Related
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.
After reading of a new Mytouch HD product that is coming for T-Mobile Im pretty impressed with specs but very turned off by the looks.
So that makes me wonder does vibrant have the technology to run on T-mobile's 4G network with simple software updates?
Reason I am asking this is because I know The iphone 4G will be able to run on 4G network as soon as AT&T launch their 4G service.
Thanks for any knowledge in advance
.... Google is your best friend, its not 4g it's hspa+ on order to take advantage of that speed you ned the physical hardware in the phone which only the g2 had right now, in regards to the iphone 4, I've never heard anything about att launching any 4g network, I also work for att, the iphone doesn't have any hardware that support any faster speeds as far as I know
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
iPhone can handle ATT's new "Faster 3G", but they don't have 4G. My understanding is the Vibrant can do HSPa, but not HSPa+? I don't know the difference but that's what i understand. 2G, 3G and HSPa.
4G is just a marketing terms for the masses. After you look at this link...
http://shop.sprint.com/en/stores/popups/4G_coverage_popup.shtml
You should realize that the Vibrant is already capable of reaching the "average" speeds listed here (in areas with proper coverage). Wait...how is that possible?! It's not a 4G phone. Who cares!!! T-Mobile's network and phones already meet or exceed the speeds Sprint is advertising here. T-Mobile is way ahead of the curve here but they're not marketing the hell out of it. FYI, the average website (ATM) may have trouble maintaining a consistent throughput of 5-6 Mbps anyway. Even if you can go faster, does it really matter when the other side can't (yet)?
AlexSochi8 said:
After reading of a new Mytouch HD product that is coming for T-Mobile Im pretty impressed with specs but very turned off by the looks.
So that makes me wonder does vibrant have the technology to run on T-mobile's 4G network with simple software updates?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
T-Mobile does not have a 4G network, and they probably won't roll out 4G for at least 5 years
Reason I am asking this is because I know The iphone 4G will be able to run on 4G network as soon as AT&T launch their 4G service.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Apple hasn't announced a 4G Iphone, so (by definition) you really don't know what you're talking about.
AT&T is set to roll out LTE, but it will almost certainly be data-only devices as they work the kinks out. (As Verizon has done)
Thanks for any knowledge in advance
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You should ask yourself why you care about 4G. I doubt you'll notice much of a decrease in load times, and the carriers are probably going to charge out the yin-yang for the enhanced features they will be able to offer to everyone with 4G.
AT&T and Verizon are going to limited data (AT&T already has). You should really look past all the marketing and hype. All the carriers are guilty of confusing the public to serve their interests.
All T-Mobile phones will benefit from HSPA+ as it's backward compatible. However, the theoretical maximum throughput on the Vibrant (or any legacy phone) that doesn't have the HSPA+ antenna built in caps out around 7Mbs as I recall. The G2 which is built to run HSPA+ has a theoretical througput around 15-20 I believe.
Seriously though, even 7Mbs is pretty stupid fast for a cell phone.
Xard said:
All T-Mobile phones will benefit from HSPA+ as it's backward compatible. However, the theoretical maximum throughput on the Vibrant (or any legacy phone) that doesn't have the HSPA+ antenna built in caps out around 7Mbs as I recall. The G2 which is built to run HSPA+ has a theoretical througput around 15-20 I believe.
Seriously though, even 7Mbs is pretty stupid fast for a cell phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Clear explanation
But one thing, i am in Boston and my vibrant never reach over 50KB/s...wtf
It supposed to have the + network already...
I get 6mbps on my vibrant on hspa. Home wifi I get only 2.8, I see no difference in browser page loading time..
Downloading w will be faster but whatever.. 6 is all I need. I've only seen some people getting 8 on their g2s, meh, I'm happy with 6..... Hell I'm happy with 3mbps....
Emama said:
Clear explanation
But one thing, i am in Boston and my vibrant never reach over 50KB/s...wtf
It supposed to have the + network already...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Check the data icon top center - should be two arrows (up/down) and 'G','E', or '3G' to indicate tech. GPRS would be my guess for 50k... EDGE should reach around 200kbps. (I've maxed at about 1.8 mbps 3g in Charlotte, about 210k edge nearer home, and about 12mpbs wifi - same locations as that last my netbook gets 40-70mpbs though.
Check 'settings'->'wireless and network'->'mobile networks' and make sure '2g only' is unchecked. If so I'd suspect a hardware problem. (double-check that 3g is available where you're testing, of course)
j
newkirk said:
Check the data icon top center - should be two arrows (up/down) and 'G','E', or '3G' to indicate tech. GPRS would be my guess for 50k... EDGE should reach around 200kbps. (I've maxed at about 1.8 mbps 3g in Charlotte, about 210k edge nearer home, and about 12mpbs wifi - same locations as that last my netbook gets 40-70mpbs though.
