Related
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!
http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/25/fcc-unanimously-approves-lte-standard-for-nationwide-public-safe/
simple as that
The FCC's been looking to establish a nationwide public safety network since the early days of the infamous 700MHz spectrum auction, and while it never quite accomplished that task, the commission has made a small but important step -- it's unanimously decided that Long Term Evolution (LTE) will be the one ring that binds all future chunks of public safety radio band. Of course, this wasn't a terribly hard decision for the FCC to make, as major commercial cellular carriers and a number of regional public safety agencies have already invested in LTE equipment for the 700MHz band... and the decision doesn't yet specify a voice standard. All that's been decided upon is how those countless packets of data will float over the air. How will disparate groups of first responders communicate with one another in the event of a national emergency? That's what the organization is asking you right now -- feel free to contact the FCC anytime within the next 45 days with your proposal.
Show full PR text
FCC TAKES ACTION TO ADVANCE NATIONWIDE BROADBAND COMMUNICATIONS FOR AMERICA'S FIRST RESPONDERS
FCC Takes Significant Steps toward Solving Problems Identified by 9/11 Commission
Washington, D.C. – The Federal Communications Commission today adopted a Third Report and Order (Order) and Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) that will significantly advance communications interoperability for our Nation's first responders. The rules adopted and proposed in today's Order and FNPRM support the build out of robust, dedicated and secure mobile broadband networks that will enable public safety broadband users to share information, videos, photos and emails across departments and jurisdictions nationwide for day-to-day operations and during large-scale emergencies.
The Order and FNPRM requires all 700 MHz public safety mobile broadband networks to use a common air interface, specifically Long Term Evolution (LTE), to support roaming and interoperable communications and seeks comment on additional rules to enable nationwide interoperability. The FCC's actions today build on the technical requirements that state and local 700 MHz broadband waiver recipients are already subject to in the early buildout of their regional public safety broadband networks.
The FNPRM seeks public comment on, among other things:
The architectural vision of the network;
The effectiveness of open standards;
Interconnectivity between networks;
Network robustness and resiliency;
Security and encryption;Coverage and coverage reliability requirements;
Roaming and priority access between public safety broadband networks; and
Interference coordination and protection.
The deadlines for public comments and reply comments on the FNPRM are 45 days and 75 days, respectively, after publication in the Federal Registry.
Action by the Commission January 25, 2011, by Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 11-6). Chairman Genachowski, Commissioners Copps, McDowell, Clyburn, and Baker. Separate statements issued by Chairman Genachowski, Commissioners Copps, McDowell, Clyburn, and Baker.
For additional information, please contact Jennifer Manner, Deputy Bureau Chief, PSHSB, at (202) 418-3619 or [email protected]; or David Furth, Deputy Bureau Chief, PSHSB, at (202) 418-0632 or [email protected].
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
so THATS what LTE stands for... I thought it was a vzw marketing gimmick.
At the pace the government moves at it will be an antiquated standard by the time it rolls out anyway.
Feb 7th announcement "Watch us implode in seconds right before your very eyes"
1. Remove discounts
2. Change upgrade policy
3. Up-charge all smartphones
4. Gov drives a nail right between your eyes....lol
5. IMPLODE
Bye Bye
azfxstb said:
Feb 7th announcement "Watch us implode in seconds right before your very eyes"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lol
Screw David Copperfield and his disappearing motorcycles, Blain is going to make a national leader in wireless service vanish overnight*
*Feb MRC will not be prorated
*whether, and I doubt that would have any impact on Sprint and them being forced to go LTE.
Just because the government chooses to go LTE, doesn't mean every other company in the nation has to too. Government/World prefers Blu-ray, Microsoft still uses HD-DVD. Plus, the First Responders are a group who respond to emergency situations first. The fact that they'll be using LTE is purely for them to contact others in their group.
Both LTE and WiMax have their advantages and disadvantages. This is all just a repeat of DVD vs VHS, DVD vs UMD, and Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD bouts, just to name a few. However, I do see LTE winning. It is getting the most support, and now that the government will start supporting it 10 years from now, Sprint will probably make the move then.
What I hope is that when/if LTE does win, what will Sprint do to the users who have WiMax devices? Will Sprint replace the device with it's WiMax cousin? Or will Sprint give everyone the middle finger? What will the companies with LTE do if WiMax wins? Will Sprint throw a Nation-wide party if WiMax wins?
