Related
First, for anyone interested in the subject here is a little list of threads I found discussing the subject:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=565000
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=4579528
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=442144
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=2888831
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=530699
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=2843884
As you can see, there seems to be a lot of contradictory information from seemingly knowledgeable people.
My goal is to find a way to get the X1i on Rogers' 850 band they use in most places where they advertise 3G coverage. This might also be beneficial to some AT&T users as I believe they use the same bands.
I live in a suburb of Montreal. I never get anything better than EDGE and same goes when I am in class on the island of Montreal. However, when I go out once in a while and end up in downtown, in my drunken stupor I notice a little 3G symbol where the E used to be... Ha! My guess is that Rogers is using 850MHz all over the place and 1900MHz downtown. It would make more sense because '850' is better for covering vast areas that aren't so populated and '1900' is better at covering densely populated areas (downtown!).
My phone uses the Sony Ericsson supplied ROM for UK (OEM R3..) with a the 1.17 radio found here http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=565182 .
Here's something I discovered that triggered the spark:
-press the call button (get to the dialer)
-press menu (bottom right)
-options
-band
I am now presented with a box to chose my GSM/UMTS band:
"Auto"
"GSM(900+1800)+UMTS(2100+900)"
"GSM(1900+850)+UMTS(1900+850)"
"UMTS(2100)"
UMTS 1900 and 850?? Well well well...
Okay...still EDGE... Another phone (Samsung) supplied by Rogers has 3G right beside me.
Come on people, this really shows that the ROM is intended for a quad band phone. Plus there was a thread that I cannot find anymore with posted PDF's of the phone's chipset specs and it mentioned nothing of the phone being physically different between the X1i and X1a in terms of networking...
I really want to get the ball rolling on this because I have yet to see any solid proof that the X1i cannot do UMTS 850.
you sir, are my savior. thank you for posting and starting this thread. i myself have an X1i in the states and have been reading and reading about this for months on end with lots of conflicting information.
i can connect to HSDPA and Edge network, but never 3G. ONE TIME i saw the 3G logo for about 2 seconds, then it switched over to HSDPA...... i just can't stand the super duper slow edge network
but HSDPA is faster than 3g is it not??
Jonny4911 said:
but HSDPA is faster than 3g is it not??
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
correct, but HSDPA doesn't cover everywhere. in some deadspots i'm only on Edge, and i always wonder if i could get 3G instead.....
@ Jonny4911 : HSDPA IS TO 3G what EDGE is to GPRS...that's a good analogy I can think of. Yes, it is faster than regular 3G.
@ asayamalaka : If you have HSDPA, you shouldn't be worrying about 3G Or maybe you meant something else? This little utility should tell you about your connection speed (just type in the address in your phone's browser) : http://www.dslreports.com/mspeed
Until the devs / savvy guys and girls chime in, it would help a lot if anyone can contribute more interesting links to this thread. I am particularly looking for the those PDF's from Qualcomm but I can't find them anymore...
edit:
asayamalaka said:
correct, but HSDPA doesn't cover everywhere. in some deadspots i'm only on Edge, and i always wonder if i could get 3G instead.....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh... I see. Have you tried what's in the first post with the phone setup? See if it helps...
Look with your eyes and not your mouth
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=4373262&postcount=12
Hannigan174 said:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=4373262&postcount=12
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hannigan is right with this link, in that you cannot force the X1i to use HSDPA/HSPA+ on the 850mhz band, because it is not in the hardware. With all of the knowledgeable people out there, if it was possible to change it by flashing/hacking/etc., then it would have been done by now. I don't believe that we'll see 850mhz HSPA+ on our X1i's.
That being said, I myself have noticed my lil' ol' X1i receiving the "H" symbol while in the boonies (far away from the downtown core). I believe this is because there have been reports that Rogers is ramping up their support for HSPA+ on the 1900mhz band, in preparation for the Olympics out west. If this is the case, then the ODD time that your phone does not find the 850mhz band (or 1900mhz is more prevalent/strong), then it will hop on that frequency and you'll be able to use HSDPA.
What I was looking for, was not a hack to enable 3G on the X1i's 850mhz band, but rather some kind of "band preference" setting where you could force phone to look for and connect to the 1900mhz band over the 850mhz band (or even disable 850mhz all together, but that might give us less reception). As far as I know (and have been hunting the net), this isn't quite possible.
