Database Users

anyone know if it supports 4g?

im sure google has been talking with tmobile and htc about 4g, whether it be wimax or LTE. can anyone confirm if it supports either? not only would that make the phone more awesome, but we could be more certain on tmobile 4g plans. i mean sprint already has it on the pre, and google gave the n1 specs to beat out most opponents (asside from the hd2, but i dont think that supports 4g either :/ never looked).
any idea or confirmations would be welcome

damn. oh well, the 3g boost is good enough for now

What a bollocks question. Networks won't be that mature for AT LEAST 18months.

LOL. i didnt think it would, but it wouldnt surprise me if google did have htc put it in

Knowing HTC they will stop supporting this phone in 6 months. £100 says the Nexus 2 will be out by Christmas.

firedup said:
What a bollocks question. Networks won't be that mature for AT LEAST 18months.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True but some consumers buy into Sprint commercials about 4G.

alexjzim said:
im sure google has been talking with tmobile and htc about 4g, whether it be wimax or LTE. can anyone confirm if it supports either? not only would that make the phone more awesome, but we could be more certain on tmobile 4g plans. i mean sprint already has it on the pre, and google gave the n1 specs to beat out most opponents (asside from the hd2, but i dont think that supports 4g either :/ never looked).
any idea or confirmations would be welcome
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
T-Mobile has no intentions, as of right now, of going to 4G. Its simply not needed. Explanation: Sprint and Verizon are CDMA technologies. CDMA (Code Devision Multipable Access) has a 2.5MHz bandwidth. With that they use EVDO for thier 3G data rates but because of the bandwidth of CDMA they are very limited on their max download speeds. With that said, both carriers will have to go to 4G, WiMAX or LTE, in order to achive high data rates.
On to T-Mobile: T-Mobile has recently installed a UMTS 3G network which uses WCDMA (Wideband Code Division Multiple Access). WCDMA has a 5Mhz bandwidth which, by easy math, is double the capability of Verizon and Sprint. UMTS uses a technology called HSPA+ for its data. HSPA+ is capable of download speeds up to 48Mbps. As of right now, T-Mobile is making efforts to seriously increase their data speeds using HSPA+ and as of right now T-Mobile has HSPA+ launched in Philidalphia and is getting great reviews.
So, with all of that said, hold on because by the end of this year T-Mobile will probably have the fastest network.

Why 4g on a phone, if 3.5G 7.2Mbps worked fully, its more than enough, for youtube, iplayer and daytoday surfing.
22Mbps from mobile, networks - its a joke max speed will be about 4-6Mbps if one is lucky and much less in most areas

tigger80 said:
Why 4g on a phone, if 3.5G 7.2Mbps worked fully, its more than enough, for youtube, iplayer and daytoday surfing.
22Mbps from mobile, networks - its a joke max speed will be about 4-6Mbps if one is lucky and much less in most areas
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
7.2Mbps is enough for everyone, just like 640k, right?

setzer715 said:
T-Mobile has no intentions, as of right now, of going to 4G. Its simply not needed. Explanation: Sprint and Verizon are CDMA technologies. CDMA (Code Devision Multipable Access) has a 2.5MHz bandwidth. With that they use EVDO for thier 3G data rates but because of the bandwidth of CDMA they are very limited on their max download speeds. With that said, both carriers will have to go to 4G, WiMAX or LTE, in order to achive high data rates.
On to T-Mobile: T-Mobile has recently installed a UMTS 3G network which uses WCDMA (Wideband Code Division Multiple Access). WCDMA has a 5Mhz bandwidth which, by easy math, is double the capability of Verizon and Sprint. UMTS uses a technology called HSPA+ for its data. HSPA+ is capable of download speeds up to 48Mbps. As of right now, T-Mobile is making efforts to seriously increase their data speeds using HSPA+ and as of right now T-Mobile has HSPA+ launched in Philidalphia and is getting great reviews.
So, with all of that said, hold on because by the end of this year T-Mobile will probably have the fastest network.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So when all this happens according to planned, and hoping it will. Will current phones now(Nexus One) be able to benefit to the new speeds?

not necessarily all current phones, but the nexus one does... when you take a look at the specs, there is HSDPA and HSUPA... the more common nomenclature would be HSPA+ and HSPA as some people like to put it...
with the upgraded network speeds that t-mobile announced as of the fifth, my average download speed has jumped from 600kbps max to 1 mbps on my nexus one... a pretty hefty improvement, and its only gonna get better... don't really see the need to upgrade to anything faster at the moment because most cell companies can't handle the load of data thats going across their networks as is... they upgrade speed, they have to upgrade capacity too and that means more hardware, its not as simple as swapping to HSPA+

motivecc said:
not necessarily all current phones, but the nexus one does... when you take a look at the specs, there is HSDPA and HSUPA... the more common nomenclature would be HSPA+ and HSPA as some people like to put it...
with the upgraded network speeds that t-mobile announced as of the fifth, my average download speed has jumped from 600kbps max to 1 mbps on my nexus one... a pretty hefty improvement, and its only gonna get better... don't really see the need to upgrade to anything faster at the moment because most cell companies can't handle the load of data thats going across their networks as is... they upgrade speed, they have to upgrade capacity too and that means more hardware, its not as simple as swapping to HSPA+
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HSPA (High Speed Packet Access) and HSPA+ (Evolved High Speed Packet Access) are actually 2 different things. HSPA is capable of up to 14Mbps down while HSPA+ is capable of up to 54Mbps down. T-Mobile is currently running HSPA nation wide and running HSPA+ in Philidalphia. T-Mobile hopes to be running HSPA+ nation wide. HSDPA and HSUPA are simply HSPA with the D for Download or U for Upload added to the acronym to differntiate the different up and down speeds.