PsychoFox13 said:
What I hope is that when/if LTE does win, what will Sprint do to the users who have WiMax devices? Will Sprint replace the device with it's WiMax cousin?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They do not care about your wimax device it will be at least 1+ years old anyways..EOL dead gone later sucka
PsychoFox13 said:
*whether, and I doubt that would have any impact on Sprint and them being forced to go LTE.
Just because the government chooses to go LTE, doesn't mean every other company in the nation has to too. Government/World prefers Blu-ray, Microsoft still uses HD-DVD. Plus, the First Responders are a group who respond to emergency situations first. The fact that they'll be using LTE is purely for them to contact others in their group.
Both LTE and WiMax have their advantages and disadvantages. This is all just a repeat of DVD vs VHS, DVD vs UMD, and Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD bouts, just to name a few. However, I do see LTE winning. It is getting the most support, and now that the government will start supporting it 10 years from now, Sprint will probably make the move then.
What I hope is that when/if LTE does win, what will Sprint do to the users who have WiMax devices? Will Sprint replace the device with it's WiMax cousin? Or will Sprint give everyone the middle finger? What will the companies with LTE do if WiMax wins? Will Sprint throw a Nation-wide party if WiMax wins?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i would disagree considering most other providers will be using it. Sprint is very big in the gov sector...i assure you they will not miss out.
The thread title is misleading, as it seems to imply that Sprint will be required to move to LTE. However, Sprint will probably choose to move to LTE anyway. This might be one more reason why, but I doubt it will be the main one.
OP, there's one major flaw:
Sprint doesn't have 700MHz spectrum, last I heard. Of the Big Four, only AT&T and VZW got in on that cake. Oops.
drmacinyasha said:
OP, there's one major flaw:
Sprint doesn't have 700MHz spectrum, last I heard. Of the Big Four, only AT&T and VZW got in on that cake. Oops.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Right on the nose. This announcement is all but irrelevant to Sprint since they have nothing in the affected band.
I agree that they probably will go LTE in the long run, but I knew that when I got my phone. They have enough investment in WiMax and enough customers using WiMax devices that they're not going to just go and switch it all out overnight. I understand many of their WiMax base stations can do both with a firmware upgrade, so I suspect they'd roll out such an update and split the spectrum as needed in various areas while they release new LTE devices and get existing users transitioned over.
Remember that while most Sprint customers have dual-mode gear CDMA/WiMax, many of the Clear WiMax fixed install radios as used for home/small business service are WiMax only, so those would also all have to be switched out before they could disable WiMax in a given area.
tl;dr - Don't worry about it. By the time any forced switch is actually happening you'll be looking for a new phone anyways.
drmacinyasha said:
OP, there's one major flaw:
Sprint doesn't have 700MHz spectrum, last I heard. Of the Big Four, only AT&T and VZW got in on that cake. Oops.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Looking at the FCCs website they show 763 to 775Mhz & 793 - 805MHz are set aside for public safety services, my guess is that's what they are planning to use. Since Sprint's IDEN network is in the 800s I wouldnt think it would be too difficult to make them work on whichever frequency the FCC calls for.
http://reboot.fcc.gov/spectrumdashboard/searchSpectrum.seam
xHausx said:
Looking at the FCCs website they show 763 to 775Mhz & 793 - 805MHz are set aside for public safety services, my guess is that's what they are planning to use. Since Sprint's IDEN network is in the 800s I wouldnt think it would be too difficult to make them work on whichever frequency the FCC calls for.
http://reboot.fcc.gov/spectrumdashboard/searchSpectrum.seam
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
exactly! I mean we really knew it was comming but this is one of the many nails in the coffin
Justin.G11 said:
At the pace the government moves at it will be an antiquated standard by the time it rolls out anyway.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Reminds me the Congress's 1988 legislation about the metrication of the US.
Eh it'll be funny if and when sprint goes to wimax2. Then gov will be all what happened here. Thought lte was the best. Lol
Sent from the Evo 4G
xHausx said:
Looking at the FCCs website they show 763 to 775Mhz & 793 - 805MHz are set aside for public safety services, my guess is that's what they are planning to use. Since Sprint's IDEN network is in the 800s I wouldnt think it would be too difficult to make them work on whichever frequency the FCC calls for.
http://reboot.fcc.gov/spectrumdashboard/searchSpectrum.seam
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wait, but isn't this a good thing? If those are LTE frequencies, then those carriers that use them will have to give them up and/or have more interference from the gov't using them.
