Database Users

Is it possible for vibrant to run on T-Mobile 4G?

After reading of a new Mytouch HD product that is coming for T-Mobile Im pretty impressed with specs but very turned off by the looks.
So that makes me wonder does vibrant have the technology to run on T-mobile's 4G network with simple software updates?
Reason I am asking this is because I know The iphone 4G will be able to run on 4G network as soon as AT&T launch their 4G service.
Thanks for any knowledge in advance

.... Google is your best friend, its not 4g it's hspa+ on order to take advantage of that speed you ned the physical hardware in the phone which only the g2 had right now, in regards to the iphone 4, I've never heard anything about att launching any 4g network, I also work for att, the iphone doesn't have any hardware that support any faster speeds as far as I know
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App

iPhone can handle ATT's new "Faster 3G", but they don't have 4G. My understanding is the Vibrant can do HSPa, but not HSPa+? I don't know the difference but that's what i understand. 2G, 3G and HSPa.

4G is just a marketing terms for the masses. After you look at this link...
http://shop.sprint.com/en/stores/popups/4G_coverage_popup.shtml
You should realize that the Vibrant is already capable of reaching the "average" speeds listed here (in areas with proper coverage). Wait...how is that possible?! It's not a 4G phone. Who cares!!! T-Mobile's network and phones already meet or exceed the speeds Sprint is advertising here. T-Mobile is way ahead of the curve here but they're not marketing the hell out of it. FYI, the average website (ATM) may have trouble maintaining a consistent throughput of 5-6 Mbps anyway. Even if you can go faster, does it really matter when the other side can't (yet)?

AlexSochi8 said:
After reading of a new Mytouch HD product that is coming for T-Mobile Im pretty impressed with specs but very turned off by the looks.
So that makes me wonder does vibrant have the technology to run on T-mobile's 4G network with simple software updates?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
T-Mobile does not have a 4G network, and they probably won't roll out 4G for at least 5 years
Reason I am asking this is because I know The iphone 4G will be able to run on 4G network as soon as AT&T launch their 4G service.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Apple hasn't announced a 4G Iphone, so (by definition) you really don't know what you're talking about.
AT&T is set to roll out LTE, but it will almost certainly be data-only devices as they work the kinks out. (As Verizon has done)
Thanks for any knowledge in advance
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You should ask yourself why you care about 4G. I doubt you'll notice much of a decrease in load times, and the carriers are probably going to charge out the yin-yang for the enhanced features they will be able to offer to everyone with 4G.
AT&T and Verizon are going to limited data (AT&T already has). You should really look past all the marketing and hype. All the carriers are guilty of confusing the public to serve their interests.

All T-Mobile phones will benefit from HSPA+ as it's backward compatible. However, the theoretical maximum throughput on the Vibrant (or any legacy phone) that doesn't have the HSPA+ antenna built in caps out around 7Mbs as I recall. The G2 which is built to run HSPA+ has a theoretical througput around 15-20 I believe.
Seriously though, even 7Mbs is pretty stupid fast for a cell phone.

Xard said:
All T-Mobile phones will benefit from HSPA+ as it's backward compatible. However, the theoretical maximum throughput on the Vibrant (or any legacy phone) that doesn't have the HSPA+ antenna built in caps out around 7Mbs as I recall. The G2 which is built to run HSPA+ has a theoretical througput around 15-20 I believe.
Seriously though, even 7Mbs is pretty stupid fast for a cell phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Clear explanation
But one thing, i am in Boston and my vibrant never reach over 50KB/s...wtf
It supposed to have the + network already...

I get 6mbps on my vibrant on hspa. Home wifi I get only 2.8, I see no difference in browser page loading time..
Downloading w will be faster but whatever.. 6 is all I need. I've only seen some people getting 8 on their g2s, meh, I'm happy with 6..... Hell I'm happy with 3mbps....

Emama said:
Clear explanation
But one thing, i am in Boston and my vibrant never reach over 50KB/s...wtf
It supposed to have the + network already...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Check the data icon top center - should be two arrows (up/down) and 'G','E', or '3G' to indicate tech. GPRS would be my guess for 50k... EDGE should reach around 200kbps. (I've maxed at about 1.8 mbps 3g in Charlotte, about 210k edge nearer home, and about 12mpbs wifi - same locations as that last my netbook gets 40-70mpbs though.
Check 'settings'->'wireless and network'->'mobile networks' and make sure '2g only' is unchecked. If so I'd suspect a hardware problem. (double-check that 3g is available where you're testing, of course)
j

newkirk said:
Check the data icon top center - should be two arrows (up/down) and 'G','E', or '3G' to indicate tech. GPRS would be my guess for 50k... EDGE should reach around 200kbps. (I've maxed at about 1.8 mbps 3g in Charlotte, about 210k edge nearer home, and about 12mpbs wifi - same locations as that last my netbook gets 40-70mpbs though.
Check 'settings'->'wireless and network'->'mobile networks' and make sure '2g only' is unchecked. If so I'd suspect a hardware problem. (double-check that 3g is available where you're testing, of course)
j
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is 3g network already,
My phone and my gf's one has the same result
I can have up to 2000kB/s with my home Wi-Fi....but tmo network sucks..
I never see a "G" in that blue icon
And the above result is based on the 3G icon...if it is E, it has only 4-5 kB/s! !!
Any other guy in Boston can tell me if it is T-Mobile network sucks or my phone

I live in Cambridge and just did the speed-test, 3g w/2 bars in my apartment. 129kbps download 614 upload. It really varies quite a bit probably depending upon network traffic.