laztpn0i said:
So when all this happens according to planned, and hoping it will. Will current phones now(Nexus One) be able to benefit to the new speeds?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, any phone that is currently rated at HSDPA of 7.2Mbps or 4Mbps will bennifit from the upgrade.

ivarmedi said:
7.2Mbps is enough for everyone, just like 640k, right?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
On a mobile device, where there are other factors involved, such as cpu and other performance components.
My phone speedtest gets 15Mb on wifi and about 3.5Mb on 3G but the real life speed when using the internet seems much slower even with wifi because the device can't handle or process the web pages as fast as a PC, also i doubt people will use rapidshare on the phone where speed matters,
For genral surfing a good 1MB connection is enough for mobile devices, i think anyway.
I use usb modems by huawei i have many most have 7.2Mbs with vodafone i get 3-5Mbps but still seems very slow, mostly due to the ping which are normally in the 300ms+
ADSL/DSL is best for speed, mobile BB even at 50Mbps will not compare to 20Mbps DSL line. As DSL is much more stable and Mobile BB is NOT very stable

setzer715 said:
T-Mobile has no intentions, as of right now, of going to 4G. Its simply not needed. Explanation: Sprint and Verizon are CDMA technologies. CDMA (Code Devision Multipable Access) has a 2.5MHz bandwidth. With that they use EVDO for thier 3G data rates but because of the bandwidth of CDMA they are very limited on their max download speeds. With that said, both carriers will have to go to 4G, WiMAX or LTE, in order to achive high data rates.
On to T-Mobile: T-Mobile has recently installed a UMTS 3G network which uses WCDMA (Wideband Code Division Multiple Access). WCDMA has a 5Mhz bandwidth which, by easy math, is double the capability of Verizon and Sprint. UMTS uses a technology called HSPA+ for its data. HSPA+ is capable of download speeds up to 48Mbps. As of right now, T-Mobile is making efforts to seriously increase their data speeds using HSPA+ and as of right now T-Mobile has HSPA+ launched in Philidalphia and is getting great reviews.
So, with all of that said, hold on because by the end of this year T-Mobile will probably have the fastest network.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Now if they could just get 3g in my area this year.....

Personally, I'm not happy that Sprint has decided to go with WiMax. On one hand, we've always been kind of blocked from using imported phones... but on the other hand, Sprint wasn't the only CDMA carrier in America, and there were enough other companies using CDMA elsewhere in the world to ensure that we got to have phones that were at least as cool (often, better) than what Europeans could buy for GSM (especially with regard to the first PalmOS PDA phones, and generally with regard to Windows Mobile PDA phones).
As far as I can tell, Sprint is the only carrier on *earth* going with WiMax instead of LTE. It's one thing to be limited to the same phones used by Verizon, just about everyone in South Korea, plus half of Australia, South America, and a big part of China. It's another matter *entirely* to be the only 20-40 million people on Earth stuck with phones that literally have no market anyplace besides Sprint in the US.
I remember going to an AT&T Wireless store with a coworker in 2004, right before they switched to GSM. I looked around the store, and couldn't *believe* anyone wouldn't take one look at the 20th-century relics they were still selling to new customers and run from the store screaming. That's what being REALLY "ghetto-ized" means.
We won't even be able to ***** about Sprint not supporting R-UIM cards, because there won't be any non-Sprint phones that are even capable of working on Sprint.
I've been a Sprint user since ~1999, and it really hurts to think I might eventually be forced to choose between leaving Sprint or settling for a second-rate phone that sucks as badly as AT&T's TDMA phones did relative to the phones Sprint, Verizon, and even T-Mobile had at the same time.
The biggest selling point I've seen for WiMax so far is the fantasies some people have that it will replace WiFi... totally overlooking the fact that people don't use WiFi because it's the best... they use it because it's free. It uses internet connectivity that someone's already paying for, and enables its use in more ways. It's the same reason "3G tablets" are going to flop (in the short term, at least) in America, unless they can ALSO use WiFi and tether to cell phones. Very, very few people are going to willingly throw down $500 for a new device that requires yet another new $10-40/month fee to use it unless it's literally god's gift to the computing universe. AFAIK, nothing remotely close to being *that* cool is hitting the market anytime soon.

firedup said:
Knowing HTC they will stop supporting this phone in 6 months. £100 says the Nexus 2 will be out by Christmas.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Bet $200 that it'll be out by June.

