Verizon CTO Says 4G Service Is On Track

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Verizon CTO Says 4G Service Is On Track

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Monday February 15, 2010 @10:31AM from the too-many-g's dept.

Verizon has announced that it is on track to roll out their new 4G LTE service using the 700 MHz band that it acquired in the recent FCC auction. Targeted first towards USB air cards for laptop customers, the service will be extended to cell phones and other mobile devices with embedded LTE eventually. Testing in Boston and Seattle should conclude in the next couple of months and commercial deployments should follow soon thereafter. "Lynch said getting voice to work over LTE has been particularly challenging. But that challenge is getting resolved as Verizon and other members of the GSMA announced Monday they are supporting a standard that uses IMS technology to deliver voice services over LTE. Still, more work needs to be done. Until a solution is complete, Verizon will use its CDMA network to provide voice services. And the LTE network will be used for data. Eventually, when voice over LTE becomes a reality, Verizon will use that technology. Verizon will also have to integrate EV-DO into its LTE offering to ensure that customers can switch to the 3G EV-DO network when the 4G LTE network is not available. Even though Verizon is being aggressive in building its network, it won't happen overnight."

74 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Impressive.... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2010-02-15 10:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

So, everything is hunky-dory, going right according to plan.

But the phone company doesn't actually have any way of making the new technology make voice calls, so they'll be retaining the legacy CDMA technology. And, of course, they'll be building the intermediate legacy EV-DO technology for the forseeable future to deal with places where the new hotness is not actually available. Oh, and support for mobile devices is planned for "eventually"...

I wish my standards for success were this achievable.
1. Re:Impressive.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-15 10:45 · Score: 0
  
  I wish my standards for success were this achievable.
  They are if you work for Verizon. Oh...wait.....
2. Re:Impressive.... by mjwalshe · 2010-02-15 11:43 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  well "getting voice to work over LTE" isnt that the main fucking point of a mobile phone network! for crying out loud just how fucking usless do you have to be to get a job in the mobile industry in the states.
3. Re:Impressive.... by mjwalshe · 2010-02-15 11:50 · Score: 1
  
  of course I ment a 4g network - maybe they ought to get a working 3g one first or just stick to strowger gear :-)
4. Re:Impressive.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-15 12:03 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I'm guessing you don't understand how long it takes to roll out new generation to one city, let alone an entire country, let alone a country with the size and landscape of the United States.
  Nevermind the fact that once the cabinets and antennas are in place, that all of the cell phone makers have to create phones with new radios that can talk on this fancy new generation.
  I'd be _extremely_ happy to have an upgraded Verizon BlackBerry that has a separate radio JUST for extremely fast data. Do you really think an LTE call is going to sound any different than a EV-DO call? Why on earth would anybody care about voice calls when LTE users should have the speed and bandwidth to handle real VoIP calls? Who will care about voice plans then?
  The real truth is that Verizon is moving forward on this and on-schedule, while AT&T has just confirmed what company will supply their cabinets and will begin building it out next year. There is no big switch somewhere that somebody simply needs to flip ON for 4G to be ready for you. It takes thousands and thousands of employees and contractors to make it happen, so just wait patiently like everybody else, okay?
5. Re:Impressive.... by dlevitan · 2010-02-15 12:18 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The lack of voice over LTE is because it will use the same data channel for voice (i.e. VoIP). So it's not like any of the hardware has to be change. The reason it's not being deployed now is that there's no consensus over how voice should be done on LTE. I'm thrilled that VZW is waiting. LTE will be the global standard, and it will be good if they maintain full compatibility with global networks. Unfortunately, VZW is one of the first companies to deploy it - it appears the rest of the world is lagging behind.
  As for it needing to retain CDMA on phones, that's also good. IT will be a while before VZW deploys LTE with the same coverage as CDMA. This is needed for backwards compatibility.
  While I understand it's a slow process, consider that VZW, unlike most of their competitors, is actively pushing forward with LTE.
6. Re:Impressive.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-15 12:53 · Score: 0
  
  Or instead of making excuses, why not just switch to Sprint who have Wimax available already?
7. Re:Impressive.... by jon3k · 2010-02-15 13:06 · Score: 1
  