I am thinking that our (well, specifically mine because of where I live), only hope is that if Rogers continues to grow their 1900mhz network which supports HSDPA, and hopefully our X1i's will choose that network over the 850mhz one. My only worry with this is that the phone might see both frequencies, and pick the 850mhz one because it has more penetration in densely packed areas, making it the primary choice for the phone (since the 1900mhz signal would probably be weaker).
Anyways, I'm speculating a bit, as well as reporting the facts that I've heard from users on this forum and others (HowardForums has a topic open as well).
Let's hopefully continue to keep this thread going as a base reference for our issue here, because getting 3G/HSDPA on our X1i's would SIGNIFICANTLY improve our usability!
@andreitu just to clear one thing up for you, the X1i is a quad band phone, however the quad band is only in reference to GSM bands and does not apply to UMTS bands. The X1i is only Tri band UMTS...
To anyone getting the HSDPA in the US with an X1i, it's because the area you are in is served by a UMTS 1900 enabled cell. (i'm in dallas and am almost always on HSDPA on AT&T)...
Also to answer another point which was raised in both in this thread and in this one here: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=4373262#post4373262
On AT&T you will almost neevr see just a 3G connection, since AT&T has performed an upgrade t all base stations that enables HSDPA for 3G - so that everyone gets the fast speed possible when connected to 3G...!
scar45 said:
Hannigan is right with this link
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It wasn't just a link, I was quoting myself. It was a link to something I already said in another thread that covered the EXACT same thing.
Maybe I have been here too long, but I am starting to get irritated by seeing the same questions numerous times. I will at least give the thread starter some credit for showing an attempt to look at other threads first, but please do multiple google searches related to your subject before starting a thread.
This question was asked a lot when the phone was new. The 1900/850 option in Phone Settings is just a hardcoded dropdown. It does not magically enable WCDMA on 850MHz on the X1i, the hardware cannot do it.
You can receive 1900MHz signals because the X1i is tri-band 900/1800/2100 (even though the drop down does not indicate so).
In future, please, for the love of god, use search!
rwholden said:
On AT&T you will almost neevr see just a 3G connection, since AT&T has performed an upgrade t all base stations that enables HSDPA for 3G - so that everyone gets the fast speed possible when connected to 3G...!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i figured this much but wasn't 100% sure. good to know, thanks
I live in california, i also have the x1i, and i have sometimes seen the 3G for like two seconds too. From reading the threads i have noticed that in deed H is faster than 3G, and myself i get H the whole time while in my room but when i go to my friends house downtown i get a "full H reception signal" and oh man dat is even faster than my brothers HTC Fuze>
azteca85 said:
I live in california, i also have the x1i, and i have sometimes seen the 3G for like two seconds too. From reading the threads i have noticed that in deed H is faster than 3G, and myself i get H the whole time while in my room but when i go to my friends house downtown i get a "full H reception signal" and oh man dat is even faster than my brothers HTC Fuze>
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
oh man, words can't even describe how fast full blown H is. i think i clocked it at 1mb/sec on a speedtest last week...makes my roommates iphone 3Gs look like a toy. i've always known it was faster than Edge and 3G, just wasn't sure about the 3G till now
asayamalaka said:
oh man, words can't even describe how fast full blown H is. i think i clocked it at 1mb/sec on a speedtest last week...makes my roommates iphone 3Gs look like a toy. i've always known it was faster than Edge and 3G, just wasn't sure about the 3G till now
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Which is ironic since the iPhone 3GS is HSPA (7.2Mbps) capable...lol. HSPA is fast though. I regularly get between 1.5Mbps and 2.2Mbps here in Raleigh, NC.
I had the HD and now have the Nexus 1 but cannot resist coming back to my beloved Chefs and Winmo custimizations. I was wondering if anyone can give me insight on if its worth to pay the extra couple hundred dollars for the Telstra version with 3G and if it is a greatly noticeable difference of speed? I surf the web some and like to have 3G just to have it because I know its faster and better than edge but If theres no reason to shovel out the extra couple hundred dollars just to have a lil bit more speed I would go with the T8585. Hope someone can give me an idea if there would be a major difference between the 2 as I would be using it on ATT. Thanks
HTC HD2 T8585 vs. T9193
Thanks for posing the question regarding the differences in the two phones. I have a T9193 that I paid more to obtain due to its AT&T 3G capabilities. Unfortunately, I dont know the answer to that question but would be interested in knowing the opinion of others. The obvious answer is that 3G is faster than the edge technology. I flashed a different ROM to my device and it now displays under phone identity: Model No. HTC HD2 T8585. I am sure that this change in identity does not change the basic mechanics of the phone or its 3G capabilities (at least not that I have noticed). Anyone who has thoughts on this please advise. Thanks
http://pocketnow.com/thought/t-mobile-hd2-vs-htc-hd2-comparison
Some size differences above, which I found interesting. No speed comparisons though
Schooleydoo said:
http://pocketnow.com/thought/t-mobile-hd2-vs-htc-hd2-comparison
Some size differences above, which I found interesting. No speed comparisons though
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The TMobile phone is not the T9193, there is only one difference between the T8585 & T9193 and that's the WCDMA/HSPA bands.
