Related
First, this isn't one of "those" threads that just talks about "OMGZ WiMax is so much betterz kthx" it's a technical discussion, so be prepared for lots of technical jargon.
I don't really know where to start, so lets just dive right in:
Clear & Sprint - Bandwidth & an Open Relationship:
Even if LTE does end up winning in the global market, Sprint & Clear (from here on out, if I mention one, assume the other is mentioned too) can easily switch. Their 2.5Ghz spectrum is widely used worldwide for both LTE & WiMax, so not only can they easily switch in software, they will have better global roaming potential than the other big carriers here in the USA that are using 700Mhz spectrum for there nets.
Clear is running tests this year in both TD-LTE and FDD-LTE. They are clearly shaping up to be one hell of a 4G provider, and even a backbone provider with their large WiMax buildout so far done. (WiMax is a nearly perfect technology for wireless backhaul, in case you didn't know)
Also, Sprint has MASSIVE spectrum holdings in the 2.5Ghz channels, so that gives them many more advantages that I'll get into later.
Frequency, frequency, frequency!
I cannot stress how important this is! Everyone is saying how much better LTE is than WiMax because of its better building penetration & lower build out costs. Being on 700Mhz here in the USA, it will require ~1/4th of the equipment vs WiMax to get the same coverage area & building penetration.
Thats fine & dandy, until you talk global roaming. See, in the EU, LTE is actually slated for the 2.6Ghz channel, and WiMax is still on 2.5Ghz. So here in the USA, LTE probably does have an advantage coverage & cost wise to carriers, but it also hamstrings them in multiple ways. In Europe, with it on the 2.6 channel it will actually be on par if not slightly worse than WiMax coverage & penetration wise. It will also cost about the same to roll out.
Roaming:
Obviously being on 700Mhz here in the USA, people will be able to roam between Verizon & AT&T, and anyone else on that channel. The problems come when you go overseas. As mentioned above, in Europe LTE is on a completely different freq than here, so global roaming without multi-band radios is pretty much out. This increases cost for devices.
Clear will be using 2.5Ghz spectrum for LTE (should they switch) so they should be able to roam globally, although they may not. This is a HUGE advantage.
Size DOES matter!
No, you pervs, not like that.
Because of the vast spectrum that Sprint holds, they can take advantage of it and provide much higher throughput over the same technology. While VZW & AT&T are limited spectrum wise because of using 700, Sprint isn't. Most LTE carriers in the US can only offer 10Mhz channels for upload & download. This leads to the weak (relatively) speeds of 5-12Mbps down Verizon is promising at launch.
On the other hand, Clear can take advantage of all that spectrum & offer channels of anywhere from 20-40Mhz Actually, they are using paired 20Mhz channels for a total of 40Mhz throughput per connection on LTE, providing FOUR TIMES the throughput of other networks. That's how they can promise speeds of 20-70Mbps downlink. Chalk another one up for Clear.
Is It True 4G?
It depends. LTE is a true 4G standard no matter how you slice it.
WiMax-16e is what Clear currently has rolled out. It is NOT true 4G. It has most of the qualifications (full IP backbone network, etc) but it doesn't meet speed requirements. Fixed you have to (theoretically) be able to provide 1Gbps downlink & 100Mbps mobile to qualify as 4G. LTE (if you use the right frequencies & have the spectrum to provide wide enough channels) can do that. 16e can't. Enough said.
BUT! WiMax-16m (WiMax2, as it's been branded) is a true 4G standard. It was finalized as a standard this summer, and equipment providers (Alcatel-Lucent, Motorola, etc) are expected to be able to provide backend gear for it by early next year & user devices by the end of next year. This is where WiMax really can compete with LTE. Think of the WiMax to WiMax2 upgrade as the HSPA to HSPA+ rollouts going on on T-Mobile & Bell/Rogers in Canada. Another plus for WiMax 2 (16m) is that it is completely backward compatible with WiMax (16e), again just like HSPA devices are compatible with HSPA+ networks.
