Database Users

Clear bullish on LTE trial results, says WiMAX is 'best for the customer' right now

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!

Will 3G become faster as more people jump to 4G?

Just a question I was wondering as I read reviews on the Thunderbolt, a point was made about how speedy Verizon's LTE network was but they said speeds would fluctuate as more people got the service available in their area and more 4G eligible phones were running.
So that leaves me to this, as more people start the shift to "4G" in whatever form the carriers want to call it, will the carrier's 3G networks see an increase even if minor in speed as less people will be using the 3G services?
This is in mind of people like me who will not see a 4G phone anytime soon for whatever reason, contract not even close, 4G not available, etc.

i am on 3g and i get about 4.50 mbps some time even 5 mbps that is after 12:00 am day time is not that bad and i think it will get better then this

This depends on how many people are going to switch and how conjested the tower was to begin with.
If you aren't being throttled (ATT anyway), I get around 3 down and 1 up here in Tallahassee.
In large cities where there are a lot of people on single towers or in buildings and wwhatnot, those signals are going to be a lot less.
If a LOT of people switched to LTE, we might see some change, but it is probably going to be a while.
Sent from my Nexus One using XDA Premium App

FLAC Vest said:
This depends on how many people are going to switch and how conjested the tower was to begin with.
If you aren't being throttled (ATT anyway), I get around 3 down and 1 up here in Tallahassee.
In large cities where there are a lot of people on single towers or in buildings and wwhatnot, those signals are going to be a lot less.
If a LOT of people switched to LTE, we might see some change, but it is probably going to be a while.
Sent from my Nexus One using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well at one point, my 3G was faster but now it seems slow, maybe I'm just too used to Wifi but I'm pretty sure I'm not being throttled, I never hit the 5GB soft cap.

I get 5.5 down and 2-2.5 up in San Francisco area Don't know it will make any change unless they change the upper limit on the soft cap.

I love love 4g but 3G is better

well, you really gotta understand the technologies (if any) behind "4G"
Tmobile and ATT are now using HSPA+ for their "4G" which in reality its just 3GPP evolved
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_HSPA
sprint is using Winmax I believe which is gaining popularity in some areas ( I believe Clear using that as well) and Verizon is using LTE. And even LTE doesnt meet the requirements to be called "4G"
Being described as a 3.9G (beyond 3G but pre-4G) technology the first release LTE does not meet the IMT Advanced requirements for 4G also called IMT Advanced as defined by the International Telecommunication Union such as peak data rates up to 1 Gbit/s. The ITU has invited the submission of candidate Radio Interface Technologies (RITs) following their requirements as mentioned in a circular letter. LTE Advanced should be compatible with first release LTE equipment, and should share frequency bands with first release LTE.
so in reality, all these 4G marketing is just 3G technology better optimized
the requirements for 4G were a bit too demanding ITU had to lowered them down

I'm aware that the current 4G technology isn't technically 4G although I've read the governing body lowered their requirements.
Sent from my Incredible with the XDA Premium App.

I guess it will not have any difference because it will be the same tower that houses both 3g and 4g...

ASiC79 said:
I guess it will not have any difference because it will be the same tower that houses both 3g and 4g...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Isn't it different signals though?
Sent from my Incredible with the XDA Premium App.

Clear Says It Can Achieve 90Mbps Downstream via LTE -- And LightSquared Is Involved

Interesting...
http://www.dailywireless.org/2011/03/08/another-rumor-lightsquared-sprint/
Looks like Sprint and LightSquared might be linking up to provide LTE over S's existing spectrum.
Meanwhile, in the same article, it seems that Clear is also looking at converting their towers to LTE base-stations, with the ability to deliver 90Mbps (in un-congested cells) downstream (the carrier in Japan that's getting the EVO said their WiMax network was going to deliver similar capability).
So, is it a done deal: Sprint to LTE (with some spectrum at 2.5GHz standardized around the world), with Clear's network augmenting and providing density?
Also interesting: Best Buy is buying wholesale access from LightSquared -
http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/23/best-buy-signs-up-for-lightsquareds-wholesale-lte-service/
Looks like a very fast, and very LTE future for S. Anyone up for an EVO 5LTE?

really interesting so their not using the 700 mhz band like verizon theyre using the 2.5ghz isnt that bad because it cant penetrate buildings as easily?

Halabeaster54 said:
really interesting so their not using the 700 mhz band like verizon theyre using the 2.5ghz isnt that bad because it cant penetrate buildings as easily?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Verizon has bought all the good spectrums
A drop of Chuck Norris's semen was placed on Android OS. We now have CyanogenMod.