Since Wimax is out of that range, our signals are in a less crowded spectrum.
It's like if you bought frequencies in a certain range, then the gov't steps in and say, hey wait, we want those bands for our emergency units to communicate with each other. So, you have to give them some bands in the middle of your spectrum. That would suck.
Maybe I'm not understanding this clearly, but it seems like a good thing.
When the FCC get's involved in this kind of stuff it makes me feel really uneasy. Big government leave our phones and internet along
Bigjim1488 said:
When the FCC get's involved in this kind of stuff it makes me feel really uneasy. Big government leave our phones and internet along
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Pink Floyd....lawl
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
drmacinyasha said:
OP, there's one major flaw:
Sprint doesn't have 700MHz spectrum, last I heard. Of the Big Four, only AT&T and VZW got in on that cake. Oops.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sprint does have 700mhz spectrum. And it uses it fully, today. Remember Nextel?
I know it's hard to believe but Sprint easily has the most spectrum out of all carriers in the US.
Also, the fact that it's not 700mhz makes the network useless is a myth. Did you that 2.5ghz is the spectrum being used right now on LTE rollouts around the world? The US is pretty much the only country right now using 700mhz for LTE.
With a proper network buildout there's no difference from 700mhz to 2.5ghz.
zeuzinn said:
Sprint does have 700mhz spectrum. And it uses it fully, today. Remember Nextel?
I know it's hard to believe but Sprint easily has the most spectrum out of all carriers in the US.
Also, the fact that it's not 700mhz makes the network useless is a myth. Did you that 2.5ghz is the spectrum being used right now on LTE rollouts around the world? The US is pretty much the only country right now using 700mhz for LTE.
With a proper network buildout there's no difference from 700mhz to 2.5ghz.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not to familiar with this but doesnt 700 mhz offer better wall penetration as opposed to to 2.5 ghz? I would love decent wimax coverage indoors.
Welp, looks like it's going that way...
http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/15/sprint-evaluating-switch-to-lte-over-the-next-four-to-six-months/
...thing is, there hasn't been any new WiMAX phone announced this year, so either they're relying on riding that EVO and Epic wave to get new WiMAX customers, or maybe they do have something up their sleeve.
In any event, I don't see that many new customers signing up for Wimax, so to LTE Sprint will go. Now what do we do with our Evo at that point?
Other than the shifts but if they give me a choice to choose a new phone I'm in
Sent from my gingerbread evo 4g
It's like sprint is playing the "you can't get mad at me, i'm not touching you" while holding hand in front of face game with all these changes that piss everybody off without letting them go etf-free
Oh, they would have to provide us with a LTE phone if they do switch. At least offer us a pretty hefty discount. Otherwise, I see a huge class-action lawsuit headed over their way. I'd love for this switch to happen. WiMax is just not cutting it.
From the user comments of the linked article:
They're still going to roll out WiMax and then just add LTE functionality later on. Again, It's just a baseband card swap and a software upgrade. The phones would probably use a dual-mode WiMax/LTE chip (like the one introduced last year by Beceem). Sprint did a pretty good job of future-proofing their network and WiMax was a better/cheaper choice for "4G"... Verizon was having some major 3G/4G handoff issues in mid-December and there's still no word of that being resolved. That's a major issue for Big Red and could slow or kill LTE adoption (imagine having to either wait about 2 minutes or even having to reboot your phone whenever you go from 4G back to 3G). I'm not even getting into AT&T and Verizon's LTE spectrum limitations.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
m4rk0358 said:
From the user comments of the linked article: They're still going to roll out WiMax and then just add LTE functionality later on. Again, It's just a baseband card swap and a software upgrade. The phones would probably use a dual-mode WiMax/LTE chip (like the one introduced last year by Beceem). Sprint did a pretty good job of future-proofing their network and WiMax was a better/cheaper choice for "4G"... Verizon was having some major 3G/4G handoff issues in mid-December and there's still no word of that being resolved. That's a major issue for Big Red and could slow or kill LTE adoption (imagine having to either wait about 2 minutes or even having to reboot your phone whenever you go from 4G back to 3G). I'm not even getting into AT&T and Verizon's LTE spectrum limitations.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But they would eventually have to actually flip the switch to LTE.. would they not have to pick one or the other?