Other Advantages:
LTE does offer a standardized voice transmission method, whereas WiMax (2) doesn't. This is a big thing for carriers, and I'm not going to say it doesn't matter, because it does. Sprint & any other WiMax provider worldwide will have to maintain their GSM or CDMA2000 networks to keep providing voice. That also means that mobile devices will have to provide dual-mode CDMA/WiMax or GSM/WiMax chips to stay connected. This could change. They could implement it down the road, but in its current state, WiMax can't do it. OTOH, EvDo devices also have to be dual mode, since the EvDo standard that CDMA carriers chose couldn't do voice, whereas different techs (such as EvDv from Qualcomm) could do both. So it's not really new to many of them, just something to consider.
Wrapup (my opinion):
Both are great technologies if done right. Right now, WiMax has the advantage because its more rolled out & it has the spectrum available to operators to provide higher speeds. That could easily change in the future, especially if more telcos can provide larger channels for LTE to reach its full speeds. WiMax 2 could also be a game changer in the industry.
In all actuality, the technologies are almost identical. It isn't like HD-DVD vs BluRay, where there was a clearcut winner. There won't be that here, both are excellent technologies & will continue to coexist. Much like Cable vs. DSL in the landline world. WiMax offers great technology as wireless backhaul & last mile delivery for rural broadband, but is also becoming a good access technology for 4G wireless. LTE was designed by carriers & for carriers as the natural progression to HSPA to carry voice as well as data. It is an access network at heart. WiMax is more flexible, it can do access or backhaul. It really comes down to carrier choice & what freqs they have available to them.
Hope this helps clear some stuff up. I've seen a lot of uneducated posts about this & it really annoys me.
EDIT - More info:
Topography is another huge factor. For some markets LTE will be a better choice, and for others WiMax will. Again it comes down to what freqs the telcos have available to deploy on.
Also, I forgot to clarify a couple more things about Clear's LTE trials. I mentioned that they were using TD-LTE & FDD-LTE (a good article on them here). A key difference is that TD is able to be used on the same unpaired freqs as WiMax is, so where carriers that only had access to the unpaired freqs before had to go with WiMax can now go with a variation of LTE (although still not the same as the normal carriers). FDD is what most telcos already have access to today, so they are building on it. Clear has both. Another win. Clear's TD-LTE trials are using paired 10Mhz channels for a total of 20Mhz, which will provide speeds potentially faster than WiMax but slower than FDD-LTE. Their FDD-LTE trials will be using paired 20Mhz channels for 40Mhz total.
Several more good articles on the subject here, here, and here.
WiMax is currently seen as the predominant tech of choice in India because of the abundance of unpaired spectrum available there. Good articles on that here & here. Intel is a huge backer of WiMax in India as well as the US, and are offering SoC's & laptop chipsets with WiMax integrated. They are also offering standalone Mini-PCIe WiMax cards. See more info on big WiMax players in the WiMax Forum group.
I'm trying to be as unbiased as possible here & give the (dis)advantages of both techs here. There are links in defense of both techs above, and I'm not a "fanboy" for either one.
Reserved just in case.
Also, vote this to the front page if you think it's educational!
Wow, that was really well written. Bookmarked for future reference, and to share in other forums or blog posts/comments
WiMax carriers wouldn't necessarily have to carry dual-mode for voice. Why couldn't they just use a VoIP technology? Latency on WiMax in good coverage is low enough to sustain a stable and high-quality VoIP call. Even SIP traffic through a carrier-specific VPN tunnel would probably be sufficient to handle any voice demand.
afazel said:
WiMax carriers wouldn't necessarily have to carry dual-mode for voice. Why couldn't they just use a VoIP technology? Latency on WiMax in good coverage is low enough to sustain a stable and high-quality VoIP call. Even SIP traffic through a carrier-specific VPN tunnel would probably be sufficient to handle any voice demand.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's true, but like I said, there's no STANDARD for voice on WiMax. Carriers can implement their own, but it could vary between networks. As far as the IEEE standards are concerned there is no voice. On the other hand, LTE has a standard across networks.
