Database Users

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!

Clearwire hints at LTE build with Sprint

Nice article written today about this: Clearwire hints at LTE build with Sprint
Did not see this posted already.

Yep, Clear has been testing LTE for some time. Phoenix was their first base station tests back in January where they had theoretical speeds better than Verizon's...
http://waazzupppp.wordpress.com/201...and-best-buy-join-light-squareds-lte-network/

Great read! Thanks
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

blassilando said:
Nice article written today about this: Clearwire hints at LTE build with Sprint
Did not see this posted already.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
blassilando, thanks for sharing. Was an interesting read that still leaves a lot to speculate on.

I really hope that sprint and or clear move to LTE I just think it is a better tech than wimax LTE FTW!

rockypoo said:
I really hope that sprint and or clear move to LTE I just think it is a better tech than wimax LTE FTW!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why do you think that?
Sent from my spaceship!

A lot of people seem to think LTE is superior, and while I may be far from an expert, isn't the true limiting factor of WiMax performance right now the spectrum being used?
The 2500 MHz spectrum deployed right now is less than ideal for building penetration. Switching to LTE will not magically make the problems go away and we could be stuck with a different technology that is actually not very different, yet offers the same problems.
LTE works better with Verizon because of their 700 MHz spectrum, not to mention that their LTE just very recently deployed, the amount of LTE users compared to WiMax users is still very minimal.
I'm betting within a year, LTE speeds on Verizon will drop significantly. It'll still be faster than 3G and offer good speeds, but not the amazing speeds everyone seems to be experiencing right now.

Today on the tops news clear blows
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

Android 17 said:
A lot of people seem to think LTE is superior, and while I may be far from an expert, isn't the true limiting factor of WiMax performance right now the spectrum being used?
The 2500 MHz spectrum deployed right now is less than ideal for building penetration. Switching to LTE will not magically make the problems go away and we could be stuck with a different technology that is actually not very different, yet offers the same problems.
LTE works better with Verizon because of their 700 MHz spectrum, not to mention that their LTE just very recently deployed, the amount of LTE users compared to WiMax users is still very minimal.
I'm betting within a year, LTE speeds on Verizon will drop significantly. It'll still be faster than 3G and offer good speeds, but not the amazing speeds everyone seems to be experiencing right now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yup all about the freq used. lower freq = better building pen. basically.

I mean LTE is the better tech right now, however, I was reading an article a few months ago... Sorry don't have a link... It state that LTE was going to be thee better tech right now, but WiMax ha more potential. Something like 50 Mbps down and 25 up would be about the max for LTE while WiMax has the potential to get to a point of 1 gb down and 500 Mbps up. If Sprint does move to LTE I hope they don't completely abandon WiMax since it appears to have more capability in the long run. I will try to find the link to the article.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA Premium App

drgonzo712 said:
I mean LTE is the better tech right now, however, I was reading an article a few months ago... Sorry don't have a link... It state that LTE was going to be thee better tech right now, but WiMax ha more potential. Something like 50 Mbps down and 25 up would be about the max for LTE while WiMax has the potential to get to a point of 1 gb down and 500 Mbps up. If Sprint does move to LTE I hope they don't completely abandon WiMax since it appears to have more capability in the long run. I will try to find the link to the article.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Again you can't make a blaket statement like that without some reason behined it. WiMax is opensourse i believe too.
All in all if you put LTE on the freq WiMax is on everyone has the same problems WiMax has now. Only solution is more towers on that freq. Though I think i was reading they could increase the power behined the signal to help coverage but doing so had its drawbacks as well. Could be wrong on that last part but I'm 99% sure there were 2 ways to help the signal issues.
Regardless they both have their adv and disadvantages somewhat and neither one is really "better tech" than the other.

I'm not a big fan of wimax at all. My can't even keep a wimax signal locked driving down a major freeway in a 4G city. The upload cap sucks as well. So if Sprint did go LTE the penetration wouldn't be any better than wimax is right now? I can hardly get wimax to work on the freeway let alone a building.