[INFO] WiMax vs. LTE

First, this isn't one of "those" threads that just talks about "OMGZ WiMax is so much betterz kthx" it's a technical discussion, so be prepared for lots of technical jargon.
I don't really know where to start, so lets just dive right in:
Clear & Sprint - Bandwidth & an Open Relationship:
Even if LTE does end up winning in the global market, Sprint & Clear (from here on out, if I mention one, assume the other is mentioned too) can easily switch. Their 2.5Ghz spectrum is widely used worldwide for both LTE & WiMax, so not only can they easily switch in software, they will have better global roaming potential than the other big carriers here in the USA that are using 700Mhz spectrum for there nets.
Clear is running tests this year in both TD-LTE and FDD-LTE. They are clearly shaping up to be one hell of a 4G provider, and even a backbone provider with their large WiMax buildout so far done. (WiMax is a nearly perfect technology for wireless backhaul, in case you didn't know)
Also, Sprint has MASSIVE spectrum holdings in the 2.5Ghz channels, so that gives them many more advantages that I'll get into later.
Frequency, frequency, frequency!
I cannot stress how important this is! Everyone is saying how much better LTE is than WiMax because of its better building penetration & lower build out costs. Being on 700Mhz here in the USA, it will require ~1/4th of the equipment vs WiMax to get the same coverage area & building penetration.
Thats fine & dandy, until you talk global roaming. See, in the EU, LTE is actually slated for the 2.6Ghz channel, and WiMax is still on 2.5Ghz. So here in the USA, LTE probably does have an advantage coverage & cost wise to carriers, but it also hamstrings them in multiple ways. In Europe, with it on the 2.6 channel it will actually be on par if not slightly worse than WiMax coverage & penetration wise. It will also cost about the same to roll out.
Roaming:
Obviously being on 700Mhz here in the USA, people will be able to roam between Verizon & AT&T, and anyone else on that channel. The problems come when you go overseas. As mentioned above, in Europe LTE is on a completely different freq than here, so global roaming without multi-band radios is pretty much out. This increases cost for devices.
Clear will be using 2.5Ghz spectrum for LTE (should they switch) so they should be able to roam globally, although they may not. This is a HUGE advantage.
Size DOES matter!
No, you pervs, not like that.
Because of the vast spectrum that Sprint holds, they can take advantage of it and provide much higher throughput over the same technology. While VZW & AT&T are limited spectrum wise because of using 700, Sprint isn't. Most LTE carriers in the US can only offer 10Mhz channels for upload & download. This leads to the weak (relatively) speeds of 5-12Mbps down Verizon is promising at launch.
On the other hand, Clear can take advantage of all that spectrum & offer channels of anywhere from 20-40Mhz Actually, they are using paired 20Mhz channels for a total of 40Mhz throughput per connection on LTE, providing FOUR TIMES the throughput of other networks. That's how they can promise speeds of 20-70Mbps downlink. Chalk another one up for Clear.
Is It True 4G?
It depends. LTE is a true 4G standard no matter how you slice it.
WiMax-16e is what Clear currently has rolled out. It is NOT true 4G. It has most of the qualifications (full IP backbone network, etc) but it doesn't meet speed requirements. Fixed you have to (theoretically) be able to provide 1Gbps downlink & 100Mbps mobile to qualify as 4G. LTE (if you use the right frequencies & have the spectrum to provide wide enough channels) can do that. 16e can't. Enough said.
BUT! WiMax-16m (WiMax2, as it's been branded) is a true 4G standard. It was finalized as a standard this summer, and equipment providers (Alcatel-Lucent, Motorola, etc) are expected to be able to provide backend gear for it by early next year & user devices by the end of next year. This is where WiMax really can compete with LTE. Think of the WiMax to WiMax2 upgrade as the HSPA to HSPA+ rollouts going on on T-Mobile & Bell/Rogers in Canada. Another plus for WiMax 2 (16m) is that it is completely backward compatible with WiMax (16e), again just like HSPA devices are compatible with HSPA+ networks.
Other Advantages:
LTE does offer a standardized voice transmission method, whereas WiMax (2) doesn't. This is a big thing for carriers, and I'm not going to say it doesn't matter, because it does. Sprint & any other WiMax provider worldwide will have to maintain their GSM or CDMA2000 networks to keep providing voice. That also means that mobile devices will have to provide dual-mode CDMA/WiMax or GSM/WiMax chips to stay connected. This could change. They could implement it down the road, but in its current state, WiMax can't do it. OTOH, EvDo devices also have to be dual mode, since the EvDo standard that CDMA carriers chose couldn't do voice, whereas different techs (such as EvDv from Qualcomm) could do both. So it's not really new to many of them, just something to consider.
Wrapup (my opinion):
Both are great technologies if done right. Right now, WiMax has the advantage because its more rolled out & it has the spectrum available to operators to provide higher speeds. That could easily change in the future, especially if more telcos can provide larger channels for LTE to reach its full speeds. WiMax 2 could also be a game changer in the industry.
In all actuality, the technologies are almost identical. It isn't like HD-DVD vs BluRay, where there was a clearcut winner. There won't be that here, both are excellent technologies & will continue to coexist. Much like Cable vs. DSL in the landline world. WiMax offers great technology as wireless backhaul & last mile delivery for rural broadband, but is also becoming a good access technology for 4G wireless. LTE was designed by carriers & for carriers as the natural progression to HSPA to carry voice as well as data. It is an access network at heart. WiMax is more flexible, it can do access or backhaul. It really comes down to carrier choice & what freqs they have available to them.
Hope this helps clear some stuff up. I've seen a lot of uneducated posts about this & it really annoys me.
EDIT - More info:
Topography is another huge factor. For some markets LTE will be a better choice, and for others WiMax will. Again it comes down to what freqs the telcos have available to deploy on.
Also, I forgot to clarify a couple more things about Clear's LTE trials. I mentioned that they were using TD-LTE & FDD-LTE (a good article on them here). A key difference is that TD is able to be used on the same unpaired freqs as WiMax is, so where carriers that only had access to the unpaired freqs before had to go with WiMax can now go with a variation of LTE (although still not the same as the normal carriers). FDD is what most telcos already have access to today, so they are building on it. Clear has both. Another win. Clear's TD-LTE trials are using paired 10Mhz channels for a total of 20Mhz, which will provide speeds potentially faster than WiMax but slower than FDD-LTE. Their FDD-LTE trials will be using paired 20Mhz channels for 40Mhz total.
Several more good articles on the subject here, here, and here.
WiMax is currently seen as the predominant tech of choice in India because of the abundance of unpaired spectrum available there. Good articles on that here & here. Intel is a huge backer of WiMax in India as well as the US, and are offering SoC's & laptop chipsets with WiMax integrated. They are also offering standalone Mini-PCIe WiMax cards. See more info on big WiMax players in the WiMax Forum group.
I'm trying to be as unbiased as possible here & give the (dis)advantages of both techs here. There are links in defense of both techs above, and I'm not a "fanboy" for either one.