Be sure to check if your area has 850MHz coverage prior to making the purchase. I have the T9193 here in arizona, but all we have is 1900mhz 3G access here. Thankfully, the AT&T reps have gotten word that they will be rolling out 850mhz towers within the next 4 months, but still...it hasn't happened yet.
The 9193 sprinkles fairy dust and has the ability to call upon unicorns, clearly making it superior, in addition to its superior ATT and NextG capabilities.
Edge is a lot slower than HSPA.
Edge only
I live in Idaho, Small town too. We don't have 3g.I've had several nice phones, including htc hd, now hd2. I do all the things with edge, but I realize it's just slower, but I have no complaints. It seems pretty fast because of the processor. I don't travel much,edge works fine where I go.I seem to get wifi connections alot where I hang out?I use youtube, web surf little, skyfire,text, mms,I love it, but, I've never had 3g!! But a matter of a few seconds in my life, doesn't really matter. Just need to decide if those few secs matter to you? Just Quig's opinion,,
Don't know about you guys, but I like the tmo's hd2 keypad (the green and red call and power on/end call buttons) more than the eu version. I wonder why they did that one with a different backlight..
MartinXDA said:
I wonder why they did that one with a different backlight..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's probably not a different backlight, it's probably just a different key cover that has a green/red translucent filter on it...
well true...
lquigley said:
I live in Idaho, Small town too. We don't have 3g.I've had several nice phones, including htc hd, now hd2. I do all the things with edge, but I realize it's just slower, but I have no complaints. It seems pretty fast because of the processor. I don't travel much,edge works fine where I go.I seem to get wifi connections alot where I hang out?I use youtube, web surf little, skyfire,text, mms,I love it, but, I've never had 3g!! But a matter of a few seconds in my life, doesn't really matter. Just need to decide if those few secs matter to you? Just Quig's opinion,,
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
true but i do a lot of tethering when i travel. without 3g i don't get the live stream that is sometimes important to my work. i just got 8585 and love this phone. but huge disappointment with 3g...
azalex86 said:
Be sure to check if your area has 850MHz coverage prior to making the purchase. I have the T9193 here in arizona, but all we have is 1900mhz 3G access here. Thankfully, the AT&T reps have gotten word that they will be rolling out 850mhz towers within the next 4 months, but still...it hasn't happened yet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's a map for that
http://www.cellularmaps.com/att_850_1900.shtml
Delicious 850mhz 3G/HDSPA in both Provo, Utah and North Brunswick, New Jersey
Any new towers will be 850mhz and supposedly they are working to convert some 1900 towers to 850. Not sure how true the last bit is, but the first bit is true.
As for my t9193, it is just as good as a t8585 just with ATT 3G. No difference mate, no worries on roms or SPL.
(Although, the current release of hardspl did not program the Telstra MID into the list, so it wont let you flash it yet, but it should work!)
T-Mobile in my area is shown as the best they have on their coverage map, but my calls always get dropped
I'm still under my 30 days and I want them to somehow boost up my reception because I seriously want to keep the HD2.
It might just be me, but when I turn off my 3G signal, my 2G coverage is almost perfect, but I still get occasional dropped calls. Is it just me?
And also, do any of those signal booster stickers work? Should I try foil?
I am open to all comment and suggestions..thanks
i usually leave my phone on GSM (2g) through the band properties because it saves battery, and yes i do get more bars. in some locations my 3g or H connection is just as strong.
Not sure about boosters, i heard that the antenna is located at the base of the phone though.
stickers are a scam.
I can't believe those stickers are still available.
Dropped Calls are almost inevitable with today's technology.
