Related
http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/04/...re-its-mouth-is-announces-lte-trial/#comments
In case anyone doesn't realize, clearwire is owned primarily by Sprint and is used for all of Sprint's 4g services.
I thought they forgot about us when they were actually just waiting to announce we were getting both LTE AND WiMAX!
just came here to post this...
and just think...one poster said basically phoenis is a bunch of low lifes with no tech jobs...thats until i informed him that he was wrong.....very wrong.
good news either way.
Press Release
Clearwire Announces New 4G LTE Technology Trials Expected to Yield Unmatched Wireless Speeds in the U.S.
* Initial Tests Expected to Demonstrate Real-World Download Speeds Ranging from 20-70 Mbps, Significantly Faster than the 5-12 Mbps Expected from Other Operators in the U.S.
* New Trials to Showcase Unique Advantages of Clearwire's Vast Spectrum Holdings and Flexibility of Company's All-IP Network Architecture to Test Multiple Coexistence Scenarios Between LTE and WiMAX
* Unprecedented Technical Trials to Test Both FDD LTE and TDD LTE Using Commercially Available Equipment on One of World's Most Widely Used 4G Frequency Band by Global Operators
KIRKLAND, Wash., Aug 04, 2010 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Clearwire Corporation (NASDAQ:CLWR), a leading provider of wireless broadband services and operator of the largest 4G network in the country, today announced plans to conduct 4G LTE technology trials expected to yield unmatched wireless speeds in the U.S., and to test multiple coexistence scenarios between LTE and WiMAX radio technologies. The new tests are designed to showcase the unique capability of Clearwire's unmatched spectrum holdings and examine a variety of potential future technology combinations that could yield additional benefits to consumers and shareholders.
"Clearwire's unmatched spectrum and all-IP network make us the only service provider in the U.S. able to conduct tests of this nature and on this scale," said Dr. John Saw, Clearwire's chief technology officer. "As we have consistently stated, we remain technology agnostic, but WiMAX provides us with unique advantages to meet the needs of our customers today. Ultimately, consumers don't care about technical acronyms, but they do care about quality and affordable Internet services that work where and when they want, and that's what we're focused on delivering. Part of our technical due diligence at Clearwire is to be prepared to leverage a number of possible opportunities as we future-proof our network, and that's the goal of these tests."
The company expects the technical trials to demonstrate that Clearwire's 4G network can deliver significantly higher performance using LTE technologies than any other operator. Clearwire plans to conduct the tests in collaboration with Huawei Technologies, the same infrastructure provider which deployed the world's first commercial LTE network in Europe, using the same spectrum band and flexible base station platform that Clearwire utilizes in the United States. In the same vein, Clearwire will also be testing LTE on Samsung Electronics' common base station platform which it currently uses for its mobile WiMAX deployments. During the trials, Clearwire will collaborate with Beceem, and other partners, to determine the best methods for enabling end-user devices to take advantage of a potential multi-mode WiMAX/LTE network. Other participating vendors for Clearwire's technical trials are expected to be named at a later date. In addition, due to the global dominance of the 2.5 GHz - 2.6 GHz spectrum band, a number of large wireless operators are expected to participate with Clearwire on these tests. Additional details about those companies are also expected to be disclosed at a later date. The tests will be conducted in the fall and throughout early 2011 in Phoenix, Arizona.
Dr. Saw continued, "The 2.5 GHz spectrum band is universally allocated for global 4G deployments, so it has the potential to create one of the world's most robust ecosystem across billions of devices. We believe this commonality will result in a massive diversity of mobile devices and applications, at comparably low costs, due to unmatched economies-of-scale. In a 4G world, wireless coverage is important, but capacity is king. This capacity is a unique and sustainable advantage for Clearwire, thanks to our all-IP network and unmatched spectrum holdings."
Test Scenarios
Clearwire expects to conduct tests across three key areas:
* FDD LTE: Clearwire intends to conduct FDD LTE (Frequency Division Duplex) tests using 40 MHz of spectrum, paired in 20 MHz contiguous channels, of its 2.5 GHz spectrum. Clearwire expects to confirm the capability to produce real-world download speeds that range from 20-70 Mbps. This is expected to be significantly faster than the 5-12 Mbps speeds currently envisioned by other LTE deployments in the U.S., which will rely on smaller pairs of 10 Mhz channels or less.