Reserved just in case.
Also, vote this to the front page if you think it's educational!

Wow, that was really well written. Bookmarked for future reference, and to share in other forums or blog posts/comments

WiMax carriers wouldn't necessarily have to carry dual-mode for voice. Why couldn't they just use a VoIP technology? Latency on WiMax in good coverage is low enough to sustain a stable and high-quality VoIP call. Even SIP traffic through a carrier-specific VPN tunnel would probably be sufficient to handle any voice demand.

afazel said:
WiMax carriers wouldn't necessarily have to carry dual-mode for voice. Why couldn't they just use a VoIP technology? Latency on WiMax in good coverage is low enough to sustain a stable and high-quality VoIP call. Even SIP traffic through a carrier-specific VPN tunnel would probably be sufficient to handle any voice demand.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's true, but like I said, there's no STANDARD for voice on WiMax. Carriers can implement their own, but it could vary between networks. As far as the IEEE standards are concerned there is no voice. On the other hand, LTE has a standard across networks.

Spectrum doesn't mean **** if you can't get connected inside. Many, many places this will be a huge issue. Even if you can get connected the signal loss will hamper bandwidth so again whats the point?
LTE is going to be the clear winner. Clear will eventually switch and the only losers will be handsets like the EVO and Eipc for anyone that is still using them with 4g in mind because inside of a couple of years I doubt they will continue to work (4g).

Aridon said:
Spectrum doesn't mean **** if you can't get connected inside. Many, many places this will be a huge issue. Even if you can get connected the signal loss will hamper bandwidth so again whats the point?
LTE is going to be the clear winner. Clear will eventually switch and the only losers will be handsets like the EVO and Eipc for anyone that is still using them with 4g in mind because inside of a couple of years I doubt they will continue to work (4g).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Youre spectrum point is only valid in the US since in other regions LTE is on a higher freq. Plus my spectrum points were all about LTE. WiMax is currently using 10Mhz channels too. I was saying that Clear's FDD-LTE trials will use 40Mhz channels. Their TD-LTE trials will be using paired 10Mhz channels for 20Mhz total.
Also, if Sprint builds the network properly (ie densely enough) then you won't have connection problems. That's the catch here in the US & why LTE will win here, but in other regions its still a fair fight.

