Related
First, this isn't one of "those" threads that just talks about "OMGZ WiMax is so much betterz kthx" it's a technical discussion, so be prepared for lots of technical jargon.
I don't really know where to start, so lets just dive right in:
Clear & Sprint - Bandwidth & an Open Relationship:
Even if LTE does end up winning in the global market, Sprint & Clear (from here on out, if I mention one, assume the other is mentioned too) can easily switch. Their 2.5Ghz spectrum is widely used worldwide for both LTE & WiMax, so not only can they easily switch in software, they will have better global roaming potential than the other big carriers here in the USA that are using 700Mhz spectrum for there nets.
Clear is running tests this year in both TD-LTE and FDD-LTE. They are clearly shaping up to be one hell of a 4G provider, and even a backbone provider with their large WiMax buildout so far done. (WiMax is a nearly perfect technology for wireless backhaul, in case you didn't know)
Also, Sprint has MASSIVE spectrum holdings in the 2.5Ghz channels, so that gives them many more advantages that I'll get into later.
Frequency, frequency, frequency!
I cannot stress how important this is! Everyone is saying how much better LTE is than WiMax because of its better building penetration & lower build out costs. Being on 700Mhz here in the USA, it will require ~1/4th of the equipment vs WiMax to get the same coverage area & building penetration.
Thats fine & dandy, until you talk global roaming. See, in the EU, LTE is actually slated for the 2.6Ghz channel, and WiMax is still on 2.5Ghz. So here in the USA, LTE probably does have an advantage coverage & cost wise to carriers, but it also hamstrings them in multiple ways. In Europe, with it on the 2.6 channel it will actually be on par if not slightly worse than WiMax coverage & penetration wise. It will also cost about the same to roll out.
Roaming:
Obviously being on 700Mhz here in the USA, people will be able to roam between Verizon & AT&T, and anyone else on that channel. The problems come when you go overseas. As mentioned above, in Europe LTE is on a completely different freq than here, so global roaming without multi-band radios is pretty much out. This increases cost for devices.
Clear will be using 2.5Ghz spectrum for LTE (should they switch) so they should be able to roam globally, although they may not. This is a HUGE advantage.
Size DOES matter!
No, you pervs, not like that.
Because of the vast spectrum that Sprint holds, they can take advantage of it and provide much higher throughput over the same technology. While VZW & AT&T are limited spectrum wise because of using 700, Sprint isn't. Most LTE carriers in the US can only offer 10Mhz channels for upload & download. This leads to the weak (relatively) speeds of 5-12Mbps down Verizon is promising at launch.
On the other hand, Clear can take advantage of all that spectrum & offer channels of anywhere from 20-40Mhz Actually, they are using paired 20Mhz channels for a total of 40Mhz throughput per connection on LTE, providing FOUR TIMES the throughput of other networks. That's how they can promise speeds of 20-70Mbps downlink. Chalk another one up for Clear.
Is It True 4G?
It depends. LTE is a true 4G standard no matter how you slice it.
WiMax-16e is what Clear currently has rolled out. It is NOT true 4G. It has most of the qualifications (full IP backbone network, etc) but it doesn't meet speed requirements. Fixed you have to (theoretically) be able to provide 1Gbps downlink & 100Mbps mobile to qualify as 4G. LTE (if you use the right frequencies & have the spectrum to provide wide enough channels) can do that. 16e can't. Enough said.
BUT! WiMax-16m (WiMax2, as it's been branded) is a true 4G standard. It was finalized as a standard this summer, and equipment providers (Alcatel-Lucent, Motorola, etc) are expected to be able to provide backend gear for it by early next year & user devices by the end of next year. This is where WiMax really can compete with LTE. Think of the WiMax to WiMax2 upgrade as the HSPA to HSPA+ rollouts going on on T-Mobile & Bell/Rogers in Canada. Another plus for WiMax 2 (16m) is that it is completely backward compatible with WiMax (16e), again just like HSPA devices are compatible with HSPA+ networks.
Other Advantages:
LTE does offer a standardized voice transmission method, whereas WiMax (2) doesn't. This is a big thing for carriers, and I'm not going to say it doesn't matter, because it does. Sprint & any other WiMax provider worldwide will have to maintain their GSM or CDMA2000 networks to keep providing voice. That also means that mobile devices will have to provide dual-mode CDMA/WiMax or GSM/WiMax chips to stay connected. This could change. They could implement it down the road, but in its current state, WiMax can't do it. OTOH, EvDo devices also have to be dual mode, since the EvDo standard that CDMA carriers chose couldn't do voice, whereas different techs (such as EvDv from Qualcomm) could do both. So it's not really new to many of them, just something to consider.
Wrapup (my opinion):
Both are great technologies if done right. Right now, WiMax has the advantage because its more rolled out & it has the spectrum available to operators to provide higher speeds. That could easily change in the future, especially if more telcos can provide larger channels for LTE to reach its full speeds. WiMax 2 could also be a game changer in the industry.
In all actuality, the technologies are almost identical. It isn't like HD-DVD vs BluRay, where there was a clearcut winner. There won't be that here, both are excellent technologies & will continue to coexist. Much like Cable vs. DSL in the landline world. WiMax offers great technology as wireless backhaul & last mile delivery for rural broadband, but is also becoming a good access technology for 4G wireless. LTE was designed by carriers & for carriers as the natural progression to HSPA to carry voice as well as data. It is an access network at heart. WiMax is more flexible, it can do access or backhaul. It really comes down to carrier choice & what freqs they have available to them.
Hope this helps clear some stuff up. I've seen a lot of uneducated posts about this & it really annoys me.