Xard said:
All T-Mobile phones will benefit from HSPA+ as it's backward compatible. However, the theoretical maximum throughput on the Vibrant (or any legacy phone) that doesn't have the HSPA+ antenna built in caps out around 7Mbs as I recall. The G2 which is built to run HSPA+ has a theoretical througput around 15-20 I believe.
Seriously though, even 7Mbs is pretty stupid fast for a cell phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Does the 7mb cap only apply to hspa, or hspa+. Because on my wireless g network I get blazing speeds.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App

ackattacker said:
I live in Cambridge and just did the speed-test, 3g w/2 bars in my apartment. 129kbps download 614 upload. It really varies quite a bit probably depending upon network traffic.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am talking about KB not kbps,
129 kbps is really slow!
I try to compare my friend incredible verizon network at Cambridge
He has 280KB while i have only 45KB download....damn

I get 5mbs in my hspa area on the vibrant.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App

Should I call T-Mobile to ask about it as it is ridiculous to have only 50-70kB (Less than 0.6 Mbits) in HSPA+ area

jayprime said:
Does the 7mb cap only apply to hspa, or hspa+. Because on my wireless g network I get blazing speeds.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
theoretical caps. HSDPA 7.2Mbps, T-mobile's variety of HSPA+ 21Mbps according to a T-mobile press release, Wi-fi G 54Mbps.
real word numbers HSDPA 1-5Mbps in good coverage depending on network traffic, HDPA+ on a vibrant 3-7 Mbps again depending on network traffic, Wi-fi... depends on your home internet connection speed.

Some people seem to misunderstand whether or not a non HSPA+ phone (such as ours) can benefit from HSPA+. It indeed can, but not in a straightforward way. In order for T-Mobile to support HSPA+ in a given market they must make reasonable upgrades to their networks backhaul capacity to support it. And these backhaul upgrades will become more important as T-Mobile actually begins selling HSPA+ devices.
One of the most important factors often overlooked with any network is it's backhaul capacity. Bottlenecks in familiar networks can easily make themselves apparent. Take for example the traditional DSL and Cable networks most of us use for wired internet service.
While you may pay for a given advertised speed, whether or not you actually see those speeds has less to do with the connection type and more oftentimes to do with how it has been implemented. In the case of DSL for instance, whether or not you can experience your advertised speed reliably depends on how many other customers are routed through the same DSLAM, *AND* how good the backhaul connection from the DSLAM is to your providers internal network. The same thing occurs with Cable and how many customers are aggregated into a given areas HFC. Bottlenecks within cable and dsl infrastructures occur at different points (because they're architecturally different), but once your outside those infrastructures they both share the potential for having backhaul bottlenecks.
In my area cable is way the fastest connection option, and though I do not pay for the highest speed tier here (15/2, instead of the 10/1 I have), when 10/1 was the fastest tier I'd rarely actually see those speeds. Now I see those speeds reliably. Why? Well there are many factors that effect a network topology, but it's clear that in order to reasonably support 15/2, my cable provider had to make sure it's backhaul could actually handle the load, so it was likely updated to accommodate this.
Hope this clarifies things a bit.

T-mobile updating 16 devices to faster speed!?

OK so I just payed my bill at my local T-mobile store, and I saw a poster saying 16 tmobile devices will have 4g capability or something in those words... So I asked the tmobile employee what the poster is all about. He said there are 16 devices that tmobile will be updating so they can have faster 3g or 4g speed.... He said for vibrant the 3g should get faster but its not going to be 4g sicnce it doesnt have the capability to be 4g...... plus Vibrant was one of those phones on the poster as well as other smart phones.
No Im not trying to spam or create new rumors. Im actually a newb in these threads and was curious if anyone heard of this.... Or if it has anything to do with second update that some people are receiving?
As the employee said expect ota update that would increase the speed

they're updating the network, not the actual devices. the vibrant is technically capable of 7.2Mbps downloads, but you can only find those speeds in a few places right now

lolcopter said:
they're updating the network, not the actual devices. the vibrant is technically capable of 7.2Mbps downloads, but you can only find those speeds in a few places right now
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well im pretty confused by all this myself but.. Since they have the tmobile official posters in their tmobile stores it means it has to be pretty soon.. w.e it is...
I just went and tested my speed with speedtest.net app and it shows 2284kbps download and 1337 upload.... is it suppose to be even faster soon?

I may be wrong but I believe you guys are misunderstanding the posters.
I think this is what T-Mobile is trying to say.
All current 3G phones will get a speed boost once your area has been fully upgraded to HSPA+ Although most phones that T-Mobile currently carries are not HSPA+ except for the G2 and MyTouch 4G, these non-HSPA+ phones will still benefit from HSPA+ network upgrades.
Make sense?
Also T-Mobiles 4G network is NOT 4G, False advertising. Same with Sprint Wimax.