  Actually calls will probably sound better over LTE.
8. Re:Impressive.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-15 15:05 · Score: 0
  
  Why on earth would anybody care about voice calls when LTE users should have the speed and bandwidth to handle real VoIP calls? Who will care about voice plans then?
  I'm guessing Verizon customers since VoIP will be one of the services blocked on their network.
9. Re:Impressive.... by rhadc · 2010-02-15 15:41 · Score: 1
  
  It's harder than it looks. In an ideal LTE environment, services that had their own dedicated channels in earlier technologies share the IP-based channel. Your average VoIP call is made of bidirectional streams of, say, 20-millisecond samples. When one doesn't arrive, you're missing audio and it's too late to recover. To have decent call quality, the packets must be protected via some resource reservation method - QOS, etc. Your 911 call _IS_ more important than the next guy's file transfer. (I can hear the howls of the net neutrality folks). Aside from voice calls, high-bitrate streams (video) and any real-time communication may need resource reservation. Since it isn't something that has been as important in the past, the providers and their suppliers must get it working before they can sell it. .. Vendors haven't been making cellular radio equipment for that spectrum. Don't forget that since it's RF spectrum, there may be interference as well. Lots of hurdles.
10. Re:Impressive.... by Randle_Revar · 2010-02-15 16:01 · Score: 1
  
  >Why on earth would anybody care about voice calls when LTE users should have the speed and bandwidth to handle real VoIP calls?
  LTE may not be Skype or Vonage, but it is VoIP:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3GPP_Long_Term_Evolution#An_.22All_IP_Network.22_.28AIPN.29
  
  --
  Climate Progress - Hell and High Water
11. Re:Impressive.... by nine-times · 2010-02-15 16:27 · Score: 1
  
  The lack of voice over LTE is because it will use the same data channel for voice (i.e. VoIP). So it's not like any of the hardware has to be change. The reason it's not being deployed now is that there's no consensus over how voice should be done on LTE.
  How about they just ditch normal voice service and allow users to choose their own VoIP provider? I'm sure companies like Vonage and Skype would be willing to work with Verizon on a project like this.
  Oh, right, because they won't be satisfied unless they can charge $0.40 per minute and $0.20 per SMS. If it's all packets, then they can't justify why an SMS message would cost so much.
12. Re:Impressive.... by omnichad · 2010-02-15 18:11 · Score: 1
  
  Would be great if it had the audio bandwidth of Skype. I'm tired of the crappy voice quality of cell phones being considered "good enough." Landline phones aren't that clear, and I'd love to have 16-bit audio.
13. Re:Impressive.... by omnichad · 2010-02-15 18:13 · Score: 1
  
  Why deliver voice packets via best-effort TCP/IP delivery, when you can reserve guaranteed bandwidth for voice on your own network? As a full-time user of VoIP, I can tell you that it's got a long way to go.
14. Re:Impressive.... by omnichad · 2010-02-15 18:14 · Score: 1
  
  The voice won't be going over the public Internet. Just the same data channel. I see no reason for net neutrality complaints.
15. Re:Impressive.... by bill_mcgonigle · 2010-02-16 00:11 · Score: 1
  
  If it's all packets, then they can't justify why an SMS message would cost so much.
  SMS travels in network control packets that get sent regardless of whether there's an SMS message in them or not.
  So, a current cost of $0 doesn't stop them from charging 20 cents now, why would it in the future? They could only allow signed comms on their network and AppStore the developers into submission.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
16. Re:Impressive.... by bill_mcgonigle · 2010-02-16 00:13 · Score: 1
  
  Why deliver voice packets via best-effort TCP/IP delivery, when you can reserve guaranteed bandwidth for voice on your own network? As a full-time user of VoIP, I can tell you that it's got a long way to go
  They control the air network end-to-end. There's no reason they can't do QoS on IP. Reserving a full channel with lots of dead air is just a recipe for higher costs.
  Remember, AT&T has been all VoIP for a decade - but they own their network so it works. Your experience over the public Internet is likely to be different.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
17. Re:Impressive.... by k_187 · 2010-02-16 01:26 · Score: 1
  
  Why on earth would anybody care about voice calls when LTE users should have the speed and bandwidth to handle real VoIP calls?
  