* TDD LTE: Clearwire will concurrently test TDD LTE (Time Division Duplex), in a 20 MHz configuration, which is twice the channel size currently used in its 4G WiMAX deployments.
* WiMAX and LTE: Clearwire will also test WiMAX co-existence with both FDD LTE and TDD LTE to confirm the flexibility of its network and spectrum strength to simultaneously support a wide-range of devices across its all-IP network.
The company also restated its commitment to use WiMAX technology for its current 4G build plan. Since the company expects that a significant number of LTE devices will be available in coming years, Clearwire is conducting technical trials to determine how it could potentially add LTE technology to coexist with WiMAX.
Additional details about the new technology tests were not disclosed. General information about Clearwire is available at http://www.clearwire.com. For more information about CLEAR 4G service, visit http://www.clear.com or The CLEAR Blog http://www.theclearblog.com. You can also follow CLEAR information on Twitter at @Clear.
For press and broadcast: product images, video footage and company logos can be downloaded from the Clearwire website at: http://www.clearwire.com/newsroom. To subscribe to Clearwire's RSS news feed, click here.
About Clearwire
Clearwire Corporation (NASDAQ:CLWR), through its operating subsidiaries, is a leading provider of wireless broadband services. As of June 30, Clearwire's 4G network is currently available in areas of the U.S. where approximately 56 million people live and the company plans to continue to expand its 4G coverage. Clearwire's open all-IP network, combined with significant spectrum holdings, provides an unprecedented combination of speed and mobility to deliver next generation broadband access. The company markets its 4G service through its own brand called CLEAR(R) as well as through its wholesale relationships with Sprint, Comcast and Time Warner Cable. Strategic investors include Intel Capital, Comcast, Sprint, Google, Time Warner Cable, and Bright House Networks. Clearwire is headquartered in Kirkland, Wash. Additional information is available at http://www.clearwire.com.
That's insane , in a good way off course. To have both LTE And wimax, oh boy this is scary.
Sent from my Evo using XDA App
Time to start checking for 4g every couple of days - clearwire has a habit of turning up their wimax radios long before they actually release a press release saying it's fully turned on...
It will be a trial, but will it be an internal trial?
If I live in Phx, will I get those insane speeds with my Evo this fall?
That'd be mostly welcome =D
foueddyf said:
It will be a trial, but will it be an internal trial?
If I live in Phx, will I get those insane speeds with my Evo this fall?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You won't be able to use LTE (which they are touting as having the "insane speeds") with the Evo as it is WiMAX only, but when they say a trial, I assume they are referring to at least turning on Sprint device access to WiMAX.
holob said:
You won't be able to use LTE (which they are touting as having the "insane speeds") with the Evo as it is WiMAX only, but when they say a trial, I assume they are referring to at least turning on Sprint device access to WiMAX.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I thought the main difference between Wimax and LTE was software and not hardware, so with an update to our radio it should be able to access the LTE network.
About damn time.....
sweet, ill just be getting back there for school, this works out perfectly
Wait, I just realized this means absolutely nothing for us as of now. This isn't an official release of "sprint's" 4g, just an expansion of clear's infrastructure that's already here.
Sorry guys, until Sprint opens the doors on clear's 4g for us, then there's nothing to get excited about.
naw son
foueddyf said:
It will be a trial, but will it be an internal trial?
If I live in Phx, will I get those insane speeds with my Evo this fall?