SamsungVibrant said:
Also T-Mobiles 4G network is NOT 4G, False advertising. Same with Sprint Wimax.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
According to ITU, none of the American carriers have 4G. Go search engadget for ITU for the source (would post the link, but I don't have enough posts yet).
HSPA+ is capable of the same download speeds as the "true 4G" networks, of which there are NONE in the US. It's not false advertising, it's perfectly honest advertising.

Either way...no one is promising 4g speed to vibrant... Just faster 3g... Did anyone great of this? Coz I dont want to start a thread where people are arguimg what 4g is and what its not... And I live in NYC... So I believe 4g towers are set up here already.. Tmobile rep confused the crap out of me... As they usually do... Can't even understand their own advertisement
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App

thats interesting because at my work for the last year I could only get about 900kbps down and 300 up. For some reason for the last 3 weeks I could not keep a solid connection even though the 3g symbol was present. I thought it was my vibrant or the rom I had flashed the night before (rom junkie) but two of my employees have Tmobile as well and they were experiencing the same thing. All of a sudden as of Saturday I am now getting speeds in the 4mb range and its freaking awesome. I have another employee with a 4g Evo and I kill him everytime. Go Tmobile! Vibrant w/4g speeds and now froyo and wifi calling= the best Android phone on the market.

Your statements contradict eachother!
Thegreatheed said:
According to ITU, none of the American carriers have 4G. Go search engadget for ITU for the source (would post the link, but I don't have enough posts yet).
HSPA+ is capable of the same download speeds as the "true 4G" networks, of which there are NONE in the US. It's not false advertising, it's perfectly honest advertising.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I never said any of the US carriers currently have 4G. In fact, I said exactly what you stated. I said neither Sprint's Wimax, nor T-Mobiles HSPA+ is 4G.
Also your statements contradict each other. You claim according to the ITU, no us carrier has 4G, yet T-Mobile advertising as the "largest 4G network" in the nation is honest advertising? HUH? LOL, do you not see the contradiction in your own statements?
How can you be the largest 4G network, if according to you, the ITU says no US carriers have 4G at the current moment. As a result, any carrier claiming they have 4G would be falsely advertising such said information.
I'm sorry but it shocks me when people overlook the obvious, how can you write a statement and contradict yourself?
btw hspa+ SPEEDS are not true 4G speeds.

short answer, they upgrade network we benefit.

Thegreatheed said:
According to ITU, none of the American carriers have 4G. Go search engadget for ITU for the source (would post the link, but I don't have enough posts yet).
HSPA+ is capable of the same download speeds as the "true 4G" networks, of which there are NONE in the US. It's not false advertising, it's perfectly honest advertising.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is absolutely FALSE advertising. 4G networks are IMT ADVANCED based, which includes LTE Advanced and WiMax Advanced. This means that ABSOLUTELY zero networks in the world are, and in the next year or two, ever will be 4G. To be a 4G solution, it has to be a 100% IP (aka packet switched with absolutely NO circuit switched voice) based solution. Also, do I need to mention that the "true" 4G speeds you are talking about, are slow in comparison to what IMT Advanced based architectures will be.
AlexSochi8 said:
Either way...no one is promising 4g speed to vibrant... Just faster 3g... Did anyone great of this? Coz I dont want to start a thread where people are arguimg what 4g is and what its not... And I live in NYC... So I believe 4g towers are set up here already.. Tmobile rep confused the crap out of me... As they usually do... Can't even understand their own advertisement
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As mentioned they are not 4G. Plain and simple. T-Mobile has made it VERY clear that they are not currently seeking any LTE plans for the very near future, and as such, are rolling out HSPA+ in an effort to increase the speeds at a (relatively) low cost. Due to the fact that Sprint is using the 4G moniker, and advertising speeds similar to what T-Mobile will have on offer (using HSPA+), they are doing the same bull**** marketing that Sprint is.
If you want me to cite some info, I can.

lolcopter said:
they're updating the network, not the actual devices. the vibrant is technically capable of 7.2Mbps downloads, but you can only find those speeds in a few places right now
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So as soon as they fully install the faster network in New York City then i will be able to get up to 7.2mbps on vibrant?
I kinda doubt that since now at very best I get 2.2mbps in a very tower rich city
That would make vibrant internet speed upto 3.5 times faster? Is that really likely?
If that is then Froyo + faster internet is all i can dream of!

AlexSochi8 said:
So as soon as they fully install the faster network in New York City then i will be able to get up to 7.2mbps on vibrant?
I kinda doubt that since now at very best I get 2.2mbps in a very tower rich city
That would make vibrant internet speed upto 3.5 times faster? Is that really likely?
If that is then Froyo + faster internet is all i can dream of!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are reports of getting as high as 15Mbps in areas with a good HSPA+ coverage on the G2. I presume that 7Mbps, or near there should be very achievable on our phones.