2G and 3G coverage are different. if you have trouble with 3G at your location, simply turn it off in order to ensure a stronger connection and more stability during phone calls.
where do you turn off your 3G on a stock HD2?
adamhlj said:
where do you turn off your 3G on a stock HD2?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
settings-->wireless controls-->click phone(not on/off)-->band-->choose gsm
Tmobile is still rolling out it's 3g coverage, so it makes sense that their 3g is not nearly as available as 2g.
Furthermore, Tmobile's 2G frequencies are lower than 3G so they penetrate better.
Svegetto said:
Tmobile is still rolling out it's 3g coverage, so it makes sense that their 3g is not nearly as available as 2g.
Furthermore, Tmobile's 2G frequencies are lower than 3G so they penetrate better.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lawl.....I am so tempted to use the internet meme here but.....ah well.
Svegetto said:
Furthermore, Tmobile's 2G frequencies are lower than 3G so they penetrate better.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Could you elaborate on that? Curious about the science behind "higher" and "lower" frequency penetration on the different bands...
htc707 said:
T-Mobile in my area is shown as the best they have on their coverage map, but my calls always get dropped
I'm still under my 30 days and I want them to somehow boost up my reception because I seriously want to keep the HD2.
It might just be me, but when I turn off my 3G signal, my 2G coverage is almost perfect, but I still get occasional dropped calls. Is it just me?
And also, do any of those signal booster stickers work? Should I try foil?
I am open to all comment and suggestions..thanks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Call them and tell them your problem. T-Mobile's help desk has always been amazing for me and perhaps they know something that you don't.
If all else fails, you can use the call to drop your contract without penalties. I'd much rather have an older phone that works than a new one that doesn't!
Snarksneeze said:
Could you elaborate on that? Curious about the science behind "higher" and "lower" frequency penetration on the different bands...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's just the basic physics of RF signals...the lower the frequency, the higher the penetration capability (as a general rule of thumb). Same generally holds true for sound frequencies as well.
I don't get dropped calls at all on T-Mobile here in NY (AT&T is a different story).
However, especially indoros, 2G signal is generally stronger than 3G.
Snarksneeze said:
Could you elaborate on that? Curious about the science behind "higher" and "lower" frequency penetration on the different bands...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just to give you some very simple insight (you can always google it if you'd like detail explanation; it's actually quite simple, I just don't want to have to type all of it). In simplest terms, Tmobile 3g runs on 1700 and 2100 which is much higher then its 2g which runs on 850. Lower frequencies don't go as far, but have better penetration.
If you'd like another way to think about it, think of when you hear someone playing music from a good stereo system in a building. You'll likely only be able to hear/feel the bass because it's able to penetrate the walls and you won't hear the the actual lyrics/treble because that's higher frequencies.
Hope this helps
T-Mobile 2G runs on PCS, always has and always will.
The reason for 3G not being as strong can be a number of things, the reception on the HD2 really doesn't seem to be good and the 3G network buildout is incomplete at the moment as mentioned before in this thread.
gsvnet said:
I don't get dropped calls at all on T-Mobile here in NY (AT&T is a different story).
However, especially indoros, 2G signal is generally stronger than 3G.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've only dropped calls when in my poor reception apartment. It seems to be worse at keeping a signal than my HTC Dream.
However it still bugs me that the HD2 doesn't scan or update quick enough when I exit the metro. It might say I have full 3g, but it won't let me call for a few minutes. Sometimes it will decide to disconnect from the signal and reconnect even when I haven't moved to a weaker area and it's still full 3g bars. I'm also in NYC/Manhattan.
update
The data services with this phone are also going under maintenance soon, basically the software of the phone has a defect within the radio, HTC is releasing an update on May 17th to help fix this, you might see some luck having a better connection this way, but everyone is right about the different types of signals, the fact lies that there are 2 towers for each spot, the 2G network is more established where the 3G towers might not have as good of a penetration because they use a higher frequency.
Confirmation
My apartment has terrible reception. My signal will go out for about 5 mins then come back with only 1-2 bars. I turned off 3G and now my 2G signal remains around 1-3 bars with no blackouts so far (3 days).
Its just a minor hassle to remember to switch back to 3G when I go out.
firedragon64 said:
The data services with this phone are also going under maintenance soon, basically the software of the phone has a defect within the radio, HTC is releasing an update on May 17th to help fix this, you might see some luck having a better connection this way, but everyone is right about the different types of signals, the fact lies that there are 2 towers for each spot, the 2G network is more established where the 3G towers might not have as good of a penetration because they use a higher frequency.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Where did you find this out? I really want an update, the hardware is great, but the phone quality is horrible sometimes due to all my daily location (and reception) changes.
aceo07 said:
Where did you find this out? I really want an update, the hardware is great, but the phone quality is horrible sometimes due to all my daily location (and reception) changes.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
This would be great news if it's true (and actually addresses the issues)....has the date (or even the release itself) been substantiated at all?