That'd be mostly welcome =D
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The EVO is WiMax only. It's core processor is not configured for LTE's modulation and would require physical correction to activate LTE capabilities, as software would only "allow" it, but wouldn't make it happen. As far as WiMax availability, WiMax would only become availabe via a deliberate build-out of WiMax capable reception towers. These LTE trials are on a "minimum necessary" basis i.e. they don't erect many towers, won't include multimode WiMax/LTE towers, and it's possible the towers in these trials may only be used on temporary licensing and zoning permits that require their dismantling after a certain period of time or require costly re-certification. In addition, it'd be unwise for a cash flow ignorant company like Sprint/Clear to continue wasting money by erecting multimode LTE/WiMax towers when WiMax has already been proven enough that it should just be deployed. Multimode towers will continue to be more costly to run with the increasing demand for network capacity. If multimode towers are used just for a trial, it'd really be a spit in the face to those already paying for 4G speeds with the data premium required for having a EVO.
edtate said:
Wait, I just realized this means absolutely nothing for us as of now. This isn't an official release of "sprint's" 4g, just an expansion of clear's infrastructure that's already here.
Sorry guys, until Sprint opens the doors on clear's 4g for us, then there's nothing to get excited about.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I believe Sprint gets automatic access to clear's 4g when they turn it on. Press releases usually coincide for Sprint and Clearwire to the minute and Sprint is the controlling and majority shareholder for Clearwire. Once Clearwire turns on WiMAX service here, we should have access to it.
Also, if you notice in Clear's press releases they mention "wholesale" customers and that they get a "nominal" fee for them even if they aren't in a covered area. Basically, Clearwire gets an automatic chunk of that $10 fee we pay even if we aren't in a 4g area.
JBundy said:
The EVO is WiMax only. It's core processor is not configured for LTE's modulation and would require physical correction to activate LTE capabilities, as software would only "allow" it, but wouldn't make it happen. As far as WiMax availability, WiMax would only become availabe via a deliberate build-out of WiMax capable reception towers. These LTE trials are on a "minimum necessary" basis i.e. they don't erect many towers, won't include multimode WiMax/LTE towers, and it's possible the towers in these trials may only be used on temporary licensing and zoning permits that require their dismantling after a certain period of time or require costly re-certification. In addition, it'd be unwise for a cash flow ignorant company like Sprint/Clear to continue wasting money by erecting multimode LTE/WiMax towers when WiMax has already been proven enough that it should just be deployed. Multimode towers will continue to be more costly to run with the increasing demand for network capacity. If multimode towers are used just for a trial, it'd really be a spit in the face to those already paying for 4G speeds with the data premium required for having a EVO.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It says specifically that they are doing a multimode trial here and previous Clearwire and Sprint statements have indicated that they are looking to build out LTE (and possibly transition away from WiMAX completely eventually). The main reason for this is likely that all other nationwide cell providers in the US will be going LTE and Sprint does not want to be the odd-man-out with WiMAX. It's likely that they were leave both on for a while and transition to LTE-only eventually. Clearwire has the spectrum to leave both on at the same time for a while.
holob said:
It says specifically that they are doing a multimode trial here and previous Clearwire and Sprint statements have indicated that they are looking to build out LTE (and possibly transition away from WiMAX completely eventually). The main reason for this is likely that all other nationwide cell providers in the US will be going LTE and Sprint does not want to be the odd-man-out with WiMAX. It's likely that they were leave both on for a while and transition to LTE-only eventually. Clearwire has the spectrum to leave both on at the same time for a while.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the clarification. I stand corrected. Clearwire should be kissing Intel's ass for being able to go multimode. @Holob, maybe post what you observe this fall??? Looking forward to it here in Wisconsin. We have been given no forward looking statement of when to expect anything here.
holob said:
It says specifically that they are doing a multimode trial here and previous Clearwire and Sprint statements have indicated that they are looking to build out LTE (and possibly transition away from WiMAX completely eventually). The main reason for this is likely that all other nationwide cell providers in the US will be going LTE and Sprint does not want to be the odd-man-out with WiMAX. It's likely that they were leave both on for a while and transition to LTE-only eventually. Clearwire has the spectrum to leave both on at the same time for a while.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The results of the trial is the direction Sprint/Clearwire will go. Sprint wants to change its core network so either they will do LTE/WiMax, transition to WiMax 2 (no way that's happening), or fully transition their current WiMax to LTE. They are planning to upgrade current WiMax 802.16e to WiMax 802.16e Enhanced, which bridge them closer to WiMax 2, TD-LTE, and FDD-LTE.