Check 'settings'->'wireless and network'->'mobile networks' and make sure '2g only' is unchecked. If so I'd suspect a hardware problem. (double-check that 3g is available where you're testing, of course)
j
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is 3g network already,
My phone and my gf's one has the same result
I can have up to 2000kB/s with my home Wi-Fi....but tmo network sucks..
I never see a "G" in that blue icon
And the above result is based on the 3G icon...if it is E, it has only 4-5 kB/s! !!
Any other guy in Boston can tell me if it is T-Mobile network sucks or my phone
I live in Cambridge and just did the speed-test, 3g w/2 bars in my apartment. 129kbps download 614 upload. It really varies quite a bit probably depending upon network traffic.
Xard said:
All T-Mobile phones will benefit from HSPA+ as it's backward compatible. However, the theoretical maximum throughput on the Vibrant (or any legacy phone) that doesn't have the HSPA+ antenna built in caps out around 7Mbs as I recall. The G2 which is built to run HSPA+ has a theoretical througput around 15-20 I believe.
Seriously though, even 7Mbs is pretty stupid fast for a cell phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Does the 7mb cap only apply to hspa, or hspa+. Because on my wireless g network I get blazing speeds.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
ackattacker said:
I live in Cambridge and just did the speed-test, 3g w/2 bars in my apartment. 129kbps download 614 upload. It really varies quite a bit probably depending upon network traffic.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am talking about KB not kbps,
129 kbps is really slow!
I try to compare my friend incredible verizon network at Cambridge
He has 280KB while i have only 45KB download....damn
I get 5mbs in my hspa area on the vibrant.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Should I call T-Mobile to ask about it as it is ridiculous to have only 50-70kB (Less than 0.6 Mbits) in HSPA+ area
jayprime said:
Does the 7mb cap only apply to hspa, or hspa+. Because on my wireless g network I get blazing speeds.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
theoretical caps. HSDPA 7.2Mbps, T-mobile's variety of HSPA+ 21Mbps according to a T-mobile press release, Wi-fi G 54Mbps.
real word numbers HSDPA 1-5Mbps in good coverage depending on network traffic, HDPA+ on a vibrant 3-7 Mbps again depending on network traffic, Wi-fi... depends on your home internet connection speed.
Some people seem to misunderstand whether or not a non HSPA+ phone (such as ours) can benefit from HSPA+. It indeed can, but not in a straightforward way. In order for T-Mobile to support HSPA+ in a given market they must make reasonable upgrades to their networks backhaul capacity to support it. And these backhaul upgrades will become more important as T-Mobile actually begins selling HSPA+ devices.
One of the most important factors often overlooked with any network is it's backhaul capacity. Bottlenecks in familiar networks can easily make themselves apparent. Take for example the traditional DSL and Cable networks most of us use for wired internet service.
While you may pay for a given advertised speed, whether or not you actually see those speeds has less to do with the connection type and more oftentimes to do with how it has been implemented. In the case of DSL for instance, whether or not you can experience your advertised speed reliably depends on how many other customers are routed through the same DSLAM, *AND* how good the backhaul connection from the DSLAM is to your providers internal network. The same thing occurs with Cable and how many customers are aggregated into a given areas HFC. Bottlenecks within cable and dsl infrastructures occur at different points (because they're architecturally different), but once your outside those infrastructures they both share the potential for having backhaul bottlenecks.
In my area cable is way the fastest connection option, and though I do not pay for the highest speed tier here (15/2, instead of the 10/1 I have), when 10/1 was the fastest tier I'd rarely actually see those speeds. Now I see those speeds reliably. Why? Well there are many factors that effect a network topology, but it's clear that in order to reasonably support 15/2, my cable provider had to make sure it's backhaul could actually handle the load, so it was likely updated to accommodate this.
Hope this clarifies things a bit.
Basically the g2 and the mytouch 4g has hardware to hit 14mbps.
in this Link They tested the new vibrant 4g capable of 21 mbps. Since they both do not hit their theoretical max yet why are they not on the same level speed wise?
I had this similar situation with my friends hd2 and mytouch3g which both are capable of 7mbps compared to my g2 and i double their speeds 2ish and i had 4-5ish.
Can some one explain that to me?
tvdang7 said:
Basically the g2 and the mytouch 4g has hardware to hit 14mbps.
in this Link They tested the new vibrant 4g capable of 21 mbps. Since they both do not hit their theoretical max yet why are they not on the same level speed wise?