While it's nice knowing our phones are just that little bit more "future proof",by the time any carrier has respectable lte /wimax2 networks, the majority of us would have already been upgraded to the next big thing which would have those capabilities out of the box.

from what i remember
almost all the carriers in the world (80+%) are planning to use LTE
sprint seems like the only major one that uses wimax (and planning to convert to LTE )

cLOUDFAn said:
from what i remember
almost all the carriers in the world (80+%) are planning to use LTE
sprint seems like the only major one that uses wimax (and planning to convert to LTE )
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually Yota in Russia is a major WiMax/GSM carrier & several telcos in Japan (can't remember names) are both behind WiMax. There are also several in India, which is one of the larger markets in the world.
Both will coexist happily I think. A major part of Clear's LTE trials this year are to test performance of providing both LTE & WiMax over the same channel. Another thing to consider is topography. I don't remember where I saw it but I saw a graphic that showed the range of 2.5 WiMax vs 700 LTE. Obviously the LTE provided better range, but depending on the topography WiMax can be a better option because it provides better service in dense urban areas if the network is planned right (less than 15dBm of loss from structures is a good level, 19 or 20 is the norm)

wimax in ugunda as well cool story, anyways I have a Q, the dual voice data thing, are you saying wimax wont support making calls and surfing net at the same time in the future and LTE will?

crakerjaks said:
wimax in ugunda as well cool story, anyways I have a Q, the dual voice data thing, are you saying wimax wont support making calls and surfing net at the same time in the future and LTE will?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, WiMax & LTE both support simultaneous voice & data. LTE supports it the right way, just like WCDMA/HSPA support it now.
WiMax supports it but only because it requires a dual mode radio (one for voice/EvDo, one for WiMax)
What I said means that if you have JUST an LTE connection (IE no 2G/3G/etc fallback network at all) you can make a phone call. If you have JUST a WiMax connection with no fallback network you can't make a call.
IE: WiMax is currently a data only network, like when T-Mobile launched their 3G network there was no voice coverage. Sprint could add it down the road (and probably will, if they don't switch to LTE) by using as the other poster said one of several possible VoIP options to deliver calls. LTE also uses VoIP as their call standard, since its a completely IP based backbone network like WiMax.

Aridon said:
Spectrum doesn't mean **** if you can't get connected inside. Many, many places this will be a huge issue. Even if you can get connected the signal loss will hamper bandwidth so again whats the point?
LTE is going to be the clear winner. Clear will eventually switch and the only losers will be handsets like the EVO and Eipc for anyone that is still using them with 4g in mind because inside of a couple of years I doubt they will continue to work (4g).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats true. Wimax has rolled out in Salt Lake City and its pretty much useless. It works on the main streets but as soon as you go off those,it fades fast. Inside buildings,you can rarely get a signal. It may get better,but right now the line of sight characteristics of the 2.5ghz signals are really a problem and Im not yet convinced that they can put in enough towers to overcome it.

Great OP !
...as an european, I am waiting for a nice LTE device

Great post so far - enjoying it very much.
What are your thoughts on the current Sprint WiMAX? Do you guys think the cities that are live will be kept the way they are? I remember reading somewhere when most cities are live Sprint will go back and improve the older cities so people can get more of a consistent signal. Its not WiMAX perse, its Sprint ATM.

Anybody know the energy efficiency (on the users end) of LTE, WiMax, and even HSPA+? WiMax is great even in it's US infancy, ~100 ping + 6-10Mbps down for me, but it's so much more energy inefficient compared to 3G that it's only something that I turn on if I want to tether and can connect my EVO to a power source.
Now compare that to the iPhone 4 which I also have. I don't think it's a HSPA+ phone but it can still take advantage (albeit not fully) of it if the signal is there. So I end up getting around the same ping and 4 Mbps and change on the down link. Now the thing that interests me the most is that it doesn't seem to effect the battery life as much if at all. So I actually get to enjoy the increased speed. Of course, I don't know by how much, if at all, this is effected if the phone is HSPA+ capable (20Mps+).
I know WiMax is very similar to WiFi, and we all know that WiFi is a lot nicer to the battery than 3G. So is WiMax's battery hogging maybe related to the poor coverage and can possibly be significantly improved when there's more coverage? Is anybody really, really near a tower and feel a difference?
What about LTE? Anybody from Sweden (or any other place that has LTE rolled out) here?
Edit: Now that I think of it, wouldn't LTE be better in this regard since it only has to power one radio for both voice/data?

Award Tour said:
Anybody know the energy efficiency (on the users end) of LTE, WiMax, and even HSPA+? WiMax is great even in it's US infancy, ~100 ping + 6-10Mbps down for me, but it's so much more energy inefficient compared to 3G that it's only something that I turn on if I want to tether and can connect my EVO to a power source.
Now compare that to the iPhone 4 which I also have. I don't think it's a HSPA+ phone but it can still take advantage (albeit not fully) of it if the signal is there. So I end up getting around the same ping and 4 Mbps and change on the down link. Now the thing that interests me the most is that it doesn't seem to effect the battery life as much if at all. So I actually get to enjoy the increased speed. Of course, I don't know by how much, if at all, this is effected if the phone is HSPA+ capable (20Mps+).
I know WiMax is very similar to WiFi, and we all know that WiFi is a lot nicer to the battery than 3G. So is WiMax's battery hogging maybe related to the poor coverage and can possibly be significantly improved when there's more coverage? Is anybody really, really near a tower and feel a difference?
What about LTE? Anybody from Sweden (or any other place that has LTE rolled out) here?
Edit: Now that I think of it, wouldn't LTE be better in this regard since it only has to power one radio for both voice/data?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its the phone not the network, really. ****ty battery life only gets ****tier when you are searching for a weak signal.