gehzumteufel said:
There are reports of getting as high as 15Mbps in areas with a good HSPA+ coverage on the G2. I presume that 7Mbps, or near there should be very achievable on our phones.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thats pretty amazing then... then I wouldnt complain about some phones having "4G" speed

gehzumteufel said:
It is absolutely FALSE advertising. 4G networks are IMT ADVANCED based, which includes LTE Advanced and WiMax Advanced. This means that ABSOLUTELY zero networks in the world are, and in the next year or two, ever will be 4G. To be a 4G solution, it has to be a 100% IP (aka packet switched with absolutely NO circuit switched voice) based solution. Also, do I need to mention that the "true" 4G speeds you are talking about, are slow in comparison to what IMT Advanced based architectures will be.
As mentioned they are not 4G. Plain and simple. T-Mobile has made it VERY clear that they are not currently seeking any LTE plans for the very near future, and as such, are rolling out HSPA+ in an effort to increase the speeds at a (relatively) low cost. Due to the fact that Sprint is using the 4G moniker, and advertising speeds similar to what T-Mobile will have on offer (using HSPA+), they are doing the same bull**** marketing that Sprint is.
If you want me to cite some info, I can.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree with you in one respect, ITU ruled that HSPA+ is not a 4G network. However, what with Sprint and their false advertising, it's easy to see why T-Mobile would label their data network as 4G for one reason. The same towers that are being upgraded to the theoretical max of 21mbps have the capacity for even higher speeds. Up to 168mbps actually, if you want to get specific. All on the towers they already have. Pretty much explains their decision to forgo LTE for the time being huh? So while yes, their network isn't a "true" 4G network, no one can argue that they're lying about achieving 4G and higher speeds (even higher than WiMax).

well i hope the reception will be better. i'm fine with a download speed of 2-3 mbps as long as it's stable. I have to stay on one corner of our house to have a 3G.

Homestar1217 said:
I agree with you in one respect, ITU ruled that HSPA+ is not a 4G network. However, what with Sprint and their false advertising, it's easy to see why T-Mobile would label their data network as 4G for one reason. The same towers that are being upgraded to the theoretical max of 21mbps have the capacity for even higher speeds. Up to 168mbps actually, if you want to get specific. All on the towers they already have. Pretty much explains their decision to forgo LTE for the time being huh? So while yes, their network isn't a "true" 4G network, no one can argue that they're lying about achieving 4G and higher speeds (even higher than WiMax).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They are absolutely lying. You can't achieve, from a device, anything above a theoretical maximum of 84Mbps with bonding AND MIMO. Otherwise, you are stick at 42Mbps with JUST boding, and 21.5 with no bonding or MIMO. 4G is officially designated at 100Mbps while moving at high speed and 1Gbps while static. You aren't going to see bonding and MIMO at all, because that requires a HUGE increase in the backhaul capabilities (100GbE minimum), and all new antennas and base stations. This is just not happening.
iynfynity said:
well i hope the reception will be better. i'm fine with a download speed of 2-3 mbps as long as it's stable. I have to stay on one corner of our house to have a 3G.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
T-Mobile has been significantly improving their coverage area over the last 5 years, and it is far better than when I first had it. In due time, they will cover most of the US.

yeah, Edge is good for me but of course 3G is what i'm paying for so i hope that the reception will be better in my place.

My speed on my stock Vibrant seems to have improved just recently. Sitting inside my house in the Seattle area tonight the Speedtest.net app gave results of: 5.3-5.4 Mbps down and 1.6-1.7 Mbps up. That was the range for several successive trials. The weird thing was that when I laid the phone down on my desk, the speed dropped down to about 3.2 Mbps down and 0.70 Mbps up. When I picked it up and held it in my hand again, the speed climbed right back up to the higher range, which I verified several times. Coincidence, or could there be some body-phone-antenna thing going on?

ZX3ZX4 said:
My speed on my stock Vibrant seems to have improved just recently. Sitting inside my house in the Seattle area tonight the Speedtest.net app gave results of: 5.3-5.4 Mbps down and 1.6-1.7 Mbps up. That was the range for several successive trials. The weird thing was that when I laid the phone down on my desk, the speed dropped down to about 3.2 Mbps down and 0.70 Mbps up. When I picked it up and held it in my hand again, the speed climbed right back up to the higher range, which I verified several times. Coincidence, or could there be some body-phone-antenna thing going on?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, your phone is probably cycling through two different towers. Check to see if your CID changes (Ever) in your home.

AlexSochi8 said:
So as soon as they fully install the faster network in New York City then i will be able to get up to 7.2mbps on vibrant?
I kinda doubt that since now at very best I get 2.2mbps in a very tower rich city
That would make vibrant internet speed upto 3.5 times faster? Is that really likely?
If that is then Froyo + faster internet is all i can dream of!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
By my old place in Brooklyn I was getting up to 5Mbs down back in July, but my apartment was like a Faraday Cage, by my folks in Brooklyn I am constantly getting up to 5.5Mbs, and at my new place in South Brooklyn I am back to harsh reality with 1.1Mbs at best.
These are the download speeds, upload is usually stays the same at around 1.3Mbs

The 4G "MYTH"