I had this similar situation with my friends hd2 and mytouch3g which both are capable of 7mbps compared to my g2 and i double their speeds 2ish and i had 4-5ish.
Can some one explain that to me?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"4G" doesn't actually mean anything. Initially, it was supposed to mean 100Mbps+, but it has been abused by carriers and now literally has no meaning. In fact, 3G is now also 4G as a result of carrier abuse.
The only thing that matters to you are the RAW NUMBERS and the understanding that the "4G" being marketed by tmobile is nothing more than UMTS w/HSPA (aka "3G"). Nothing to get excited about until you start seeing 50+ Mbps LTE.
The G2 and the mytouch 4G have snapdragon cpu's. The maximum cellular data input rate for the snapdragon cpu is 14.4 mbps. The samsung galaxy S phones (which is what the vibrant 4G is) use hummingbird cpus, so I assume they are able to accept data faster than the snapdragon cpus. Thus the vibrant 4G is limited by the current network speed (21 mbps) while the G2 and mytouch 4G are limited by their cpus (14.4 mbps.)
Although the data throughput speeds (for quite a while, anyway) will be much lower, so both phones, even though the vibrant 4G is able to accept data faster, will probably top out at around 8mbps.
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 running Cyanogenmod.
dhkr234 said:
"4G" doesn't actually mean anything. Initially, it was supposed to mean 100Mbps+, but it has been abused by carriers and now literally has no meaning. In fact, 3G is now also 4G as a result of carrier abuse.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is actually wrong on your part. The ITU stated that HSPA+ is officially 4G now. Same with LTE and WiMAX. It's not carrier abuse. Yes. T-Mobile made a big push at premature advertisements of HSPA+ being 4G, but it's legit now. It indeed does have a meaning and 4G is not the same as 3G as you stated.
ibemad1 said:
The G2 and the mytouch 4G have snapdragon cpu's. The maximum cellular data input rate for the snapdragon cpu is 14.4 mbps. The samsung galaxy S phones (which is what the vibrant 4G is) use hummingbird cpus, so I assume they are able to accept data faster than the snapdragon cpus. Thus the vibrant 4G is limited by the current network speed (21 mbps) while the G2 and mytouch 4G are limited by their cpus (14.4 mbps.)
Although the data throughput speeds (for quite a while, anyway) will be much lower, so both phones, even though the vibrant 4G is able to accept data faster, will probably top out at around 8mbps.
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 running Cyanogenmod.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i know its capable of of different speeds but why does the vibrant 4g in the link above reach high speeds than the mytouch 4g even though the speeds are under 14.4mbps? Should the speed difference be after 14.4?
If hummingbird has a 21mbps capability why doesn't the vibrant 3G get 21mbps being the same cpu as the vibrant 4G?
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using XDA App
tvdang7 said:
i know its capable of of different speeds but why does the vibrant 4g in the link above reach high speeds than the mytouch 4g even though the speeds are under 14.4mbps? Should the speed difference be after 14.4?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, the Vibrant 4Gs enhanced chipset allows for better throughout, albeit the speeds will vary on location. The area of testing for that article had decent fiber backhaul, but not enough to hit near 21 Mbps.
Just because something is capable of a max doesn't mean it will ever be realized in a real world scenario.
Sent from my HTC Vision using XDA App
androidfeen809 said:
If hummingbird has a 21mbps capability why doesn't the vibrant 3G get 21mbps being the same cpu as the vibrant 4G?
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is actually speculation that the Vibrant IS capable of 4G speeds and is merely limited by software. So there's that.
Sent from my HTC Vision using XDA App
ibemad1 said:
The G2 and the mytouch 4G have snapdragon cpu's. The maximum cellular data input rate for the snapdragon cpu is 14.4 mbps. The samsung galaxy S phones (which is what the vibrant 4G is) use hummingbird cpus, so I assume they are able to accept data faster than the snapdragon cpus. Thus the vibrant 4G is limited by the current network speed (21 mbps) while the G2 and mytouch 4G are limited by their cpus (14.4 mbps.)
Although the data throughput speeds (for quite a while, anyway) will be much lower, so both phones, even though the vibrant 4G is able to accept data faster, will probably top out at around 8mbps.
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 running Cyanogenmod.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wait a minute...