EDIT - More info:
Topography is another huge factor. For some markets LTE will be a better choice, and for others WiMax will. Again it comes down to what freqs the telcos have available to deploy on.
Also, I forgot to clarify a couple more things about Clear's LTE trials. I mentioned that they were using TD-LTE & FDD-LTE (a good article on them here). A key difference is that TD is able to be used on the same unpaired freqs as WiMax is, so where carriers that only had access to the unpaired freqs before had to go with WiMax can now go with a variation of LTE (although still not the same as the normal carriers). FDD is what most telcos already have access to today, so they are building on it. Clear has both. Another win. Clear's TD-LTE trials are using paired 10Mhz channels for a total of 20Mhz, which will provide speeds potentially faster than WiMax but slower than FDD-LTE. Their FDD-LTE trials will be using paired 20Mhz channels for 40Mhz total.
Several more good articles on the subject here, here, and here.
WiMax is currently seen as the predominant tech of choice in India because of the abundance of unpaired spectrum available there. Good articles on that here & here. Intel is a huge backer of WiMax in India as well as the US, and are offering SoC's & laptop chipsets with WiMax integrated. They are also offering standalone Mini-PCIe WiMax cards. See more info on big WiMax players in the WiMax Forum group.
I'm trying to be as unbiased as possible here & give the (dis)advantages of both techs here. There are links in defense of both techs above, and I'm not a "fanboy" for either one.
Reserved just in case.
Also, vote this to the front page if you think it's educational!
Wow, that was really well written. Bookmarked for future reference, and to share in other forums or blog posts/comments
WiMax carriers wouldn't necessarily have to carry dual-mode for voice. Why couldn't they just use a VoIP technology? Latency on WiMax in good coverage is low enough to sustain a stable and high-quality VoIP call. Even SIP traffic through a carrier-specific VPN tunnel would probably be sufficient to handle any voice demand.
afazel said:
WiMax carriers wouldn't necessarily have to carry dual-mode for voice. Why couldn't they just use a VoIP technology? Latency on WiMax in good coverage is low enough to sustain a stable and high-quality VoIP call. Even SIP traffic through a carrier-specific VPN tunnel would probably be sufficient to handle any voice demand.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's true, but like I said, there's no STANDARD for voice on WiMax. Carriers can implement their own, but it could vary between networks. As far as the IEEE standards are concerned there is no voice. On the other hand, LTE has a standard across networks.
Spectrum doesn't mean **** if you can't get connected inside. Many, many places this will be a huge issue. Even if you can get connected the signal loss will hamper bandwidth so again whats the point?
LTE is going to be the clear winner. Clear will eventually switch and the only losers will be handsets like the EVO and Eipc for anyone that is still using them with 4g in mind because inside of a couple of years I doubt they will continue to work (4g).
Aridon said:
Spectrum doesn't mean **** if you can't get connected inside. Many, many places this will be a huge issue. Even if you can get connected the signal loss will hamper bandwidth so again whats the point?
LTE is going to be the clear winner. Clear will eventually switch and the only losers will be handsets like the EVO and Eipc for anyone that is still using them with 4g in mind because inside of a couple of years I doubt they will continue to work (4g).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Youre spectrum point is only valid in the US since in other regions LTE is on a higher freq. Plus my spectrum points were all about LTE. WiMax is currently using 10Mhz channels too. I was saying that Clear's FDD-LTE trials will use 40Mhz channels. Their TD-LTE trials will be using paired 10Mhz channels for 20Mhz total.
Also, if Sprint builds the network properly (ie densely enough) then you won't have connection problems. That's the catch here in the US & why LTE will win here, but in other regions its still a fair fight.
While it's nice knowing our phones are just that little bit more "future proof",by the time any carrier has respectable lte /wimax2 networks, the majority of us would have already been upgraded to the next big thing which would have those capabilities out of the box.
from what i remember
almost all the carriers in the world (80+%) are planning to use LTE
sprint seems like the only major one that uses wimax (and planning to convert to LTE )
cLOUDFAn said:
from what i remember
almost all the carriers in the world (80+%) are planning to use LTE
sprint seems like the only major one that uses wimax (and planning to convert to LTE )
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually Yota in Russia is a major WiMax/GSM carrier & several telcos in Japan (can't remember names) are both behind WiMax. There are also several in India, which is one of the larger markets in the world.
Both will coexist happily I think. A major part of Clear's LTE trials this year are to test performance of providing both LTE & WiMax over the same channel. Another thing to consider is topography. I don't remember where I saw it but I saw a graphic that showed the range of 2.5 WiMax vs 700 LTE. Obviously the LTE provided better range, but depending on the topography WiMax can be a better option because it provides better service in dense urban areas if the network is planned right (less than 15dBm of loss from structures is a good level, 19 or 20 is the norm)
wimax in ugunda as well cool story, anyways I have a Q, the dual voice data thing, are you saying wimax wont support making calls and surfing net at the same time in the future and LTE will?
crakerjaks said:
wimax in ugunda as well cool story, anyways I have a Q, the dual voice data thing, are you saying wimax wont support making calls and surfing net at the same time in the future and LTE will?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, WiMax & LTE both support simultaneous voice & data. LTE supports it the right way, just like WCDMA/HSPA support it now.
WiMax supports it but only because it requires a dual mode radio (one for voice/EvDo, one for WiMax)
What I said means that if you have JUST an LTE connection (IE no 2G/3G/etc fallback network at all) you can make a phone call. If you have JUST a WiMax connection with no fallback network you can't make a call.