Lightsquared I believe owns spectrum in the 1400-1500mhz frequencies. If they are going to use Clear's 2500mhz frequency to augment and help with capacity that sounds like a plan.
Edit - article states lightsquared owns spectrum in the 1600mhz frequency. That's still much better than Clear's 2500mhz, and Sprint was able to build their PCS network with 1900mhz frequency.
Sent from my ADR6400L using XDA App

That 2.5GHz band is apparently a world-standard. Maybe they have to bump up the wattage to get better penetration into dense buildings?
I was reading a couple of other articles and they are suggesting that Sprint might be talking about acquiring LightSquared. They apparently will be doing some network-sharing definitely.
http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/report-lightsquared-talks-sprint-network-sharing-deal/2011-02-23
And interestingly in this ^^^ same article, Dan Hesse is saying that actual field deployment of LTE in their eight largest metro areas will start in the "August timeframe." What??!!
That's interesting to me, because that dude BSOD over at the Android Forums said that the new EVO 3D would be WiMax- and LTE-capable. Makes me wonder if there's a little trick hidden up the EVO 3D's sleeve -- WiMax AND LTE capability -- that Sprint is being coy about right now...

TonyArmstrong said:
That 2.5GHz band is apparently a world-standard. Maybe they have to bump up the wattage to get better penetration into dense buildings?
I was reading a couple of other articles and they are suggesting that Sprint might be talking about acquiring LightSquared. They apparently will be doing some network-sharing definitely.
http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/report-lightsquared-talks-sprint-network-sharing-deal/2011-02-23
And interestingly in this ^^^ same article, Dan Hesse is saying that actual field deployment of LTE in their eight largest metro areas will start in the "August timeframe." What??!!
That's interesting to me, because that dude BSOD over at the Android Forums said that the new EVO 3D would be WiMax- and LTE-capable. Makes me wonder if there's a little trick hidden up the EVO 3D's sleeve -- WiMax AND LTE capability -- that Sprint is being coy about right now...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is rumored that the Evo 3D is both WiMax/LTE capable.

TonyArmstrong said:
And interestingly in this ^^^ same article, Dan Hesse is saying that actual field deployment of LTE in their eight largest metro areas will start in the "August timeframe." What??!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Haha, I just totally went to Wikipedia to see where San Diego was on the list of largest U.S. cities. #8.
I'm really hoping that Sprint does start to move to LTE soon, as it seems like the spread of WiMax has either slowed to a crawl, or completely stopped. Not really a point in having a 4G phone, if you're never going to get the 4G that your phone has a radio for.
That said, I really hope the E3D is WiMax/LTE...it's the only phone I've seen so far that I will trade my EVO for.

DirtyShroomz said:
It is rumored that the Evo 3D is both WiMax/LTE capable.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly. But no one is talking about it right now.
Kinda makes me think that Sprint has an "October Surprise" of its own planned.

once we get a tear down of this phone we can know for sure what it has in it.

blackroseMD1 said:
Haha, I just totally went to Wikipedia to see where San Diego was on the list of largest U.S. cities. #8.
I'm really hoping that Sprint does start to move to LTE soon, as it seems like the spread of WiMax has either slowed to a crawl, or completely stopped. Not really a point in having a 4G phone, if you're never going to get the 4G that your phone has a radio for.
That said, I really hope the E3D is WiMax/LTE...it's the only phone I've seen so far that I will trade my EVO for.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I hope Los Angeles gets it. Plenty cities got WiMAX before Los Angeles, which I found odd considering LA is one of the largest metropolitan areas in the country. Of course, LA is also very spread out, whereas other major metropolitan centers are more compact (see: New York City). Here's hoping for some lovely LTE on our new Evo 3Ds.

I'm still trying to figure out what all the hype about LTE is over. Sure Clear's spectrum sucks for building penetration and their bandwidth is way to small at 10MHz but how would using LTE make it any better?
This may be slightly off topic since I know light squared is bringing more spectrum to the table, but I'm seriously confused about it all.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA Premium App

xHausx said:
I'm still trying to figure out what all the hype about LTE is over. Sure Clear's spectrum sucks for building penetration and their bandwidth is way to small at 10MHz but how would using LTE make it any better?
This may be slightly off topic since I know light squared is bringing more spectrum to the table, but I'm seriously confused about it all.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lightsquared has a lot of Spectrum in the 1600mhz spectrum. With the rumors of them partnering with Sprint on the Network Vision/Project Leapfrog buildout, they will put their equipment on Sprint's towers. This helps with the speed of the build out, and building penetration won't be as much of an issue as 2500mhz Wimax. Most of Sprint's towers were spaced for 1900mhz (they didn't have 800mhz until acquiring Nextel), so I would assume 1600mhz LTE should be fine for indoor use.
Sent from my ADR6400L using XDA App