As long as I got a huge discount on an LTE phone, I'd be okay with this. I like WiMAX, but for the dev community, LTE is going to be way better.
akarol said:
Oh, they would have to provide us with a LTE phone if they do switch. At least offer us a pretty hefty discount. Otherwise, I see a huge class-action lawsuit headed over their way. I'd love for this switch to happen. WiMax is just not cutting it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They're facing this scenario now, if they turn off the iDen network to use LTE. Some speculate that Sprint will lose a lot of money on this, but all they have to do is sell the spectrum that wimax is on now. T-Mobile would buy it...
AbsolutZeroGI said:
As long as I got a huge discount on an LTE phone, I'd be okay with this. I like WiMAX, but for the dev community, LTE is going to be way better.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm also curious about the stuff I've been reading recently regarding how tightly controlled LTE access can be by carrier. Presumably the same restrictions would apply when tethering?
they will have pry my evo from my cold dead hands....
cyanogen/evervol-acies flavored gingerbread
drbadass said:
But they would eventually have to actually flip the switch to LTE.. would they not have to pick one or the other?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not really cause Wimaxx is just another channel or frequency. I mean they still have 2G/3G and now 4G, LTE will just be another channel that they will be able to accomidate
I say the only reason why the would make that switch is to keep up or ahead with the other carriers, t-mobile, att, Verizon so why not make the switch everyone gsm and running on sim chips mmm nice different phones on different networks sounds fun
Sent from my PC36100-EVO-using Tapatalk
drbadass said:
I'm also curious about the stuff I've been reading recently regarding how tightly controlled LTE access can be by carrier. Presumably the same restrictions would apply when tethering?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is what scares me. I know LTE is faster than wimax. (Job I work at sells both Wimax capable cards and LTE broadband cards now and I have installed both on computers, and speedtest wise, LTE was pulling 15 down and 1.5 up. Wimax in our area usually does 5-7 down, and 1 up.
But I don't want Sprint to be able to decide that what I do with the data access I am provided isn't what they think I should. The fact they can block sites, charge rates for sites, and so forth is very bothersome. It is the same crap certain ISP carries are looking to do.
It is this reason (among data caps) that I decided not to wait for the LTE thunderstorm phone(or w/e its called, im kinda tired ) and go with verizon over sprint.
I just with their Wimax was better in the Cincinnati, OH area than it currently is. Map shows I should have 4G outside everywhere but my backyard. And I barely get it in my front lawn where I should have a perfect signal.
Does anyone have a link to the story of how carriers can control access to the web using LTE. I read it but don't remember where. This is very disturbing that the carriers will have this much power over our web viewing habits
Don't worry fellow evonauts, they (probably) won't block your fetish adult entertainment.
But seriously, better speeds would be awesome, better coverage would be great but the capability to throttle or block what i want to do with my "unlimited" connection is unacceptable.
Here's some things to remember before anyone gets up in arms over this:
1. Between the Sprint, Clear, Comcast, and Time Warner brands there are millions of users on the Clearwire WiMax network, many of whom are in contracts based on WiMax devices or services. They're not going to just flip a switch in a few months and suddenly none of us have 4G anymore. I would not expect to see much further WiMax development beyond what's known about at the time of any LTE announcement, but by the time the WiMax network goes dead anyone posting here will have moved on to a newer phone.
2. There's no reason at all that this would need to be done as an on/off type switch. They install the hardware bits needed for LTE, then switch channels of their available spectrum over as dictated by utilization. AT&T's migration from TDMA to GSM after the Cingular buyout took years to complete.
3. The Evo Shift just came out and the Blackberry Playbook with WiMax has been announced and given a rough street date. Like most of us existing users, these users will likely for the most part be in contracts, meaning if Sprint does anything that significantly impacts the usability of those devices (such as terminating WiMax service) they'll need to either give us cheap/free upgrades to LTE phones or let us out of contract ETF-free.
tl;dr version: LTE is probably coming, since Sprint's rapidly becoming the odd man out in the 4G cell world, but there's no reason for current WiMax users to panic.
edit:
drbadass said:
I'm also curious about the stuff I've been reading recently regarding how tightly controlled LTE access can be by carrier. Presumably the same restrictions would apply when tethering?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ghodzilla5150 said:
Does anyone have a link to the story of how carriers can control access to the web using LTE. I read it but don't remember where. This is very disturbing that the carriers will have this much power over our web viewing habits
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Any ISP has about the same power. It has nothing to do with the last mile medium and LTE will change nothing about this.