I've always understood it to be the radio chip that limits the data speeds. If the processor is the limiting factor then a 'dumb' phone shouldn't even be able to hit 3G speeds, let alone any tier of 4G. Yet that's what carriers are pushing for. Also, a USB dongle can hit 4G speeds without a 1GHz processor (yes the computer has one but not the dongle). Lets not forget wifi. My blackberry 8900 could utilize the full speed of my wifi that uses a cable connection (roadrunner). We all know how craptastic blackberry processors are and it did just fine. So I for one, would love to see this "it's the processor" concept elaborated on. Isn't the scorpion processor supposed to be more powerful than the hummingbird anyway? Makes no sense to me...
Since people seem baffled by this concept, lets elaborate:
4G speeds are handled by a combination of the baseband chip and processing factors. The CPU is responsible for converting and crunching raw data, and a higher end CPU is required to process faster HSPA+ speeds.
In some instances software may be a limiting factor in small speed tweaks, but as far as saying the Vibrant HSPA 7.2 is the same capability as the Vibrant HSPA+ 21 is wrong, software has nothing to do with it, in this case, its a newer chipset with an updated baseband. The Hummingbird processor, to my knowledge, is the same, but thats because it could handle the speeds fine already, it was mainly the baseband that needed revision. Keep in mind, when I say Baseband, Im referring to the baseband chip, not the software aspect we see in upgrading ROMs.
Don't confuse the wifi radio with the cellular radio, they're not the same at all. I can't elaborate on wifi aspects because I don't know much of that area.
Lastly, the argument that a USB dongle can handle speeds can be shot out of the water as well - in this case, the baseband chip is updated based on the model, and any processing overhead is handled via the CPU within the PC.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
I wasn't saying that the vibrant 4g just had a massively more powerful CPU. Its just a design limitation for snapdragon cpus that they can't accept cellular data faster than 14.4 mbps. They probably have enough processing power to go faster than that.
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 running Cyanogenmod.
ibemad1 said:
I wasn't saying that the vibrant 4g just had a massively more powerful CPU. Its just a design limitation for snapdragon cpus that they can't accept cellular data faster than 14.4 mbps. They probably have enough processing power to go faster than that.
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 running Cyanogenmod.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm sure they do, but like a pc, the device is only as fast as it's slowest component.
Sent from my HTC Vision using XDA App
tazz9690 said:
This is actually wrong on your part. The ITU stated that HSPA+ is officially 4G now. Same with LTE and WiMAX. It's not carrier abuse. Yes. T-Mobile made a big push at premature advertisements of HSPA+ being 4G, but it's legit now. It indeed does have a meaning and 4G is not the same as 3G as you stated.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Awesome...I guess this means the 15k I got on a speed test earlier today, with strong "4G" signal is really what I'm paying for.
Hurray future!
hexapus said:
Awesome...I guess this means the 15k I got on a speed test earlier today, with strong "4G" signal is really what I'm paying for.
Hurray future!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's no way you were actually getting that sort of speed. I assume you were using mobilespeedtest.com?
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 running Cyanogenmod.
ibemad1 said:
There's no way you were actually getting that sort of speed. I assume you were using mobilespeedtest.com?
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 running Cyanogenmod.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Reread his post broseph.... 15k is slower than dial up. The guy was being sarcastic.
Sent from my HTC Vision using XDA App
TheMan42 said:
Since people seem baffled by this concept, lets elaborate:
4G speeds are handled by a combination of the baseband chip and processing factors. The CPU is responsible for converting and crunching raw data, and a higher end CPU is required to process faster HSPA+ speeds.
In some instances software may be a limiting factor in small speed tweaks, but as far as saying the Vibrant HSPA 7.2 is the same capability as the Vibrant HSPA+ 21 is wrong, software has nothing to do with it, in this case, its a newer chipset with an updated baseband. The Hummingbird processor, to my knowledge, is the same, but thats because it could handle the speeds fine already, it was mainly the baseband that needed revision. Keep in mind, when I say Baseband, Im referring to the baseband chip, not the software aspect we see in upgrading ROMs.
Don't confuse the wifi radio with the cellular radio, they're not the same at all. I can't elaborate on wifi aspects because I don't know much of that area.
Lastly, the argument that a USB dongle can handle speeds can be shot out of the water as well - in this case, the baseband chip is updated based on the model, and any processing overhead is handled via the CPU within the PC.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well that makes a lot more sense than what I read earlier. It seemed to state that only the processor was involved in factoring which phones can hit 21.1Mbps or not. Yes the dongle was a stab in the dark. I just threw it in there to show that any device can access 21.1 Mbps which is the duty of the baseband 'radio' chip. The processor is what interprets the data and converts it to something usable. Being that the scorpion (2nd Gen Snapdragon - our processor) is more powerful than the current hummingbird processor - we *can* handle 21.1 but our baseband chip just isn't up to par. Like you said, it's the weakest component.