Yay lets achieve 90mbps in areas that already have 4G and not roll it out to the little guys who still can't get 4G(very populated area). Sprints network blows.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA Premium App

blackroseMD1 said:
Haha, I just totally went to Wikipedia to see where San Diego was on the list of largest U.S. cities. #8.
I'm really hoping that Sprint does start to move to LTE soon, as it seems like the spread of WiMax has either slowed to a crawl, or completely stopped. Not really a point in having a 4G phone, if you're never going to get the 4G that your phone has a radio for.
That said, I really hope the E3D is WiMax/LTE...it's the only phone I've seen so far that I will trade my EVO for.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
totalanonymity said:
I hope Los Angeles gets it. Plenty cities got WiMAX before Los Angeles, which I found odd considering LA is one of the largest metropolitan areas in the country. Of course, LA is also very spread out, whereas other major metropolitan centers are more compact (see: New York City). Here's hoping for some lovely LTE on our new Evo 3Ds.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think the operative term is "their eight largest" metropolitan areas -- meaning the eight markets that have the most Sprint customers, regardless their place in the overall largest metro areas. I assume that Sprint's 8 largest markets are roughly similar to the largest metro areas overall.
Hopefully, we'll all be benefiting from dramatically faster mobile broadband speeds.

Sprint's 4G solution is at a crawl or complete stop, because that's exactly what happened. The rollout is at a complete stop, and both companies still are not at an agreement. The ones who are still committed to Clear stopped investing, and it's just a mess. Sprint wants Clear to join their Network Vision, which would save both companies billions of dollars. This is the holdup on Sprint's decision towards LTE. Lightsquared is ready to use their Network Vision, and will pay Sprint for it. Clear better make their decision quick, or other companies will help Sprint make the decision soon.
The 8 largest metropolitan cities that Hesse was talking about was their multi-mode towers, and nothing more. Sprint have "soft" LTE markets, but nothing close to launch. Clear is holding **** up.
As for the EVO 3D having Beceem's BCS500 chip, which will be the first of its kind and not even in mass production, is driving me up the wall. That and a firmware, not hardware revisions, will make their old 4G capable devices run LTE. People don't think for themselves anymore. MSM8660 is not LTE-capable or 1X- Advanced/SVDO ready, but if BSOD said it, it's true. I guess I have to find the secret Sim Card later on today.

Don't be so quick to jump on the Lightsquared bandwagon. They will soon be shutdown by the FCC and FAA if they can't solve the bleed over problem. Seems their tech interferes with GPS and WAAS receivers making them a danger to aviation and air traffic control. During tests an aircraft within 15 miles of their towers have had total GPS failure. They've been working on it for a while but haven't been able to fix it. Now they are trying to blame the GPS manufacturers, but it is a spectrum issue and the FAA may force the FCC to block the spectrum if they can't solve their noise bleedover problem into the GPS spectrum.

TonyArmstrong said:
Interesting...
http://www.dailywireless.org/2011/03/08/another-rumor-lightsquared-sprint/
Looks like Sprint and LightSquared might be linking up to provide LTE over S's existing spectrum.
Meanwhile, in the same article, it seems that Clear is also looking at converting their towers to LTE base-stations, with the ability to deliver 90Mbps (in un-congested cells) downstream (the carrier in Japan that's getting the EVO said their WiMax network was going to deliver similar capability).
So, is it a done deal: Sprint to LTE (with some spectrum at 2.5GHz standardized around the world), with Clear's network augmenting and providing density?
Also interesting: Best Buy is buying wholesale access from LightSquared -
http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/23/best-buy-signs-up-for-lightsquareds-wholesale-lte-service/
Looks like a very fast, and very LTE future for S. Anyone up for an EVO 5LTE?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Doubt sprint moves fully to a LTE only network anytime in the near future.
Check out this video with the Clearwire CTO discussing the LTE trials.
http://www.lightreading.com/video.asp?doc_id=205968&
He clearly talks about how they are looking at doing both. He also says their trails will not be done for a few more months.
The good thing is the speed he reports being able to get is outstanding!