Many of us are so geeked about 4G speeds....the mytouch 4G sprouting about its HSPA+ network which is supposed to make this a better phone and such, but it's all hogwash. I found the article below very interesting and rather revealing as to how these carriers manage to soup us up and get us to believe what they want us to believe, true or not. Sad, but very enlightening.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- You've seen the 4G advertisements from T-Mobile, Sprint and Verizon, bragging about a much-better wireless network with blazing fast speeds.
Here's the secret the carriers don't advertise: 4G is a myth. Like the unicorn, it hasn't been spotted anywhere in the wild just yet -- and won't be any time in the near future.
The International Telecommunication Union, the global wireless standards-setting organization, determined last month that 4G is defined as a network capable of download speeds of 100 megabits per second (Mbps). That's fast enough to download an average high-definition movie in about three minutes.
None of the new networks the carriers are rolling out meet that standard.
Sprint (S, Fortune 500) was the first to launch a network called 4G, going live with it earlier this year. Then, T-Mobile launched its 4G network, claiming to be "America's largest 4G network." Verizon (VZ, Fortune 500) plans to launch its 4G network by the end of the year, which it claims will be the nation's largest and the fastest. AT&T (T, Fortune 500) is expected to unveil its 4G network next year.
Those networks have theoretical speeds of a fifth to a half that of the official 4G standard. The actual speeds the carriers say they'll achieve are just a tenth of "real" 4G.
So why are the carriers calling these networks 4G?
It's mostly a matter of PR, industry experts say. Explaining what the wireless carriers' new networks should be called, and what they'll be capable of, is a confusing mess.
To illustrate: Sprint bought a majority stake in Clearwire (CLWR), which uses a new network technology called WiMAX that's capable of speeds ranging from 3 Mbps to 10 Mbps. That's a different technology from Verizon's new network, based on a standard called Long Term Evolution (LTE), which will average 5 Mbps to 12 Mbps.
Seeing what its competitors were up to, T-Mobile opted to increase the speed capabilities of its existing 3G-HSPA+ network instead of pursuing a new technology. Its expanded network -- now called 4G -- will reach speeds of 5 Mbps to 12 Mbps.
No matter what they're called, all of these upgrades are clear improvements -- and the carriers shelled out billions to make them. Current "3G" networks offer actual speeds that range from between 500 kilobits per second to 1.5 Mbps.
So Sprint and Verizon have new, faster networks that are still technically not 4G, while T-Mobile has an old, though still faster network that is actually based on 3G technology.
Confused yet? That's why they all just opted to call themselves "4G."
The carriers get defensive about the topic.
"It's very misleading to make a decision about what's 4G based on speed alone," said Stephanie Vinge-Walsh, spokeswoman for Sprint Nextel. "It is a challenge we face in an extremely competitive industry."
T-Mobile did not respond to a request for comment.
One network representative, who asked not to be identified, claimed that ITU's 4G line-in-the-sand is being misconstrued. The organization previously approved the use of the term "4G" for Sprint's WiMAX and Verizon's LTE networks, he said -- though not for T-Mobile's HSPA+ network.
ITU's PR department ignored that approval in its recent statement about how future wireless technologies would be measured, the representative said. ITU representatives were not immediately available for comment.
"I'm not getting into a technical debate," said Jeffrey Nelson, spokesman for Verizon Wireless. "Consumers will quickly realize that there's really a difference between the capabilities of various wireless data networks. All '4G' is not the same."
And that's what's so difficult. The term 4G has become meaningless and confusing as hell for wireless customers.
For instance, T-Mobile's 4G network, which is technically 3G, will have speeds that are at least equal to -- and possibly faster -- than Verizon's 4G-LTE network at launch. At the same time, AT&T's 3G network, which is also being scaled up like T-Mobile's, is not being labeled "4G."
That's why some industry experts predict that the term "4G" will soon vanish.
"The labeling of wireless broadband based on technical jargon is likely to fade away in 2011," said Dan Hays, partner at industry consultancy PRTM. "That will be good news for the consumer. Comparing carriers based on their network coverage and speed will give them more facts to make more informed decisions."
Hays expects that independent researchers -- or the Federal Communications Commission -- will step in next year to perform speed and coverage tests.
Meanwhile, don't expect anyone to hold the carriers' feet to the fire.
"Historically, ITU's classification system has not held a great degree of water and has not been used to enforce branding," Hays said. "Everyone started off declaring themselves to be 4G long before the official decision on labeling was made. The ITU was three to four years too late to make an meaningful impact on the industry's use of the term."

I understand all that. But here is my newbie question:
Can the 4G TMo devices (say myTouch4G or G2) really attain quicker d/l speeds than a 3G device like Vibrant? If so, how?
I have not been able to read a clear explanation of this anywhere. Also, TMo says their network will hit 21Mbps in 2011, and that is backward compatible. If so, then why is a 4G device needed?

Call it 10G if they like its just a name, I dont care as long as the speed meets my need at a reasonable price.

because our phones are only capable 7 mbps while the g2 and the mytouch4g can go to about 14 mbps (not even 21) ... but yeah thats why ... its hardware related

spookini said:
I understand all that. But here is my newbie question:
Can the 4G TMo devices (say myTouch4G or G2) really attain quicker d/l speeds than a 3G device like Vibrant? If so, how?
I have not been able to read a clear explanation of this anywhere. Also, TMo says their network will hit 21Mbps in 2011, and that is backward compatible. If so, then why is a 4G device needed?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They are backward compatible, for example HSPA+ will give vibrant which does not support HSPA+ a speed boost, just not fully benfitted. Same story with USB 3.0 and 2.0

4G is 100 mbps and TMobile will be 21mbps. None of these networks will have 4G speeds and all in fact are upgraded 3G speeds. AT&T will be usding the same HSPA that TMobile will be using and eventually they also will be at 21 mbps.
How any of these carriers can call themselves 4G is beyond me.

