Verizon switches standards gears for next-generation network
Verizon Wireless is shaking up its technology plans for the second time this week.
Two days after the company announced plans to open its network to outside devices and applications, it announced plans to switch gears when it comes to future networking technology.
Verizon Communications and Vodafone, joint owners of Verizon Wireless, plan to use the LTE (Long Term Evolution) standard backed by GSM industry players rather than the UMB (ultramobile broadband) standard backed by Verizon's current partners.
There's a host of implications for the industry, but for the phone user, the impact is simple. Right now, if you're a Verizon or Sprint customer, and you want to travel to many parts of the world, you'll have to get a rental, if you want to make calls while you're there. The move toward LTE would bring Verizon into the GSM world and enable travelers to use their phones around the world (for a hefty fee, of course).
In some ways, the move makes a lot of sense, and Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg hinted that this was coming a few months ago.
The GSM family of standards is used by about 80 percent of the world's mobile phones--and by major carriers such as AT&T, T-Mobile, Vodafone, and virtually every other European carrier. If Vodafone is already planning to head down the LTE path for its own networks, it's natural that Vodafone would nudge its subsidiary down a similar path so they could share expertise and get better deals on equipment from companies like Alcatel-Lucent and Nortel Networks.
But Verizon currently uses the CDMA (code division multiple access) standard for its networks. CDMA is used by Sprint, and it's popular in Asia. It's also controlled by Qualcomm, which owns patents on the CDMA technology and runs a very lucrative business in licensing that technology to carriers and phone makers.
This is going to take years to play out. Don't expect to see LTE networks and phones for at least two to three years, said Avi Greengart, an analyst at Current Analysis. All Verizon said on Thursday is that, along with Vodafone, it plans to start testing the LTE equipment in 2008.
But if the companies follow through with plans to deploy the LTE networks, it could be a blow to Qualcomm's future business. Sprint's 4G plans are very much up in the air. It had originally announced its intention to use WiMax technology for its 4G network, but after sacking CEO Gary Forsee, the company is re-evaluating its plans.
At peak rates (which are rarely reached in the real world), LTE networks will let you download data at a whopping 100 megabits per second, compared to the 1Mbps or so that you'll get from a 3G EV-DO connection on Verizon's network at the moment, or a 1.5Mbps DSL connection at home.
In a press release announcing its decision, Verizon noted that this type of bandwidth won't just be for cell phones. "Discussions with device suppliers have expanded beyond traditional suppliers, such as LG, Samsung, Motorola, Nokia, and Sony Ericsson, as consumer electronics companies anticipate embedded wireless functionality in their future products."
Tom Krazit writes about the ever-expanding world of Internet search, including Google, Yahoo, online advertising, and portals, as well as the evolution of mobile computing. He has written about traditional PC companies, chip manufacturers, and mobile computers, spending the last three years covering Apple. E-mail Tom. 
Also - having used both GSM and CDMA phones outside of the US - the latter is a better tech with much better sound quality except Verizon has terrible service.
"At peak rates (which are rarely reached in the real world), LTE networks will let you download data at a whopping 100 megabits per second, compared to the 1Mbps or so that you'll get from a 3G EV-DO connection on Verizon's network at the moment, or a 1.5Mbps DSL connection at home."
I'm not old by any means (a young 37 yo), but I had to Google the difference between Megabytes and Megabits. I thought the 'bits would be less, and so initially read the report as being sarcastic. I was wrong, but I hope the reporter will keep in mind that bits and bytes are usually thought of as bits=small and bytes=larger. It would have been more helpful (and less tedious) if the measurement would have been given in Mb vs Mb OR MB vs MB (apples vs apples, oranges vs oranges). I also hope the reporter wasn't just copying information from a website without bothering to do the conversion. Good reporters will make the information understandable. Thanks for an otherwise informative article from a current Verizon user.
10 Megabits per second (10Mbits)
or 100 Megabits per second (100Mbits)
(10/100 standard)
Mbps = Megabits per second. MBps = Megabytes per second.
For whatever reason, things like memory and storage are discussed in bytes, like 2 gigabytes of RAM or an 80GB hard drive, and networking speeds are bits per second. That's the convention that the industry settled on a long time ago.
- Verizon's decision seems less valuable for end users
- by bestbroadbandforusers November 29, 2007 11:18 PM PST
- Verizon is one of the operators who for a long time embraced technology based on decisions that are often lop-sided.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(10 Comments)1.They chose CDMA without knowing it would actually give them only 2x capacity increase vs 10x which the technology proponents were claiming.
2.They chose to push aggressively on EVDO when there was better chance for success with WCDMA even if from a technology/better global footprint standpoint at least.
3.They continue to bet on 3G based technology where LTE orginates saying that its better than WiMAX which is 2.5 years ahead in terms of roll-out and technology maturity.
4.They seem to be like ostriches to the actual internet ecosystem which primarily runs today on PCs, feeling that control is being lost, but who cares I just want more subscribers who will pay a lot more for less value.
5.I just don't get it. When a PC was offered 33kbps modems thousands/millions still used it. When phones had 144kbps GPRS or slightly lesser 1xRTT nobody still used it. For once if they know the clients that really need bandwidth then they will smarter to chose a technology like WiMAX which the PC/Internet eco-system seems to be backing.
So end-all they still don't like end-users winning in their technology decisions. So their claims of open standards etc. seems to be only of face-value and their real intention is to lock you in the same 3G quagmire where they sell you the internet by the byte.