizon, all of them with the SAME homemade CDMA radios which are still behind Qualcomm standards.

The move to have a device on Sprint is of desperation by the Lumia team in order to meet the carrier unlock agreement between the FCC and CTIA, as well as being the only way to have Windows Phone devices sold on many regional CDMA carriers in the US and Puerto Rico/USVI (remember, the unlock policy is not limited to CDMA carriers making their new devices coming to their networks being able to work on GSM networks in the US), something Microsoft has miserably failed to do so by relying mostly on GSM carriers in a CDMA country.

Nokia (or should we say now Microsoft's mobile manufacturing division) was playing hardball with Sprint, US Cellular, and every regional and prepaid network on the CDMA side for years, as they demanded Apple/Samsung treatment, and use their homemade CDMA radios which were years behind Qualcomm CDMA standards currently used.  Microsoft did not do any favors by neglecting this part of the mobile device community, especially knowing most lines are on CDMA networks in the US Market, especially when the Windows Phone 7 debacle after Mango (and the sudden EOL of the HTC Arrive, as it was the choice of WP7 device on the CDMA side, and there was no second generation devices for CDMA networks).  How can Nokia make such demands, knowing they violated the trust of CDMA carriers by using homemade radios which were not licensed by Qualcomm.

One more thing it did not help Microsoft nor Nokia was the anti-CDMA propaganda from a very popular Windows Phone website which has an editor who "stole" the hair style from a troll doll (will not say the site nor the editor's name, as both are not very liked nor favored in the Qualcomm CDMA community, besides we do not need to promote sites which their reporters and several members think S4GRU is not a reliable source of information for Sprint related topics), as well as bashing any devices which are not high end enough nor branded Nokia. 

 

Hey everyone.  I feel I have found a home here.  I have followed your postings and topics for at least two years. 

I am one of the regulars at the facebook fanpage Sprint has (which has become a troll infested area), and I also run one of the most hated Pro Sprint group, and fanpage, which love your truly impartial reporting.