IE: WiMax is currently a data only network, like when T-Mobile launched their 3G network there was no voice coverage. Sprint could add it down the road (and probably will, if they don't switch to LTE) by using as the other poster said one of several possible VoIP options to deliver calls. LTE also uses VoIP as their call standard, since its a completely IP based backbone network like WiMax.
Aridon said:
Spectrum doesn't mean **** if you can't get connected inside. Many, many places this will be a huge issue. Even if you can get connected the signal loss will hamper bandwidth so again whats the point?
LTE is going to be the clear winner. Clear will eventually switch and the only losers will be handsets like the EVO and Eipc for anyone that is still using them with 4g in mind because inside of a couple of years I doubt they will continue to work (4g).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats true. Wimax has rolled out in Salt Lake City and its pretty much useless. It works on the main streets but as soon as you go off those,it fades fast. Inside buildings,you can rarely get a signal. It may get better,but right now the line of sight characteristics of the 2.5ghz signals are really a problem and Im not yet convinced that they can put in enough towers to overcome it.
Great OP !
...as an european, I am waiting for a nice LTE device
Great post so far - enjoying it very much.
What are your thoughts on the current Sprint WiMAX? Do you guys think the cities that are live will be kept the way they are? I remember reading somewhere when most cities are live Sprint will go back and improve the older cities so people can get more of a consistent signal. Its not WiMAX perse, its Sprint ATM.
Anybody know the energy efficiency (on the users end) of LTE, WiMax, and even HSPA+? WiMax is great even in it's US infancy, ~100 ping + 6-10Mbps down for me, but it's so much more energy inefficient compared to 3G that it's only something that I turn on if I want to tether and can connect my EVO to a power source.
Now compare that to the iPhone 4 which I also have. I don't think it's a HSPA+ phone but it can still take advantage (albeit not fully) of it if the signal is there. So I end up getting around the same ping and 4 Mbps and change on the down link. Now the thing that interests me the most is that it doesn't seem to effect the battery life as much if at all. So I actually get to enjoy the increased speed. Of course, I don't know by how much, if at all, this is effected if the phone is HSPA+ capable (20Mps+).
I know WiMax is very similar to WiFi, and we all know that WiFi is a lot nicer to the battery than 3G. So is WiMax's battery hogging maybe related to the poor coverage and can possibly be significantly improved when there's more coverage? Is anybody really, really near a tower and feel a difference?
What about LTE? Anybody from Sweden (or any other place that has LTE rolled out) here?
Edit: Now that I think of it, wouldn't LTE be better in this regard since it only has to power one radio for both voice/data?
Award Tour said:
Anybody know the energy efficiency (on the users end) of LTE, WiMax, and even HSPA+? WiMax is great even in it's US infancy, ~100 ping + 6-10Mbps down for me, but it's so much more energy inefficient compared to 3G that it's only something that I turn on if I want to tether and can connect my EVO to a power source.
Now compare that to the iPhone 4 which I also have. I don't think it's a HSPA+ phone but it can still take advantage (albeit not fully) of it if the signal is there. So I end up getting around the same ping and 4 Mbps and change on the down link. Now the thing that interests me the most is that it doesn't seem to effect the battery life as much if at all. So I actually get to enjoy the increased speed. Of course, I don't know by how much, if at all, this is effected if the phone is HSPA+ capable (20Mps+).
I know WiMax is very similar to WiFi, and we all know that WiFi is a lot nicer to the battery than 3G. So is WiMax's battery hogging maybe related to the poor coverage and can possibly be significantly improved when there's more coverage? Is anybody really, really near a tower and feel a difference?
What about LTE? Anybody from Sweden (or any other place that has LTE rolled out) here?
Edit: Now that I think of it, wouldn't LTE be better in this regard since it only has to power one radio for both voice/data?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its the phone not the network, really. ****ty battery life only gets ****tier when you are searching for a weak signal.
werxen said:
Its the phone not the network, really. ****ty battery life only gets ****tier when you are searching for a weak signal.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, but you have imagine that there are battery differences between LTE, WiMax, and HSPA+; just as there is between "2G", "3G", and WiFi
In Europe at least, LTE is pushed by a much stronger lobby and will be THE 4G standard.
It's already being deployed in Japan as well and will be in the USA. I think this is the next worldwide standard, so the prices will go down and that will leave only minor networks to Wimax as a mobility technology.
Wimax is already used in some places as a fixed internet acces (no mobility, only fixed wireless).
In France, I don't see LTE happening before 2013 because there have been many investments in the WCDMA networks so they will use HSPA+ to push and perfect the 3G network before eventually switching to LTE.
I found in the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) website a diagram about different telecom generations:
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
From: http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/imt-2000/Revised_JV/IntroducingIMT_item3.html
So the WiMAX IEEE 802.16e (and f) and LTE (3GPP Release 9) can be considered as "3.9G".
The ITU has selected two technologies for the 4G (IMT-Advanced) which are the WiMAX IEEE 802.16m and LTE-Advanced (3GPP Release 10) [url=http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/27_series/27.007/27007-a00.zip](1st Rev. zip file)[/url].
I would add also that Qualcomm who is the inventor of the CDMA technology may prefer LTE-Advanced (3GPP Release 10) over WiMAX IEEE 802.16m.
Here, a pdf presentation about the benefits of the LTE-Advanced from his website:
http://www.qualcomm.de/documents/files/lte-advanced-benefits.pdf
More info about the 4G (IMT-Advanced):
http://www.itu.int/itunews/manager/display.asp?lang=en&year=2008&issue=10&ipage=39&ext=html
Many of us are so geeked about 4G speeds....the mytouch 4G sprouting about its HSPA+ network which is supposed to make this a better phone and such, but it's all hogwash. I found the article below very interesting and rather revealing as to how these carriers manage to soup us up and get us to believe what they want us to believe, true or not. Sad, but very enlightening.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- You've seen the 4G advertisements from T-Mobile, Sprint and Verizon, bragging about a much-better wireless network with blazing fast speeds.