Sim-X said:
I'm not a big fan of wimax at all. My can't even keep a wimax signal locked driving down a major freeway in a 4G city. The upload cap sucks as well. So if Sprint did go LTE the penetration wouldn't be any better than wimax is right now? I can hardly get wimax to work on the freeway let alone a building.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
its not WiMax your not a fan of its using the 2.5GHz freq for data and how its used that your mad at. Would make ZERO difference if they swapped out WiMax for LTE on that freq right now. You would get the same signal you do now.
Also there are no caps with WiMax that im aware of and LTE supposedly allows some more in depth throttling stuff from what ive read awhile ago too that WiMax does not.
In the end LTE is not the answer. the answer is getting WiMax provisioned and put on the 800MHz band OR putting LTE on that band, OR putting up many many many more towers.

The key here is that Clear would be building out their network within the framework of Sprints network vision plan. that would allow whatever technology network they build to run on whatever frequencies work best for the conditions at a given location and time. calls / data sessions would actually be moved from one frequency band to another dynamically to take advantage of all frequencies / bandwidth available. That'll make more difference than whether the network is WiMax than LTE in my opinion. At this point I think it's hard to say which technology is best currently and which one will prove to be the best going forward.

sgt. slaughter said:
Again you can't make a blaket statement like that without some reason behined it. WiMax is opensourse i believe too.
All in all if you put LTE on the freq WiMax is on everyone has the same problems WiMax has now. Only solution is more towers on that freq. Though I think i was reading they could increase the power behined the signal to help coverage but doing so had its drawbacks as well. Could be wrong on that last part but I'm 99% sure there were 2 ways to help the signal issues.
Regardless they both have their adv and disadvantages somewhat and neither one is really "better tech" than the other.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here is the link to the article about LTE vs WiMax. Wasn't really making a blanket statement, more just summing up the article simplistically.
http://www.intomobile.com/2010/05/18/lte-vs-wimax-the-4g-mobile-broadband-shootout/

Just to chime in, with the sprint vision plan being pushed wouldn't it make more sense to stay with wimax, being that wimax2 will be released second part of this year and it could utilize the 900 spectrum sprint has??
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA Premium App

There are lots of ways this could go. Yes the 2.5GHz spectrum used limit penetration into buildings, however it is not just a matter of the frequency that is used, but also the number of bands that are available to the carrier. Most carriers can only provide 5-20 MHz of channels per sector, which limits that amount of bandwidth that the end user will see. WiMAX and LTE both depend on those channels to communicate, the more channels the more bandwidth.
The Clear network is limited due to capital, not the frequency that is used. Clearwire has enough spectrum to provide both WiMAX and LTE service from the same cell site with spectrum to spare. Which is where you can get into dual or muti-channel devices that can produce high bandwidth connections, one device that can connect to multiple frequency carriers at one time.
The trick is getting the signal to not interfere with each other and including guard bands to reduce that channel interference.
Anyway, I don't think you will see WiMAX go away any time soon. However you may see LTE added to the network.

sgt. slaughter said:
Though I think i was reading they could increase the power behined the signal to help coverage but doing so had its drawbacks as well. Could be wrong on that last part but I'm 99% sure there were 2 ways to help the signal issues.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't see how boosting the signal at the WiMax site would help. You have to remember it's a two way street so the 2.5ghz freq doesn't just building penetration problems with cell to phone signal, but also phone to cell site.
I think the only way boosting the signal would work is if you boosted the site and phone, and I don't think the FCC would allow the phone's output to be increased. Also, if the phone's signal output were to be boosted, what's the battery life going to be like? It's terrible now, and using more power would only make it worse.
Repeaters might help, but how many repeaters can Sprint/Clearwire install? How many connections can a repeater handle?
Damn... The 2.5ghz frequency just sux!

Clear/LTE small difference
I know this thread is probably way dead by now but I have some info. I was just talking with some techs(called tiger team) installing ATT LTE in a cell site that we lease to ATT. He was saying that the difference between LTE and wimax are very small(installation wise). LTE uses fiber connection from radio's to antenna where clear uses coax. This connection difference is what helps LTE's speed over wimax. Also he had installed clear as well and says currently clears radio's take up such little space they could easily install the LTE radio in this same space. Then it would be just a switch out antenna and good to go. No one will probably see this but I thought I would at least put this out there directly from the installers mouth.