TheMan42 said:
Since people seem baffled by this concept, lets elaborate:
4G speeds are handled by a combination of the baseband chip and processing factors. The CPU is responsible for converting and crunching raw data, and a higher end CPU is required to process faster HSPA+ speeds.
In some instances software may be a limiting factor in small speed tweaks, but as far as saying the Vibrant HSPA 7.2 is the same capability as the Vibrant HSPA+ 21 is wrong, software has nothing to do with it, in this case, its a newer chipset with an updated baseband. The Hummingbird processor, to my knowledge, is the same, but thats because it could handle the speeds fine already, it was mainly the baseband that needed revision. Keep in mind, when I say Baseband, Im referring to the baseband chip, not the software aspect we see in upgrading ROMs.
Don't confuse the wifi radio with the cellular radio, they're not the same at all. I can't elaborate on wifi aspects because I don't know much of that area.
Lastly, the argument that a USB dongle can handle speeds can be shot out of the water as well - in this case, the baseband chip is updated based on the model, and any processing overhead is handled via the CPU within the PC.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LOL I kinda figure the wifi radio is not the same not long ago when my G2 hit the 20 mbps on wifi I was like WTF lol
androidfeen809 said:
LOL I kinda figure the wifi radio is not the same not long ago when my G2 hit the 20 mbps on wifi I was like WTF lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Think that only twelve years ago, when I used my first connection to the internet via cellular radio the speed was 9600 bps (about 1KB/s).
Think also that the WIFI classification is not the same as UMTS/HSDPA.
Indeed a nominal 10Mbps WIFI link is actually slower than a 7.2Mbps HSDPA one.
For those of you who do not underdtand Tmobile 4G or HSPA+
its stilL TECHINCALLY 3G, it is still using 3G techology, just optimized better.
To better understand this, think of DSL modems back in the day, what was the fastest when they were introduced? 54k, now look at them now, still DSL
Tmobile and other carriers *****ed alot because the standards for 4G were just too much and could not be meet.
Also, G2 HSPA+ will evenutally go up to 20 if not higher since Tmobile recently announce they would be increasing their speeds.
TrueYears said:
For those of you who do not underdtand Tmobile 4G or HSPA+
its stilL TECHINCALLY 3G, it is still using 3G techology, just optimized better.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Should be more correct call the HSPA+ 3.75G
The same happened in the 2G area
GSM = 2G
GPRS = 2.5G
Edge = 2.75G
Because they are all based on the same F/TDMA thecnology.
Now we have 3G for UMTS, 3.5G for HSDPA, 3.75G for HSPA+
4G should be used for the next level LTE and WIMAX
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.
In my opinion - T-mobile's faux 4g (HSPA+) is better (and I suppose AT&T has it as well, but AT&T sucks ) than LTE 4G, but I would like to know what you all think?
This thread is for the amiable placement of our opinions! I personally think that HSPA+ style technology is where the industry should be headed, but would like to hear other opinions!
I've put up my reasons for HSPA+ and will add reasons for both HSPA+ and LTE/real 4g as people weigh in. I'll try to give credit when I can to the original poster. So far, as I am a fan of HSPA+, I have no reasons for LTE/real 4g yet! I might get this moved to the Android General section eventually, as I think it would be interesting to see the overall viewpoint of the XDA Community!
Yes, I know that this might attract trolls/flaming, but lets all try something - don't feed them! Ignore them completely. This strategy has proven to work quite effectively. I think we could all get some insight from a good thread like this.
______________________________________________________________
Reasons for HSPA+:
1. So much cheaper for them to put into place.
2. Speeds (on 4g networks I have used - NY, Dallas, Portland, dozens of other places) are always north of 3 mbps down and 1 mbps up, all you really need for any kind of laptop tethering, and certainly more than you ever need for netflix on your phone, and definitely way more than you need for browsing sites on your phone (good websites nowadays even with plenty of pictures are small size).
3. It doesn't suffer from the constantly low signal issues of real 4g (i.e. no signal AT ALL inside of buildings - this is what I have seen from multiple people who have traveled with me - I have 4g when they have 2x or whatever the hell edge is for them).
4. Super cheap for our provider to upgrade, passing savings on to us in the long run - in some cases, all the tower needs is a firmware upgrade. At worst, fiber optics lines are needed in order to facilitate the faster speeds needed.
5. In "real" 4g phones, you have to turn something on to access your faster speeds? Really? I know, bit hypocritical coming from a guy who has rooted his phone and flashes roms, (for the record, I've only flashed G-lite after rooting!) but I bet the average consumer doesn't realize that they have to turn it on and never uses it. With HSPA+, it might not always be really "4G" when the icon says "4G," but at least we don't have to turn anything on - we just have to be in signal range! If you really want to know, you can get a widget (or modify the good ol' framework-res.apk ).