werxen said:
Its the phone not the network, really. ****ty battery life only gets ****tier when you are searching for a weak signal.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, but you have imagine that there are battery differences between LTE, WiMax, and HSPA+; just as there is between "2G", "3G", and WiFi

In Europe at least, LTE is pushed by a much stronger lobby and will be THE 4G standard.
It's already being deployed in Japan as well and will be in the USA. I think this is the next worldwide standard, so the prices will go down and that will leave only minor networks to Wimax as a mobility technology.
Wimax is already used in some places as a fixed internet acces (no mobility, only fixed wireless).
In France, I don't see LTE happening before 2013 because there have been many investments in the WCDMA networks so they will use HSPA+ to push and perfect the 3G network before eventually switching to LTE.

I found in the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) website a diagram about different telecom generations:
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
From: http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/imt-2000/Revised_JV/IntroducingIMT_item3.html
So the WiMAX IEEE 802.16e (and f) and LTE (3GPP Release 9) can be considered as "3.9G".
The ITU has selected two technologies for the 4G (IMT-Advanced) which are the WiMAX IEEE 802.16m and LTE-Advanced (3GPP Release 10) [url=http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/27_series/27.007/27007-a00.zip](1st Rev. zip file)[/url].
I would add also that Qualcomm who is the inventor of the CDMA technology may prefer LTE-Advanced (3GPP Release 10) over WiMAX IEEE 802.16m.
Here, a pdf presentation about the benefits of the LTE-Advanced from his website:
http://www.qualcomm.de/documents/files/lte-advanced-benefits.pdf
More info about the 4G (IMT-Advanced):
http://www.itu.int/itunews/manager/display.asp?lang=en&year=2008&issue=10&ipage=39&ext=html

The 4G "MYTH"

Many of us are so geeked about 4G speeds....the mytouch 4G sprouting about its HSPA+ network which is supposed to make this a better phone and such, but it's all hogwash. I found the article below very interesting and rather revealing as to how these carriers manage to soup us up and get us to believe what they want us to believe, true or not. Sad, but very enlightening.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- You've seen the 4G advertisements from T-Mobile, Sprint and Verizon, bragging about a much-better wireless network with blazing fast speeds.
Here's the secret the carriers don't advertise: 4G is a myth. Like the unicorn, it hasn't been spotted anywhere in the wild just yet -- and won't be any time in the near future.
The International Telecommunication Union, the global wireless standards-setting organization, determined last month that 4G is defined as a network capable of download speeds of 100 megabits per second (Mbps). That's fast enough to download an average high-definition movie in about three minutes.
None of the new networks the carriers are rolling out meet that standard.
Sprint (S, Fortune 500) was the first to launch a network called 4G, going live with it earlier this year. Then, T-Mobile launched its 4G network, claiming to be "America's largest 4G network." Verizon (VZ, Fortune 500) plans to launch its 4G network by the end of the year, which it claims will be the nation's largest and the fastest. AT&T (T, Fortune 500) is expected to unveil its 4G network next year.
Those networks have theoretical speeds of a fifth to a half that of the official 4G standard. The actual speeds the carriers say they'll achieve are just a tenth of "real" 4G.
So why are the carriers calling these networks 4G?
It's mostly a matter of PR, industry experts say. Explaining what the wireless carriers' new networks should be called, and what they'll be capable of, is a confusing mess.
To illustrate: Sprint bought a majority stake in Clearwire (CLWR), which uses a new network technology called WiMAX that's capable of speeds ranging from 3 Mbps to 10 Mbps. That's a different technology from Verizon's new network, based on a standard called Long Term Evolution (LTE), which will average 5 Mbps to 12 Mbps.
Seeing what its competitors were up to, T-Mobile opted to increase the speed capabilities of its existing 3G-HSPA+ network instead of pursuing a new technology. Its expanded network -- now called 4G -- will reach speeds of 5 Mbps to 12 Mbps.
No matter what they're called, all of these upgrades are clear improvements -- and the carriers shelled out billions to make them. Current "3G" networks offer actual speeds that range from between 500 kilobits per second to 1.5 Mbps.
So Sprint and Verizon have new, faster networks that are still technically not 4G, while T-Mobile has an old, though still faster network that is actually based on 3G technology.
Confused yet? That's why they all just opted to call themselves "4G."
The carriers get defensive about the topic.
"It's very misleading to make a decision about what's 4G based on speed alone," said Stephanie Vinge-Walsh, spokeswoman for Sprint Nextel. "It is a challenge we face in an extremely competitive industry."
T-Mobile did not respond to a request for comment.
One network representative, who asked not to be identified, claimed that ITU's 4G line-in-the-sand is being misconstrued. The organization previously approved the use of the term "4G" for Sprint's WiMAX and Verizon's LTE networks, he said -- though not for T-Mobile's HSPA+ network.
ITU's PR department ignored that approval in its recent statement about how future wireless technologies would be measured, the representative said. ITU representatives were not immediately available for comment.
"I'm not getting into a technical debate," said Jeffrey Nelson, spokesman for Verizon Wireless. "Consumers will quickly realize that there's really a difference between the capabilities of various wireless data networks. All '4G' is not the same."
And that's what's so difficult. The term 4G has become meaningless and confusing as hell for wireless customers.
For instance, T-Mobile's 4G network, which is technically 3G, will have speeds that are at least equal to -- and possibly faster -- than Verizon's 4G-LTE network at launch. At the same time, AT&T's 3G network, which is also being scaled up like T-Mobile's, is not being labeled "4G."
That's why some industry experts predict that the term "4G" will soon vanish.
"The labeling of wireless broadband based on technical jargon is likely to fade away in 2011," said Dan Hays, partner at industry consultancy PRTM. "That will be good news for the consumer. Comparing carriers based on their network coverage and speed will give them more facts to make more informed decisions."
Hays expects that independent researchers -- or the Federal Communications Commission -- will step in next year to perform speed and coverage tests.
Meanwhile, don't expect anyone to hold the carriers' feet to the fire.
"Historically, ITU's classification system has not held a great degree of water and has not been used to enforce branding," Hays said. "Everyone started off declaring themselves to be 4G long before the official decision on labeling was made. The ITU was three to four years too late to make an meaningful impact on the industry's use of the term."

