Related
Hey guys,
I have been waiting for this phone since February like many, and mine finally came just less than a week ago. I have been spending much time configuring it and tuning it for my needs, and I must say I think it is an amazing device. Coming from an HTC Universal (which wasn't too shabby in its day) to the X1 is still a big difference. Without getting into a mini-review here, I love the phone and am super happy with it.
That being said, what would make me UBER happy with it was if I was able to somehow force it to use GSM + UMTS 1900mhz instead of the 850mhz towers it seems to favour. I'm up on the Rogers/Fido network in Canada, and the phone always grabs the 850mhz band (verified via FieldTest.exe) even though I know 1900mhz is here (my Universal used it, had no 850mhz GSM or UMTS).
Due to this, I am unable to get 3G as the phone falls back to EDGE (which I'm sure you've seen many notes about this from other North American users of the X1i). This is why I'm asking if we can force the X1 to use 1900mhz towers only. I'm not even sure if it's possible, but if it was, I could at least maybe get 3G speeds for data.
Thanks in advance for any feedback you guys are able to offer!
scar45 said:
Hey guys,
I have been waiting for this phone since February like many, and mine finally came just less than a week ago. I have been spending much time configuring it and tuning it for my needs, and I must say I think it is an amazing device. Coming from an HTC Universal (which wasn't too shabby in its day) to the X1 is still a big difference. Without getting into a mini-review here, I love the phone and am super happy with it.
That being said, what would make me UBER happy with it was if I was able to somehow force it to use GSM + UMTS 1900mhz instead of the 850mhz towers it seems to favour. I'm up on the Rogers/Fido network in Canada, and the phone always grabs the 850mhz band (verified via FieldTest.exe) even though I know 1900mhz is here (my Universal used it, had no 850mhz GSM or UMTS).
Due to this, I am unable to get 3G as the phone falls back to EDGE (which I'm sure you've seen many notes about this from other North American users of the X1i). This is why I'm asking if we can force the X1 to use 1900mhz towers only. I'm not even sure if it's possible, but if it was, I could at least maybe get 3G speeds for data.
Thanks in advance for any feedback you guys are able to offer!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
wouldnt the easiest way of doing that be to turn of gsm, and force umts only?
fards said:
wouldnt the easiest way of doing that be to turn of gsm, and force umts only?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wasn't even aware that you could do such a thing with WM, however I would still like to have voice calls come in (something that UMTS is not responsible for)...
settings> phone> band > network type
is it worth trying?
fards said:
settings> phone> band > network type
is it worth trying?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the tips fards, but i tried all possible settings in PHONE --> BAND and was unable to get on the 1900mhz band
Hopefully when the X1a comes out, someone can rip its radio ROM and allow us X1i users to flash it...I think we still need a good HardSPL too if my understanding is correct.
I am alarmed at the following article :
http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/07/atandt-slowing-edge-to-force-customers-to-switch-to-3g/
I know there is still ambiguity about whether it is a hardware limitation or something that can be done in software, but if this holds true.. i may have to give up the best phone I have ever owned.
That doesn't really make sense, considering the fact that where I live, I don't get 3G coverage anyways...
I've seen no such slowing from my HD. I purchased the HD after an experiment with the US version of the Diamond last year. I had used the UK Diamond since it came out in June and then purchased the US version to get the 3G speed. I rarely saw the H or 3G indicator on my US Diamond, I received Edge service in more than 95 percent of the places I travelled during the period of my experiment. I returned the US Diamond to Best Buy and resumed using the UK version until I got my hands on the HD in late November.
The HD works fine for me without 3G. I can use Wifi when I need it.
I agree... 3G coverage is spotty at best in the States and I've had good performance with EDGE for AT&T on my HD... Admittedly I'm usually in a WIFI hotspot at work so EDGE is only for when I'm on the road but still no complaints.
taimoorhusain said:
I am alarmed at the following article :
http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/07/atandt-slowing-edge-to-force-customers-to-switch-to-3g/
I know there is still ambiguity about whether it is a hardware limitation or something that can be done in software, but if this holds true.. i may have to give up the best phone I have ever owned.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
your worry is real. but it won't come true for a long time -- your phone will last till you switch to a new one.
reading the replies below your post, and the original article (which I also read a few days ago). there seems to be some misunderstanding, i will try to explain, and then address your worry. I will use simple terms, although may should foolish (ie. point 1)
- faster the frequency, the faster the battery drains, because the signal oscillates faster. 850 times a second verses 1900 times a second. for those not familiar with signal, just htink of your phone vibrating 850 times a second or 1900 times a second. the latter kills more battery.
- the higher the frequency the less penetration ability it has.
- frequency is freqency, antenna is antenna. an antenna tuned to 850 MHz frequency can transmit 850 MHz signals, simple enough? but the signal may be modulated differently hence the difference between a 2G and 3G 850 band. so you need different hardware to decode and demodulate the two signals, even though the frequency is the same.