  The biggest reason is that once everyone is transitioned over to Voice on LTE, three of the four major carriers in the US will be working on the same technology which will give a level of phone interoperability that the US has never seen. Quite honestly, it will change the game to have the ability to take your phone with you instead of relying upon carrier subsidies if you switch.
  
  --
  11 was a racehorse
  12 was 12
  1111 Race
  12112
18. Re:Impressive.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-16 01:39 · Score: 0
  
  Works if you're in an area that has WiMax available. But by the time Verizon rolls out all of their LTE, are they already going to outdo the availability of WiMax? It seems likely, and therefore it really might be significantly more advantageous to just stick with Verizon and wait it out. 3G isn't really that bad, and if you can get wifi (and use it on your phone), it's really not so bad that waiting for 4G should be much of a problem...
19. Re:Impressive.... by Sandbags · 2010-02-16 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  Me thinks this is simply a ploy to keep people on existing, non-700MHz technology for their phone plans, so that Verizon can avoid "open network" devices for a longer time period. Essentially, wether or not your device, that you acwuired from a non-Verizon source, has ANY voice network chip in it other than strictly LTE, then Verizon could refuse it on their network, or refuse to allow the device you bought from them on someone lese's network...
  
  --
  There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
20. Re:Impressive.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-16 02:28 · Score: 0
  
  Your 911 call _IS_ more important than the next guy's file transfer. (I can hear the howls of the net neutrality folks).
  Only the net neutrality folks who don't understand what net neutrality is about.
  (Hint: it has nothing to do with QoS or [reasonable] traffic shaping based on protocol)
21. Re:Impressive.... by sznupi · 2010-02-17 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  But (from your own link) the end product of that effort, AMR-WB, is being deployed rigtht now...without the need for LTE network. Even without the need for UMTS/3G; apparently it works also via GSM/2G connections.
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
VoIP by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-15 10:47 · Score: 0

Why not use VoIP for voice services? That's trivial over a data network.
1. Re:VoIP by zero0ne · 2010-02-15 10:49 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If they used VoIP, they wouldn't be able to justify the price they charge the end users.
2. Re:VoIP by nurb432 · 2010-02-15 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  Who says they have to justify? Not a lot of alternatives out there.
  And they do VoIP on the back end ...
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
3. Re:VoIP by tius · 2010-02-15 11:04 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Timing over a packet network is not trivial for voice or video...
4. Re:VoIP by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-15 11:21 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  VoIP has large problems with latency. IP over wireless latency is all over the place. One tower can be 150ms the next 3000. Yet there will still be voice slots open. I know you will say go all IP. What about the *MILLIONS* of people out there with working cell phones who could give a crap about IP? They are in a bit of a pickle. They scavenged up all the slots for voice. Now they do not have enough for IP itself. Never mind the 8 different ways they have of talking over the air (all backwards compatible with the old AMPS network). LTE or WiMAX are the future (my money is on LTE due to who is going for it At&t, vodaphone, and verizon). But they do not have have (at least right now) the capital to spend on new equip. Especially when they have a depreciation sched of 5-10 years and just upgraded the whole show 3-4 years ago. They havent finished paying for the old equip yet and are upgrading when it makes sense and they think they can charge you more for it.
  Just switching over to IP doesnt change their pricing model at all. The over the air cost is actually quite small (think cents per hour per hundred users). The real costs are the million dollar radios/backhaul lines. Then the tower rentals. Then all the people to support that. THEN and this is most important what the market will bare. People seem to think if it costs 2cents to make they should charge 2 cents. They are not a 'non profit' they will charge what they think they can get out of you (if its 2 cents or less they probably will not bother to do it at all). They will set their prices to the 'sweet spot'. So even if magically they go all IP they will still charge just as much. Take text messageing they literally get the over the air for free as the message is sent padded out all 0's anyway. It is the same message so the tower can see where you are at. Yet they charge what the market will bare in 15 cents to 50 cents a message.
5. Re:VoIP by Algan · 2010-02-15 11:37 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  VoIP over a cell network would be a bad idea. At least in the traditional sense. Yes, it works, barely, but it's like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. The problem stems from the fact that voip infrastructures are usually designed around a mostly reliable network, that very occasionally drops entire packets. A cell network is designed to cope with an unreliable network, where bit errors are common. Everything, from codecs to protocols are designed with that in mind. Is the reason why G729 can get the same quality at 8kbps as AMR at around 12kbps. The extra bits are there for redundancy. In addition to that, you definitely want traffic shaping and QoS guarantees when doing voice. Otherwise your neighbor's porn downloads might crowd out your calls. You don't really notice that in broadband based voip installations, simply because there's usually a ton of bandwidth to go around. But a shared radio connection is an entirely different ballgame.
  They will probably use packet switching (read IP) on the backend though. Once the bits are safely tucked in some fat fiber pipes.
  