Actually the 4G spec calls for 1 Gbps stationary speed, the 100 mbps is the minimum while mobile so it will be 5 years before you really see that.
T-mobiles current "4G" Network is currently running at 21 mbps, with 42 mbps a software upgrade away. So while they don't meet the true 4G speed threshold, neither does sprints current 10 mbps wimax, or verizons 12 mbps LTE. When sprint and verizon first launched their "3G" networks they didn't meet the requirements for at least a couple years, and we are not any worse off due to that flexibility.
I still roll with a 7.2 mbps vibrant and I will be honest, there has not been any time where I had good 3G speed that I needed anything more.

spookini said:
I understand all that. But here is my newbie question:
Can the 4G TMo devices (say myTouch4G or G2) really attain quicker d/l speeds than a 3G device like Vibrant? If so, how?
I have not been able to read a clear explanation of this anywhere. Also, TMo says their network will hit 21Mbps in 2011, and that is backward compatible. If so, then why is a 4G device needed?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
think back to USB 2.0
when USB 2.0 came out it allows for higher speed transfers etc....
You will only get 2.0 speeds on a 2.0 port.
The USB 2.0 device will work in a 1.0/1.1 port, but it will not give you 2.0 speeds.
if you want, just replace USB 2.0 with HSPA+
and replace 1.0/1.1 with HSPA7.2

Let me try to shed some light on things for you.
spookini said:
But here is my newbie question:
Can the 4G TMo devices (say myTouch4G or G2) really attain quicker d/l speeds than a 3G device like Vibrant? If so, how?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes. Without getting all technical, it has to do with how the data is compressed and encoded on the different channels that the phone and cell towers use.
HSPA+ is an improved version of HSPA. HSPA is an addition to UMTS 3G which allows for faster data transfer rates than just regular UMTS 3G.
I have not been able to read a clear explanation of this anywhere. Also, TMo says their network will hit 21Mbps in 2011, and that is backward compatible. If so, then why is a 4G device needed?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You won't find one unless you do some real digging and learn enough to understand some basics of UMTS. True 4G does a lot more than just give faster data rates. The entire back-end of how the cell towers and core network route information is different. The way the radios in the cell phones work is different and the way the cell towers organize data is different. The benefit is more efficient mobile communication service.
The way things are with 3G, it is difficult to balance voice traffic with the ever-increasing demand for data traffic and maintain QoS for a large number of users simultaneously. Anyone who has tried to use AT&T 3G at a football game or concert can tell you how crappy the service gets when the towers get loaded.

Yes But Marketing.......
All that tarzanman said is correct but the larger picture is just perception and controlling it.
Basically, we really do not have 3g unless you really get somewhere close to 7mg speed consistently........We do not and i am ok with my 2-3mg speed it is plenty good enough for my needs.
Here is a good analogy......when front wheel drive car first came on the market they were hailed as a breakthrough in making a car handle better allowing more room in the car and being safer. The fact is only a little more room is the real benefit and the rest....well, it is just cheaper and easier to mass produce. The car handles poorer than a rear wheel car or 4-wheel. But, they convinced most of the dopey-ignorant customers/masses and even to this day people still think they are better. Moral of the story.........control the message and control the spin, and to hell with facts........ because most don't care they just want the latest "craze jargon" on their lips so they feel cool...(sorry for the rant)
I have had a cell phone now for 27 years.......and here is my advice:
here in the USA --go with T mobile for now watch the business trends and when they start acting like Verizon and Att then look for the next up and coming carrier and then go with them.. That is the only way to have decent, reliable and fast connection speeds for a reasonable prices.

Who cares? As started in the article ITU's decisions hold no water. They have no authority and their definition is arbitrary. I'm in the product development industry, and when our end product goes through a redesign or significant optimization it gets a generation bump. We're now up to third generation. Product looks the same for the most part, but performance increased as a result of engineering changes.
For the wireless industry, all carriers are implementing significant performance increases through network upgrades. These upgrades are not 100% compatible with current generation devices. As far as I'm concerned that's worthy of a generation bump. People are splitting hairs for no reason. It's quite silly. If I were an engineer for any of the major carriers right now I would be pretty annoyed with this ITU business by now.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App

It is easy,
HSDPA+ (TMO), EV-DO(Verizon), LTE(Verizon) and 802.16e Wimax(Sprint) are considered 3G Transitional.
LTE Advanced and 802.16m (WiMax "Advanced" if you want to call it that) are 4G.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3GPP
Go to the bottom of the page and view the chart.

t1n0m3n said:
It is easy,
HSDPA+ (TMO), EV-DO(Verizon), LTE(Verizon) and 802.16e Wimax(Sprint) are considered 3G Transitional.
LTE Advanced and 802.16m (WiMax "Advanced" if you want to call it that) are 4G.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3GPP
Go to the bottom of the page and view the chart.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Verizon can call their LTE whatever they want but the fact is it isnt as fast as TMobiles HSPA+

i rather have true unlimited 3G than some bologni 4G with a 5Gb cap. May be is too much to ask for.