a couple points of clarification;
Re in-building penetration at 2.5 GHz. This is a major downside to using 2.5GHz frequencies, but part of the advantage to network vision is that Sprint will be able to use various technologies at different frequencies. So they'll be able to run WiMax and / or LTE at the 1.9 GHz frequencies that are currently used for CDMA / EVDO, and eventually even at the 800 MHz frequencies currently used by the iDEN network (current PTT users will need to be migrated to next-generation PTT on CDMA before that spectrum can be used for other technologies. The upside to 2.5 GHz is the amount of Bandwidth Sprint's got there. Prior to the Sprint / Nextel merger, each company had enough bandwidth on it's own to run a nationwide 4G network at 2.5GHz (Nextel even trialed a Flash-OFDM based network for a while in 2003/2004, but the technology wasn't ready yet and the real-world performance was not any faster than 3G).
Regarding bandwidth, Sprint / Clear has an average of 120 MHz of bandwidth at 2.5GHz, not 10 MHz. Some of that may be Sprint's and some may be Clears, but my understanding is that most of that is owned by Clear as that bandwidth constituted the bulk of Sprint's investment in Clear. Either company should be able make use of plenty of spectrum at 2.5 GHZ for whatever purposes they deem worthy, assuming they can work out their pricing arguments. Some articles that came out a couple of weeks ago (I think one was in the Wall Street Journal, among other financial sites) made it sound like they're close to hashing out some sort of agreement, and that Clear will have the cash it needs this spring. Can't happen soon enough if you ask me.
And lastly, there's no way Sprint would move to LTE exclusively. The new multi-modal towers make it very easy to deploy multiple technology side by side. Since the network format will be decoupled from network hardware, running a new network on the same tower is as easy as pushing a software update out to the tower. There's no need to uninstall the old technology to enable new technology. Sprint's got too many 4G customers already on board to make them all migrate to a new technology, and Hesse has publicly stated that Sprint's future in 4G will include WiMax regardless of whatever else may be offered.

cruise350 said:
Don't be so quick to jump on the Lightsquared bandwagon. They will soon be shutdown by the FCC and FAA if they can't solve the bleed over problem. Seems their tech interferes with GPS and WAAS receivers making them a danger to aviation and air traffic control. During tests an aircraft within 15 miles of their towers have had total GPS failure. They've been working on it for a while but haven't been able to fix it. Now they are trying to blame the GPS manufacturers, but it is a spectrum issue and the FAA may force the FCC to block the spectrum if they can't solve their noise bleedover problem into the GPS spectrum.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you have any articles about the bleed over? I'd love to read more into this.

SilverStone641 said:
Do you have any articles about the bleed over? I'd love to read more into this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
dude who do you get your internet service from to get that speed in your sig? I know PSINET went under long ago in '01 i think so speedtest is reporting the isp wront on the result there.

Sprint to deploy 4G LTE network

Looks like Sprint's getting ready to deploy LTE. What does everyone think?
http://www.bgr.com/2011/06/17/sprint-to-deploy-4g-lte-network-with-lightsquared/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-17/falcone-s-lightsquared-venture-reaches-a-15-year-network-deal-with-sprint.html

Last i heard, LightSquared was told by the FCC they weren't allowed to broadcast because they were overpowering civilian and aviation GPS units. Has this issue been resolved? A 15 year deal ain't worth squat if you can't turn on the juice!!

SilverStone641 said:
Last i heard, LightSquared was told by the FCC they weren't allowed to broadcast because they were overpowering civilian and aviation GPS units. Has this issue been resolved? A 15 year deal ain't worth squat if you can't turn on the juice!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, thats what I'm worried about, I wish/hope its as easy as a change of a frequency channel.

I"m sure they will iron those wrinkles before flipping the switch.

It would be like Sprint to throw its weight behind a technology that is failed, different or inferior. WiMAX isn't exactly inferior to LTE, but the 2.5 GHz band it relies on most certainly is inferior to the 700 MHz band that Verizon's LTE uses.

Ok, so lets say they deploy this 4g lte network... what happens to their 4g wimax network? From what little I know about wimax and lte chipsets, I dont think it would be possible for a firmware upgrade to turn wimax to lte. What happens to clear? One important thing to remember is that I didnt actually read the article so these questions may already be answered. haha.
Although, if my evo became a 3g only device, I would actually be ok with that if they drop the $10 a month surcharge

ZachPA said:
It would be like Sprint to throw its weight behind a technology that is failed, different or inferior. WiMAX isn't exactly inferior to LTE, but the 2.5 GHz band it relies on most certainly is inferior to the 700 MHz band that Verizon's LTE uses.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Words straight out of my mouth.

is there a resource that lists open frequency ranges?

Could the new radio(SMR) thats in the evo 3d work on this frequency and be a dual wimax/lte combo?
Sent from my PC36100

"The company can use LightSquared’s network to lessen the load on its own network as data demand has skyrocketed, an issue that has plagued other carriers. "
It sounds like they will be using them for backhaul, I don't see anything about Sprint using LTE. Right now backhaul is what Sprint is lacking so this will be a good thing for not just 4G but 3G speeds.