Another issue is which version of LTE will Sprint/Clearwire chooses. If they decide to go with TDD-LTE, they will be still be the odd man out. The majority of the world is going with FDD. Different bands will be an issue, but roaming agreements will probably take place. All of the US carriers will need this be to solved.
Sent from the EPIC 4G with Sprint.
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.
I was trying to figure out when 4G would be full rolled out in a certain area, & here is a response I received.
..............................................................
There will not likely be any more (my city) coverage until Winter at the earliest. Sprint/Clear are running around putting up "Protection Sites" in every CMA (Cellular Market Area) in the country. There are over 700 CMA's in the U.S. These are regions that the FCC breaks down the country into to issue spectrum licensing for mobile carriers.
There are two types of crews putting up new 4G service now. Fill-In Crews and Protection Site Crews. The Fill-In crews are adding service in primary markets that already have service. They expanded service in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Seattle and New York this year. They will keep moving on in Primary Markets only that already have service. (your city is a secondary market) The Protection Site crews are running all over the Continental U.S., Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands installing at least one tower in every CMA. Two or three in secondary markets.
The two towers already operating in your city are "Protection Sites." These are limited deployments. They are operating at full strength signal, but do not have all the antennas as a full deployment would, and also the antennas are not fully directed to help building penetration. They are pointing straight out for maximum coverage area. Also, these do not have upgraded backhaul (microwave or fiber) that 4G really needs for maximum data throughput and speeds. They just utilize whatever internet service is already at the tower. Which may or may not be sufficient. Varies greatly from tower to tower and market to market.
In the Fall, Sprint is coming out with a new 4G plan. We know it will include LTE. But no one is sure to what extent. Whether Sprint and Clear will stop expanding WiMax completely and just service existing WiMax areas. All new deployments after the announcement might be LTE. Or they might finish building out WiMax completely, but this is unlikely. Or maybe they will announce they will finish WiMax in primary and maybe secondary markets before switching to LTE. We just don't know.
So no one knows how communities like yours will be impacted with their Sprint 4G deployment with this all up in the air. Only the highest executives are in on what's in-store. They are being very tight lipped. I think it's because they aren't even 100% sure yet. They are out striking deals with vendors, sub-contractors, joint venture partners and trying to get Network Vision off the ground too. But the Protection Site roll out will not be complete until Fall. Then those crews will be going on to something else. But no one knows where for sure yet.
In the end, it leaves a very frustrated Sprint customer service experience for 4G device owners. And with their 3G network speeds deteriorating below 2G, it just is ticking off people all the more!
------------------------------------
Well guess what? VERIZON has 4G NOW in my area. Anyway, it was an interesting read & I wonder how that will affect the phones that are going to come out, or even our Epic 4G
I really wish I had answers, but the above post is the best I have right now for those wondering WHY 4G is not in your area yet.
Is this why there is no Galaxy S2 yet on Sprint because they don't know what it will run on? Maybe that's the wait. Frustrating to say the least, & yes, 3G is declining not only in my area, but probably others as well. I really thought when I bought my Epic 4G i'd be looking at 6 months & 4G would be all set to go. Little did I know i'd be getting a phone I could never use for its full potential. At least not where I am at.
First
Looking forward to lte
Grapes
The protection towers has been well known for quite a while...along with the nothing new for this year.
Whats upsetting is nyc has the most dense population out of all the 4g markets and they still can't cover the entire city in 4G, and I am not talking about inside buildings, there are just too many holes on their coverage map.
4g? What's that? I would be happy with decent 3g coverage in my city. I don't think that's too much to ask for a city with a population of roughly 420,000 (and growing.)
.
This kind of thing makes me want to get sprint on the phone and scream to all hell about this issue, but in the end, the customer service rep, their superior, and THEIR superior can't do anything about it. All the good, "decent" phones are 4g now anyway, so I guess all the biggest city in New Hampshire has to show for itself is 3g and FIOS....oh wait, we don't have FIOS either. Whenever my contract is up, for the first time in 9 years, I'm going to look at switching carriers. Uhg.