  --
  If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress?
6. Re:VoIP by TheRaven64 · 2010-02-15 12:01 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That's the plan. LTE will use SIP with QoS to guarantee maximum latency and jitter. To all of the people saying you can't use VoIP: how stupid are you? Almost all voice calls in the western world go over packet switched networks and have for most of the last decade, and most of the last three decade in some cases. Do you think things magically get worse because those packets have an IP header? If you make a landline call anywhere in the UK or Canada, you are using VoIP.
  The problem is that some of the standards for telephony services over LTE (which is an all-IP network) have not quite been finalised yet. This includes things like SMS bridges and the standards for mapping SIP addresses to phone numbers.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
7. Re:VoIP by Randle_Revar · 2010-02-15 16:03 · Score: 1
  
  LTE *is* VoIP
  
  --
  Climate Progress - Hell and High Water
8. Re:VoIP by bill_mcgonigle · 2010-02-16 00:17 · Score: 1
  
  how stupid are you?
  Wait, so you're saying my personal experience using Skype at a coffee shop doesn't scale to massive international networks? Shocking, shocking I say.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
9. Re:VoIP by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-16 02:21 · Score: 0
  
  LTE will use SIP with QoS to guarantee maximum latency and jitter.
  
  Yes, compatibility with their existing network is a must.
10. Re:VoIP by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-16 04:51 · Score: 0
  
  ... LTE will use SIP with QoS to guarantee maximum latency and jitter. To all of the people saying you can't use VoIP: how stupid are you?
  I think you probably meant minimum latency.
11. Re:VoIP by TheRaven64 · 2010-02-16 05:01 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  No, I mean maximum latency. QoS guarantees a maximum latency, not a minimum latency for each packet. It doesn't need to guarantee a minimum latency; that is defined by the physical conditions of the network.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
12. Re:VoIP by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-16 06:16 · Score: 0
  
  The problem is that some of the standards for telephony services over LTE (which is an all-IP network) have not quite been finalised yet. This includes things like SMS bridges and the standards for mapping SIP addresses to phone numbers.
  sip->phone number mapping can be done with dns. naptr. are there other approaches?
13. Re:VoIP by TheRaven64 · 2010-02-16 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  That's not the entire problem. How does the handset find the SIP to POTS gateway, for example? Do you hard-code it in the SIM? Do you use anycast (in which case, is there some authentication to prevent spoofing)?
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
14. Re:VoIP by Mulder3 · 2010-02-16 13:56 · Score: 1
  
  The Cellphone doesn't need to know the SS7 gateway(aka pots gateway), that's SIP proxy job... However you may ask how does the cellphone get the registar and proxy addresses, and the anwser is:or via a field in DHCP or a field in the PDP activation context..
Damn. by aldld · 2010-02-15 10:48 · Score: 1

Damn it, I should have waited to buy my phone, instead of just buying it yesterday!
Wimax by Psychotic+Lab+Mouse · 2010-02-15 10:55 · Score: 5, Informative

It is worth nothing that while LTE is still in development Sprint and Clearwire have already deployed 4G services that are operational and covering 30 million people in the US. Wimax is deployed in around 145 countries worldwide. Sprint will have a 4G device in 2Q or 3Q this year, and will likely have 120 million people covered by 4G before LTE is even deployed here.
1. Re:Wimax by zero0ne · 2010-02-15 11:07 · Score: 1
  