Sprint Network Vison / LTE / Wimax rumor thread [UPDATED 9/15]

I just wanted to start this thread to ask if any insiders or users such as yourselves have any new information regarding wimax expansion, LTE deployment or any other type of rumors that point to us getting better services in the future. Any timelines on deployment or hints at them are appreciated.
Update: All will be revealed October 7, God willing
Update 2: It looks like Sprint might be upgrading the existing EVDO Rev A network to Rev B. also a new video on network vision
Korey says the rev b upgrade is bs.
What I have heard:
Network Vision:
A new program to replace all existing cell sites with all new hardware which is backed by fiber optics (yes!!! no more 150k 3g) and works with all technologies on all frequencies possible (CDMA 800/1900), (Wimax 2500) and (LTE 800/1900/2500(Clear)/1600(lightsquared?))
EDIT: New image
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Credit: Evan702
Credit: Korey_Nicholson
Light Squared LTE partnership:
Sprint is rumored to be negotiating with light squared to piggyback their network on sprint's towers further increasing the quality of sprint's lte network.
Edit: The deal is either done or close to complete. source
Credit: boliviano3
Edit 2: It looks like lightsquared has vacated the spectrum which interfered with GPS in favor of some other spectrum. They claim the GPS interference is no longer an issue. If it's true we could see 1400/1600mhz lte in 2013.
LightSquared announces 'solution' for GPS issue, says LTE network will roll out on schedule
Bloomberg said:
“LightSquared and Sprint will jointly develop, deploy and operate LightSquared’s 4G LTE network,” according to the letter. “Sprint will become a significant customer of LightSquared’s 4G LTE network.”
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's also worth noting that this network will operate in the 1600mhz spectrum and due to GPS providers illegal use of this spectrum, the lte network will interfere with vital high precision GPS used in agriculture.
Basically, John Deere is squatting on LightSquared's spectrum but there is nothing we can do about it because we need their products for food production.
Clear Moving to LTE:
It's a done deal the question is when. It's still using that nasty 2500mhz spectrum so I'm not all that interested.
What it all means:
The network vision upgrade should result in a dramatic increase in network speed because the back haul to the new towers is fiber optics meaning they won't be choked for bandwidth under the load of heavy smartphone use.
Vision should also lead to much better coverage in building and out because of the use of the old iDen (nextel) 800mhz frequency. 800mhz is why Verizon and US Cellular have the coverage they do. One 800mhz tower can serve the same coverage area three 1900mhz towers do. Sprint intends to switch all towers to use this frequency as well as 1900mhz when the 800mhz network is at capacity.
The light squared deal is a win-win for Sprint despite the controversy surrounding the interference Lightsquared causes with GPS. Unlike the situation they face with Clear today, Lightsqared will actually be paying Sprint to use their network. This could expedite the deployment of LTE for Sprint with the financial incentives Lightsquared will provide.
TL;DR
If the rumors are true Sprints network will be by far the best in the country. If you know something please tell us. I tire of Sprint's silence on their future plans (I want 1500kbps 3g/10mbps wimax nao!).
Even owners of Wimax devices (us) will see an improvement in overall coverage and speed as Sprint converts all towers to use Wimax and 800 mhz cdma (as well as lte).

Sweet. This would be great. My 3g is not 190k. It just says DEATH in a speed check. Lol.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App

marcusant said:
Sweet. This would be great. My 3g is not 190k. It just says DEATH in a speed check. Lol.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lol, I guess I should be thankful.