Here's the secret the carriers don't advertise: 4G is a myth. Like the unicorn, it hasn't been spotted anywhere in the wild just yet -- and won't be any time in the near future.
The International Telecommunication Union, the global wireless standards-setting organization, determined last month that 4G is defined as a network capable of download speeds of 100 megabits per second (Mbps). That's fast enough to download an average high-definition movie in about three minutes.
None of the new networks the carriers are rolling out meet that standard.
Sprint (S, Fortune 500) was the first to launch a network called 4G, going live with it earlier this year. Then, T-Mobile launched its 4G network, claiming to be "America's largest 4G network." Verizon (VZ, Fortune 500) plans to launch its 4G network by the end of the year, which it claims will be the nation's largest and the fastest. AT&T (T, Fortune 500) is expected to unveil its 4G network next year.
Those networks have theoretical speeds of a fifth to a half that of the official 4G standard. The actual speeds the carriers say they'll achieve are just a tenth of "real" 4G.
So why are the carriers calling these networks 4G?
It's mostly a matter of PR, industry experts say. Explaining what the wireless carriers' new networks should be called, and what they'll be capable of, is a confusing mess.
To illustrate: Sprint bought a majority stake in Clearwire (CLWR), which uses a new network technology called WiMAX that's capable of speeds ranging from 3 Mbps to 10 Mbps. That's a different technology from Verizon's new network, based on a standard called Long Term Evolution (LTE), which will average 5 Mbps to 12 Mbps.
Seeing what its competitors were up to, T-Mobile opted to increase the speed capabilities of its existing 3G-HSPA+ network instead of pursuing a new technology. Its expanded network -- now called 4G -- will reach speeds of 5 Mbps to 12 Mbps.
No matter what they're called, all of these upgrades are clear improvements -- and the carriers shelled out billions to make them. Current "3G" networks offer actual speeds that range from between 500 kilobits per second to 1.5 Mbps.
So Sprint and Verizon have new, faster networks that are still technically not 4G, while T-Mobile has an old, though still faster network that is actually based on 3G technology.
Confused yet? That's why they all just opted to call themselves "4G."
The carriers get defensive about the topic.
"It's very misleading to make a decision about what's 4G based on speed alone," said Stephanie Vinge-Walsh, spokeswoman for Sprint Nextel. "It is a challenge we face in an extremely competitive industry."
T-Mobile did not respond to a request for comment.
One network representative, who asked not to be identified, claimed that ITU's 4G line-in-the-sand is being misconstrued. The organization previously approved the use of the term "4G" for Sprint's WiMAX and Verizon's LTE networks, he said -- though not for T-Mobile's HSPA+ network.
ITU's PR department ignored that approval in its recent statement about how future wireless technologies would be measured, the representative said. ITU representatives were not immediately available for comment.
"I'm not getting into a technical debate," said Jeffrey Nelson, spokesman for Verizon Wireless. "Consumers will quickly realize that there's really a difference between the capabilities of various wireless data networks. All '4G' is not the same."
And that's what's so difficult. The term 4G has become meaningless and confusing as hell for wireless customers.
For instance, T-Mobile's 4G network, which is technically 3G, will have speeds that are at least equal to -- and possibly faster -- than Verizon's 4G-LTE network at launch. At the same time, AT&T's 3G network, which is also being scaled up like T-Mobile's, is not being labeled "4G."
That's why some industry experts predict that the term "4G" will soon vanish.
"The labeling of wireless broadband based on technical jargon is likely to fade away in 2011," said Dan Hays, partner at industry consultancy PRTM. "That will be good news for the consumer. Comparing carriers based on their network coverage and speed will give them more facts to make more informed decisions."
Hays expects that independent researchers -- or the Federal Communications Commission -- will step in next year to perform speed and coverage tests.
Meanwhile, don't expect anyone to hold the carriers' feet to the fire.
"Historically, ITU's classification system has not held a great degree of water and has not been used to enforce branding," Hays said. "Everyone started off declaring themselves to be 4G long before the official decision on labeling was made. The ITU was three to four years too late to make an meaningful impact on the industry's use of the term."
I understand all that. But here is my newbie question:
Can the 4G TMo devices (say myTouch4G or G2) really attain quicker d/l speeds than a 3G device like Vibrant? If so, how?
I have not been able to read a clear explanation of this anywhere. Also, TMo says their network will hit 21Mbps in 2011, and that is backward compatible. If so, then why is a 4G device needed?
Call it 10G if they like its just a name, I dont care as long as the speed meets my need at a reasonable price.
because our phones are only capable 7 mbps while the g2 and the mytouch4g can go to about 14 mbps (not even 21) ... but yeah thats why ... its hardware related
spookini said:
I understand all that. But here is my newbie question:
Can the 4G TMo devices (say myTouch4G or G2) really attain quicker d/l speeds than a 3G device like Vibrant? If so, how?
I have not been able to read a clear explanation of this anywhere. Also, TMo says their network will hit 21Mbps in 2011, and that is backward compatible. If so, then why is a 4G device needed?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They are backward compatible, for example HSPA+ will give vibrant which does not support HSPA+ a speed boost, just not fully benfitted. Same story with USB 3.0 and 2.0
4G is 100 mbps and TMobile will be 21mbps. None of these networks will have 4G speeds and all in fact are upgraded 3G speeds. AT&T will be usding the same HSPA that TMobile will be using and eventually they also will be at 21 mbps.