I understand all that. But here is my newbie question:
Can the 4G TMo devices (say myTouch4G or G2) really attain quicker d/l speeds than a 3G device like Vibrant? If so, how?
I have not been able to read a clear explanation of this anywhere. Also, TMo says their network will hit 21Mbps in 2011, and that is backward compatible. If so, then why is a 4G device needed?

Call it 10G if they like its just a name, I dont care as long as the speed meets my need at a reasonable price.

because our phones are only capable 7 mbps while the g2 and the mytouch4g can go to about 14 mbps (not even 21) ... but yeah thats why ... its hardware related

spookini said:
I understand all that. But here is my newbie question:
Can the 4G TMo devices (say myTouch4G or G2) really attain quicker d/l speeds than a 3G device like Vibrant? If so, how?
I have not been able to read a clear explanation of this anywhere. Also, TMo says their network will hit 21Mbps in 2011, and that is backward compatible. If so, then why is a 4G device needed?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They are backward compatible, for example HSPA+ will give vibrant which does not support HSPA+ a speed boost, just not fully benfitted. Same story with USB 3.0 and 2.0

4G is 100 mbps and TMobile will be 21mbps. None of these networks will have 4G speeds and all in fact are upgraded 3G speeds. AT&T will be usding the same HSPA that TMobile will be using and eventually they also will be at 21 mbps.
How any of these carriers can call themselves 4G is beyond me.

Actually the 4G spec calls for 1 Gbps stationary speed, the 100 mbps is the minimum while mobile so it will be 5 years before you really see that.
T-mobiles current "4G" Network is currently running at 21 mbps, with 42 mbps a software upgrade away. So while they don't meet the true 4G speed threshold, neither does sprints current 10 mbps wimax, or verizons 12 mbps LTE. When sprint and verizon first launched their "3G" networks they didn't meet the requirements for at least a couple years, and we are not any worse off due to that flexibility.
I still roll with a 7.2 mbps vibrant and I will be honest, there has not been any time where I had good 3G speed that I needed anything more.

spookini said:
I understand all that. But here is my newbie question:
Can the 4G TMo devices (say myTouch4G or G2) really attain quicker d/l speeds than a 3G device like Vibrant? If so, how?
I have not been able to read a clear explanation of this anywhere. Also, TMo says their network will hit 21Mbps in 2011, and that is backward compatible. If so, then why is a 4G device needed?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
think back to USB 2.0
when USB 2.0 came out it allows for higher speed transfers etc....
You will only get 2.0 speeds on a 2.0 port.
The USB 2.0 device will work in a 1.0/1.1 port, but it will not give you 2.0 speeds.
if you want, just replace USB 2.0 with HSPA+
and replace 1.0/1.1 with HSPA7.2

Let me try to shed some light on things for you.
spookini said:
But here is my newbie question:
Can the 4G TMo devices (say myTouch4G or G2) really attain quicker d/l speeds than a 3G device like Vibrant? If so, how?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes. Without getting all technical, it has to do with how the data is compressed and encoded on the different channels that the phone and cell towers use.
HSPA+ is an improved version of HSPA. HSPA is an addition to UMTS 3G which allows for faster data transfer rates than just regular UMTS 3G.
I have not been able to read a clear explanation of this anywhere. Also, TMo says their network will hit 21Mbps in 2011, and that is backward compatible. If so, then why is a 4G device needed?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You won't find one unless you do some real digging and learn enough to understand some basics of UMTS. True 4G does a lot more than just give faster data rates. The entire back-end of how the cell towers and core network route information is different. The way the radios in the cell phones work is different and the way the cell towers organize data is different. The benefit is more efficient mobile communication service.
The way things are with 3G, it is difficult to balance voice traffic with the ever-increasing demand for data traffic and maintain QoS for a large number of users simultaneously. Anyone who has tried to use AT&T 3G at a football game or concert can tell you how crappy the service gets when the towers get loaded.