Just wanted to start a quick lil thread about possible ways to boost 3g speeds.... Other then moving, lol...
I live right outside the la metro area and my 3g speeds are deplorable, downright suck, its not like I life in the boonies either, I live in a highly concentrated area with 2 sister towns of over 300k people and always have a 3g symbol on my phone... But for the most part I can't ever get speeds over 300KBS DL/UL and that's on a good day....
I'm currently running eugene's vibrant6 2.1 rom that is supposed to boost data connectivity, and for me it doesn't, along with the lag fix which seems to only effect the normal tasks and application uses of course not the actual speed at wich they operate on the 3g network.
I was reading in a thread about the possibility of using the 850 3g band of att's listed on the phones debug menu but it doesn't seem to actually work although there's a possibility we can use att's 1900 band along with our own t-mobile 1700 and 2100 bands and am certainly interested to see if we can always connect to those 1900 towers for sure short of
unlocking our phones and slipping in an att sim card...
I am by no means an expert on the subject but figure this could be a good paver for every one to compile their mods, fixes, hacks for this very subject making it very easy to find this sort of info.
Pooped from my Samsung Vibrant using XDA app...
Dont mind the skidmarks...
Bump for the day, place holder for list of possible resolutions
Pooped from my Samsung Vibrant using XDA app...
Dont mind the skidmarks...
Location, location, location. If the tower is in the neighborhood of doctors and lawyers, full speed. A tower on the other side of the tracks might not get the best pipe.
attached is a pic of my normal at home speed and a test I ran where a known brand new tmobile tower was built(the better of the 2) using xtremelabs app.... oddest thing is for some reason both tests say they were ran on the edge network when I most certainly had 3g symbols visible at time of test???
In my opinion - T-mobile's faux 4g (HSPA+) is better (and I suppose AT&T has it as well, but AT&T sucks ) than LTE 4G, but I would like to know what you all think?
This thread is for the amiable placement of our opinions! I personally think that HSPA+ style technology is where the industry should be headed, but would like to hear other opinions!
I've put up my reasons for HSPA+ and will add reasons for both HSPA+ and LTE/real 4g as people weigh in. I'll try to give credit when I can to the original poster. So far, as I am a fan of HSPA+, I have no reasons for LTE/real 4g yet! I might get this moved to the Android General section eventually, as I think it would be interesting to see the overall viewpoint of the XDA Community!
Yes, I know that this might attract trolls/flaming, but lets all try something - don't feed them! Ignore them completely. This strategy has proven to work quite effectively. I think we could all get some insight from a good thread like this.
______________________________________________________________
Reasons for HSPA+:
1. So much cheaper for them to put into place.
2. Speeds (on 4g networks I have used - NY, Dallas, Portland, dozens of other places) are always north of 3 mbps down and 1 mbps up, all you really need for any kind of laptop tethering, and certainly more than you ever need for netflix on your phone, and definitely way more than you need for browsing sites on your phone (good websites nowadays even with plenty of pictures are small size).
3. It doesn't suffer from the constantly low signal issues of real 4g (i.e. no signal AT ALL inside of buildings - this is what I have seen from multiple people who have traveled with me - I have 4g when they have 2x or whatever the hell edge is for them).
4. Super cheap for our provider to upgrade, passing savings on to us in the long run - in some cases, all the tower needs is a firmware upgrade. At worst, fiber optics lines are needed in order to facilitate the faster speeds needed.
5. In "real" 4g phones, you have to turn something on to access your faster speeds? Really? I know, bit hypocritical coming from a guy who has rooted his phone and flashes roms, (for the record, I've only flashed G-lite after rooting!) but I bet the average consumer doesn't realize that they have to turn it on and never uses it. With HSPA+, it might not always be really "4G" when the icon says "4G," but at least we don't have to turn anything on - we just have to be in signal range! If you really want to know, you can get a widget (or modify the good ol' framework-res.apk ).
6. Furthermore, BATTERY. Need I say more? From the numerous people who have managed to get LTE signal I have traveled with, the BATTERY DRAINS LIKE WATER OUT OF A... SOMETHING WITH A HOLE IN IT. Ridiculous. Don't know about you guys, but even when I had low signal strength HSPA+ at work all day long, my battery would fall maybe 30% over 12 hours of light use on the stock unrooted rom.