How any of these carriers can call themselves 4G is beyond me.
Actually the 4G spec calls for 1 Gbps stationary speed, the 100 mbps is the minimum while mobile so it will be 5 years before you really see that.
T-mobiles current "4G" Network is currently running at 21 mbps, with 42 mbps a software upgrade away. So while they don't meet the true 4G speed threshold, neither does sprints current 10 mbps wimax, or verizons 12 mbps LTE. When sprint and verizon first launched their "3G" networks they didn't meet the requirements for at least a couple years, and we are not any worse off due to that flexibility.
I still roll with a 7.2 mbps vibrant and I will be honest, there has not been any time where I had good 3G speed that I needed anything more.
spookini said:
I understand all that. But here is my newbie question:
Can the 4G TMo devices (say myTouch4G or G2) really attain quicker d/l speeds than a 3G device like Vibrant? If so, how?
I have not been able to read a clear explanation of this anywhere. Also, TMo says their network will hit 21Mbps in 2011, and that is backward compatible. If so, then why is a 4G device needed?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
think back to USB 2.0
when USB 2.0 came out it allows for higher speed transfers etc....
You will only get 2.0 speeds on a 2.0 port.
The USB 2.0 device will work in a 1.0/1.1 port, but it will not give you 2.0 speeds.
if you want, just replace USB 2.0 with HSPA+
and replace 1.0/1.1 with HSPA7.2
Let me try to shed some light on things for you.
spookini said:
But here is my newbie question:
Can the 4G TMo devices (say myTouch4G or G2) really attain quicker d/l speeds than a 3G device like Vibrant? If so, how?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes. Without getting all technical, it has to do with how the data is compressed and encoded on the different channels that the phone and cell towers use.
HSPA+ is an improved version of HSPA. HSPA is an addition to UMTS 3G which allows for faster data transfer rates than just regular UMTS 3G.
I have not been able to read a clear explanation of this anywhere. Also, TMo says their network will hit 21Mbps in 2011, and that is backward compatible. If so, then why is a 4G device needed?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You won't find one unless you do some real digging and learn enough to understand some basics of UMTS. True 4G does a lot more than just give faster data rates. The entire back-end of how the cell towers and core network route information is different. The way the radios in the cell phones work is different and the way the cell towers organize data is different. The benefit is more efficient mobile communication service.
The way things are with 3G, it is difficult to balance voice traffic with the ever-increasing demand for data traffic and maintain QoS for a large number of users simultaneously. Anyone who has tried to use AT&T 3G at a football game or concert can tell you how crappy the service gets when the towers get loaded.
Yes But Marketing.......
All that tarzanman said is correct but the larger picture is just perception and controlling it.
Basically, we really do not have 3g unless you really get somewhere close to 7mg speed consistently........We do not and i am ok with my 2-3mg speed it is plenty good enough for my needs.
Here is a good analogy......when front wheel drive car first came on the market they were hailed as a breakthrough in making a car handle better allowing more room in the car and being safer. The fact is only a little more room is the real benefit and the rest....well, it is just cheaper and easier to mass produce. The car handles poorer than a rear wheel car or 4-wheel. But, they convinced most of the dopey-ignorant customers/masses and even to this day people still think they are better. Moral of the story.........control the message and control the spin, and to hell with facts........ because most don't care they just want the latest "craze jargon" on their lips so they feel cool...(sorry for the rant)
I have had a cell phone now for 27 years.......and here is my advice:
here in the USA --go with T mobile for now watch the business trends and when they start acting like Verizon and Att then look for the next up and coming carrier and then go with them.. That is the only way to have decent, reliable and fast connection speeds for a reasonable prices.
Who cares? As started in the article ITU's decisions hold no water. They have no authority and their definition is arbitrary. I'm in the product development industry, and when our end product goes through a redesign or significant optimization it gets a generation bump. We're now up to third generation. Product looks the same for the most part, but performance increased as a result of engineering changes.
For the wireless industry, all carriers are implementing significant performance increases through network upgrades. These upgrades are not 100% compatible with current generation devices. As far as I'm concerned that's worthy of a generation bump. People are splitting hairs for no reason. It's quite silly. If I were an engineer for any of the major carriers right now I would be pretty annoyed with this ITU business by now.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
It is easy,
HSDPA+ (TMO), EV-DO(Verizon), LTE(Verizon) and 802.16e Wimax(Sprint) are considered 3G Transitional.
LTE Advanced and 802.16m (WiMax "Advanced" if you want to call it that) are 4G.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3GPP
Go to the bottom of the page and view the chart.
t1n0m3n said:
It is easy,
HSDPA+ (TMO), EV-DO(Verizon), LTE(Verizon) and 802.16e Wimax(Sprint) are considered 3G Transitional.
LTE Advanced and 802.16m (WiMax "Advanced" if you want to call it that) are 4G.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3GPP
Go to the bottom of the page and view the chart.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Verizon can call their LTE whatever they want but the fact is it isnt as fast as TMobiles HSPA+
i rather have true unlimited 3G than some bologni 4G with a 5Gb cap. May be is too much to ask for.
Remember, Most tout 4G more or less as 4th Generation rather than true 4G. Although marketing says otherwise. It's a ploy to get your service, just like spray painting your head makes you look like you have more hair. I don't care what they call it, as long as it benefits my speeds.
For companies that have actual caps. its stupid that they are increasing the speeds that you hit your cap. So you may have better speeds to do more, but really you are just hitting your cap faster so you can pay them more money.
t1n0m3n said:
It is easy,
HSDPA+ (TMO), EV-DO(Verizon), LTE(Verizon) and 802.16e Wimax(Sprint) are considered 3G Transitional.