I have not heard anything more than what you posted ... but it does sound good for us (eventually)

I hope it comes true and quickly... The market is moving really fast right now and Sprint is starting to feel like is going to fall behind again...

cberrios said:
I hope it comes true and quickly... The market is moving really fast right now and Sprint is starting to feel like is going to fall behind again...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i agree. releasing 4G before anyone was a great move and increased their revenue, regardless of the loss it reported from 2010(less of a loss than 2007-2009 for sure) but now that ATT, and big red have released LTE, sprint is already behind, atleast to those who know the difference in the types of 4g anyway. this will deff be a great step in the right direction for the company. now if only they would release a SGS2 WITH a keyboard ill be set lol oh well, maybe when SGS3 comes out =P ill probably still have my epic by then anyway hahahahaha

I hear you on the "keyboard" feature ... the AWESOME Screen Display and Physical Keyboard are what made me get the EPIC instead of EVO .... hopefully SGS3 !!!

TexasEpic4G said:
I hear you on the "keyboard" feature ... the AWESOME Screen Display and Physical Keyboard are what made me get the EPIC instead of EVO .... hopefully SGS3 !!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
amen to that Tex. same reason i got this phone too.

Ohhhh man, this perks me up! I, too, got the epic after many months of research (and seeing every one of my friends who own Evo's replacing them every two or three months due to cracked/broken screens). I really hate the Evo for it's weight, but hate it even more because of its lack of keyboard.
Now back on topic. When I got my phone, I did the research on the networks, and was REALLY bummed that Verizon has the better speeds and coverage, whereas a few years ago, it was the opposite. *sigh*
I would really like to see this happen fast. My coverage where I live is bad, and we only have 3G right now (which I cannot complain about, but do when it does not work... which means A LOT of complaining).
Everything else about this awesome phone? AMAZING. Glad I chose it instead of the others. Just sayin.

I would like the technical controversy of whether WiMax handsets could ever be easily upgraded to support LTE laid to rest, yea or nay. I suspect nay, and since they expect 2 year or less upgrades for users, maybe it's a non-issue.

DroidApprentice said:
I would like the technical controversy of whether WiMax handsets could ever be easily upgraded to support LTE laid to rest, yea or nay. I suspect nay, and since they expect 2 year or less upgrades for users, maybe it's a non-issue.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is a chance they could be but, it is slim because the only lte band our phones could support is 2500mhz from Clear so it wouldn't improve coverage much (Vison will because of more towers but it will still be spotty) but speed could go up a bit.
I think it would be pointless though. They would be better off uncapping the Wimax speeds (which would make them more or less the same speeds as LTE ~ up to 40mbps). I would say most likely they keep the wimax caps (maybe ease up a little on the upload cap) and leave the phones with Wimax.

I was happy that Sprint made the first move with 4G. WiMax was already established in many markets, so it made sense for them to use that to be the first ones to market with 4G. And to be honest WiMax gets good and consistant speeds with relatively low latency (average 5-7 down and 1-1.5 up with around 70-80 ms latency), its just that once you enter a building or even a car for that matter the signal penetration drops off sharply. Thats that 2500 Mhz spectrum for ya. BUt hopefully this deal with light squared will accelerate thier LTE deployment. It would be nice to have all the major carriers on one universal 4G standard that way you could roam anywhere you go. I just hope sprint can stay in the game. This AT&T/T-mobile merger is going to put the hurt on the ol now network.

maybe......someday
expect the worst hope for the best that way you dont get your feels hurt lol
iam happy now lol

bump
hoping for a response from whosdaman or someone else who works for sprint

My bro works at Sams club in the phone department, and the Sprint Rep that handles distributing phones to all stores in the valley told him that they are not deploying out any more 4G as they are in talks to use LTE like verizon on their network.

WIMAX phones CAN convert to LTE....as can the currently deployed WIMAX equipment with no additional hardware...it's basically a software update. Sprint will be converting their 800MHz frequencies from IDEN to CDMA and will use LTE across all frequencies and incorporate aggregation which is where multiple frequencies are used simultaneously thereby increasing total frequency width and speed.
This thread should be deleted, while continuing on with this one...
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1015442

TexasEpic4G said:
I hear you on the "keyboard" feature ... the AWESOME Screen Display and Physical Keyboard are what made me get the EPIC instead of EVO .... hopefully SGS3 !!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is the same reason I got the Epic as well, but I now very rarely use the hardware keyboard. I'm excited for the new SGSII, but to each his own I guess
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA Premium App

lynyrd65 said:
bump
hoping for a response from whosdaman or someone else who works for sprint
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol, well what do you want me to say? haha...I've already talked about this previously.