7. Also, HSPA+ has freed up a lot of the 3G network for T-mobile - it is a fact that T-Mobile's 3G is now a bit faster than before. QUALIFIER - The same would technically apply to the real 4G networks, but remember, those networks see less time as users have to activate 4G on their phones to utilize 4G and therefore free up 3G.
Reasons for LTE/Real 4G:
skinien said:
- Theoretically, can achieve speeds faster than HSPA+
- LTE bands being used by at&t and Verizon are in the 700 MHz range.
I bolded the item that I feel is most important. The battery life issue will be a draw when LTE is more mature and chipsets become more efficient. However, the only comparable HSPA+ network to LTE is T-Mobile and they operate in the 1700/2100 MHz bands. The lower the frequency, the farther the signal can travel and the better the building penetration. The fact that the signal can travel farther means that carriers can upgrade/enhance networks faster and cheaper (less tower maintenance).
If battery life and speeds are equal, I want the best signal.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Can someone confirm that LTE does currently have better building penetration? I have not seen this happen to my friends with LTE, though my experiences certainly are not a large enough sample size. This question is raised in the question section below.
dhkr234 said:
-LTE eliminates the dual-protocol nonsense required for carrying a voice channel simultaneously with a data channel. A properly implemented LTE network will rely on VoIP services to deliver voice communications, maintaining ONLY a data network connection.
-LTE eliminates (at least it can...) the link between voice services and network provider. A proper LTE implementation will allow you to select your voice carrier separately from your data network, so you could rely 100% on, for example, google voice or voip.ms, the network provider is turned into a simple data channel.
Regarding the signal drop you mentioned in LTE, this isn't a problem with LTE, but rather a problem in the DEPLOYMENT. It does take time and money to put up the equipment and get a properly balanced network. There can also be issues regarding the utilization and availability of spectrum -- are those signal drops by chance associated with running LTE over AWS? Or are they running it on much more robust 700 MHz?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If the link between the voice service and network provider could disappear, that would be very interesting! The point was also raised that currently, because no voice runs over LTE, the 3G/2G/whatever radio has to remain constantly on in order to ensure that voice calls can be received/sent. This results in a faster drain of the battery, obviously, and may be a simple barrier to overcome.
______________________________________________________________
Questions!
The question still remains in my mind, however - is LTE (in its current state) still a huge battery hog even without both radios on at the same time? Because while I know as it matures, I'm sure radios may become more efficient - but you can only make things more efficient to a point.
dhkr234 said:
There can also be issues regarding the utilization and availability of spectrum -- are those signal drops by chance associated with running LTE over AWS? Or are they running it on much more robust 700 MHz?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
______________________________________________________________
Updates:
Some great responses here! I haven't checked back in a while but you all are putting out some really worthwhile stuff that has made me rethink things. I will keep my original opinions (should they one day change!) at the top, however, just so we have a full record of everything.
I am removing references to LTE as "Real 4G." I knew from the get-go that it was indeed not, but considering how far off that is from the cell phone market, I figured we might as well call it that. However now I am not!
I added current Questions/Updates sections.
I added some good reasons for LTE - I know these reasons have been listed more than once before, but these were put together the simplest! Keep giving your opinions, this is very useful data for people to know!
I totally agree with you, I've been tempted to move to an lte network but its all a money sucking strategy, yeah you get awesome speeds that make you drull but at the end you'll drain all that data package in what? 2 weeks if not less, since some people really download and abuse the network on their device, I rather have a steady HSDPA+ than a money/data sucking network
Sent from my HTC Sensation 4G using Tapatalk
Right now I'm on a wimax 4G network but sprint is going to switch to LTE soon like Verizon has and I heard the 4G is supposed to improve a lot more and cover a wider range on LTE. I'm hoping my next device will be LTE based so I can get good stong 4G coverage no matter where I go
I think LTE is only for cdma phones and HSPA is for GSM phones. I could be wrong but both Verizon and Sprint are cdma. I've used HSPA before and it's ok but nothing to really brag about. I can't really compare it to LTE because I have not owned a device that supports it yet.
sparksco said:
Right now I'm on a wimax 4G network but sprint is going to switch to LTE soon like Verizon has and I heard the 4G is supposed to improve a lot more and cover a wider range on LTE. I'm hoping my next device will be LTE based so I can get good stong 4G coverage no matter where I go
I think LTE is only for cdma phones and HSPA is for GSM phones. I could be wrong but both Verizon and Sprint are cdma. I've used HSPA before and it's ok but nothing to really brag about. I can't really compare it to LTE because I have not owned a device that supports it yet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nah, LTE is sim based (gsm) just like the rest. You're thinking of wcdma which is different (aka UMTS and up) but still gsm tech. CDMA/EvDo/WiMAX is a dead technology soon enough.