LTE Advanced and 802.16m (WiMax "Advanced" if you want to call it that) are 4G.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3GPP
Go to the bottom of the page and view the chart.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lol are you serious. wikipedia is not even a credible source and ANYONE can go in and change the info.
Actually, that wikipedia article is pretty spot on.
Tarzanman said:
Actually, that wikipedia article is pretty spot on.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
indeed it is. And unless you want to read a few 700 page books on the differences between UMTS/WCDMA/HSPA, and LTE/LTE-a, that's about as good of a source as is available at this point.
And as to the OP - it's all about marketing. Technically speaking, 1xRTT and EDGE are both 3g technologies. But cell companies hyped up EvDO and UMTS as 3g, to simplify it for the American consumer.
And so they're marketing their next generation of networks as "4g", even though that doesn't meet up with what the ITU defines as 4G on technical terms.
Again, this is all because cell phone companies know that people buy into the hype rather than concern themselves with the details.
But in the end, who gives a damn? It's significantly faster than what people used to expect from 3g (ie 1-2mbps), so as long as the results are better, they can call it 9000G for all I care.
All of this 4G related discourse is exactly what the carriers want. Four gee shmoor gee. I'm just happy I get 3-5 mbps down where I live.
In the end, we are all just stupid pawns
Tarzanman said:
Actually, that wikipedia article is pretty spot on.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It doesn't matter, wiki bashing is in vogue even if one doesn't have a clue if the article is accurate or not.
Wikipedia 4TL!
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.
Hello everyone,
Today was a very big day if you are on or thinking about making the move over to Sprint. Today, they announced their plans for their future LTE network and how they plan to move forward over the next few years.
The first thing to discuss is Wimax. Wimax is a good technology, but the problem is that both Clearwire and Sprint deployed it very poorly. First of all, it was deployed on a very high spectrum, making it difficult to penetrate through buildings and travel long distances, while not degrading in signal strength. The other thing about the current Wimax deployment is that (and I have noticed this personally) switching from tower to tower over Wimax is very poorly done. What I mean by this is that switching from tower to tower doesn't work like it would if I were to use 3G.
Wimax was, however, a great investment. Wimax gave Sprint a great partnership with Clearwire, and it also gave Sprint the the title of the first 4G network(not that the title really matters anymore). I feel that Sprint knew they were going to at some point make the switch to LTE, which is why they used Wimax instead of LTE. It turns out that it is pretty easy to convert a Wimax tower to an LTE tower, its just a few hardware and software changed and you are ready to go.
Now its time to get down to the exciting stuff, the conversion over to LTE. Sprint plans to deploy its LTE network by the middle of 2012 using its current Wimax network (which will be converted over to LTE), Lightsquared's new LTE network (assuming it goes through the FCC), and most importantly, Nextel's IDEN network. I say that IDEN is the most important because of two things; the first being that the network is already of decent size, so there would be a good signal in much of the country, the second being that the IDEN network runs a lower part of the wireless spectrum, allowing the signal to reach farther distances and penetrate buildings. All three of these solutions will expand Sprint's network effectively and quickly, and give many people in America 4G.
As far as devices go, Sprint will be releasing 15 LTE equipped devices in 2012 (the first phones will be strictly 1900Mhz which will be Sprint's 4G), and will continue to sell Wimax devices throughout 2012. This is a smart move, as I believe that completely dropping Wimax support would cause a sort of uprising among Sprint customers. If Sprint turns off its Wimax network at the end of 2012, they should allow any customers that still have a Wimax phone to upgrade to a new LTE phone, thereby honoring their promise of unlimited 4G.
The price of this new network is not cheap. Currently, Sprint believes it will spend around $10 billion to create this new LTE network. They also believe that they will be saving about $17 billion within the next 5-6 years because they will be fading out their IDEN network (which currently costs $4 billion a year to run). Note that this number is much higher than wall street analysts had expected, but Sprint is going to do what it has to do.
So what is the end result? I believe that if all goes smoothly, the LTE rollout will go quickly and Sprint will have a thriving LTE network by the middle of 2013, and at that point it will cover most major cities in America as well as the more populated suburbs. However, if this transition does not go well, I feel that this could be the end of Sprint. Sprint is spending a lot of money these days ($10 billion on a new network over 3 years, $30 billion on Iphones over the next 4 years) and I am sure investors are a bit wary of the overall situation.
I have very high hopes for Sprint, and I hope that they rollout their new network successfully and quickly, so that everyone can experience the true speed and power of 4G LTE on the (in my opinion, maybe not yours) best wireless network in the nation.
PS: If you read all of this, thank you.
I just switched from Galaxy S3 on ATT to Droid Turbo on Verizon.
Signal outside was fine (on par with ATT), but today I went to work, I work in office area that is located in the middle of one story warehouse/production line environment., with ATT I was getting 4G LTE with 3 to 5 bars, now with Verizon i'm getting 3G with 1-2 bars, but when you try to do anything, nothing works, from time to time it even switches to something called 1x. what the hell is 1x?
whats the point of droid turbo large battery when its draining fast because poor thing can't get signal.
People always assume that because Verizon is the biggest that it covers every square inch of the United States. This of course, is not true. There are going to be areas where you have crappy signal or no signal at all. There are quite a few places in California where I have no signal but someone with AT&T does. It's just the way it is. I would check with Verizon and make sure you're covered in that area. If you're not. You might want to consider going back to AT&T
Many things factor into signal, as well. Different carriers use different frequencies and wavelengths, and different things impact the reception of those frequencies differently. I worked in a building where Sprint signal was 100% all the time, but Verizon was crap. They had film on the windows (the help block sun and keep AC costs down) that didn't play well with VZW. When the company started moving to VZW for their company provided phones, it became a real issue (personal phones didn't really matter to them), and the film was changed.