"Cellular Frequency Aggregation: Using multiple Cellular Radio Frequencies in parallel to increase link speed" Think of it like Link aggregation whereas using multiple Ethernet network cables/ports in parallel to increase overall link speed......Using 3 100Mb ethernet ports at the same time to have an effective 300Mb total connection. This is only possible if both the sending computer AND receiving computer support the capability. NVIDIA motherboards with dual 1GB ethernet ports can perform this using their driver.
REPOST......
From sprint website
Current vs. New cell site
Today, Sprint uses separate equipment to deploy services on 800 MHz spectrum, 1.9 GHz spectrum and, through its relationship with Clearwire, 2.5 GHz spectrum. Under the terms of the new contracts, Alcatel-Lucent, Ericsson and Samsung will install new network equipment and software that brings together multiple spectrum bands, or airwaves, on a single, multi-mode base station.
Comparison between today's base stations and Network Vision base stations
With Network Vision, Sprint will make substantial changes to the cell sites that power its wireless network. The top image shows Sprint’s existing base stations, which require single, refrigerator-sized cabinets for each technology. Large black coaxial cables must run from each cabinet to the top of the cell tower, which has an inherent loss of signal. The Network Vision multi-mode base station will require less space. Other advantages will include the ability for Sprint to use spectrum bands on multiple technologies, replacing coaxial cables with fiber that is not affected by signal loss and improved remote radio heads that replace existing less efficient radios.
Multi-mode technology
The implementation of multi-mode technology throughout the Sprint network will:
• Enhance service
• Create network flexibility
• Reduce operating costs
• Improve environmental sustainability
______________________________
Other Rumors alluded to by sprint
Berge Ayvazian, Senior Consultant, Heavy Reading
“This is a very bold move. Sprint was first with an all-digital wireless network; the first to upgrade to EVDO; and more recently, the first to broadly offer 4G services. Sprint is once again first to deploy a common converged mobile network that will strengthen its 3G services; enhance its 4G technology options; and continue delivering the industry’s leading push-to-talk offering.”
Steve Elfman, Sprint president of Network Operations and Wholesale
“We’re seeing an increasing need from our push-to-talk customers for high-speed data capabilities. Marrying the industry’s only sub-second PTT call set-up with broadband data directly supports our customers’ needs and creates an unmatched offering in the market. Additionally, we fully expect a competitively priced lineup of rugged handsets and smartphones on the CDMA network.”

lynyrd65 said:
There is a chance they could be but, it is slim because the only lte band our phones could support is 2500mhz from Clear so it wouldn't improve coverage much (Vison will because of more towers but it will still be spotty) but speed could go up a bit.
I think it would be pointless though. They would be better off uncapping the Wimax speeds (which would make them more or less the same speeds as LTE ~ up to 40mbps). I would say most likely they keep the wimax caps (maybe ease up a little on the upload cap) and leave the phones with Wimax.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Looks like sprint will be raising the cap on the upload tommorow. I guess they read my post.
http://phandroid.com/2011/06/09/sprint-said-to-raise-4g-upload-cap-to-1-5-mbps-june-10th/
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk

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.

Which Carrier Do You Have?

Just wondering which carrier people are using. I have Verizon, but thinking of jumping ship because of the whole bootloader thing. Unfortunately, it seems like they are the fastest and in the most markets. Here's what I've come up with...
Verizon: Fastest carrier and in the most markets in the US. Unfortunately, bootloader is locked.
AT&T: Second choice because they have 4g deployed in many markets.
Sprint: It's a gamble because they are going through a huge upgrade with their network. Don't have 4g widely deployed, but they say they will in the future.
T-Mobile: Quick speeds, but not widely deployed.
I'd love to get people's opinion and which carrier they have.

http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1755931

Please DO NOT USE THE POLL!!!
I was stupid and didn't see the other poll. Don't want to duplicate results.
Mods, please remove this. It seems like I can only edit the post and not delete it.
Thanks and sorry about that!