Regarding tethering, there is no way to tell for certain by looking at the data transmitted whether a user is tethering or not when a modern smartphone is involved, since they're capable of doing anything a full PC could do with that data connection. Certain types of data may be suspicious and more likely to have come from a PC, but nothing could be proven to any reasonable standard as long as they have not loaded a "tattler" program in to the OEM ROM to explicitly identify tethering. Assuming a rooted phone, this could be removed and of course would not even be in AOSP-based ROMs.
Good rational post. Thanks.
wolrah said:
Here's some things to remember before anyone gets up in arms over this:
1. Between the Sprint, Clear, Comcast, and Time Warner brands there are millions of users on the Clearwire WiMax network, many of whom are in contracts based on WiMax devices or services. They're not going to just flip a switch in a few months and suddenly none of us have 4G anymore. I would not expect to see much further WiMax development beyond what's known about at the time of any LTE announcement, but by the time the WiMax network goes dead anyone posting here will have moved on to a newer phone.
2. There's no reason at all that this would need to be done as an on/off type switch. They install the hardware bits needed for LTE, then switch channels of their available spectrum over as dictated by utilization. AT&T's migration from TDMA to GSM after the Cingular buyout took years to complete.
3. The Evo Shift just came out and the Blackberry Playbook with WiMax has been announced and given a rough street date. Like most of us existing users, these users will likely for the most part be in contracts, meaning if Sprint does anything that significantly impacts the usability of those devices (such as terminating WiMax service) they'll need to either give us cheap/free upgrades to LTE phones or let us out of contract ETF-free.
tl;dr version: LTE is probably coming, since Sprint's rapidly becoming the odd man out in the 4G cell world, but there's no reason for current WiMax users to panic.
edit:
Any ISP has about the same power. It has nothing to do with the last mile medium and LTE will change nothing about this.
Regarding tethering, there is no way to tell for certain by looking at the data transmitted whether a user is tethering or not when a modern smartphone is involved, since they're capable of doing anything a full PC could do with that data connection. Certain types of data may be suspicious and more likely to have come from a PC, but nothing could be proven to any reasonable standard as long as they have not loaded a "tattler" program in to the OEM ROM to explicitly identify tethering. Assuming a rooted phone, this could be removed and of course would not even be in AOSP-based ROMs.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding something but I'm taking this switch from WiMAX to LTE as Sprint just has to change the cards on their ends and send us current WiMAX users a software update and we can use LTE.
rkjg24 said:
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding something but I'm taking this switch from WiMAX to LTE as Sprint just has to change the cards on their ends and send us current WiMAX users a software update and we can use LTE.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Half right. The Wimax chip in the Evo is straight Wimax...no LTE capability.
Since the wiMax is actually from Clear as far as i know, Sprints choice shouldnt really matter in the long run. WiMax wont disappear so your "old" phone should work, and Sprint actually having its own 4G network means more than likely better battery life and better connection/coverage
I called AT&T today to ask about the HSUPA update. (Dial 611) And after being put on hold a few times, they said that they would have a manager call me back. Around 8:30, I got a voicemail (no call) from the manager, but when I returned her phone call, I spoke with a woman who offered me a $25 courtesy credit. I pressed her on the update and she swore up and down that it would be released in April, although she declined to give me that in writing. While AT&T has very little credibility with me, I wasn't too proud to accept $25. I recommend making the call.
I also called att and asked about hsupa update (so called 4g speed). Thought I was not offered any credit, i was told that there is going to be an update this month.
I also asked about unlock code, rep said, officially att will provice unlock code in dec 11
sam_t610 said:
I also called att and asked about hsupa update (so called 4g speed). Thought I was not offered any credit, i was told that there is going to be an update this month.
Hsupa does not mean 4g speeds! Do some research people....i cant wait till after the update for hsupa and everyone is complaining that they dont notice a difference in data speeds.
Sent from my MB860 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Smallsmx3 said:
Hsupa does not mean 4g speeds! Do some research people....i cant wait till after the update for hsupa and everyone is complaining that they dont notice a difference in data speeds.