Cloyd said:
is there a resource that lists open frequency ranges?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
here is a chart..
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.pdf

I assume any potential move to lte will address wimax's inferior latency?

Sprint end users will NOT use LTE most likely ever. Sprint (the provider service) will utilize LTE strickly for back haul only. This is a very good thing for us the end user, basically means to us that we will have lots of bandwidth on tap. Wimax offers up to 12MB d/l transport speeds which most of us probably never see anyway. I personally get 7-8 around Baltimore/Annapolis areas of Maryland and this will hopefully allows us to have the bandwidth assuming more towers are deployed for our cell connectivity. This is a very good thing for us and the sooner the better!

sounds like lte will come later on firat is evdo rev o then rev a then rev b then do then do advance then lte
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA Premium App

I have spoken to my sprint rep a lot about how Sprint works. He used to work for Samsung and distributed phones to carriers in the northeastern part of the united states. Because of this, he learned a lot about Sprint. One thing that he learned was that Sprint has the most bandwidth out of all the carriers, and it is one of the main reasons why theory data is truly unlimited.
Just throwing that out there.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA Premium App

xHausx said:
"The company can use LightSquared’s network to lessen the load on its own network as data demand has skyrocketed, an issue that has plagued other carriers. "
It sounds like they will be using them for backhaul, I don't see anything about Sprint using LTE. Right now backhaul is what Sprint is lacking so this will be a good thing for not just 4G but 3G speeds.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It talks about Sprint using LTE in the third paragraph of the Bloomberg article.
“LightSquared and Sprint will jointly develop, deploy and operate LightSquared’s 4G LTE network,” according to the letter. “Sprint will become a significant customer of LightSquared’s 4G LTE network.”

Yet more money wasted on Wimax and shoveled into another bad relationship (Clearwire) Stay comfy in number 3 because you're going to be seated here a while, Sprint. At the very least they woke up and realized LTE is the way to go.
However even after Clearwire's long gone. Those who already have Wimax 4g will still be supported until after their devices are long gone. The only ones who will be bit will be the ones that should have upgraded lone ago. Like the ones today who are still carrying around Cingular phones refusing to upgrade to AT&T So at least Sprint will keep their core customers happy to an extent.

Sprint desperate to jump into the LTE iPhone train next year?
Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk

What good is backhaul when the airwaves can't reach end users?
It's like having a download server capable of gigabit speed, along with an ISP who can deliver it to you. Except you're saddled with a 1991-vintage 10 Mbps ethernet card.
That's the problem I've been noticing with WiMAX. Sprint has one hell of a data network, but the airwaves used to deliver that network are congested and not well suited to the consumer's needs.

I wonder how likely it is that an upcoming Galaxy 2 or Photon 4G will be LTE / Wimax on Sprint...

HSPA+: Better than LTE?