Videotron.

If you plan on making a long-term switch:
Verizon - Verizon will always stay the fastest. They will most likely be first to deploy LTE-Advanced (gigabit/s 4G) on the best spectrum (700mhz). This means fastest speeds + best LTE-Adv coverage.
AT&T - Never considered or would consider. Slow 3G in areas without LTE. I'm not sure about their LTE-Adv plans or what spectrums they currently and will use.
Sprint - Sprint's 3G network is fairly slow in some areas, but can also be up to par with Verizon in others. They use the 1900mhz spectrum but have 3G in most areas so it doesn't really matter. In areas where sprint doesn't have 3G, verizon likely only has 2G or even nothing. You can roam on Verizon's 2G for free if you have Sprint. Basically, coverage is not an issue but you may have slow 3G speeds. Later this year Sprint plans to begin switching 3G to 800mhz, according to wikipedia. This means better speeds which is great and more coverage (although not an issue really).
Now, let's talk 4G. Sprint plans to deploy LTE on the 1900mhz spectrum also which is decent but still means good coverage if they will be able to set up enough towers. Speed would be around what Verizon's LTE offers but probably a little worse. They also plan to move LTE to the 800mhz spectrum in 2014 which means tower range, penetration, and speed on par with Verizon.
I'm not clear on the details and I don't even know if anyone knows yet, but their LTE-Adv. network will supposedly be deployed on 2500mhz which would be terrible and mean no real (non-spotty) coverage unless in huge cities. We know this from sprint's past mistake of putting WiMax on 2500mhz. For reference, 2500mhz coverage is like WiFi but a little more. I'm pretty sure the source I heard this from was wrong and Sprint won't make this mistake again.
What would make more sense is if LTE-Advanced is put on 1900mhz after LTE is moved to 800mhz.
TL;DR: Sprint is the cheapest option and will probably be on-par with Verizon in the future. Samsung bootloaders are unlocked. They have true unlimited data which is also the biggest plus. I'd recommend switching to Sprint.
T-Mobile - Honestly, I don't know enough about T-Mo.

Wow, thank you very much for the in depth and useful information!
I'm still t'ed off at verizon about this whole bootloader locked/encrypted thing. I came from a DX and feel like I missed out on a lot (updates) because of the issues that surround that phone.
So, it sounds like Sprint may be caught up to Verizon in 2014, which is when my contract would end for the s3 with verizon. But then in 2014, who knows what Verizon will have.
I think I'm finally starting to be OK with not having the best or fastest, but something that I will be happy with and get the job done. I use to subscribe to the middle tier for internet, but now thinking of dropping it to the lower one because it's cheaper and same speeds as it was two years ago. I guess as long as I have 20 megabit, I'm happy.

If you have good Tmobile coverage in your area...Tmobile would be the one to go with.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia5iBxqsjW8
PS. If you enough cash to buy the SGS3 outright without a contract, do it! Im on TMobile's $30/month plan and its been awesome. I've cut my cellphone bill by atleast 60%. I get 100 mins, unlimited text and data (1st 5gb at 4G, then throttled to 2G).

babymatteo said:
If you have good Tmobile coverage in your area...Tmobile would be the one to go with.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia5iBxqsjW8
PS. If you enough cash to buy the SGS3 outright without a contract, do it! Im on TMobile's $30/month plan and its been awesome. I've cut my cellphone bill by atleast 60%. I get 100 mins, unlimited text and data (1st 5gb at 4G, then throttled to 2G).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Latency on lte is better tho, that's for sure, but yeah I got tmobile is cheaper for me, i had att, sprint and verizon, if only sprint had lte here I would stay with them, but now I'm happy with tmobile -
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