Spectrum doesn't mean **** if you can't get connected inside. Many, many places this will be a huge issue. Even if you can get connected the signal loss will hamper bandwidth so again whats the point?
LTE is going to be the clear winner. Clear will eventually switch and the only losers will be handsets like the EVO and Eipc for anyone that is still using them with 4g in mind because inside of a couple of years I doubt they will continue to work (4g).
Aridon said:
Spectrum doesn't mean **** if you can't get connected inside. Many, many places this will be a huge issue. Even if you can get connected the signal loss will hamper bandwidth so again whats the point?
LTE is going to be the clear winner. Clear will eventually switch and the only losers will be handsets like the EVO and Eipc for anyone that is still using them with 4g in mind because inside of a couple of years I doubt they will continue to work (4g).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Youre spectrum point is only valid in the US since in other regions LTE is on a higher freq. Plus my spectrum points were all about LTE. WiMax is currently using 10Mhz channels too. I was saying that Clear's FDD-LTE trials will use 40Mhz channels. Their TD-LTE trials will be using paired 10Mhz channels for 20Mhz total.
Also, if Sprint builds the network properly (ie densely enough) then you won't have connection problems. That's the catch here in the US & why LTE will win here, but in other regions its still a fair fight.
While it's nice knowing our phones are just that little bit more "future proof",by the time any carrier has respectable lte /wimax2 networks, the majority of us would have already been upgraded to the next big thing which would have those capabilities out of the box.
from what i remember
almost all the carriers in the world (80+%) are planning to use LTE
sprint seems like the only major one that uses wimax (and planning to convert to LTE )
cLOUDFAn said:
from what i remember
almost all the carriers in the world (80+%) are planning to use LTE
sprint seems like the only major one that uses wimax (and planning to convert to LTE )
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually Yota in Russia is a major WiMax/GSM carrier & several telcos in Japan (can't remember names) are both behind WiMax. There are also several in India, which is one of the larger markets in the world.
Both will coexist happily I think. A major part of Clear's LTE trials this year are to test performance of providing both LTE & WiMax over the same channel. Another thing to consider is topography. I don't remember where I saw it but I saw a graphic that showed the range of 2.5 WiMax vs 700 LTE. Obviously the LTE provided better range, but depending on the topography WiMax can be a better option because it provides better service in dense urban areas if the network is planned right (less than 15dBm of loss from structures is a good level, 19 or 20 is the norm)
wimax in ugunda as well cool story, anyways I have a Q, the dual voice data thing, are you saying wimax wont support making calls and surfing net at the same time in the future and LTE will?
crakerjaks said:
wimax in ugunda as well cool story, anyways I have a Q, the dual voice data thing, are you saying wimax wont support making calls and surfing net at the same time in the future and LTE will?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, WiMax & LTE both support simultaneous voice & data. LTE supports it the right way, just like WCDMA/HSPA support it now.
WiMax supports it but only because it requires a dual mode radio (one for voice/EvDo, one for WiMax)
What I said means that if you have JUST an LTE connection (IE no 2G/3G/etc fallback network at all) you can make a phone call. If you have JUST a WiMax connection with no fallback network you can't make a call.
IE: WiMax is currently a data only network, like when T-Mobile launched their 3G network there was no voice coverage. Sprint could add it down the road (and probably will, if they don't switch to LTE) by using as the other poster said one of several possible VoIP options to deliver calls. LTE also uses VoIP as their call standard, since its a completely IP based backbone network like WiMax.
Aridon said:
Spectrum doesn't mean **** if you can't get connected inside. Many, many places this will be a huge issue. Even if you can get connected the signal loss will hamper bandwidth so again whats the point?