In my opinion - T-mobile's faux 4g (HSPA+) is better (and I suppose AT&T has it as well, but AT&T sucks ) than LTE 4G, but I would like to know what you all think?
This thread is for the amiable placement of our opinions! I personally think that HSPA+ style technology is where the industry should be headed, but would like to hear other opinions!
I've put up my reasons for HSPA+ and will add reasons for both HSPA+ and LTE/real 4g as people weigh in. I'll try to give credit when I can to the original poster. So far, as I am a fan of HSPA+, I have no reasons for LTE/real 4g yet! I might get this moved to the Android General section eventually, as I think it would be interesting to see the overall viewpoint of the XDA Community!
Yes, I know that this might attract trolls/flaming, but lets all try something - don't feed them! Ignore them completely. This strategy has proven to work quite effectively. I think we could all get some insight from a good thread like this.
______________________________________________________________
Reasons for HSPA+:
1. So much cheaper for them to put into place.
2. Speeds (on 4g networks I have used - NY, Dallas, Portland, dozens of other places) are always north of 3 mbps down and 1 mbps up, all you really need for any kind of laptop tethering, and certainly more than you ever need for netflix on your phone, and definitely way more than you need for browsing sites on your phone (good websites nowadays even with plenty of pictures are small size).
3. It doesn't suffer from the constantly low signal issues of real 4g (i.e. no signal AT ALL inside of buildings - this is what I have seen from multiple people who have traveled with me - I have 4g when they have 2x or whatever the hell edge is for them).
4. Super cheap for our provider to upgrade, passing savings on to us in the long run - in some cases, all the tower needs is a firmware upgrade. At worst, fiber optics lines are needed in order to facilitate the faster speeds needed.
5. In "real" 4g phones, you have to turn something on to access your faster speeds? Really? I know, bit hypocritical coming from a guy who has rooted his phone and flashes roms, (for the record, I've only flashed G-lite after rooting!) but I bet the average consumer doesn't realize that they have to turn it on and never uses it. With HSPA+, it might not always be really "4G" when the icon says "4G," but at least we don't have to turn anything on - we just have to be in signal range! If you really want to know, you can get a widget (or modify the good ol' framework-res.apk ).
6. Furthermore, BATTERY. Need I say more? From the numerous people who have managed to get LTE signal I have traveled with, the BATTERY DRAINS LIKE WATER OUT OF A... SOMETHING WITH A HOLE IN IT. Ridiculous. Don't know about you guys, but even when I had low signal strength HSPA+ at work all day long, my battery would fall maybe 30% over 12 hours of light use on the stock unrooted rom.
7. Also, HSPA+ has freed up a lot of the 3G network for T-mobile - it is a fact that T-Mobile's 3G is now a bit faster than before. QUALIFIER - The same would technically apply to the real 4G networks, but remember, those networks see less time as users have to activate 4G on their phones to utilize 4G and therefore free up 3G.
Reasons for LTE/Real 4G:
skinien said:
- Theoretically, can achieve speeds faster than HSPA+
- LTE bands being used by at&t and Verizon are in the 700 MHz range.
I bolded the item that I feel is most important. The battery life issue will be a draw when LTE is more mature and chipsets become more efficient. However, the only comparable HSPA+ network to LTE is T-Mobile and they operate in the 1700/2100 MHz bands. The lower the frequency, the farther the signal can travel and the better the building penetration. The fact that the signal can travel farther means that carriers can upgrade/enhance networks faster and cheaper (less tower maintenance).
If battery life and speeds are equal, I want the best signal.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Can someone confirm that LTE does currently have better building penetration? I have not seen this happen to my friends with LTE, though my experiences certainly are not a large enough sample size. This question is raised in the question section below.
dhkr234 said:
-LTE eliminates the dual-protocol nonsense required for carrying a voice channel simultaneously with a data channel. A properly implemented LTE network will rely on VoIP services to deliver voice communications, maintaining ONLY a data network connection.
-LTE eliminates (at least it can...) the link between voice services and network provider. A proper LTE implementation will allow you to select your voice carrier separately from your data network, so you could rely 100% on, for example, google voice or voip.ms, the network provider is turned into a simple data channel.
Regarding the signal drop you mentioned in LTE, this isn't a problem with LTE, but rather a problem in the DEPLOYMENT. It does take time and money to put up the equipment and get a properly balanced network. There can also be issues regarding the utilization and availability of spectrum -- are those signal drops by chance associated with running LTE over AWS? Or are they running it on much more robust 700 MHz?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If the link between the voice service and network provider could disappear, that would be very interesting! The point was also raised that currently, because no voice runs over LTE, the 3G/2G/whatever radio has to remain constantly on in order to ensure that voice calls can be received/sent. This results in a faster drain of the battery, obviously, and may be a simple barrier to overcome.
______________________________________________________________
Questions!
The question still remains in my mind, however - is LTE (in its current state) still a huge battery hog even without both radios on at the same time? Because while I know as it matures, I'm sure radios may become more efficient - but you can only make things more efficient to a point.
dhkr234 said:
There can also be issues regarding the utilization and availability of spectrum -- are those signal drops by chance associated with running LTE over AWS? Or are they running it on much more robust 700 MHz?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
______________________________________________________________
Updates:
Some great responses here! I haven't checked back in a while but you all are putting out some really worthwhile stuff that has made me rethink things. I will keep my original opinions (should they one day change!) at the top, however, just so we have a full record of everything.
I am removing references to LTE as "Real 4G." I knew from the get-go that it was indeed not, but considering how far off that is from the cell phone market, I figured we might as well call it that. However now I am not!
I added current Questions/Updates sections.
I added some good reasons for LTE - I know these reasons have been listed more than once before, but these were put together the simplest! Keep giving your opinions, this is very useful data for people to know!