  What are the specs on Sprints 4G?
2. Re:Wimax by Psychotic+Lab+Mouse · 2010-02-15 11:12 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Typical average speeds are 3-3.5 MB down and 0.5-1 MB up. Peak is around 10 MB down and 5 MB up. As I understand it they are capping up at 1 MB during the phased rollout.
3. Re:Wimax by XXeR · 2010-02-15 11:45 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Yep, I love my Sprint/Clear Wimax service...I get ~12Mb down / ~1Mb up pretty much everywhere I get a signal! They even already have solutions that will fall back to 3G when 4g isn't available. The coverage is definitely sparse right now (at least in my area I have to be pretty close to a major road and near the city), but they're clearly far ahead of this Verizon/LTE rollout.
4. Re:Wimax by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-15 11:46 · Score: 0
  
  Typical average speeds are 3-3.5 MB down and 0.5-1 MB up. Peak is around 10 MB down and 5 MB up. As I understand it they are capping up at 1 MB during the phased rollout
  Umm.... is that a little b or big B? It makes a big difference (x8) and I'm assuming you used the incorrect one (though I would be delighted if you were correct).
5. Re:Wimax by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-15 11:47 · Score: 0
  
  http://nextelonline.nextel.com/en/stores/popups/4G_coverage_popup.shtml
  Claim "typical" speeds of 3-6 Mbps...in those cities that have 4G coverage.
6. Re:Wimax by postbigbang · 2010-02-15 12:12 · Score: 1
  
  Cite your source, please. Other data would disagree with your assertion.
  
  --
  ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
7. Re:Wimax by dzdragonlord · 2010-02-15 12:22 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  It is worth nothing that while LTE is still in development Sprint and Clearwire have already deployed 4G services that are operational and covering 30 million people in the US. Wimax is deployed in around 145 countries worldwide. Sprint will have a 4G device in 2Q or 3Q this year, and will likely have 120 million people covered by 4G before LTE is even deployed here.
  But the 4g sprint's rolling out is only 10 mb/s while the 4g verizon will be rolling out will be up to 100 mb/s.
8. Re:Wimax by Psychotic+Lab+Mouse · 2010-02-15 12:43 · Score: 1
  
  lol little b, I shouldn't rush /. posts while working.
9. Re:Wimax by sonicmerlin · 2010-02-15 17:56 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Not true. What you're thinking of is LTE evolution, which is still being tested by carriers in other countries. Verizon's LTE is *not* 4G. From wiki: Being described as a 3.9G (beyond 3G but pre-4G) technology the first release LTE does not meet the IMT-advanced requirements for 4G also called IMT Advanced as defined by the International Telecommunication Union such as peak data rates up to 1 Gbit/s. Fortunately, LTE Advanced should be compatible with first release LTE equipment, and should share frequency bands with first release LTE. So if Verizon ever fancied upgrading, they could easily do so. Of course, with little to no competition in the US this is obviously not going to happen.
10. Re:Wimax by CSMatt · 2010-02-15 19:08 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, because what the mobile business desperately needs is another standards war now that 3GPP2/CDMA has bit the dust.
11. Re:Wimax by sznupi · 2010-02-17 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  In that case, Wimax available on sprint is also not 4G. Heck, from the numbers given by some posters it's in the league of networks definatelly called 3G...
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
12. Re:Wimax by sznupi · 2010-02-17 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  How is that 4G? That's worse than currently deployed HSDPA/HSUPA (a variant of UMTS...3G) networks, and much slower than upcoming versions.
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
I'm jealous by Blazarov · 2010-02-15 10:58 · Score: 1

Having worked on LTE and LTE Advanced these last two years of my university degree, I can't wait to see and use the actual network... Well, guess I'll have to wait a bit longer to see it in Europe...