Same here. Upsets me as well. You could always tweet about it, & maybe Dan Hesse will get back to you......or maybe not.
I am a premiere member & just got a $5 credit for my anniversary. While nice, it doesn't change the fact that not only does 3G suck, 2 out of 3 places I really use my phone I barely get coverage or it roams, but 4G is only in this tiny section
I have a feeling I will be switching, or something, because aside from the 4G, I tested my phone in a new home we are buying, & guess what? Just like the other two places I use my phone. CAN'T GET SERVICE. My wife said it even sucked outside when we were in the new home.
I'm just about exhausted & fed up with Sprints lack of coverage.
That's what I realized why they are cheaper and unlimited not because they claim to be different but no service issues.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App
I will stay Sprint for now as long as they provide an unlimited data plan.
However, if I get sufficiently rich, I may switch to Verizon and pay for their largest data plan.
Would love to have feedback from other similar Sprint users.
1. Outside of large markets and other select markets, Sprint's data signals are much weaker than Verizon. My data signal gets killed if I go in to a restaurant or store yet switching to a different 3G network (presumably Verizon) I am able to access a usable signal. This occurs in decent sized cities where Sprint's coverage is supposed to be excellent and there are towers nearby.
I wonder if this is a cost measure or technology limitation. I presume it is cost.
2. Further, the threshold for switching on both the Pre and my Evo for a usable data signal is useless. My device will show a faint 3G signal yet no data access and nearly never attempts to switch networks. Again, I presume this is intentional and a reflection of a low-cost carrier.
edit:/ I found this article from Android Police, as it mostly pertains to bandwidth. I am sure that given bandwidth issues, Ev-DO Rev A and the combined with a low signal (indoors), a superior 3G network will deliver. And a Sprint Community discussion regarding Ev-DO Rev B not being deployed, even though Evo 4G/Shift iPhones and other newer handsets are Rev B ready /edit
This is something I am fairly confident about, it is based on anecdotal evidence of being a Sprint user for 7 years, having a new tower erected behind my house and failing, comparing indoor data speed/signal strength between Sprint & data roaming partner, using a rooted phone since 2008 (Palm Pre).
Is LTE a big deal for you? Do you even live in the US ? What are your conditions regarding speeds in your area.
Yes LTE is a better technology... but in practice... HSPA is much more established and will give more than sufficient results:
http://www.phonearena.com/news/T-Mo...ter-than-Verizons-4G-LTE-in-11-cities_id31387
I'm not saying I'm glad the device doesn't have LTE, just that it doesn't really affect me in any way at this point in time.
I live in Vancouver, Canada where LTE is readily available and I don't use it. HSPA+ gets me plenty of speed for the /whopping/ 30 minutes a day my phone is on mobile data (commute to and from work; 15m each way). HSPA+ in Canada is from all providers and has great coverage. I regularly get 10-12Mbps. I've been testing a lot lately and I've managed to get 22Mbps and 25Mbps at certain points/times as well on HSPA+. I have zero need for anything faster than that as all I do is stream radio while walking.
I really hate how the American bias towards LTE, because your providers seem to suck, is affecting this phone. By all accounts in the reviews out there "If you don't live in the US, LTE isn't a big deal and this phone is amazing". That's enough for me. I'm on wifi for 95% of my usage anyways. 100Mbps line at home and 250Mbps line at work. Screw LTE.
Pragmata said:
I live in Vancouver, Canada where LTE is readily available and I don't use it. HSPA+ gets me plenty of speed for the /whopping/ 30 minutes a day my phone is on mobile data (commute to and from work; 15m each way). HSPA+ in Canada is from all providers and has great coverage. I regularly get 10-12Mbps. I've been testing a lot lately and I've managed to get 22Mbps and 25Mbps at certain points/times as well on HSPA+. I have zero need for anything faster than that as all I do is stream radio while walking.