I totally agree with you, I've been tempted to move to an lte network but its all a money sucking strategy, yeah you get awesome speeds that make you drull but at the end you'll drain all that data package in what? 2 weeks if not less, since some people really download and abuse the network on their device, I rather have a steady HSDPA+ than a money/data sucking network
Sent from my HTC Sensation 4G using Tapatalk

Right now I'm on a wimax 4G network but sprint is going to switch to LTE soon like Verizon has and I heard the 4G is supposed to improve a lot more and cover a wider range on LTE. I'm hoping my next device will be LTE based so I can get good stong 4G coverage no matter where I go
I think LTE is only for cdma phones and HSPA is for GSM phones. I could be wrong but both Verizon and Sprint are cdma. I've used HSPA before and it's ok but nothing to really brag about. I can't really compare it to LTE because I have not owned a device that supports it yet.

sparksco said:
Right now I'm on a wimax 4G network but sprint is going to switch to LTE soon like Verizon has and I heard the 4G is supposed to improve a lot more and cover a wider range on LTE. I'm hoping my next device will be LTE based so I can get good stong 4G coverage no matter where I go
I think LTE is only for cdma phones and HSPA is for GSM phones. I could be wrong but both Verizon and Sprint are cdma. I've used HSPA before and it's ok but nothing to really brag about. I can't really compare it to LTE because I have not owned a device that supports it yet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nah, LTE is sim based (gsm) just like the rest. You're thinking of wcdma which is different (aka UMTS and up) but still gsm tech. CDMA/EvDo/WiMAX is a dead technology soon enough.
I agree, tmobile should just stick with HSPA+ until LTE tech is improved. They can roll it out slowly and is an easier upgrade (smaller leap than 2G to 3G) for them. It's just a costly one. I heard that they are selling their towers and leasing them back for a short term cash solution. Not sure if it's to pay off some impending debt aquired by DT or to pay for LTE upgrades for tmousa...

My suggestion is stick with HSPA+ (3.9G), skip LTE (3.9G), and go straight for LTE-Advanced (Actual 4G). Both HSPA+ and LTE are not technically 4G, they are just marketed as such. LTE is a much better network technology than HSPA+, but it's not all there yet. LTE is much more efficient in using the frequency spectrum. Also you can only do data on LTE, no voice at the moment. Not sure about LTE-Advanced features but I would assume you can do VoLTE-Advanced just how Verizon is planning VoLTE.

I will agree AND disagree with you. LTE is not directly advantageous to the end user but its benefits are passed down through the operators which will take a few years to become apparent. Its more a technical upgrade with the operators back end network and towers. I'm pretty sure we had the same thoughts when UMTS and HSPA started deployment.
LTE is a shift into a different mobile telephony architecture. LTE will be completely packet switched so in the long run, the infrastructure and tower implementation will be simpler. Using different frequencies and radio modulation, it probably wont be as simple as put an LTE base on an existing tower so it going to take a while to sort out coverage. The end users advantage comes from the more efficient spectrum use increasing capacity with better handling of devices when under heavy load. Frequency chunks are variable so operators can tweak speed / capacity depending on location or cell size. Radios will eventually mature with battery life becoming better with every generation. I have no experience with LTE so am not sure how calls / data is handled or battery life.
HSPA is a mature technology with plenty of real world experience, radio's and towers that have been tweaked over years for speed, latency and battery life. It is also relatively cheap to deploy as the back end connections already exist and the tower kit is "mass produced" shall we say. However, HSPA is quite inflexible requiring 5Mhz frequency chunks which may limit capacity in urban areas. Battery life on HSPA is achieved mainly by cheating, handsets sit idle at UMTS (3G) until data is transferred and often calls are dropped to 2G when possible.
Being from the UK, its probably going to be 2014 / 2015 until we see LTE as they are still "conducting trials" and the licences are scheduled for 2013 i think.
Please feel free to correct me or add to this, I just wanted to add my opinion to the mix.
Craig

sino8r said:
Nah, LTE is sim based (gsm) just like the rest.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Verizon is cdma, so how is lte gsm only??
Sent from my HTC Vision using xda premium

Spastic909 said:
Verizon is cdma, so how is lte gsm only??
Sent from my HTC Vision using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Verizon LTE phones also have CDMA chips in them. They use LTE for "4G" data and CDMA for voice and 3G data. They will be a GSM carrier once they drop 3G support and switch fully to LTE.

craiglay said:
I will agree AND disagree with you. LTE is not directly advantageous to the end user but its benefits are passed down through the operators which will take a few years to become apparent. Its more a technical upgrade with the operators back end network and towers. I'm pretty sure we had the same thoughts when UMTS and HSPA started deployment.
LTE is a shift into a different mobile telephony architecture. LTE will be completely packet switched so in the long run, the infrastructure and tower implementation will be simpler. Using different frequencies and radio modulation, it probably wont be as simple as put an LTE base on an existing tower so it going to take a while to sort out coverage. The end users advantage comes from the more efficient spectrum use increasing capacity with better handling of devices when under heavy load. Frequency chunks are variable so operators can tweak speed / capacity depending on location or cell size. Radios will eventually mature with battery life becoming better with every generation. I have no experience with LTE so am not sure how calls / data is handled or battery life.
HSPA is a mature technology with plenty of real world experience, radio's and towers that have been tweaked over years for speed, latency and battery life. It is also relatively cheap to deploy as the back end connections already exist and the tower kit is "mass produced" shall we say. However, HSPA is quite inflexible requiring 5Mhz frequency chunks which may limit capacity in urban areas. Battery life on HSPA is achieved mainly by cheating, handsets sit idle at UMTS (3G) until data is transferred and often calls are dropped to 2G when possible.
Being from the UK, its probably going to be 2014 / 2015 until we see LTE as they are still "conducting trials" and the licences are scheduled for 2013 i think.
Please feel free to correct me or add to this, I just wanted to add my opinion to the mix.
Craig
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Interesting - you have a good point here, especially when comparing the maturity of the two types of networks. From what I've been reading here and everywhere else, "real" LTE is clearly the more advanced tech but just needs time to develop and in the long long run will be better. Hm.