6. Furthermore, BATTERY. Need I say more? From the numerous people who have managed to get LTE signal I have traveled with, the BATTERY DRAINS LIKE WATER OUT OF A... SOMETHING WITH A HOLE IN IT. Ridiculous. Don't know about you guys, but even when I had low signal strength HSPA+ at work all day long, my battery would fall maybe 30% over 12 hours of light use on the stock unrooted rom.
7. Also, HSPA+ has freed up a lot of the 3G network for T-mobile - it is a fact that T-Mobile's 3G is now a bit faster than before. QUALIFIER - The same would technically apply to the real 4G networks, but remember, those networks see less time as users have to activate 4G on their phones to utilize 4G and therefore free up 3G.
Reasons for LTE/Real 4G:
skinien said:
- Theoretically, can achieve speeds faster than HSPA+
- LTE bands being used by at&t and Verizon are in the 700 MHz range.
I bolded the item that I feel is most important. The battery life issue will be a draw when LTE is more mature and chipsets become more efficient. However, the only comparable HSPA+ network to LTE is T-Mobile and they operate in the 1700/2100 MHz bands. The lower the frequency, the farther the signal can travel and the better the building penetration. The fact that the signal can travel farther means that carriers can upgrade/enhance networks faster and cheaper (less tower maintenance).
If battery life and speeds are equal, I want the best signal.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Can someone confirm that LTE does currently have better building penetration? I have not seen this happen to my friends with LTE, though my experiences certainly are not a large enough sample size. This question is raised in the question section below.
dhkr234 said:
-LTE eliminates the dual-protocol nonsense required for carrying a voice channel simultaneously with a data channel. A properly implemented LTE network will rely on VoIP services to deliver voice communications, maintaining ONLY a data network connection.
-LTE eliminates (at least it can...) the link between voice services and network provider. A proper LTE implementation will allow you to select your voice carrier separately from your data network, so you could rely 100% on, for example, google voice or voip.ms, the network provider is turned into a simple data channel.
Regarding the signal drop you mentioned in LTE, this isn't a problem with LTE, but rather a problem in the DEPLOYMENT. It does take time and money to put up the equipment and get a properly balanced network. There can also be issues regarding the utilization and availability of spectrum -- are those signal drops by chance associated with running LTE over AWS? Or are they running it on much more robust 700 MHz?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If the link between the voice service and network provider could disappear, that would be very interesting! The point was also raised that currently, because no voice runs over LTE, the 3G/2G/whatever radio has to remain constantly on in order to ensure that voice calls can be received/sent. This results in a faster drain of the battery, obviously, and may be a simple barrier to overcome.
______________________________________________________________
Questions!
The question still remains in my mind, however - is LTE (in its current state) still a huge battery hog even without both radios on at the same time? Because while I know as it matures, I'm sure radios may become more efficient - but you can only make things more efficient to a point.
dhkr234 said:
There can also be issues regarding the utilization and availability of spectrum -- are those signal drops by chance associated with running LTE over AWS? Or are they running it on much more robust 700 MHz?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
______________________________________________________________
Updates:
Some great responses here! I haven't checked back in a while but you all are putting out some really worthwhile stuff that has made me rethink things. I will keep my original opinions (should they one day change!) at the top, however, just so we have a full record of everything.
I am removing references to LTE as "Real 4G." I knew from the get-go that it was indeed not, but considering how far off that is from the cell phone market, I figured we might as well call it that. However now I am not!
I added current Questions/Updates sections.
I added some good reasons for LTE - I know these reasons have been listed more than once before, but these were put together the simplest! Keep giving your opinions, this is very useful data for people to know!
I totally agree with you, I've been tempted to move to an lte network but its all a money sucking strategy, yeah you get awesome speeds that make you drull but at the end you'll drain all that data package in what? 2 weeks if not less, since some people really download and abuse the network on their device, I rather have a steady HSDPA+ than a money/data sucking network
Sent from my HTC Sensation 4G using Tapatalk
Right now I'm on a wimax 4G network but sprint is going to switch to LTE soon like Verizon has and I heard the 4G is supposed to improve a lot more and cover a wider range on LTE. I'm hoping my next device will be LTE based so I can get good stong 4G coverage no matter where I go
I think LTE is only for cdma phones and HSPA is for GSM phones. I could be wrong but both Verizon and Sprint are cdma. I've used HSPA before and it's ok but nothing to really brag about. I can't really compare it to LTE because I have not owned a device that supports it yet.