I really hate how the American bias towards LTE, because your providers seem to suck, is affecting this phone. By all accounts in the reviews out there "If you don't live in the US, LTE isn't a big deal and this phone is amazing". That's enough for me. I'm on wifi for 95% of my usage anyways. 100Mbps line at home and 250Mbps line at work. Screw LTE.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I see your point, but US providers don't "suck" lol. People are bashing LTE on this phone because so many carriers on the US already provide it.
Don't care about lte
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
iAndropple said:
I see your point, but US providers don't "suck" lol. People are bashing LTE on this phone because so many carriers on the US already provide it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I get that, but all the major carriers in Canada provide LTE too. The difference is all of our major carriers provide HSPA+ AND LTE so the absence of one simply means the use of the other and speeds on both are phenomenal for a bloody phone. xD I've never understood the necessity for residential internet speeds on your phone. I have a 100Mbps line at home so I can download Steam games really fast. What do people do on their phones that require LTE anyways?
My point about the "seem to suck" comment (which I admit I did say 'seem' because I don't have experience with them) is that from what I have learned, Verizon doesn't have HSPA so the lack of LTE means that the speeds then drop to 3G speeds for them? If that's accurate, a major provider not having both HSPA+ and LTE seems a bit sucky to me. I really guess I just don't understand what people need LTE for or how it affects your phone use. In terms of pure network, LTE is like getting a ferrari when you drive for maybe 5 minutes a day. HSPA+ does everything LTE does at more than acceptable speeds. If the issue is because some of the US networks coverage of HSPA+ is absent or limited, that should reflect upon the providers and not the phone.
I'm not too bothered about LTE either. Though it's available in the UK city in which I reside term-time, which is most of the time, it isn't available in my hometown where my family home is. Sure, by the time I'm done in my student city, LTE will most likely be available at "home" but by then the Nexus 4 will be old and in need of a replacement. I don't need it right now, so DC-HSPA is fine for me. More than fine, actually. Plus my phone is on WiFi most of the time anyway. ;D
TeRRa4 said:
I'm not too bothered about LTE either. Though it's available in the UK city in which I reside term-time, which is most of the time, it isn't available in my hometown where my family home is. Sure, by the time I'm done in my student city, LTE will most likely be available at "home" but by then the Nexus 4 will be old and in need of a replacement. I don't need it right now, so DC-HSPA is fine for me. More than fine, actually. Plus my phone is on WiFi most of the time anyway. ;D
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed
I live in the US but LTE doesn't exist within about a 250 mile radius of where I live so HSPA+ is fine by me!
I live outside the US and LTE is just starting here. I live in the second town of my nation and the first 4G antennas will start to emit here for the public on 1st quarter 2013. Google made the Nexus S 4G, then the Verizon Galaxy Nexus 4G, so why not a Nexus 4 4G tomorrow ?:highfive:
There is a good amount of LTE in my area (SF + the surrounding area), but I suppose I don't NEED it. I've been perfectly fine without it (currently with a Motorola Atrix). However like most of you here, you want the best you can get for your area.
Pragmata said:
.... The difference is all of our major carriers provide HSPA+ AND LTE so the absence of one simply means the use of the other and speeds on both are phenomenal for a bloody phone.....What do people do on their phones that require LTE anyways?
I really guess I just don't understand what people need LTE for or how it affects your phone use.
If the issue is because some of the US networks coverage of HSPA+ is absent or limited, that should reflect upon the providers and not the phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1. It's the idea that Google is pushing consumers to rely more on the cloud, yet "cripple" the phone's ability to CONNECT TO the cloud by not providing LTE. I live in San Diego - we have LTE here and it works great on all my friends' IPhone 5s.
2. While LTE is certainly NOT COMMONPLACE, it is non-negotiable that it is the infrastructure of the future. HSPA+ represents the pinnacle of it's infrastructure, while LTE is the infancy stage of the a newer, higher throughput technology. As a result, you're paying however much for a phone that is not really very future proof. Regardless of how good of a deal this phone is in the near term, you kind of lose out in the long term, especially when viewed in regards to item 1.