Remember, Most tout 4G more or less as 4th Generation rather than true 4G. Although marketing says otherwise. It's a ploy to get your service, just like spray painting your head makes you look like you have more hair. I don't care what they call it, as long as it benefits my speeds.
For companies that have actual caps. its stupid that they are increasing the speeds that you hit your cap. So you may have better speeds to do more, but really you are just hitting your cap faster so you can pay them more money.

t1n0m3n said:
It is easy,
HSDPA+ (TMO), EV-DO(Verizon), LTE(Verizon) and 802.16e Wimax(Sprint) are considered 3G Transitional.
LTE Advanced and 802.16m (WiMax "Advanced" if you want to call it that) are 4G.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3GPP
Go to the bottom of the page and view the chart.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lol are you serious. wikipedia is not even a credible source and ANYONE can go in and change the info.

Actually, that wikipedia article is pretty spot on.

Tarzanman said:
Actually, that wikipedia article is pretty spot on.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
indeed it is. And unless you want to read a few 700 page books on the differences between UMTS/WCDMA/HSPA, and LTE/LTE-a, that's about as good of a source as is available at this point.
And as to the OP - it's all about marketing. Technically speaking, 1xRTT and EDGE are both 3g technologies. But cell companies hyped up EvDO and UMTS as 3g, to simplify it for the American consumer.
And so they're marketing their next generation of networks as "4g", even though that doesn't meet up with what the ITU defines as 4G on technical terms.
Again, this is all because cell phone companies know that people buy into the hype rather than concern themselves with the details.
But in the end, who gives a damn? It's significantly faster than what people used to expect from 3g (ie 1-2mbps), so as long as the results are better, they can call it 9000G for all I care.

All of this 4G related discourse is exactly what the carriers want. Four gee shmoor gee. I'm just happy I get 3-5 mbps down where I live.
In the end, we are all just stupid pawns

Tarzanman said:
Actually, that wikipedia article is pretty spot on.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It doesn't matter, wiki bashing is in vogue even if one doesn't have a clue if the article is accurate or not.
Wikipedia 4TL!

AT&T snacks on T-Mobile USA... what's that mean for the enduser???

$39 Billion is a lot of scooby snacks... and though I am aware that there are several regulatory hurdles to clear (SEC and FCC at the moment), I assume these beeeeches will lawyer up and find a way.
So from what I understand (which admittedly is very little) the existing Tmob towers will be re-purposed for rolling out Ma Bell's LTE coverage (within 12 months). As we all know, Ma Bell and Tmob use different broadcast frequencies for their Mobile broadband. So essentially, within a years time... those whom own a Vibrant, Vib + or any other 3g enabled Tmob smartphone... will have a very expensive edge capable device... ewwwwwwww, really !?!?!?!?!?!
Has there been any other word on this... as in compensation, grandfathering of packages (AT&T data plans blow money-wise) etc...
I know we have some Tmob sources on this board... any whispers???

Vibrant supports GayT&T bands, im unlocked.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App

tng222 said:
Vibrant supports GayT&T bands, im unlocked.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Umts and hsupa ????
droppin the know...

Vibrant is supports some AT&T's 3G bands. Most of the time, you'll be on AT&T's 3G, but you can also get kicked down to edge if the area you're in doesn't support Vibrant's 3G bands.

Nope, it does 850mhz and 1900mhz, all bands. However, I will admit the phone has issues switching between GSM and WCDMA, so I set it to WCDMA only.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App

Read today that AT&T may have to divest part of T-Mobile to Sprint
http://www.tmonews.com/2011/03/analysts-say-att-will-have-to-divest-part-of-t-mobile-possibly-to-sprint/

T-Mobile is becoming a rag doll...

This is going to be more fun than the Sprint Nextel fiasco.

I don't think there is much mystery as to what will happen. This is AT&T we are talking about, after all.
While a nice bonus, the additional subscribers to AT&T's user base is really a secondary concern. AT&T's prime target were the (leases for) T-mobile's frequencies.
AT&T's network is already overloaded (thanks in part to weak infineon radio chipsets). They need to start the roll out to LTE to compete (verizon is already ahead of them), and they know that customers will cry foul and leave if their LTE and HSPA+ phones do not get service any faster than current 3G phones (see: Motorola Atrix).
So, what will happen to T-mobile users? Simple... AT&T will honor existing contracts and arrangements *for 2G/3G service* (T-mob does not have 4G, despite the marketing), and they will issue T-mobile users new phones (some discounted, I am sure) for use on AT&T's existing network.
What does this mean for T-mobile customers? Say good-bye to being able to answer a phone call at a concert or college football game. Being on the largest network means having to share bandwith/frequency with the largest number of users. They will fight for service with all those people with sh*tty iphone antennae.
Slower data, locked down Android phones, and higher rates for service if you want to sign a new agreement are what will inevitably happen. Current AT&T customers probably won't notice a difference unless they get an LTE phone (in which case they will get the faster data and non-overloaded service that T-mobile customers are used to).
T-mo 3G coverage will get better in smaller towns & cities, but this isn't much of an advantage for me since I live in a large city.