Stucco/cement buildings aren't great for phone reception of any kind, but for all you know, there could have been an AT&T tower very near you, and the VZW tower is simply further away. Going inside the building further impedes that signal, so you get less of it on VZW.
To answer your other question, 1X is 2G service, and the slowest speed that Verizon has. 1X/2G, 3G and 4G LTE. It (usually) means that it is the best signal available and your phone is using it for a constant connection, vs. spotty 3G/4G. Again, this can be based on frequencies and bands within the VZW spectrum, and shouldn't really be compared to another phone on another carrier.
zathus said:
People always assume that because Verizon is the biggest that it covers every square inch of the United States. This of course, is not true. There are going to be areas where you have crappy signal or no signal at all. There are quite a few places in California where I have no signal but someone with AT&T does. It's just the way it is. I would check with Verizon and make sure you're covered in that area. If you're not. You might want to consider going back to AT&T
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Verizon has by far the best and most uniform coverage nationwide, but no US carrier is excellent, and every carrier has their strong spots and their weak spots, necessitating - unfortunately - choosing a carrier based on your location.
It sounds like where you work is a Verizon weak spot, and an AT&T strong spot.
Essentially, if you were to choose a random spot - any spot - within the U.S., and do this a hundred to a thousand times, Verizon would - on average - perform better than anyone else, but in any given spot, Verizon could suck, and someone else could be better.
Not sure how it is these days, but back in the day of iPhone exclusivity on AT&T, AT&T was pretty much unusable in all of New York City.
I switched from AT&T to Verizon 2-3 years ago (giving up my unlimited data in the process) because here in Boston I was simply getting too many dropped calls on AT&T. Verizon was a clear improvement, but still not perfect.
generally around here in the greater Boston area the consensus is:
Verizon > AT&T >> TMobile > Sprint > those other nobodies.
nekrosoft13 said:
I just switched from Galaxy S3 on ATT to Droid Turbo on Verizon.
Signal outside was fine (on par with ATT), but today I went to work, I work in office area that is located in the middle of one story warehouse/production line environment., with ATT I was getting 4G LTE with 3 to 5 bars, now with Verizon i'm getting 3G with 1-2 bars, but when you try to do anything, nothing works, from time to time it even switches to something called 1x. what the hell is 1x?
whats the point of droid turbo large battery when its draining fast because poor thing can't get signal.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your title is a little mis-leading.
In any given location, any particular carrier may have more or less signal coverage than any of the other carriers. Sounds like you just happen to work in a place where AT&T coverage is better. That doesn't mean that Verizon's coverage is "horrible", because NO carrier can state that they work everywhere.
If it's that bad, you may want to consider returning the phone and switching back.
while I understand what all of you are saying.
but this is not one of those cases.
I stepped outside the back of the building, I stepped out the front of the building and I get 4-5 bars 4G LTE with 25-35Mbps transfer speed, sounds perfect...
I go back In the building I get 3G with 1-2 bars that don't work, or some 1x bull****.
Its not the "area" its the building, and this seems to fit with what some people (engineers/including people that are experts in RF and other radio frequencies) been telling me, CDMA has trouble travelling through thick walls.
ATT GSM didn't have that problem.
nekrosoft13 said:
while I understand what all of you are saying.
but this is not one of those cases.
I stepped outside the back of the building, I stepped out the front of the building and I get 4-5 bars 4G LTE with 25-35Mbps transfer speed, sounds perfect...
I go back In the building I get 3G with 1-2 bars that don't work, or some 1x bull****.
Its not the "area" its the building, and this seems to fit with what some people (engineers/including people that are experts in RF and other radio frequencies) been telling me, CDMA has trouble travelling through thick walls.
ATT GSM didn't have that problem.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But you're not losing your CDMA signal, you're losing your LTE signal. It's just the tower, or the frequency Verizon has there. Maybe Verizon has high frequency at your location and therefore it can't penetrate the building. Use LTE discovery to find out which band you have.
current connection eHRPD/1x
is not even listing any LTE frequencies....
****ing verizon bull****....
on the signal tab, now its showing connecting...... 10 second later, connected, 5 seconds later connecting... great service!
nekrosoft13 said:
while I understand what all of you are saying.
but this is not one of those cases.
I stepped outside the back of the building, I stepped out the front of the building and I get 4-5 bars 4G LTE with 25-35Mbps transfer speed, sounds perfect...
I go back In the building I get 3G with 1-2 bars that don't work, or some 1x bull****.
Its not the "area" its the building, and this seems to fit with what some people (engineers/including people that are experts in RF and other radio frequencies) been telling me, CDMA has trouble travelling through thick walls.
ATT GSM didn't have that problem.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
3g is CDMA. 4G which you say you lose is GSM
Jweimn said:
3g is CDMA. 4G which you say you lose is GSM
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not quite, 4G is LTE. LTE is more similar to GSM than it is to CDMA, but it is not GSM.
Verizon uses 700, 850, 1700, and 2100MHz for LTE. ATT uses 700, 850, 1700, 1900, and 2100MHz for LTE. In the case of both carriers, there are generally not more than 1 or 2 of those frequencies in any given area and they are not always the same ones for both carries. Some areas have the lower frequencies which allows the signal to pass through buildings more easily, other areas have the higher frequencies which allows the signal to be bounced off of buildings which results in poorer building penetration, but can result in increased signal outside due to the signal being bounced off of surrounding surfaces. In your case you are almost definitely in a low frequency ATT and high frequency Verizon area. It is also possible that your work has a signal booster for ATT, but not for Verizon and that may be why you see dramatically better ATT signal there. No carrier is best everywhere, but Verizon is best in more places than any other US carrier. If you live/work in an area that ATT is better you should probably just go back to them.
