Database Users

anyone know if it supports 4g?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 4G "MYTH"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, that wikipedia article is pretty spot on.

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

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

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

Interesting 4G information I heard (why areas don't have them)

I was trying to figure out when 4G would be full rolled out in a certain area, & here is a response I received.
..............................................................
There will not likely be any more (my city) coverage until Winter at the earliest. Sprint/Clear are running around putting up "Protection Sites" in every CMA (Cellular Market Area) in the country. There are over 700 CMA's in the U.S. These are regions that the FCC breaks down the country into to issue spectrum licensing for mobile carriers.
There are two types of crews putting up new 4G service now. Fill-In Crews and Protection Site Crews. The Fill-In crews are adding service in primary markets that already have service. They expanded service in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Seattle and New York this year. They will keep moving on in Primary Markets only that already have service. (your city is a secondary market) The Protection Site crews are running all over the Continental U.S., Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands installing at least one tower in every CMA. Two or three in secondary markets.
The two towers already operating in your city are "Protection Sites." These are limited deployments. They are operating at full strength signal, but do not have all the antennas as a full deployment would, and also the antennas are not fully directed to help building penetration. They are pointing straight out for maximum coverage area. Also, these do not have upgraded backhaul (microwave or fiber) that 4G really needs for maximum data throughput and speeds. They just utilize whatever internet service is already at the tower. Which may or may not be sufficient. Varies greatly from tower to tower and market to market.
In the Fall, Sprint is coming out with a new 4G plan. We know it will include LTE. But no one is sure to what extent. Whether Sprint and Clear will stop expanding WiMax completely and just service existing WiMax areas. All new deployments after the announcement might be LTE. Or they might finish building out WiMax completely, but this is unlikely. Or maybe they will announce they will finish WiMax in primary and maybe secondary markets before switching to LTE. We just don't know.
So no one knows how communities like yours will be impacted with their Sprint 4G deployment with this all up in the air. Only the highest executives are in on what's in-store. They are being very tight lipped. I think it's because they aren't even 100% sure yet. They are out striking deals with vendors, sub-contractors, joint venture partners and trying to get Network Vision off the ground too. But the Protection Site roll out will not be complete until Fall. Then those crews will be going on to something else. But no one knows where for sure yet.
In the end, it leaves a very frustrated Sprint customer service experience for 4G device owners. And with their 3G network speeds deteriorating below 2G, it just is ticking off people all the more!
------------------------------------
Well guess what? VERIZON has 4G NOW in my area. Anyway, it was an interesting read & I wonder how that will affect the phones that are going to come out, or even our Epic 4G
I really wish I had answers, but the above post is the best I have right now for those wondering WHY 4G is not in your area yet.
Is this why there is no Galaxy S2 yet on Sprint because they don't know what it will run on? Maybe that's the wait. Frustrating to say the least, & yes, 3G is declining not only in my area, but probably others as well. I really thought when I bought my Epic 4G i'd be looking at 6 months & 4G would be all set to go. Little did I know i'd be getting a phone I could never use for its full potential. At least not where I am at.

First
Looking forward to lte
Grapes

The protection towers has been well known for quite a while...along with the nothing new for this year.

Whats upsetting is nyc has the most dense population out of all the 4g markets and they still can't cover the entire city in 4G, and I am not talking about inside buildings, there are just too many holes on their coverage map.

4g? What's that? I would be happy with decent 3g coverage in my city. I don't think that's too much to ask for a city with a population of roughly 420,000 (and growing.)
.

This kind of thing makes me want to get sprint on the phone and scream to all hell about this issue, but in the end, the customer service rep, their superior, and THEIR superior can't do anything about it. All the good, "decent" phones are 4g now anyway, so I guess all the biggest city in New Hampshire has to show for itself is 3g and FIOS....oh wait, we don't have FIOS either. Whenever my contract is up, for the first time in 9 years, I'm going to look at switching carriers. Uhg.

Same here. Upsets me as well. You could always tweet about it, & maybe Dan Hesse will get back to you......or maybe not.
I am a premiere member & just got a $5 credit for my anniversary. While nice, it doesn't change the fact that not only does 3G suck, 2 out of 3 places I really use my phone I barely get coverage or it roams, but 4G is only in this tiny section
I have a feeling I will be switching, or something, because aside from the 4G, I tested my phone in a new home we are buying, & guess what? Just like the other two places I use my phone. CAN'T GET SERVICE. My wife said it even sucked outside when we were in the new home.
I'm just about exhausted & fed up with Sprints lack of coverage.