LTE is going to be the clear winner. Clear will eventually switch and the only losers will be handsets like the EVO and Eipc for anyone that is still using them with 4g in mind because inside of a couple of years I doubt they will continue to work (4g).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats true. Wimax has rolled out in Salt Lake City and its pretty much useless. It works on the main streets but as soon as you go off those,it fades fast. Inside buildings,you can rarely get a signal. It may get better,but right now the line of sight characteristics of the 2.5ghz signals are really a problem and Im not yet convinced that they can put in enough towers to overcome it.
Great OP !
...as an european, I am waiting for a nice LTE device
Great post so far - enjoying it very much.
What are your thoughts on the current Sprint WiMAX? Do you guys think the cities that are live will be kept the way they are? I remember reading somewhere when most cities are live Sprint will go back and improve the older cities so people can get more of a consistent signal. Its not WiMAX perse, its Sprint ATM.
Anybody know the energy efficiency (on the users end) of LTE, WiMax, and even HSPA+? WiMax is great even in it's US infancy, ~100 ping + 6-10Mbps down for me, but it's so much more energy inefficient compared to 3G that it's only something that I turn on if I want to tether and can connect my EVO to a power source.
Now compare that to the iPhone 4 which I also have. I don't think it's a HSPA+ phone but it can still take advantage (albeit not fully) of it if the signal is there. So I end up getting around the same ping and 4 Mbps and change on the down link. Now the thing that interests me the most is that it doesn't seem to effect the battery life as much if at all. So I actually get to enjoy the increased speed. Of course, I don't know by how much, if at all, this is effected if the phone is HSPA+ capable (20Mps+).
I know WiMax is very similar to WiFi, and we all know that WiFi is a lot nicer to the battery than 3G. So is WiMax's battery hogging maybe related to the poor coverage and can possibly be significantly improved when there's more coverage? Is anybody really, really near a tower and feel a difference?
What about LTE? Anybody from Sweden (or any other place that has LTE rolled out) here?
Edit: Now that I think of it, wouldn't LTE be better in this regard since it only has to power one radio for both voice/data?
Award Tour said:
Anybody know the energy efficiency (on the users end) of LTE, WiMax, and even HSPA+? WiMax is great even in it's US infancy, ~100 ping + 6-10Mbps down for me, but it's so much more energy inefficient compared to 3G that it's only something that I turn on if I want to tether and can connect my EVO to a power source.
Now compare that to the iPhone 4 which I also have. I don't think it's a HSPA+ phone but it can still take advantage (albeit not fully) of it if the signal is there. So I end up getting around the same ping and 4 Mbps and change on the down link. Now the thing that interests me the most is that it doesn't seem to effect the battery life as much if at all. So I actually get to enjoy the increased speed. Of course, I don't know by how much, if at all, this is effected if the phone is HSPA+ capable (20Mps+).
I know WiMax is very similar to WiFi, and we all know that WiFi is a lot nicer to the battery than 3G. So is WiMax's battery hogging maybe related to the poor coverage and can possibly be significantly improved when there's more coverage? Is anybody really, really near a tower and feel a difference?
What about LTE? Anybody from Sweden (or any other place that has LTE rolled out) here?
Edit: Now that I think of it, wouldn't LTE be better in this regard since it only has to power one radio for both voice/data?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its the phone not the network, really. ****ty battery life only gets ****tier when you are searching for a weak signal.
werxen said:
Its the phone not the network, really. ****ty battery life only gets ****tier when you are searching for a weak signal.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, but you have imagine that there are battery differences between LTE, WiMax, and HSPA+; just as there is between "2G", "3G", and WiFi
In Europe at least, LTE is pushed by a much stronger lobby and will be THE 4G standard.
It's already being deployed in Japan as well and will be in the USA. I think this is the next worldwide standard, so the prices will go down and that will leave only minor networks to Wimax as a mobility technology.
Wimax is already used in some places as a fixed internet acces (no mobility, only fixed wireless).
