Sprint mandating WiFi on future smartphones, WLAN-lovin' BlackBerry Tour coming next year

By the time Sprint gets around to releasing the 9630 Tour with WiFi, due out sometime early next year, we think most everyone'll have moved on to any one of the numerous BlackBerry devices likely to hit in the interim. What's more important in this FierceWireless report is that Sprint's requiring WiFi "in all its major devices going forward" -- which should mean pretty much every smartphone that lands in its CDMA-loving mitts. Verizon Wireless, who along with Sprint is also launching the WLAN-less Tour this Sunday, said that the company's working with RIM to get WiFi into future BlackBerry, but didn't oblige us with any hopeful descriptors that'd help us understand just how strong of a push was being made. Frankly, smartphones without WiFi at this point is downright criminal, and with CDMA phones trailing behind their GSM counterparts in this category, kudos to Sprint for taking the initiative.

[Via Phone Scoop]

[Epsilon-Not @ Jul 9th 2009 8:32PM]

Really it's mostly RIMM that's lagging behind here in WiFi + CDMA, isn't it? Most of the WinMo smartphones on VZW have WiFi (except for the old ones that have been there forever), I assume the case is similar at Sprint.

[mt @ Jul 9th 2009 8:38PM]

yes, for the most part.

[SoulinEther @ Jul 9th 2009 8:38PM]

I hope other carriers follow suit.

[andonemorething @ Jul 10th 2009 12:41PM]

Why would one recommend to follow suit of a company, ANY company, who introduces WiFi into a handset, ANY handset, more than 6 months after its *initial* release? Why, SPECIFICALLY, should other carriers follow this gilded path to handset suicide?

[Jason @ Jul 9th 2009 8:41PM]

Verizon wasn't more 'forthcoming' because they haven't figured out a way to include wifi and charge their customers a monthly fee to use it.

[sr @ Jul 9th 2009 10:11PM]

Yeah those bastards took every opportunity to ask that phone manufacturers didn't put wi-fi in there and they would cripple it if it was there. What a turn around after they figured out how to force people to pay for data in order to use certain devices.

[teknikkle @ Jul 10th 2009 12:09AM]

CDMa is the superior standard.. period. Why do you think Sprint has a better network than AT&T.. I love sprint for their prices and service, but from a business standpoint they have done some dumb things (like buying an obsolete network).. What do you think GSM uses for 3g.. Lol your AT&T phones dont have Qualcomm stickers on the back for nothing..

GSM is good because Europe tried to avoid paying a US company (Qualcomm) patent royalties so GSM is more widespread. GSM also adopted sim cards which is great, it is possible with CDMA or I just switch online with sprint it takes a min or so. And GSM uses less battery. CDMA has way faster data and much clearer voice..

GSM is 2g, CDMA is 3g

[andonemorething @ Jul 10th 2009 12:17PM]

@celz/gaffinent/teknikkle/Witherspoon, et al:Why would one recommend to follow suit of a company, ANY company, who introduces WiFi into a handset, ANY handset, more than 6 months after its initial release? Why, SPECIFICALLY, should other carriers follow this gilded path to handset suicide?

Once again, you're a joke without a punchline. But, a joke nonetheless.

[ALBGunner04 @ Jul 9th 2009 8:41PM]

We need to kill CDMA soon. GSM is the future. Hell, even Bell Canada, Canada's biggest CDMA operator is moving to GSM. I wish American operators would also do the same. In the end, it would be best for all consumers.

[zepfloyd @ Jul 9th 2009 8:44PM]

Well unless you've been hiding under a rock, Verizon IS moving to GSM in 4G with LTE. Sprint will really be the last one.

[Epsilon-Not @ Jul 9th 2009 8:47PM]

I think the Canadian carriers are in a different situation than the US ones, though- in Canada they have the Vancouver Olympics coming up, which will mean a lot of international travelers, and a lot of potential roaming fees that make such a deployment potentially worthwhile... for the US carriers, I don't think it makes sense to deploy a GSM/HSPA network now when you could start deploying an LTE network next year... and carriers are going to have to move to LTE anyway in the long run. (Maybe WiMax will do something, but all that will mean is a divided situation again, and who wants that?)

CDMA will die naturally, there's no need to get worked up about it- 4G CDMA (UMB) is gone, no one on Earth will deploy it as far as I know. And Qualcomm doesn't care either, since their patents are in HSPA and LTE too...

[ALBGunner04 @ Jul 9th 2009 8:53PM]

@zepfloyd: I'm hiding in Canada so I'm not at all that up to date with how American operators operate ;)

[XIYL @ Jul 9th 2009 9:14PM]

Why are you hiding in Canada? We haven't reinstated the draft down here you know.

