Am I the Only One Who Sees a Problem? [telecom]

Sq1UHE0CXc4u07qPPuVR3MLL Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

As most of my readers know, I've been dissatisfied with Verizon Mobile, and the way it has demanded that those like my wife, who had “4G” phones which were not “4G” enough to suit their taste, buy new cell phones to enable her to keep paying exorbitant amounts of money to Verizon Mobile so she can “enjoy” the “benefits” of something called “volte” - whatever they might be.

If we pay them for “new” 4G phones, we are told, we’ll all get to march forward in sheeplike fashion to keep up the laughably high salaries of Verizon Mobile executives and the ridiculously low "standard" of service which allowed the cellular network in Boston to be unavailable for hours after the Boston Marathon bombing a few years ago.

Verizon Mobile, I think, is harboring a grudge about the way AT&T outmanuevered them for the lucrative deals that paid AT&T to put several dozen bandages on the side of the cellular network, theoretically allowing for cellphones to serve as a slightly-more-reliable alternative to the traditional copper-wire infrastructure which provided a standard of reliability that the rest of the world envied. They're taking their umbrage out on their users.

“Truth,” I’ve heard it said, “is the first casualty of war,” and we are in a war between corporate greed and the capabilities, survivability, and usability of the public services which common men and women depend on every day. The obvious sloppiness has been mirrored in the blatant disregard for any perceptable standard of honesty, fair dealing, or value, and in the complete ignorance of any kind of “public service.”

Verizon Mobile doesn't seem to care about anything but ever-increasing profits, at the expense of the public that such companies are supposed to serve.

Bill Horne, Moderator

Reply to
Bill Horne
Loading thread data ...

Since I mentioned T-Mobile in a prior post, I should note that T-Mobile is also requiring VoLTE now. From my understanding, VoLTE means "voice over LTE"... phones without this capability, even if they are 4G phones, cannot make voice calls over the 4G network (voice always falls back to

2/3G) -- only data goes over 4G. Perhaps this means that Verizon truly is retiring CDMA for good at the end of December. ***I still use an absolutely ancient Nokia 3395 via T-Mobile's network... it works on 2G only. It's still functional, but it remains to be seen when they will shut the network down.
Reply to
Michael Trew

VoLTE is Voice over LTE. It means that your voice call is carried on the LTE network rather than on the old CDMA network (or whatever that carrier used to use, like GSM if it's T-Mobile).

While I am never one to defend Verizon, in this case they're right. The brilliant folks at 3GPP who invented LTE, which for the record is /incredibly/ complex, had the weird notion that the folks over in the TCP/IP world, who worked on that sexy Internet thingy, were somehow brighter than them, and therefore they had to do everything in LTE using TCP/IP. Which was bad enough, since TCP/IP is a terrible kludge held together with lots of bailing wire and Moore's Law spit.

Now in the TCP/IP world there are at least three ways to carry voice. Enterprise systems do so by running a shim layer below IP, usually MPLS, which provides a quality-assured connection (btw that last word is a red flag to an IP fanatic, for silly historical reasons) to the IP flow within it. Low-tier consumer VoIP services (like Vonage) simply "send and pray" that the "best efforts" (scare quotes required) IP delivery mechanism of the public Internet doesn't lose so many packets that the voice is garbled. The third way is an early 2000s idea called IMS, IP Multimedia Subsystem, which has the simplicity of a Rube Goldberg contraption. Essentially it tries to monitor all TCP flows in order to make sure there's room for the voice flow. (The original idea around

2002 was to be able to bill for them.) It had largely been abandoned elsewhere when 3GPP adopted it as the way to run voice over LTE.

So come 2010 or so, LTE cells were popping up all over the place, but VoLTE was still being worked on, since IMS is the 2000-piece jigsaw puzzle of networking and was layered atop the 1000-piece puzzle of LTE. Hence all "LTE" phones of that era retained their underlying carrier's

3G (or 2G) voice protocol while using LTE for data. Which on a flip phone ain't much, but hey it was in the chipset so the phone could be labeled LTE. And this did finally let Verizon use SIM cards, which were invented for GSM and which the GSMA had essentially banned CDMA networs from using.

So your wife's ancient flip phone is not VoLTE but CDMA for voice, and the CDMA network is being shut down since she is one of the last two dozen or so people in the country regularly using it. And you need a phone that has VoLTE, which has been running for probable over a decade by now. This isn't any con-spee-waaah-see by Verizon, it's just routine product evolution, like current software no longer supporting Windows XP machines or PowerPC Macs.

Reply to
Fred Goldstein

This seems like the perfect opportunity to look at Verizon's competitors. Are they more competitive? I suspect the only way to change their behavior is to have large numbers of their customers move to other carriers.

Harold

formatting link

Reply to
Harold Hallikainen

To be fair, there are a number of smart phones (not just ancient flip-phones) which are branded "4G LTE", but do not support VoLTE -- only 4G data. I would bet that there are a number of these still working, with networks attempting to push the users to a new phone.

Take for instance the iPhone (since I used to work for Apple Care tech support)... The iPhone 6 was the first to support VoLTE. You could have a fairly new perfectly-capable iPhone 5s, released 2013 (and still sold up until recent years)... but it doesn't support VoLTE. Oops.

Reply to
Michael Trew

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.