yousefak said:
If you plan on making a long-term switch:
Verizon - Verizon will always stay the fastest. They will most likely be first to deploy LTE-Advanced (gigabit/s 4G) on the best spectrum (700mhz). This means fastest speeds + best LTE-Adv coverage.
AT&T - Never considered or would consider. Slow 3G in areas without LTE. I'm not sure about their LTE-Adv plans or what spectrums they currently and will use.
Sprint - Sprint's 3G network is fairly slow in some areas, but can also be up to par with Verizon in others. They use the 1900mhz spectrum but have 3G in most areas so it doesn't really matter. In areas where sprint doesn't have 3G, verizon likely only has 2G or even nothing. You can roam on Verizon's 2G for free if you have Sprint. Basically, coverage is not an issue but you may have slow 3G speeds. Later this year Sprint plans to begin switching 3G to 800mhz, according to wikipedia. This means better speeds which is great and more coverage (although not an issue really).
Now, let's talk 4G. Sprint plans to deploy LTE on the 1900mhz spectrum also which is decent but still means good coverage if they will be able to set up enough towers. Speed would be around what Verizon's LTE offers but probably a little worse. They also plan to move LTE to the 800mhz spectrum in 2014 which means tower range, penetration, and speed on par with Verizon.
I'm not clear on the details and I don't even know if anyone knows yet, but their LTE-Adv. network will supposedly be deployed on 2500mhz which would be terrible and mean no real (non-spotty) coverage unless in huge cities. We know this from sprint's past mistake of putting WiMax on 2500mhz. For reference, 2500mhz coverage is like WiFi but a little more. I'm pretty sure the source I heard this from was wrong and Sprint won't make this mistake again.
What would make more sense is if LTE-Advanced is put on 1900mhz after LTE is moved to 800mhz.
TL;DR: Sprint is the cheapest option and will probably be on-par with Verizon in the future. Samsung bootloaders are unlocked. They have true unlimited data which is also the biggest plus. I'd recommend switching to Sprint.
T-Mobile - Honestly, I don't know enough about T-Mo.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I get 5-10 mb/s on hspa with att. I'd definitely consider that better then slow....
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using xda app-developers app

T-Mobile.
I've posted this before elsewhere but....
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
However, I must say that I live in an area that has strong service with all four "big" carriers and many smaller ones.
I also live in a three story house (on the top floor) surrounded by two story buildings...
Throwing bricks since 2008.....and proud of it.

Proud t-mobile customer since the summer of '06
Sent from my SGH-T999 using xda app-developers app

yousefak said:
If you plan on making a long-term switch:
Verizon - Verizon will always stay the fastest. They will most likely be first to deploy LTE-Advanced (gigabit/s 4G) on the best spectrum (700mhz). This means fastest speeds + best LTE-Adv coverage.
AT&T - Never considered or would consider. Slow 3G in areas without LTE. I'm not sure about their LTE-Adv plans or what spectrums they currently and will use.
Sprint - Sprint's 3G network is fairly slow in some areas, but can also be up to par with Verizon in others. They use the 1900mhz spectrum but have 3G in most areas so it doesn't really matter. In areas where sprint doesn't have 3G, verizon likely only has 2G or even nothing. You can roam on Verizon's 2G for free if you have Sprint. Basically, coverage is not an issue but you may have slow 3G speeds. Later this year Sprint plans to begin switching 3G to 800mhz, according to wikipedia. This means better speeds which is great and more coverage (although not an issue really).
Now, let's talk 4G. Sprint plans to deploy LTE on the 1900mhz spectrum also which is decent but still means good coverage if they will be able to set up enough towers. Speed would be around what Verizon's LTE offers but probably a little worse. They also plan to move LTE to the 800mhz spectrum in 2014 which means tower range, penetration, and speed on par with Verizon.
I'm not clear on the details and I don't even know if anyone knows yet, but their LTE-Adv. network will supposedly be deployed on 2500mhz which would be terrible and mean no real (non-spotty) coverage unless in huge cities. We know this from sprint's past mistake of putting WiMax on 2500mhz. For reference, 2500mhz coverage is like WiFi but a little more. I'm pretty sure the source I heard this from was wrong and Sprint won't make this mistake again.
What would make more sense is if LTE-Advanced is put on 1900mhz after LTE is moved to 800mhz.
TL;DR: Sprint is the cheapest option and will probably be on-par with Verizon in the future. Samsung bootloaders are unlocked. They have true unlimited data which is also the biggest plus. I'd recommend switching to Sprint.
T-Mobile - Honestly, I don't know enough about T-Mo.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LTE will be on 1900 800 and 2500. Voice will be on 1900 and 800. Network Vision takes all the towers they have now and upgrades them with all services. On top of a all new backhaul to support it all. The system is a software update away from LTE-Adv. And will operate on all 3 Bands, replacing LTE. The system will be very cheap to keep upgraded and maintained for many many years to come. It uses fiber to the antenna where a RRU is 6" from the antenna. No lose of single from the long run to the cabinet. This means more power from right off the antennas.
The idea behind it? Say your down town where there is a good 2500 LTE... Your phone switches to it and you have unbeatable service. As you drive away, you signal drops and your phone will switch to the 1900. You pull in to a Bass Pro Shop and get deep in the store. Your signal drops below optimal and you phone switches to 800. You never know, you just know that everywhere you go... You have probably that fastest service out there.
You ask, why not just use the 800 all the time. Spectrum and throughput. That's another long rant.
Conclusion? Sprint is putting out a ton of money for a system that's ahead. It will be very hard to beat, and they plan to share it. $$$. This helps keep our cost down. But this will have to wait till 2014. After Nextel is done and Clear gets LTE rolling. As of now, most suffer from old tech and a T1 backhaul. Unless your lucky and are in a first round market.
Like me.. Hehe as you probably see in the 30 other threads made about we have LTE. lol
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