Sent from my MB860 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How would we not notice a difference in data speeds after HSUPA? The update will enable it on the phone. Speeds will increase. Period.
Care to explain?
wirednix said:
How would we not notice a difference in data speeds after HSUPA? The update will enable it on the phone. Speeds will increase. Period.
Care to explain?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think he is referring to the fact that the update will simply increase upload speeds, while dl speed will remain unchanged, which does not have a huge impact on normal use...unless you are seeding torrents via your cell data plan I suppose.
sam_t610 said:
I also asked about unlock code, rep said, officially att will provice unlock code in dec 11
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just wondering since I've never been to the states and I don't know about AT&T's history and policies.
Does that mean AT&T and Motorola has a kind of an agreement that unlock codes will not be given to users until a certain time passes? for exclusivity I mean.
I'm asking that because I wondered if the locked bootloader is also within the security package Motorola has provided to AT&T and maybe after that date Motorola can officially release the code.
Smallsmx3 said:
sam_t610 said:
I also called att and asked about hsupa update (so called 4g speed). Thought I was not offered any credit, i was told that there is going to be an update this month.
Hsupa does not mean 4g speeds! Do some research people....i cant wait till after the update for hsupa and everyone is complaining that they dont notice a difference in data speeds.
Sent from my MB860 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Pretty sure he knows that its not actually 4g, or he wouldnt have said "so called 4g" but thats what att calls it, so get off your high horse and read before you flame someone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
wirednix said:
How would we not notice a difference in data speeds after HSUPA? The update will enable it on the phone. Speeds will increase. Period.
Care to explain?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Honestly the change to your upload is not super notable unless you are sending mms. I have hsupa on this inspire and thats about the only time I see a difference.
Sent from my Desire HD using XDA Premium App
daveop said:
Honestly the change to your upload is not super notable unless you are sending mms. I have hsupa on this inspire and thats about the only time I see a difference.
Sent from my Desire HD using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Isn't HSUPA still disabled on the Inspire?
decoyd said:
Isn't HSUPA still disabled on the Inspire?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Easily remedied on the inspire.
Smallsmx3 said:
Hsupa does not mean 4g speeds! Do some research people...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is by no means a defense of AT&T's rather liberal definition of "4G," but if you want some research, this is what I came across while I was on hold. So if you're interested in having more than vague internet rumors to support your claims that AT&T isn't living up to its end of the bargin, here you go:
4G has no official definition.
ITU on 4G: http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2010/48.aspx
4G Americas on HSPA:
http://www.4gamericas.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page§ionid=247
I think the above link is actually quite damning of AT&T's actions with respect to disabling HSUPA on the Atrix. The group defines an HSPA network as one that is using both HSDPA and HSUPA (aka E-DCH) simultaneously. While 4G Americas is not a standards organization, they are a powerful telecom industry lobbying organization of which AT&T is an influential member. (see http://www.4gamericas.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page§ionid=160)
3GPP on HSPA+:
http://www.3gpp.org/HSPA
While HSPA+ is mentioned on the above linked 3GPP webpage, there is little mention of HSPA+ by name in the technological specifications --the specifications deal mostly with the constituent technologies that make up HSPA+. When HSPA+ is mentioned, from what I've read, it's mentioned as Evolved HSPA or something similar. HSDPA is frequently mentioned as it has been in the pipleline since Release 5, and HSUPA is only mentioned by this moniker in a few places --it is most commonly referred to as E-DCH or Enhanced Uplink.
I would love to see an official 3GPP release that explicitly says "For a network to qualify as an HSPA+ network, ..." but I haven't found something that helpful. The standard is a bit of a disaster because: (1) it's HUGE with over a decade of revisions, and (2) a large number of standards have been withdrawn. Many technical specifications that have not been withdrawn will mention a technology that is not being defined and reference a withdrawn specification. I'm not sure what that means for the non-withdrawn specifications.
Here are a few interesting things that I was able to pull up from the 3GPP site. Unfortunately, the specifications use a lot of "shoulds" and "mays."
From 3GPP TR 25.999 version 7.1.0 Release 7 (HSPA evolution Technical Report) "Evolved HSPA should be able to operate as a packet-only network based on utilization of the high speed data channels only (HS-DSCH, E-DCH and associated channels)."