sparksco said:
Right now I'm on a wimax 4G network but sprint is going to switch to LTE soon like Verizon has and I heard the 4G is supposed to improve a lot more and cover a wider range on LTE. I'm hoping my next device will be LTE based so I can get good stong 4G coverage no matter where I go
I think LTE is only for cdma phones and HSPA is for GSM phones. I could be wrong but both Verizon and Sprint are cdma. I've used HSPA before and it's ok but nothing to really brag about. I can't really compare it to LTE because I have not owned a device that supports it yet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nah, LTE is sim based (gsm) just like the rest. You're thinking of wcdma which is different (aka UMTS and up) but still gsm tech. CDMA/EvDo/WiMAX is a dead technology soon enough.
I agree, tmobile should just stick with HSPA+ until LTE tech is improved. They can roll it out slowly and is an easier upgrade (smaller leap than 2G to 3G) for them. It's just a costly one. I heard that they are selling their towers and leasing them back for a short term cash solution. Not sure if it's to pay off some impending debt aquired by DT or to pay for LTE upgrades for tmousa...
My suggestion is stick with HSPA+ (3.9G), skip LTE (3.9G), and go straight for LTE-Advanced (Actual 4G). Both HSPA+ and LTE are not technically 4G, they are just marketed as such. LTE is a much better network technology than HSPA+, but it's not all there yet. LTE is much more efficient in using the frequency spectrum. Also you can only do data on LTE, no voice at the moment. Not sure about LTE-Advanced features but I would assume you can do VoLTE-Advanced just how Verizon is planning VoLTE.
I will agree AND disagree with you. LTE is not directly advantageous to the end user but its benefits are passed down through the operators which will take a few years to become apparent. Its more a technical upgrade with the operators back end network and towers. I'm pretty sure we had the same thoughts when UMTS and HSPA started deployment.
LTE is a shift into a different mobile telephony architecture. LTE will be completely packet switched so in the long run, the infrastructure and tower implementation will be simpler. Using different frequencies and radio modulation, it probably wont be as simple as put an LTE base on an existing tower so it going to take a while to sort out coverage. The end users advantage comes from the more efficient spectrum use increasing capacity with better handling of devices when under heavy load. Frequency chunks are variable so operators can tweak speed / capacity depending on location or cell size. Radios will eventually mature with battery life becoming better with every generation. I have no experience with LTE so am not sure how calls / data is handled or battery life.
HSPA is a mature technology with plenty of real world experience, radio's and towers that have been tweaked over years for speed, latency and battery life. It is also relatively cheap to deploy as the back end connections already exist and the tower kit is "mass produced" shall we say. However, HSPA is quite inflexible requiring 5Mhz frequency chunks which may limit capacity in urban areas. Battery life on HSPA is achieved mainly by cheating, handsets sit idle at UMTS (3G) until data is transferred and often calls are dropped to 2G when possible.
Being from the UK, its probably going to be 2014 / 2015 until we see LTE as they are still "conducting trials" and the licences are scheduled for 2013 i think.
Please feel free to correct me or add to this, I just wanted to add my opinion to the mix.
Craig
sino8r said:
Nah, LTE is sim based (gsm) just like the rest.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Verizon is cdma, so how is lte gsm only??
Sent from my HTC Vision using xda premium
Spastic909 said:
Verizon is cdma, so how is lte gsm only??
Sent from my HTC Vision using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Verizon LTE phones also have CDMA chips in them. They use LTE for "4G" data and CDMA for voice and 3G data. They will be a GSM carrier once they drop 3G support and switch fully to LTE.
craiglay said:
I will agree AND disagree with you. LTE is not directly advantageous to the end user but its benefits are passed down through the operators which will take a few years to become apparent. Its more a technical upgrade with the operators back end network and towers. I'm pretty sure we had the same thoughts when UMTS and HSPA started deployment.
LTE is a shift into a different mobile telephony architecture. LTE will be completely packet switched so in the long run, the infrastructure and tower implementation will be simpler. Using different frequencies and radio modulation, it probably wont be as simple as put an LTE base on an existing tower so it going to take a while to sort out coverage. The end users advantage comes from the more efficient spectrum use increasing capacity with better handling of devices when under heavy load. Frequency chunks are variable so operators can tweak speed / capacity depending on location or cell size. Radios will eventually mature with battery life becoming better with every generation. I have no experience with LTE so am not sure how calls / data is handled or battery life.