- what AT&T's article is saying, is that. they are not going to add extra towers to broadcast 850 3G signals. rather, they are converting 850 2G towers to broadcast 3G 850 signal. This saves them tons of money, because they only need to, for illustration purposes, flip some switches to modulate a 3G signal, instead of purchasing and deploying the towers, since the existing towers are already tuned to 850 MHz.
so yes, when this "fliping switch" operation is done. phones without 850 3G band will only be able to operate on 1900 signals, hence battery drains faster and worse signal indoors.
but back to my first paragraph, judging from AT&T's past records, it would take them a year or two to finish this operation. so .. at least for me. by the time, i will be moving on to a new phone, and i will keep in mind my next phone will have 850 3G chip (or.. if you have learned from my posting, an 850 3G demodulater
Buggy i know you know alot about these types of things (reading your post in the 3g limitation thread) Would you have any thoughts of something and someone that would be able to help us get the 850 3G frequency working?
I am quite impressed actually at the EDGE speeds I do receive. I don't do much of YouTube and other things that require an intense of amount of data when I do use the internet. Google Maps and Live Search works just fine on EDGE. If I need to browse the internet I just use Opera Mini which works awesome on the HD I might add.
The only complaint I have about this device is that it's not 3G. If the great minds on XDA or somewhere else some how figure out to get 3G then that's even better.
I can't wait to see what new devices HTC launches this year. I hear up to 10 new devices. Heck we might even see a HTC Touch HD Pro with the necessary 3G 850/1900 frequency.
3g
I love my touch HD Edge works great 3G is a big hype
I am surprised with the edge speeds on this phone, way quicker than the Omnia, but.... Get for example an iphone 3G (not trying to make a comparison or a phone war as i am not even a fan of it just the first 3g phone that pops up) and go on to the same website and at same time and you will notice a huge difference in my opinion. The HD uses the same exact radio off of the touch diamond American version so i think it should be possible to enable it.
I was looking at the Nexus One teardown here. http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Nexus-One/1654/2
Interesting to note that the RTR6285 RF transceiver does indeed support Band 5 UMTS, which I think is AT&T, according to a cached press release here. http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cach...l+RTR6285+umts+bands&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Note it says...
North American triple-band UMTS (bands 2, 4, 5)
Japanese triple-band UMTS (bands 1, 6, 9)
European, Chinese and rest-of-world triple-band UMTS (bands 1, 3, 8)
Also... the power amplifier SKY77336, according to this document... http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.skyworksinc.com/uploads/documents/200780E.pdf
Does support the GSM850 band. Isn't that AT&T?
So what is really preventing the Nexus One from running on AT&T? Did they just not "bother" to certify it with the FCC because T-Mobile is their launch partner?
This could mean then the radio software, or some other configuration option in the firmware simply has AT&T 3G disabled.
I'll let you guys debate this, but I can't see any hardware reason why this phone couldn't work on AT&T 3G, with proper software/hacking of course.
-James
Actually the real question is, why didn't they certify with the FCC for AT&T 3G? My only idea is that T-Mobile was the launch partner, but the hardware can do AT&T 3G technically, it's just not certified and enabled.
No reason they couldn't certify and enable it later.
And I have to say, I would have no trouble going to T-Mobile, but in Salt Lake City, AT&T coverage is far superior and so are the 3G speed tests. There are many locations my T-Mobile friends can't get make calls to save their life. I hear T-Mobile is much better in other cities.
-James
Doesn't AT&T use both 850 and 1900 for 3G? Does this phone have 1900?
jimbo831 said:
Doesn't AT&T use both 850 and 1900 for 3G? Does this phone have 1900?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Believe the transceiver and amplifier support both.
I want to get people digging around on this.
-James
Very interesting stuff.
I bet a community could get a pot together and have a prize for whomever can get the n1 working on att first, assuming it actually will work
Thanks for digging up this info, I was actually in the process of starting to research this myself for when I grew tired of living on edge.
Does support the GSM850 band. Isn't that AT&T?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You've already answered your own question here, GSM is not UMTS.
I'm in the smae boat btw, Telstra in Aus use 850UMTS and I know how painful it can be to have 2G access in most places.
YorikR32 said:
You've already answered your own question here, GSM is not UMTS.
I'm in the smae boat btw, Telstra in Aus use 850UMTS and I know how painful it can be to have 2G access in most places.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well technically UMTS is a GSM standard, could be the same thing. Same frequencies certainly.
I was just checking the brochure for the http://www.rfmw.com/data/BRO254-08B.pdf
No where does it make mention of UMTS, like say... T-Mobile's AWS... but it does specifically have the correct frequencies listed for both T-Mobile AWS and AT&T 3G.
I'm going to make the assumption that this indicates it works with UMTS is both bands since it doesn't mention UMTS specifically at all, yet it does work on T-Mobile AWS.
James I love you man! tell me there's a way to "jailbreak" this thing.... what kind of people do we need? someone has to be willing to help with this. Oh why oh why am i only a MBA.... I need a tech degree of some kind!