In France, I don't see LTE happening before 2013 because there have been many investments in the WCDMA networks so they will use HSPA+ to push and perfect the 3G network before eventually switching to LTE.
I found in the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) website a diagram about different telecom generations:
{
"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"
}
From: http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/imt-2000/Revised_JV/IntroducingIMT_item3.html
So the WiMAX IEEE 802.16e (and f) and LTE (3GPP Release 9) can be considered as "3.9G".
The ITU has selected two technologies for the 4G (IMT-Advanced) which are the WiMAX IEEE 802.16m and LTE-Advanced (3GPP Release 10) [url=http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/27_series/27.007/27007-a00.zip](1st Rev. zip file)[/url].
I would add also that Qualcomm who is the inventor of the CDMA technology may prefer LTE-Advanced (3GPP Release 10) over WiMAX IEEE 802.16m.
Here, a pdf presentation about the benefits of the LTE-Advanced from his website:
http://www.qualcomm.de/documents/files/lte-advanced-benefits.pdf
More info about the 4G (IMT-Advanced):
http://www.itu.int/itunews/manager/display.asp?lang=en&year=2008&issue=10&ipage=39&ext=html
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's talking more about some of the glorious numbers it's seeing as it drives around the greater Phoenix area testing its trial LTE network, and we think one specific quote pretty much sums it up: "this isn't your grandfather's LTE." That statement was made in comparing Clearwire's results -- bumping up against 90Mbps in some configurations -- to the 5 to 12Mbps that Verizon is quoting for its first-gen commercial LTE network, though they're quick to note in the same breath that Clear's test is on an unloaded network without a deluge of users all trying to stream professional sports games in HD at the same time. What does that all mean for Clear's existing WiMAX deployment? The company's as noncommittal on the subject as ever, saying only that WiMAX continues to be "best for the customer" today but that "potentially in the future that could be WiMAX and LTE." Needless to say, though, they're taking the LTE option pretty seriously if they're dumping serious cash into testing it out and publishing the results. Follow the break for Clear's teaser footage -- wouldn't you like access to this action?
Taken from
http://m.engadget.com/default/artic...for-the/&category=classic&icid=eng_latest_art
I watched this video. If this is the future of clear....its bright. And they have enough spectrum for it. 89 MB Down in a car.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
http://www.clear.com/blog/size-matters/
Clear trials..
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
LTE and WiMAX are both good protocols but it's the spectrum that is hurting wimax at the moment. If the FCC would open up VHF or UHF to them then either would be so fast that speed would be a non issue.
I would like to know how Sprint is going to respond to the concerns of their new subscribers. I'm sure that people who bought in to the Wimax 4G movement are concerned about the pricey phones that are sure to lack in capability when the next generation of 4G hits Sprint. Sprint has definitely made bad choices in business and this could be the next big blunder.
Sprint's problem isn't LTE or WiMax, both are very similar technologies. Sprint is deploying 4G on a very high frequency, 2.5GHz I believe, which means that building penetration will be a problem. Verizon has 700mhz spectrum, which is much better at building penetration regardless of whether it's used with LTE or WiMax.
alex2792 said:
Sprint's problem isn't LTE or WiMax, both are very similar technologies. Sprint is deploying 4G on a very high frequency, 2.5GHz I believe, which means that building penetration will be a problem. Verizon has 700mhz spectrum, which is much better at building penetration regardless of whether it's used with LTE or WiMax.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
WiMax isn't a problem per se but it definitely isn't as good of a mobile phone solution as LTE is.
Re: Spectrum - Sprint is discontinuing their IDEN network which runs on the 800 MHz band. That opens up some possibilities for Sprint and LTE.
i sure hope sprint has a good fair solution for their current 4G clients that have spent good $$ for their hardware.
Maybe that is why they have been making us pay the $10fee a month.. this help pay for the next gen phone ... they will have to give to us. ok ok ok.. i can dream!
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.
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.