Yes But Marketing.......
All that tarzanman said is correct but the larger picture is just perception and controlling it.
Basically, we really do not have 3g unless you really get somewhere close to 7mg speed consistently........We do not and i am ok with my 2-3mg speed it is plenty good enough for my needs.
Here is a good analogy......when front wheel drive car first came on the market they were hailed as a breakthrough in making a car handle better allowing more room in the car and being safer. The fact is only a little more room is the real benefit and the rest....well, it is just cheaper and easier to mass produce. The car handles poorer than a rear wheel car or 4-wheel. But, they convinced most of the dopey-ignorant customers/masses and even to this day people still think they are better. Moral of the story.........control the message and control the spin, and to hell with facts........ because most don't care they just want the latest "craze jargon" on their lips so they feel cool...(sorry for the rant)
I have had a cell phone now for 27 years.......and here is my advice:
here in the USA --go with T mobile for now watch the business trends and when they start acting like Verizon and Att then look for the next up and coming carrier and then go with them.. That is the only way to have decent, reliable and fast connection speeds for a reasonable prices.

Who cares? As started in the article ITU's decisions hold no water. They have no authority and their definition is arbitrary. I'm in the product development industry, and when our end product goes through a redesign or significant optimization it gets a generation bump. We're now up to third generation. Product looks the same for the most part, but performance increased as a result of engineering changes.
For the wireless industry, all carriers are implementing significant performance increases through network upgrades. These upgrades are not 100% compatible with current generation devices. As far as I'm concerned that's worthy of a generation bump. People are splitting hairs for no reason. It's quite silly. If I were an engineer for any of the major carriers right now I would be pretty annoyed with this ITU business by now.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App

It is easy,
HSDPA+ (TMO), EV-DO(Verizon), LTE(Verizon) and 802.16e Wimax(Sprint) are considered 3G Transitional.
LTE Advanced and 802.16m (WiMax "Advanced" if you want to call it that) are 4G.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3GPP
Go to the bottom of the page and view the chart.

t1n0m3n said:
It is easy,
HSDPA+ (TMO), EV-DO(Verizon), LTE(Verizon) and 802.16e Wimax(Sprint) are considered 3G Transitional.
LTE Advanced and 802.16m (WiMax "Advanced" if you want to call it that) are 4G.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3GPP
Go to the bottom of the page and view the chart.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Verizon can call their LTE whatever they want but the fact is it isnt as fast as TMobiles HSPA+

i rather have true unlimited 3G than some bologni 4G with a 5Gb cap. May be is too much to ask for.

Remember, Most tout 4G more or less as 4th Generation rather than true 4G. Although marketing says otherwise. It's a ploy to get your service, just like spray painting your head makes you look like you have more hair. I don't care what they call it, as long as it benefits my speeds.
For companies that have actual caps. its stupid that they are increasing the speeds that you hit your cap. So you may have better speeds to do more, but really you are just hitting your cap faster so you can pay them more money.

t1n0m3n said:
It is easy,
HSDPA+ (TMO), EV-DO(Verizon), LTE(Verizon) and 802.16e Wimax(Sprint) are considered 3G Transitional.
LTE Advanced and 802.16m (WiMax "Advanced" if you want to call it that) are 4G.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3GPP
Go to the bottom of the page and view the chart.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lol are you serious. wikipedia is not even a credible source and ANYONE can go in and change the info.

Actually, that wikipedia article is pretty spot on.

Tarzanman said:
Actually, that wikipedia article is pretty spot on.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
indeed it is. And unless you want to read a few 700 page books on the differences between UMTS/WCDMA/HSPA, and LTE/LTE-a, that's about as good of a source as is available at this point.
And as to the OP - it's all about marketing. Technically speaking, 1xRTT and EDGE are both 3g technologies. But cell companies hyped up EvDO and UMTS as 3g, to simplify it for the American consumer.
And so they're marketing their next generation of networks as "4g", even though that doesn't meet up with what the ITU defines as 4G on technical terms.
Again, this is all because cell phone companies know that people buy into the hype rather than concern themselves with the details.
But in the end, who gives a damn? It's significantly faster than what people used to expect from 3g (ie 1-2mbps), so as long as the results are better, they can call it 9000G for all I care.

All of this 4G related discourse is exactly what the carriers want. Four gee shmoor gee. I'm just happy I get 3-5 mbps down where I live.
In the end, we are all just stupid pawns

Tarzanman said:
Actually, that wikipedia article is pretty spot on.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It doesn't matter, wiki bashing is in vogue even if one doesn't have a clue if the article is accurate or not.
Wikipedia 4TL!

Clearwire hints at LTE build with Sprint

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

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

Great read! Thanks
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[POLL] LTE in your area, and will it affect your area?

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!