I agree, tmobile should just stick with HSPA+ until LTE tech is improved. They can roll it out slowly and is an easier upgrade (smaller leap than 2G to 3G) for them. It's just a costly one. I heard that they are selling their towers and leasing them back for a short term cash solution. Not sure if it's to pay off some impending debt aquired by DT or to pay for LTE upgrades for tmousa...
My suggestion is stick with HSPA+ (3.9G), skip LTE (3.9G), and go straight for LTE-Advanced (Actual 4G). Both HSPA+ and LTE are not technically 4G, they are just marketed as such. LTE is a much better network technology than HSPA+, but it's not all there yet. LTE is much more efficient in using the frequency spectrum. Also you can only do data on LTE, no voice at the moment. Not sure about LTE-Advanced features but I would assume you can do VoLTE-Advanced just how Verizon is planning VoLTE.
I will agree AND disagree with you. LTE is not directly advantageous to the end user but its benefits are passed down through the operators which will take a few years to become apparent. Its more a technical upgrade with the operators back end network and towers. I'm pretty sure we had the same thoughts when UMTS and HSPA started deployment.
LTE is a shift into a different mobile telephony architecture. LTE will be completely packet switched so in the long run, the infrastructure and tower implementation will be simpler. Using different frequencies and radio modulation, it probably wont be as simple as put an LTE base on an existing tower so it going to take a while to sort out coverage. The end users advantage comes from the more efficient spectrum use increasing capacity with better handling of devices when under heavy load. Frequency chunks are variable so operators can tweak speed / capacity depending on location or cell size. Radios will eventually mature with battery life becoming better with every generation. I have no experience with LTE so am not sure how calls / data is handled or battery life.
HSPA is a mature technology with plenty of real world experience, radio's and towers that have been tweaked over years for speed, latency and battery life. It is also relatively cheap to deploy as the back end connections already exist and the tower kit is "mass produced" shall we say. However, HSPA is quite inflexible requiring 5Mhz frequency chunks which may limit capacity in urban areas. Battery life on HSPA is achieved mainly by cheating, handsets sit idle at UMTS (3G) until data is transferred and often calls are dropped to 2G when possible.
Being from the UK, its probably going to be 2014 / 2015 until we see LTE as they are still "conducting trials" and the licences are scheduled for 2013 i think.
Please feel free to correct me or add to this, I just wanted to add my opinion to the mix.
Craig
sino8r said:
Nah, LTE is sim based (gsm) just like the rest.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Verizon is cdma, so how is lte gsm only??
Sent from my HTC Vision using xda premium
Spastic909 said:
Verizon is cdma, so how is lte gsm only??
Sent from my HTC Vision using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Verizon LTE phones also have CDMA chips in them. They use LTE for "4G" data and CDMA for voice and 3G data. They will be a GSM carrier once they drop 3G support and switch fully to LTE.
craiglay said:
I will agree AND disagree with you. LTE is not directly advantageous to the end user but its benefits are passed down through the operators which will take a few years to become apparent. Its more a technical upgrade with the operators back end network and towers. I'm pretty sure we had the same thoughts when UMTS and HSPA started deployment.
LTE is a shift into a different mobile telephony architecture. LTE will be completely packet switched so in the long run, the infrastructure and tower implementation will be simpler. Using different frequencies and radio modulation, it probably wont be as simple as put an LTE base on an existing tower so it going to take a while to sort out coverage. The end users advantage comes from the more efficient spectrum use increasing capacity with better handling of devices when under heavy load. Frequency chunks are variable so operators can tweak speed / capacity depending on location or cell size. Radios will eventually mature with battery life becoming better with every generation. I have no experience with LTE so am not sure how calls / data is handled or battery life.
HSPA is a mature technology with plenty of real world experience, radio's and towers that have been tweaked over years for speed, latency and battery life. It is also relatively cheap to deploy as the back end connections already exist and the tower kit is "mass produced" shall we say. However, HSPA is quite inflexible requiring 5Mhz frequency chunks which may limit capacity in urban areas. Battery life on HSPA is achieved mainly by cheating, handsets sit idle at UMTS (3G) until data is transferred and often calls are dropped to 2G when possible.