[Gad Get @ Jul 9th 2009 9:34PM]

Maybe he's hiding in Canada because he's been put on the U.S. no-fly list for no reason whatsoever. It wouldn't be the first time.

[ALBGunner04 @ Jul 9th 2009 9:37PM]

You know what Lou Dobbs says, it's much easier to enter America from Canada than Mexico! :D

[sr @ Jul 9th 2009 10:13PM]

I agree. CDMA is for chumps. In most countries it is deployed for low-cost service. They use it to allow people who can't afford GSM service to provide cheap service. Look at the shitty devices they get, it's reflective of the market that standard is targeted at. The Palm Pre being the exception since both Palm and Sprint were desperate enough to need each other.

Can't wait for a proper GSM Pre.

[teknikkle @ Jul 10th 2009 12:56AM]

That comment under Jason was supposed to be here....


CDMA is the superior standard.. period. Why do you think Sprint has a better network than AT&T with less money.. I love sprint for their prices and service, but from a business standpoint they have done some dumb things (like buying an obsolete network).. What do you think GSM uses for 3g.. Lol your AT&T phones dont have Qualcomm stickers on the back for nothing..

GSM is good because Europe and Asia tried to avoid paying a US company (Qualcomm) patent royalties so GSM is more widespread. GSM also adopted sim cards which is great, it is possible to use a type of SIM card with CDMA or I just switch online with sprint it takes a min or so. And GSM uses less battery. But CDMA has way faster data and much clearer voice..

GSM is 2g, CDMA is 3g

[oversight68 @ Jul 10th 2009 1:05AM]

While CDMA isn't a major player in the world, I'd put VZW's voice and data network quality AND reliablity up against ATT or TMO any day of the week.

[Szlip @ Jul 10th 2009 2:38AM]

Isn't the underlying technology used in GSM's 3G, CDMA.

[zephxiii @ Jul 10th 2009 8:54AM]

Oversight, that is comparing carriers' capabilities vs. technologies.

[Ian @ Jul 10th 2009 12:40PM]

When people refer to GSM I am not sure they are aware of the technology. GSM was the earliest form of digital cell phone technology rolled out on a large scale. The US got caught up in technology wars between stuff like TDMA and CDMA etc. CDMA won thru in the USA because it was technologicall better, allowed more users per tower and easier upgrades thru 2G and 3G etc. GSM carriers got caught in their aging technology with a very expensive upgrade route to try to equal the performance of CMA carriers. The end result was a slow upgrade path thu multiple interim technologies making phones almost outdated as soon as they were launched.
When an upgrade path to 3G was decided the US went to CDMA2000 and GSM world went to WCDMA. Note the use of CDMA for both.
4G that's some way away. Verizon for non technology reasons will try to morph to a compatible technology of their 45% partner from the UK. Thats a business rather than a best technology decision.
In truth Qualcomm has massive patents across the board and will win and make a profit whatever direction of 4G and 5G.
Those who complain about the USA not being a GSM country likely do not understand the technologies involved and how (apart from old AT&T wireless which went GSM to make themselves a better BUYOUT, todays AT&T isn't yesterdays AT&T apart from the technology used) . In general the move to 3G has been relatively painless and relatively inexpensive for original CDMA carriers compared to the expensive and tortuous upgrades of tehnology for GSM networks.

[andonemorething @ Jul 10th 2009 12:22PM]

@celz/gaffinet/teknikkle/Witherspoon, et al:Why would one recommend to follow suit of a company, ANY company, who introduces WiFi into a handset, ANY handset, more than 6 months after its initial release? Why, SPECIFICALLY, should other carriers follow this gilded path to handset suicide?

Once again, you're a joke without a punchline. But, a joke nonetheless.

[sweet greggo @ Jul 9th 2009 8:48PM]

Wish Sprint would have come up with this before releasing the Instinct. >:(

[buns999 @ Jul 9th 2009 8:51PM]

I would have thought WIFI would actually SAVE the carriers money. When your using wifi your not eating up bandwidth from the cell network. Goodness knows why they didn't do this before.

[oversight68 @ Jul 10th 2009 1:05AM]

Um, no. If people aren't using the wireless data network the carrier doesn't make any money. Still lots of people, dumb people, who don't have some sort of data package and pay for data per kb.

[pika2000 @ Jul 9th 2009 8:52PM]

Yeah, because they probably realize phones that don't have wifi obviously will use their network 100% of the time for data. Simply mandating wifi, and sneak up an amendment in the TOS like AT&T's that prohibits certain activities to be done on the cell network with the excuse of "you can do it on wifi"... profit.