Sent from my XT1254 using XDA Free mobile app
Verizon used to be better for me. I notice a pattern now where upon arrival to my house my signal goes from 3 to 5 bars of LTE to two or 1 or drops to 3g. Not only at my current residence but my last one as well. Like throttled down at home. I live in a flat city that should not have dead zones.
I live in a city with full coverage from all the carriers, but Verizon is the only carrier that keeps me connected from Philly to AC and back.
cstone1991 said:
Not quite, 4G is LTE. LTE is more similar to GSM than it is to CDMA, but it is not GSM.
Verizon uses 700, 850, 1700, and 2100MHz for LTE. ATT uses 700, 850, 1700, 1900, and 2100MHz for LTE. In the case of both carriers, there are generally not more than 1 or 2 of those frequencies in any given area and they are not always the same ones for both carries. Some areas have the lower frequencies which allows the signal to pass through buildings more easily, other areas have the higher frequencies which allows the signal to be bounced off of buildings which results in poorer building penetration, but can result in increased signal outside due to the signal being bounced off of surrounding surfaces. In your case you are almost definitely in a low frequency ATT and high frequency Verizon area. It is also possible that your work has a signal booster for ATT, but not for Verizon and that may be why you see dramatically better ATT signal there. No carrier is best everywhere, but Verizon is best in more places than any other US carrier. If you live/work in an area that ATT is better you should probably just go back to them.
Sent from my XT1254 using XDA Free mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
its funny that you mention signal boosters, actually its opposite, my work has no boosters for ATT and has couple for Verizon.... the problem is that they boosters they have bought go thought internet connection, the internet connection is a standard T1 line shared by about 500-700 workers some with workstations and smartphones on wifi and some with both.
When I was outside work, I was on LTE band 4.
inside work I have 3G with one-two bars that every 20+ minutes disconnect and drop to 1x, the sucky thing is that even when those 1-2 bars are present data doesn't work.
and WiFi is so saturated and its useless too....
Before someone says that the trouble is caused by Verizon boosters, before the boosters were put in place, there was zero Verizon signal inside the building, again outside was fine.
nekrosoft13 said:
... from time to time it even switches to something called 1x. what the hell is 1x?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So this is what it's come to.... :'( In some remote way this makes me feel old.
nekrosoft13 said:
I just switched from Galaxy S3 on ATT to Droid Turbo on Verizon.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not going to rehash all of what has been said, but there are two items you need to keep in mind.
First, you should check to see if you are in an XLTE area. XLTE makes use of the AWS spectrum and will do a better job of penetrating buildings.
Second, and most important .... If you have both a regular Verizon signal AND a Verizon Network Extender signal, the radios are designed to latch onto the Network Extender assuming that it will provide the best cell reception. The network extender is designed to make sure PHONE CALLS get through, and nothing more. The first and second generation Network Extenders provided only 1x data, while the latest generation Network Extenders provide 3G. There are no 4G LTE Network Extenders. As long as you are latching onto a network extender, you will NOT have good data. Period. You'll have great phone calls though. The "bars" reflect DATA coverage, not voice coverage. Phone calls will be fine even with zero bars. Data will be slow no matter what.
Again, the network extenders are meant to make certain people can make and receive PHONE CALLS (it is a cell phone after all) and not data.
Also, band 4 is the highest frequency that VZW uses for LTE and therefore the worst at penetrating buildings.
Sent from my XT1254 using XDA Free mobile app
cstone1991 said:
Also, band 4 is the highest frequency that VZW uses for LTE and therefore the worst at penetrating buildings.
Sent from my XT1254 using XDA Free mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
so basically Verizon sucks In the area where my work is. why would they use a band that is worse at penetrating buildings since this is mostly industrial park with warehouse like buildings and buildings with thick concrete walls.
nekrosoft13 said:
so basically Verizon sucks In the area where my work is. why would they use a band that is worse at penetrating buildings since this is mostly industrial park with warehouse like buildings and buildings with thick concrete walls.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Basically yeah. The boosters that your work uses aren't helping either when it comes to data, they actually probably make the problem even worse as another person pointed out. The carriers own licenses for different bands or spectrums in different areas. They can only use the ones that they own in the areas that they own them. There are many reasons why a carrier may purchase higher frequencies in some areas, but the main one is that they just have to buy what is available and that's probably what happened in that area. In some scenarios the higher frequencies do perform better, building penetration just isn't one of the things that they do well.
Sent from my XT1254 using XDA Free mobile app
cstone1991 said:
Basically yeah. The boosters that your work uses aren't helping either when it comes to data, they actually probably make the problem even worse as another person pointed out. The carriers own licenses for different bands or spectrums in different areas. They can only use the ones that they own in the areas that they own them. There are many reasons why a carrier may purchase higher frequencies in some areas, but the main one is that they just have to buy what is available and that's probably what happened in that area. In some scenarios the higher frequencies do perform better, building penetration just isn't one of the things that they do well.
Sent from my XT1254 using XDA Free mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I thought that VZW had band 13 everywhere they have LTE. I thought they just started adding Band 4, so if you connect to Band 4 then 13 is present. Otherwise, all the old VZW phones would not get LTE at all.
there are other people in the office that have verizon and same ****ty service.
we are looking into purchasing this for work, http://www.wilsonamplifiers.com/wilson-ag-pro-4g-70db-amplifier-kit-461104/
just not sure how this will play with current 3G repeaters that are in the building.