--
Regards, Boyan
1. Re:I'm jealous by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-15 11:21 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Well, guess I'll have to wait a bit longer to see it in Europe...
  Not if you are in Oslo or Stockholm, for example...
  http://www.telecoms.com/16997/teliasonera-launches-commercial-lte-in-stockholm-and-oslo
2. Re:I'm jealous by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-15 17:51 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, if by "longer" you mean "shorter".
I hope the first LTE phone will be... by ickleberry · 2010-02-15 11:07 · Score: 1

An obscure unpopular candybar-shaped brick, preferably with a non-standard keypad and an external antenna and a kick-ass field test app pre-installed. Kinda like the Nokia 6650, but with LTE. I'd cringe if the first production LTE phone was, for example an iPhone 4G or some Google Touchscreen phone that uses LTE to supply a continuous barrage of text based ads
Re:F**k Verizon by baka_toroi · 2010-02-15 11:29 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Don't be stupid, anon. The filtering lasted only one or two days, it has been lifted. Sure, it wasn't the best way to handle the pseudo-issue they were having with their network, but it's not really that bad.
Who cares... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-15 11:36 · Score: 0

Current 10 Mbit/s with 3G is enough for my mobile needs at least. Even 300 kbit/s is fine most of the time for some random maps and browsing. 4G is not going to compete with 100 Mbit/s home connections everyone has anyways.
4G? by Hatta · 2010-02-15 11:49 · Score: 2, Funny

Get with it. Here in Nebraska we already have 4-H

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
4g forces IPV6? by DigiShaman · 2010-02-15 12:01 · Score: 2

According to Wiki, 4G is packet based only. It's assumed that by the time 4G is rolled out, IP4 addresses will have been exhausted. So does that mean all new 4G phones will use IP6 by default? Sounds like a good idea to me. If your going to make a move to IP6, handheld devices are the perfect place to start rolling out the new IP standard.

--
Life is not for the lazy.
1. Re:4g forces IPV6? by postbigbang · 2010-02-15 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  A great way to get tracked everywhere you go, too. IPV6 addresses are so easy to traceroute. And what fun!
  
  --
  ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
2. Re:4g forces IPV6? by chill · 2010-02-15 13:13 · Score: 1
  
  No, it means most cellphone IP addresses are NAT -- usually in the 10.x.x.x range.
  
  --
  Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
3. Re:4g forces IPV6? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-15 15:05 · Score: 0
  
  IP-based cell phones don't necessarily have the same address space as the Internet so they could reuse all the addresses.
4. Re:4g forces IPV6? by DigiShaman · 2010-02-15 15:23 · Score: 1
  
  If they do that, good luck establishing a dial-up VPN through that tethered connection.
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
5. Re:4g forces IPV6? by Randle_Revar · 2010-02-15 16:12 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  For LTE, IPv6 support is required, while IPv4 support is optional
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6#Deployment
  
  --
  Climate Progress - Hell and High Water
6. Re:4g forces IPV6? by CSMatt · 2010-02-15 19:06 · Score: 1
  
  Cellular telephone systems present a large deployment field for Internet Protocol devices as mobile telephone service is being transitioned from 3G systems to next generation (4G) technologies in which voice is provisioned as a Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service. This mandates the use of IPv6 for such networks due to the impending IPv4 address exhaustion. In the U.S., cellular operator Verizon has released technical specifications for devices operating on its future networks.[30] The specification mandates IPv6 operation according to the 3GPP Release 8 Specifications (March 2009) and deprecates IPv4 as an optional capability.
  Wikipedia. Print version of Wikipedia's source.
7. Re:4g forces IPV6? by BrookHarty · 2010-02-15 19:16 · Score: 1
  
  Telecoms are already using NAT'ed IP's for mobiles. They are not even using normal NAT IP space due to large amount of IP's needed.
Calling someone on another network? Lose quality by tepples · 2010-02-15 13:59 · Score: 1

Actually calls will probably sound better over LTE.
Until you call someone on a different network, such as the landline network, at which point the voice quality goes back to narrowband.
Re:Calling someone on another network? Lose qualit by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-15 14:25 · Score: 0

also the sky is blue and water is wet
I should care? by f16c · 2010-02-15 15:00 · Score: 1

No. I don't think so. I can't afford Verizon any more so this spring I close the account and smash the phones to move to another carrier. The phones are junk and the plan costs too much. I'll get new phones if or when I choose a replacement carrier.

--
bob@Osprey:~>
Re:Calling someone on another network? Lose qualit by tepples · 2010-02-16 00:27 · Score: 1

Water is wet, which is important for someone who goes boating. Likewise, calls routed through the PSTN are narrowband, which is important for someone who calls mostly customers on another network.