wiz561 said:
Wow, thank you very much for the in depth and useful information!
I'm still t'ed off at verizon about this whole bootloader locked/encrypted thing. I came from a DX and feel like I missed out on a lot (updates) because of the issues that surround that phone.
So, it sounds like Sprint may be caught up to Verizon in 2014, which is when my contract would end for the s3 with verizon. But then in 2014, who knows what Verizon will have.
I think I'm finally starting to be OK with not having the best or fastest, but something that I will be happy with and get the job done. I use to subscribe to the middle tier for internet, but now thinking of dropping it to the lower one because it's cheaper and same speeds as it was two years ago. I guess as long as I have 20 megabit, I'm happy.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm with sprint and their 3g is really still fine for everything but downloads. It's worth the price.
parsa5 said:
I get 5-10 mb/s on hspa with att. I'd definitely consider that better then slow....
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HSPA+ is more 4g that 3g. Their gsm 3g was what I was talking about.
a454nova said:
LTE will be on 1900 800 and 2500. Voice will be on 1900 and 800. Network Vision takes all the towers they have now and upgrades them with all services. On top of a all new backhaul to support it all. The system is a software update away from LTE-Adv. And will operate on all 3 Bands, replacing LTE. The system will be very cheap to keep upgraded and maintained for many many years to come. It uses fiber to the antenna where a RRU is 6" from the antenna. No lose of single from the long run to the cabinet. This means more power from right off the antennas.
The idea behind it? Say your down town where there is a good 2500 LTE... Your phone switches to it and you have unbeatable service. As you drive away, you signal drops and your phone will switch to the 1900. You pull in to a Bass Pro Shop and get deep in the store. Your signal drops below optimal and you phone switches to 800. You never know, you just know that everywhere you go... You have probably that fastest service out there.
You ask, why not just use the 800 all the time. Spectrum and throughput. That's another long rant.
Conclusion? Sprint is putting out a ton of money for a system that's ahead. It will be very hard to beat, and they plan to share it. $$$. This helps keep our cost down. But this will have to wait till 2014. After Nextel is done and Clear gets LTE rolling. As of now, most suffer from old tech and a T1 backhaul. Unless your lucky and are in a first round market.
Like me.. Hehe as you probably see in the 30 other threads made about we have LTE. lol
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow. Thanks for the well written response. This makes me feel much better about being with sprint.
Sent from my Evo 3D on Sprint's blazing fast 3G network with 4G coverage everywhere