If this is stating that an HSPA+ network must use HSUPA and HSDPA, clearly AT&T fails. Even though HSUPA is running concurrently on the network, as Atrix users can't use it, claiming the network satisfies the HSUPA requirement would be a little like your cable company claiming they provide you HBO because your neighbor has it.
Again, from the same document: "Evolved HSPA protocol architecture shall have minimum impact on [user equipment] especially in terms of complexity, to allow for easy introduction."
I think a compelling argument can be made that the loss of HSUPA functionality on the Atrix has caused problems with the Atrix working on foreign data networks. The Atrix should be able to operate on foreign HSPA+networks that are frequency-compatible, but the burden of proof is on AT&T to show that their modifications don't interfere with basic usage of the Atrix on other HSPA+ networks.
From 3GPP TS 25.319 version 7.8.0 Release 7 (Enhanced Uplink Technical Report) "The Enhanced Uplink feature shall enable to achieve[sic] significant improvements in overall system performance when operated together with HSDPA. Emphasis shall be given on the potential impact the new feature may have on the downlink capacity."
By forcing the uplink to travel on a separate network, not only has AT&T demolished the uplink speeds, downlink performance has suffered, too. I've seen speculation that the latency issues can, in part, be attributed to the fact that the uplink and downlink packets are out of sync, causing a lot of unnecessary data retransmission; although, I can't cite anything definitive to prove this.
From 25.999 "[The UTRAN architecture] should reduce user plane latency to legacy (R5,6 & 7) & beyond R7 terminals" and "reduce control plane latency to beyond R7 terminals and, if low complexity cost effective means can be
found, also to legacy terminals."
While only considering latency in one direction, on one fragment of the network, AT&T may have met these requirements, but in aggregate, latency has jumped by an order of magnitude. In 25.999, there is a table of target ping latencies, with HSPA+ being listed at <50ms. AT&T's solution is nowhere near that level of performance.
There is a lot of information in 25.999 regarding the deployment of an HSPA+ network into an existing HSPA network, but without details of how AT&T has structured their upgrade, there is little one can glean from this. Although, it is clear that HSPA networks are considered as separate entities from HSPA+ networks. For example, from 25.999:
"The potential HSPA Architecture evolution will be defined independently from enhancements in the HSPA radio interface (both layer 1 and radio protocols). Thus, the traditional UTRAN interfaces (Iu, Iur and Iub) shall be enhanced in order to support the features included in the evolved HSPA radio interface. However this does not preclude the possibility to introduce new features in the HSPA radio interface, in case they are beneficial mainly to one of the
architectures."
Here they are specifying that the HSPA standard will be updated so that the interfaces (Iu, Iub, Iur) between the various sections of the network can be shared by HSPA and HSPA+ networks. But its clear that HSPA networks are distinct from HSPA+ networks.
You can find these documents here: http://www.3gpp.org/Specification-Numbering
You have to submit your email address to download the documents, but it is very easy.
Courtesy credit
I got 25 Bucks credit too!!!
Jeez some people are so hard up for $25 that they'd jump through hoops on the phone with AT&T?
BTW I notice HSUPA when I take a photo and e-mail it, which I do fairly often. With ~2mbps upload it is about 10 seconds per pic, with 5x slower speed well you wouldn't want to be sending more than one at almost a minute each.
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 next week, 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."
By David Goldman, staff writerFirst Published: December 1, 2010: 8:42 AM ET
Cracked just had an article that talked about this too. I think it said the t-mo has the fastest 42Mbps but none of their phones can come close to using that much bandwidth.
Sort of from left field, but thanks for the copy+paste.
But the ITU has since conceded that lte, wimax and certain "evolved" 3g technologies can now be called 4G regardless of speed.
fearmonkey said:
Sort of from left field, but thanks for the copy+paste.
But the ITU has since conceded that lte, wimax and certain "evolved" 3g technologies can now be called 4G regardless of speed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
this. "evolved 3g" being hspa+.
uh. thanks?
By David Goldman, staff writerFirst Published: December 1, 2010: 8:42 AM ET
Your point?
Thanks for sharing the article.
PJcastaldo said:
Your point?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think the point is don't believe the **** on tv.
mrrobc97 said:
I think the point is don't believe the **** on tv.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Honestly.. not what i met by asking for the point of this.. Its faster than it what is was..they can call it what ever the F**K they want to.. no one really cares.