HSPA is a mature technology with plenty of real world experience, radio's and towers that have been tweaked over years for speed, latency and battery life. It is also relatively cheap to deploy as the back end connections already exist and the tower kit is "mass produced" shall we say. However, HSPA is quite inflexible requiring 5Mhz frequency chunks which may limit capacity in urban areas. Battery life on HSPA is achieved mainly by cheating, handsets sit idle at UMTS (3G) until data is transferred and often calls are dropped to 2G when possible.
Being from the UK, its probably going to be 2014 / 2015 until we see LTE as they are still "conducting trials" and the licences are scheduled for 2013 i think.
Please feel free to correct me or add to this, I just wanted to add my opinion to the mix.
Craig
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Interesting - you have a good point here, especially when comparing the maturity of the two types of networks. From what I've been reading here and everywhere else, "real" LTE is clearly the more advanced tech but just needs time to develop and in the long long run will be better. Hm.
craiglay said:
Battery life on HSPA is achieved mainly by cheating, handsets sit idle at UMTS (3G) until data is transferred and often calls are dropped to 2G when possible.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No wonder my phone hasn't been staying on full HSDPA (or HSPA+) when it's on idle and only goes on HSDPA ONLY when I'm using it and idles at UMTS when I'm not. I was wondering about that lol. Oh well knowing how HSDPA and HSPA+ is, it's probably a lot easier to transfer from HSDPA to UMTS to EDGE to GPRS than switching from LTE to 3G and 2G connection types.
I skimmed thru and someone already said it:
LTE is not "Real 4G". As of right now, a tech spec for 4G does not exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G
If you consider that LTE is "Real 4G" then **** it, why talk about 4G? Lets talk about "Real 5G"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G
LTE(not 4g):
Don't have even a good card yet,
Still is not on total.
get signal lost sometimes
Speed is great but with the signal lost...
riahc3 said:
I skimmed thru and someone already said it:
LTE is not "Real 4G". As of right now, a tech spec for 4G does not exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G
If you consider that LTE is "Real 4G" then **** it, why talk about 4G? Lets talk about "Real 5G"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your 5G link don't have almost any new information.
Lets talk about what was asked in this thread.
Sent from my MadTeam Galaxy 5
using Tapatalk
riahc3 said:
I skimmed thru and someone already said it:
LTE is not "Real 4G". As of right now, a tech spec for 4G does not exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From the Wiki article:
However in December 2010, the ITU recognized that current versions of LTE, WiMax and other evolved 3G technologies that do not fulfill "IMT-Advanced" requirements could nevertheless be considered "4G", provided they represent forerunners to IMT-Advanced and "a substantial level of improvement in performance and capabilities with respect to the initial third generation systems now deployed.
redpoint73 said:
From the Wiki article:
However in December 2010, the ITU recognized that current versions of LTE, WiMax and other evolved 3G technologies that do not fulfill "IMT-Advanced" requirements could nevertheless be considered "4G", provided they represent forerunners to IMT-Advanced and "a substantial level of improvement in performance and capabilities with respect to the initial third generation systems now deployed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
in othewords, it's akin to saying, "i'll let you call it 4G as long as you promise to make your technology reach the original specifications. Pinky swear k?"
mputtr said:
in othewords, it's akin to saying, "i'll let you call it 4G as long as you promise to make your technology reach the original specifications. Pinky swear k?"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Really, there are saying "you can call it 4G as long as its better than 3G".
I agree its BS, and the ITU obviously caved to industry pressures. But based on this statement HSPA+ and WiMAX are technically "4G".
craiglay said:
Battery life on HSPA is achieved mainly by cheating, handsets sit idle at UMTS (3G) until data is transferred and often calls are dropped to 2G when possible.
Craig
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Suits me just fine - use the best available tool for the job, that's what I say! Voice calls and texts don't require a battery-sucking HSPA connection to work well
Where I live it's tmo 4g, or nothing. Literally there is no other 4g for my region. Nuff said
redpoint73 said:
Really, there are saying "you can call it 4G as long as its better than 3G".
I agree its BS, and the ITU obviously caved to industry pressures. But based on this statement HSPA+ and WiMAX are technically "4G".
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yup, i was pretty annoyed when the ITU caved to corporate pressure because they needed to rebrand 3G into something new...
Oh well.. I still call today's 4G standards as FauxG. probably wont consider it 4g until they meet the original requirements.
I just have really one question on this hspa+ <> 4G etc. I read that t-mobile is working on bringing HSPA+ .84, which I guess is 84mbps (theoretical limit). So if a 3G speed actually is the same speed as the current 4G speeds does it really matter what they call it? I would prefer they advertise the speed, because for me it is the speed not the tech behind the scenes.