I hope that if that happens and I can't use my phone in their network, I'm given the option of just cancel my contract...

tng222 said:
Nope, it does 850mhz and 1900mhz, all bands. However, I will admit the phone has issues switching between GSM and WCDMA, so I set it to WCDMA only.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Really don't think so. FCC documents only say 1900MHz for 3G. Who knows though?
I just hope we can continue to use smartphones on prepaid plans. That's really why I left Ma Bell.

Tarzanman said:
I don't think there is much mystery as to what will happen. This is AT&T we are talking about, after all.
While a nice bonus, the additional subscribers to AT&T's user base is really a secondary concern. AT&T's prime target were the (leases for) T-mobile's frequencies.
AT&T's network is already overloaded (thanks in part to weak infineon radio chipsets). They need to start the roll out to LTE to compete (verizon is already ahead of them), and they know that customers will cry foul and leave if their LTE and HSPA+ phones do not get service any faster than current 3G phones (see: Motorola Atrix).
So, what will happen to T-mobile users? Simple... AT&T will honor existing contracts and arrangements *for 2G/3G service* (T-mob does not have 4G, despite the marketing), and they will issue T-mobile users new phones (some discounted, I am sure) for use on AT&T's existing network.
What does this mean for T-mobile customers? Say good-bye to being able to answer a phone call at a concert or college football game. Being on the largest network means having to share bandwith/frequency with the largest number of users. They will fight for service with all those people with sh*tty iphone antennae.
Slower data, locked down Android phones, and higher rates for service if you want to sign a new agreement are what will inevitably happen. Current AT&T customers probably won't notice a difference unless they get an LTE phone (in which case they will get the faster data and non-overloaded service that T-mobile customers are used to).
T-mo 3G coverage will get better in smaller towns & cities, but this isn't much of an advantage for me since I live in a large city.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i think t-mobile does a great job in coverage, i get full service in my neighborhood but i dont get 3g service, maybe this will help? if not i just want to cancel my contract and switch to verizon

After the merger is done and the network has switched over...Worse case, I hope to unlock, pop in a AT&T SIM continue to use my Vibrant mostly like nothing has changed. I don't know what effect flashing a Captivate modem would have. I'm not worried...yet.

I think AT&T might make a transitional phase (2-4yrs) for T-mobile existing customers(no new AWS phones) before switching all T-mobile network to AT&T frequencies.

http://www.cnet.com/8301-17918_1-20048020-85.html?tag=TOCmoreStories.0

I hope sprint gets it! I never had and never will have at&t.... I price checked with at&t a few days ago.. 210 dollars for 2 unlimited lines!?!? Data capped at 2Gigs.. And 10 bucks for every gig used after!? I pay 140 for two fully loaded vibrants. . Fack at&t
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA Premium App

nate420 said:
210 dollars for 2 unlimited lines!?!? Data capped at 2Gigs.. And 10 bucks for every gig used after!?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Unlimited...

gamikzone said:
i think t-mobile does a great job in coverage, i get full service in my neighborhood but i dont get 3g service, maybe this will help? if not i just want to cancel my contract and switch to verizon
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Same Here. I have been with T-mobile for 7 years now and even though I moved from a "4G" area to an area where I only get Edge, i still have stayed with T-Mob, but I am hoping we get the option to cancel our contracts because that Thunderbolt from Verizon is looking good. My co-worker has one and let me mess with it and it is nice.

Tarzanman said:
I don't think there is much mystery as to what will happen. This is AT&T we are talking about, after all.
While a nice bonus, the additional subscribers to AT&T's user base is really a secondary concern. AT&T's prime target were the (leases for) T-mobile's frequencies.
AT&T's network is already overloaded (thanks in part to weak infineon radio chipsets). They need to start the roll out to LTE to compete (verizon is already ahead of them), and they know that customers will cry foul and leave if their LTE and HSPA+ phones do not get service any faster than current 3G phones (see: Motorola Atrix).
So, what will happen to T-mobile users? Simple... AT&T will honor existing contracts and arrangements *for 2G/3G service* (T-mob does not have 4G, despite the marketing), and they will issue T-mobile users new phones (some discounted, I am sure) for use on AT&T's existing network.
What does this mean for T-mobile customers? Say good-bye to being able to answer a phone call at a concert or college football game. Being on the largest network means having to share bandwith/frequency with the largest number of users. They will fight for service with all those people with sh*tty iphone antennae.
Slower data, locked down Android phones, and higher rates for service if you want to sign a new agreement are what will inevitably happen. Current AT&T customers probably won't notice a difference unless they get an LTE phone (in which case they will get the faster data and non-overloaded service that T-mobile customers are used to).
T-mo 3G coverage will get better in smaller towns & cities, but this isn't much of an advantage for me since I live in a large city.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
T-Mobile has a better "4G" than AT&T does. Their HSPA+ is faster than AT&T's.

dligon said:
http://www.cnet.com/8301-17918_1-20048020-85.html?tag=TOCmoreStories.0
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Completely agree with the article.
They are allowing AT&T to be a monopoly again,after all the work it took to destroy the monopoly.The FCC should shot down this deal period.

HSPA+: Better than LTE?

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.