3. Since there is no CDMA version of the Nexus 4, it won't work on Verizon or Sprint in the US anyways. T-mobile has ONLY HSPA+ and AT&T has LTE and HSPA+, with HSPA+ coverage being greater than LTE (in San Diego anyways). LTE coverage, however, is expanding, and will be much more available within the next 2 years. Therefore it's not neccessarily that HSPA+ is limited, its that LTE is limited and that's why Google has chosen to omit it from their device, which may be smart in the near term, but again limits the long term relevance of the phone.
4. As a corollary to 3, Google is really just doing the same thing LG has done with the Optimus G but in a different form. Google doesn't provide LTE, so in 2 years you really will need to buy a new phone if you want to transfer large files to and from your cloud, which you will have to do because your phone only has 8GB or 16GB of on-board storage. LG forces you to buy a new phone because they haven't provided updates to their phone since it's release on day 1 and your phone is horribly laggy and bloated and it's bootloader is locked.
This resonates much like Apple's philosophy, which we all bash them for, yet we defend Google vehemently when it does the same in a more inconspicuous way.
I'm a complete loss for what to do now because I really need a new phone lol.
I live in the USA near Washington DC and I live in strong LTE coverage by Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint (allegedly). I've used LTE and while it's nice, I don't require it. In addition, I like being able to use a SIM card in any country I visit. HSPA+ is more than sufficient for me.
It doesn't bother me. I currently have Verizon and have a Galaxy Nexus. My plan for two lines and unlimited data on LTE costs me 180 USD a month. My same plan, but with more minutes would cost me 100 USD on T-Mobile. Almost double check the cost just for LTE speeds? My contract is up in January. So long, Verizon! Your business practises suck. Hspa+ isn't so bad that it's a steep departure. Half the price plus my phone is unlocked so I can switch carriers if T-Mobile starts to play games with my bill? Awesome.
I'm on TMo and there is no LTE.
So, I can care less atm.
TeRRa4 said:
I'm not too bothered about LTE either. Though it's available in the UK city in which I reside term-time, which is most of the time, it isn't available in my hometown where my family home is. Sure, by the time I'm done in my student city, LTE will most likely be available at "home" but by then the Nexus 4 will be old and in need of a replacement. I don't need it right now, so DC-HSPA is fine for me. More than fine, actually. Plus my phone is on WiFi most of the time anyway. ;D
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Has anyone actually tested the ee network in the real world yet? Here in the UK LTE has finally started to rollout but at the launch event the speeds were not that impressive anyway. Anyway at £26 a month for 500mb i think LTE won't be that popular here for some time when three are offering decent speeds with all you can eat data for £10
Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk 2
dontdo_that said:
1. It's the idea that Google is pushing consumers to rely more on the cloud, yet "cripple" the phone's ability to CONNECT TO the cloud by not providing LTE. I live in San Diego - we have LTE here and it works great on all my friends' IPhone 5s.
2. While LTE is certainly NOT COMMONPLACE, it is non-negotiable that it is the infrastructure of the future. HSPA+ represents the pinnacle of it's infrastructure, while LTE is the infancy stage of the a newer, higher throughput technology. As a result, you're paying however much for a phone that is not really very future proof. Regardless of how good of a deal this phone is in the near term, you kind of lose out in the long term, especially when viewed in regards to item 1.
3. Since there is no CDMA version of the Nexus 4, it won't work on Verizon or Sprint in the US anyways. T-mobile has ONLY HSPA+ and AT&T has LTE and HSPA+, with HSPA+ coverage being greater than LTE (in San Diego anyways). LTE coverage, however, is expanding, and will be much more available within the next 2 years. Therefore it's not neccessarily that HSPA+ is limited, its that LTE is limited and that's why Google has chosen to omit it from their device, which may be smart in the near term, but again limits the long term relevance of the phone.
4. As a corollary to 3, Google is really just doing the same thing LG has done with the Optimus G but in a different form. Google doesn't provide LTE, so in 2 years you really will need to buy a new phone if you want to transfer large files to and from your cloud, which you will have to do because your phone only has 8GB or 16GB of on-board storage. LG forces you to buy a new phone because they haven't provided updates to their phone since it's release on day 1 and your phone is horribly laggy and bloated and it's bootloader is locked.