Being from the UK, its probably going to be 2014 / 2015 until we see LTE as they are still "conducting trials" and the licences are scheduled for 2013 i think.
Please feel free to correct me or add to this, I just wanted to add my opinion to the mix.
Craig
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Interesting - you have a good point here, especially when comparing the maturity of the two types of networks. From what I've been reading here and everywhere else, "real" LTE is clearly the more advanced tech but just needs time to develop and in the long long run will be better. Hm.
craiglay said:
Battery life on HSPA is achieved mainly by cheating, handsets sit idle at UMTS (3G) until data is transferred and often calls are dropped to 2G when possible.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No wonder my phone hasn't been staying on full HSDPA (or HSPA+) when it's on idle and only goes on HSDPA ONLY when I'm using it and idles at UMTS when I'm not. I was wondering about that lol. Oh well knowing how HSDPA and HSPA+ is, it's probably a lot easier to transfer from HSDPA to UMTS to EDGE to GPRS than switching from LTE to 3G and 2G connection types.
I skimmed thru and someone already said it:
LTE is not "Real 4G". As of right now, a tech spec for 4G does not exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G
If you consider that LTE is "Real 4G" then **** it, why talk about 4G? Lets talk about "Real 5G"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G
LTE(not 4g):
Don't have even a good card yet,
Still is not on total.
get signal lost sometimes
Speed is great but with the signal lost...
riahc3 said:
I skimmed thru and someone already said it:
LTE is not "Real 4G". As of right now, a tech spec for 4G does not exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G
If you consider that LTE is "Real 4G" then **** it, why talk about 4G? Lets talk about "Real 5G"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your 5G link don't have almost any new information.
Lets talk about what was asked in this thread.
Sent from my MadTeam Galaxy 5
using Tapatalk
riahc3 said:
I skimmed thru and someone already said it:
LTE is not "Real 4G". As of right now, a tech spec for 4G does not exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From the Wiki article:
However in December 2010, the ITU recognized that current versions of LTE, WiMax and other evolved 3G technologies that do not fulfill "IMT-Advanced" requirements could nevertheless be considered "4G", provided they represent forerunners to IMT-Advanced and "a substantial level of improvement in performance and capabilities with respect to the initial third generation systems now deployed.
redpoint73 said:
From the Wiki article:
However in December 2010, the ITU recognized that current versions of LTE, WiMax and other evolved 3G technologies that do not fulfill "IMT-Advanced" requirements could nevertheless be considered "4G", provided they represent forerunners to IMT-Advanced and "a substantial level of improvement in performance and capabilities with respect to the initial third generation systems now deployed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
in othewords, it's akin to saying, "i'll let you call it 4G as long as you promise to make your technology reach the original specifications. Pinky swear k?"
mputtr said:
in othewords, it's akin to saying, "i'll let you call it 4G as long as you promise to make your technology reach the original specifications. Pinky swear k?"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Really, there are saying "you can call it 4G as long as its better than 3G".
I agree its BS, and the ITU obviously caved to industry pressures. But based on this statement HSPA+ and WiMAX are technically "4G".
craiglay said:
Battery life on HSPA is achieved mainly by cheating, handsets sit idle at UMTS (3G) until data is transferred and often calls are dropped to 2G when possible.
Craig
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Suits me just fine - use the best available tool for the job, that's what I say! Voice calls and texts don't require a battery-sucking HSPA connection to work well
Where I live it's tmo 4g, or nothing. Literally there is no other 4g for my region. Nuff said
redpoint73 said:
Really, there are saying "you can call it 4G as long as its better than 3G".
I agree its BS, and the ITU obviously caved to industry pressures. But based on this statement HSPA+ and WiMAX are technically "4G".
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yup, i was pretty annoyed when the ITU caved to corporate pressure because they needed to rebrand 3G into something new...
Oh well.. I still call today's 4G standards as FauxG. probably wont consider it 4g until they meet the original requirements.
I just have really one question on this hspa+ <> 4G etc. I read that t-mobile is working on bringing HSPA+ .84, which I guess is 84mbps (theoretical limit). So if a 3G speed actually is the same speed as the current 4G speeds does it really matter what they call it? I would prefer they advertise the speed, because for me it is the speed not the tech behind the scenes.