craiglay said:
Battery life on HSPA is achieved mainly by cheating, handsets sit idle at UMTS (3G) until data is transferred and often calls are dropped to 2G when possible.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No wonder my phone hasn't been staying on full HSDPA (or HSPA+) when it's on idle and only goes on HSDPA ONLY when I'm using it and idles at UMTS when I'm not. I was wondering about that lol. Oh well knowing how HSDPA and HSPA+ is, it's probably a lot easier to transfer from HSDPA to UMTS to EDGE to GPRS than switching from LTE to 3G and 2G connection types.

I skimmed thru and someone already said it:
LTE is not "Real 4G". As of right now, a tech spec for 4G does not exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G
If you consider that LTE is "Real 4G" then **** it, why talk about 4G? Lets talk about "Real 5G"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G

LTE(not 4g):
Don't have even a good card yet,
Still is not on total.
get signal lost sometimes
Speed is great but with the signal lost...

riahc3 said:
I skimmed thru and someone already said it:
LTE is not "Real 4G". As of right now, a tech spec for 4G does not exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G
If you consider that LTE is "Real 4G" then **** it, why talk about 4G? Lets talk about "Real 5G"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your 5G link don't have almost any new information.
Lets talk about what was asked in this thread.
Sent from my MadTeam Galaxy 5
using Tapatalk

riahc3 said:
I skimmed thru and someone already said it:
LTE is not "Real 4G". As of right now, a tech spec for 4G does not exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From the Wiki article:
However in December 2010, the ITU recognized that current versions of LTE, WiMax and other evolved 3G technologies that do not fulfill "IMT-Advanced" requirements could nevertheless be considered "4G", provided they represent forerunners to IMT-Advanced and "a substantial level of improvement in performance and capabilities with respect to the initial third generation systems now deployed.

redpoint73 said:
From the Wiki article:
However in December 2010, the ITU recognized that current versions of LTE, WiMax and other evolved 3G technologies that do not fulfill "IMT-Advanced" requirements could nevertheless be considered "4G", provided they represent forerunners to IMT-Advanced and "a substantial level of improvement in performance and capabilities with respect to the initial third generation systems now deployed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
in othewords, it's akin to saying, "i'll let you call it 4G as long as you promise to make your technology reach the original specifications. Pinky swear k?"

mputtr said:
in othewords, it's akin to saying, "i'll let you call it 4G as long as you promise to make your technology reach the original specifications. Pinky swear k?"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Really, there are saying "you can call it 4G as long as its better than 3G".
I agree its BS, and the ITU obviously caved to industry pressures. But based on this statement HSPA+ and WiMAX are technically "4G".

craiglay said:
Battery life on HSPA is achieved mainly by cheating, handsets sit idle at UMTS (3G) until data is transferred and often calls are dropped to 2G when possible.
Craig
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Suits me just fine - use the best available tool for the job, that's what I say! Voice calls and texts don't require a battery-sucking HSPA connection to work well

Where I live it's tmo 4g, or nothing. Literally there is no other 4g for my region. Nuff said

redpoint73 said:
Really, there are saying "you can call it 4G as long as its better than 3G".
I agree its BS, and the ITU obviously caved to industry pressures. But based on this statement HSPA+ and WiMAX are technically "4G".
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yup, i was pretty annoyed when the ITU caved to corporate pressure because they needed to rebrand 3G into something new...
Oh well.. I still call today's 4G standards as FauxG. probably wont consider it 4g until they meet the original requirements.

I just have really one question on this hspa+ <> 4G etc. I read that t-mobile is working on bringing HSPA+ .84, which I guess is 84mbps (theoretical limit). So if a 3G speed actually is the same speed as the current 4G speeds does it really matter what they call it? I would prefer they advertise the speed, because for me it is the speed not the tech behind the scenes.