This resonates much like Apple's philosophy, which we all bash them for, yet we defend Google vehemently when it does the same in a more inconspicuous way.
I'm a complete loss for what to do now because I really need a new phone lol.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You make great points and I definitely understand where you are coming from, I would still argue that the speeds HSPA+ provides are more than enough for at least the next year and whether your carrier supports that or not is more on them and less on the manufacturer.
That said, I do have a couple follow-ups cause I think you raised some good points and I'm interested in getting your thoughts.
A) At (max) 350$, do you feel that you really wouldn't be opposed to upgrading in a years time when there could potentially be a new Nexus with LTE? For me 350$ is a steal when I regularly buy a new phone every year for 600+. I know not everyone upgrades on a yearly cadence, but if present and future Nexi were priced around that point, I think it might be something more widely adopted. Perhaps this isn't meant to be a "long-term" phone? Obivously the base argument is that you would want something to last, but if it's affordable why not speed up the upgrade cycle?
B) If we disregard carrier failings and just pit HSPA+ against LTE, I don't see how HSPA+ would be such a deprecated technology that it will be irrelevant within 2 years. Sure, LTE will be bigger and better by then with more coverage, but by no means is HSPA+ something to scoff at. A potential 42Mbps on your phone EASILY gives you all the Cloud throughput you need. I had a 50Mbps residential line for my home internet before upgrading to 100Mbps and I can tell you thinks moved seamlessly. 42Mbps is hardly something that won't let you push and pull content on the Cloud. So you might say that you don't get nearly that on X's network, but that isn't reflective of the technology itself. Maybe X just needs to improve their HSPA+ networks while working on LTE.
I kind of see it like the CPU progress on desktop computers. HSPA+ represents a Dual Core/Quad Core CPU that can be clocked at 4Ghz. Even in mainstream computing today most games/apps/programs barely take advantage of a full optimized Dual Core high clock CPU, yet manufacturers are pushing out Hexa- and even Octo-Core CPU's at low clock rates. Those are like LTE. It's going to be a WHILE before we can properly use 16 threads and 4Ghz of speed on a CPU. And just because those CPU's exist, doesn't mean someone should not buy a Dual/Quad Core CPU. Sure, you can't add more cores to it so it's not "future-proof", but we don't even take full advantage of it yet...
C) I'm still curious at what LTE users like yourself are pushing that you feel pressured in the near future that HSPA+ won't provide (again disregarding shortcomings of providers). Myself, I don't do any media use on my phone so I'm obviously the opposite, but even imagining if I was streaming video and pushing lots of media, I can't forsee the need for a connection faster than what I have to my home. The only possible thing I was able to think of is someone with an unlimited data plan (doesn't exist in Canada) that uses their cell connection as their internet connection and tether their computer through it 100% of the time. Just pure curiosity as per what LTE people push.
I suppose most of this all comes down to the provider limitations and as such necessity for LTE, but I'd be more upset at my provider than the manufacturer. Google has built a worldwide product that can reach amazing speeds on HSPA+ networks. I know America is a powerhouse, but you aren't the be-all-end-all in deciding how a phone should be made. LTE has a lot of reach in Canada on all major providers, but they all also have HSPA+ with great coverage. Only people on smaller or piggyback providers are losing out on LTE, but everyone has HSPA. Maybe the American providers should stop fighting with each other over proprietary LTE spectrums.
If you are hankering for a new phone and don't want this, I'd probably say the Razr Maxx or One X+. Those are my runner ups (Once they finally hit Canadian borders) Since you are on these forums I'll disregard suggesting the locked bootloader Optimus G.
I don't understand this.
LTE is available only in USA and a small amount of other countries as a whole. the world isn't only USA and the 10% places. They've made our such a big issue for everyone, and all the reviewers are complaining about no LTE like every country in the world has it.
There is world outside USA you know...
I don't care for LTE and micro SD slot. I just want this phone in my hands already!
UK here. 4G on just one network in only 10 cities. The lack of 4G means nothing to us Brits!