I don't think it has to do with the FCC. Though we are all in love with the nexus one... remember that google and apple are nearly HALF of the same executive board. They don't want to compete with the golden goose that keeps thier stock portfolio's up that much.
We just need to find out how to activate/change which airwaves this thing is listening too and THEN we will have the first truely unlocked machine!
subscribing to this thread for an outcome.
I've been doing more reading and it seems this isn't the first phone with hardware disabled. I haven't found anything yet on if anyone has made the change yet :+\
Here we go, the Blackstone all over again .
~~Tito~~ said:
Here we go, the Blackstone all over again .
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, maybe. The Blackstone has a hardware limitation for the US 3G frequencies. There have been phones in the past that had software limitations that were overcome with a hack. So if the Nexus has the hardware capabilities to do ATT 3G frequencies there is a good chance that someone will figure out how to unlock it.
uh...wow. Yeah, I'll be watching this thread.
Matterhorn said:
Well, maybe. The Blackstone has a hardware limitation for the US 3G frequencies. There have been phones in the past that had software limitations that were overcome with a hack. So if the Nexus has the hardware capabilities to do ATT 3G frequencies there is a good chance that someone will figure out how to unlock it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Which phones? Do you have any links we can read so we can start looking for similar solutions?
I found this link to the Diamond on XDA which they supposedly change to 3g at&t but I have read the whole thing it's long.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=432770
I'm still looking for answers! I'm just not smart enough to "create" the answer. I have hope that a future rom will help us but not for a while. For now I'll keep researching.
P.S. my phone comes tommorrow!!!!!!!!11 I'm so excited!!!!!!!!!!!111111
The radio chip supports all the UMTS bands it but unfortunately the UMTS power amplifiers (eg. http://www.skyworksinc.com/Product.aspx?ProductID=597) are NOT in the chip. Like the G1 it probably only has amplifiers for 900/1700/2100.
The quadband power amplifier only supports GPRS/EDGE: http://www.skyworksinc.com/Product.aspx?ProductID=437
Looking at the chip diagram here (http://s2.guide-images.ifixit.com/igi/ZhrRALhPFhWyLGKC.large) the two chips next to the SKY77191 look awfully like power amplifiers as well.. if so, conveniently for 900/2100
coolbho3000 said:
The radio chip supports all the UMTS bands it but unfortunately the UMTS power amplifiers (eg. http://www.skyworksinc.com/Product.aspx?ProductID=597) are NOT in the chip. Like the G1 it probably only has amplifiers for 900/1700/2100.
The quadband power amplifier only supports GPRS/EDGE: http://www.skyworksinc.com/Product.aspx?ProductID=437
Looking at the chip diagram here (http://s2.guide-images.ifixit.com/igi/ZhrRALhPFhWyLGKC.large) the two chips next to the SKY77191 look awfully like power amplifiers as well.. if so, conveniently for 900/2100
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Killjoy
jk
Wii60 said:
Killjoy
jk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't get me wrong, I wish this worked on AT&T (points at logo). Guess I'm EDGE-only until my contract expires.
Just wish all carriers would have stuck to one standard
whoever helps figure this out will definitely be getting some donations from me!! i have att and no purpose of buying a N1 without 3g...
Pros? Cons? To my understanding, much of the world uses GSM. Why the split in America? I've always wondered and all that I've read on Google is just eh information. I was wondering if anyone had a more educated opinion, or maybe just a good answer?
http://m.gizmodo.com/5637136/giz-explains-gsm-vs-cdma
They're both aging technologies. In several respects, GSM is better at this point.
- 3G on CDMA appears to have maxed out on speed. They've found ways to get 4G like speeds out of HSPA+, which is far better than CDMA can do.
- Simultaneous voice + data is possible on GSM. There is a new standard for it on CDMA as well, but it's not been widely deployed. Verizon may be starting to do it though.
- A lot of people like SIM cards for being able to swap phones instantly.
- If you travel internationally and if you want to be able to use your own phone there, GSM is better in most parts of the world.
Now, many of those things don't matter to some people. Some do. As for why there was a split, I don't know. I think early on, CDMA had better data rates, But HSDPA and HSPA+ have blown past it. Some of it may just be Qualcomm's success marketing to VZW and Sprint. The inability to evolve a 3G CDMA network beyond its current speed limits is certainly a legitimate downside that forces moving to a new technology.
I've seen it claimed that CDMA has better voice quality, and it doesn't seem to cause the same kind of interference with surrounding electronics that GSM does.
Everyone except Sprint is either deploying or planning to deploy LTE as the next generation of technology, and indications are Sprint may follow suit at some point. All indications are that LTE will become a global standard even more so than GSM already is.
It definitely causes some interference with sound equipment. Don't sit next to a sound board with a gsm phone...
Yea the radio noise from gsm phones drive me nuts, and always remember not to have your debit card and gsm phone in the same pocket. CDMA seems to have no effect on bank cards.
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.