[Epsilon-Not @ Jul 9th 2009 9:09PM]

Ah, but if one is on the cell network 100% of the time, then they're more likely to go over that 5GB charge, and then you can start raking in the overage fees...

[crazydog115 @ Jul 9th 2009 8:59PM]

Ok Verizon...your turn.

[Dr. steve brule @ Jul 9th 2009 9:31PM]

welcome to the now network

[michas_pi @ Jul 9th 2009 11:36PM]

The Wow starts Now.

[Alex @ Jul 9th 2009 10:03PM]

Wow! No one has completely bashed Sprint in a comment yet. Maybe some people are jealous!

[digitallysick @ Jul 9th 2009 10:21PM]

I agree I'm looking at your samsung behold!

[Dan McQuade @ Jul 9th 2009 10:28PM]

Most tests have shown that phones with wifi don't offer significantly improved performance versus running over 3g. What's the big deal?

[Demo @ Jul 9th 2009 11:18PM]

The big deal is that you can't always get a cell phone signal everywhere you go, but WiFi might be available at the place you are at, as WiFi is becoming increasingly more widespread at public locations.

[iofthestorm @ Jul 10th 2009 1:45AM]

Err, I think that's blatantly false. At the least, latency sucks on cell phone connections, and in any case, not paying for a data plan is a huge money saver.

[Scott @ Jul 10th 2009 10:13AM]

Sounds like someone is misinformed. WiFi is ALWAYS faster than 3G.

Compare the 3G speed chart and the WiFi speed chart here across multiple phones: http://www.anandtech.com/gadgets/showdoc.aspx?i=3595&p=6

[BBook @ Jul 9th 2009 10:49PM]

Good move sprint. Don't spike up those plans now ya hear.

[adrianspartan003 @ Jul 10th 2009 12:43AM]

WiMax is the future! Being backed by the most powerful American corperations. Intel, Google, Motorola, and Ford. As well as leading Europian Corperations like Erricson (Swiden) and Nokia (Finland). With South Korean Samsung staying exclusive with WiMax (according to preliminary reports)

WiMax will trounce on LTE. No ifs, ands, or buts! Your ancient GSM technology is going to be long forgotten with Sprint/Clearwire leading the way.

If you want to reply you can at [e-mail].

[oversight68 @ Jul 10th 2009 1:12AM]

Clearwire will likely be another Globalstar or Iridium type idea that will ultimately crash, burn and fade to dust.

While there are some players behind the technology, it doesn't mean the product will be successful. From what I've been hearing, the quality of the service still has a LONG way to go. Sprint will eventually incorporate LTE into it's network as well.

[MFfan310 @ Jul 10th 2009 8:41PM]

Typical WiMAX fanboy.

First off, Samsung is not WiMAX exclusive, and is developing chipsets and handsets for both LTE and WiMAX. Secondly, Ericsson pulled the plug on their WiMAX products in 2007, and Nokia killed their WiMAX products earlier this year. No major European operators are deploying WiMAX, and China (the biggest single mobile market in the world) is going LTE.

Yea, WiMAX is "the future", alright.

[Chop10 @ Jul 10th 2009 1:05AM]

It's definitely a step in the right direction on Sprints behalf, and a step that Verizon should promptly follow. The lack of WIFI on the BB Tour is simply inexcusable. I haven't heard any valid or reasonable justification for excluding WIFI in any of the forums yet. It doesn't really matter if it's Verizon, Sprint, or RIMs fault -as I suspect each party has their share- it matters that a modern mobile device, that appears to be otherwise a very nice piece of technology, is sorely lacking a very common, useful, and even necessary mobile function. Tsk, Tsk.

[S4Rs @ Jul 10th 2009 9:37AM]

This could be a push to offer VOIP services when on wifi, like T-mobile does. That would be huge and I dont know why T-Mobile is the only company to offer this service right now. Its so freaking cheap to implement!!!

[TRAFFICBLOWS @ Jul 10th 2009 10:18AM]

I bet they're requiring this so vzw doesn't axe wifi on the vzw iphone... apple won't want to make a wifi-less cdma version if sprint won't pick it up

[Ron @ Jul 10th 2009 3:23PM]

This has nothing to do with adding value for Sprint customers. Sprint is almost flat broke.

They sold every last one of their towers to TowerCo, so they actually don't own their own network anymore. This Wi-Fi junk is a ploy to minimize the use of tower infrustructure and route calls cheaper for themselves. Oh yea, and the customer gets Wi-Fi as a byproduct.

[Escorts London @ Jul 13th 2009 6:22AM]

Very interesting and informative article.
Escorts London