That's what I realized why they are cheaper and unlimited not because they claim to be different but no service issues.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App

I will stay Sprint for now as long as they provide an unlimited data plan.
However, if I get sufficiently rich, I may switch to Verizon and pay for their largest data plan.

HSPA+: Better than LTE?

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.

[Q] Is having HSPA+ Instead of LTE a dealbreaker?

Long story short, I'm selling my S3 (US Variant) for the Nexus 4 (my first owned nexus device). It supports HSPA+ 42mpbs (AT&T and T-Mobile here in the states) and where I live, LTE in my area is a dream and won't be coming for awhileeee. Sure the cities have LTE and all that, but 90% of the time in my general area it doesn't offer LTE. Would you, personally, sacrifice the use of LTE for the Nexus? If they are aiming to be future proof devices then do you think that they will pull off an LTE version a couple months in the year and I'm stuck with the HSPA+ version? Or do you think Google will wait until its next Nexus to have LTE.
Remember now.. I'm talking about the US VARIANT of the S3, not the quad core INTL version.

iAndropple said:
Long story short, I'm selling my S3 (US Variant) for the Nexus 4 (my first owned nexus device). It supports HSPA+ 42mpbs (AT&T and T-Mobile here in the states) and where I live, LTE in my area is a dream and won't be coming for awhileeee. Sure the cities have LTE and all that, but 90% of the time in my general area it doesn't offer LTE. Would you, personally, sacrifice the use of LTE for the Nexus? If they are aiming to be future proof devices then do you think that they will pull off an LTE version a couple months in the year and I'm stuck with the HSPA+ version? Or do you think Google will wait until its next Nexus to have LTE.
Remember now.. I'm talking about the US VARIANT of the S3, not the quad core INTL version.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I live in Germany, so I couldn't care less for LTE on the Nexus 4.
Once Germany has LTE readily available everywhere for a reasonable price, another 2 or 3 Nexus phones will probably have hit the market.
I'm getting the Nexus 4 on day one!

An emphatic NO.
I live in an LTE enabled area but refuse to pay extortionate rates for minimal usage allowances
inside a particular zone, with the phone dropping back to 3G when 4G is unavailable.
Far easier and much less expensive for me to find a free wi-fi hotspot.

No! It's gonna be a while before my area has LTE service anyway. It's by no means a deal breaker. LTE is a huge battery drainer too.

Even though they offer LTE they don't offer unlimited data. So I would easily switch to HSPA+
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

I honestly use WiFi 90% of the time.
My city just launched LTE. I currently have a Samsung Note which gets 1 bar of LTE or 5 bars of HSPA+. I've disabled LTE.
LTE has been more of a pain than anything, in my case.

Why would it be a deal breaker? if your carrier supports HSPA+ 42 you get speeds close to LTE any way. I had the LG Nitro and The SG2 Skyrocket when i visited St.Louis, MO which has LTE and both phones couldn't give me the speed my HTC Amaze does which use HSPA+ 42. IMO LTE will be a joke until carriers start to support VoLTE.

Hmm of course not, t-mobile hspa+ is as fast if not faster than verizon and att LTE ( not everywhere ik) but at least in south florida my note2 and gs3 are faster than my cousins gs3 on att LTE. just my 2 cents

Why is LTE on a phone even considered necessary by some? LTE is faster than my home internet speeds. Like nearly 10 times faster. So, what do people need that speed for on a PHONE? Downloading 1080p DVD's to your 4 inch phone screen to watch? Torrenting the latest Windows 8 release to your phone? I don't get it.
I can see the use if you use your phone as a hotspot 100% of the time and have multiple devices connected to it. But, what % of the population even does this? 1%? And your capped on data anyways....so again what's the point?

FlukerFlakes said:
Why is LTE on a phone even considered necessary by some? LTE is faster than my home internet speeds. Like nearly 10 times faster. So, what do people need that speed for on a PHONE? Downloading 1080p DVD's to your 4 inch phone screen to watch? Torrenting the latest Windows 8 release to your phone? I don't get it.
I can see the use if you use your phone as a hotspot 100% of the time and have multiple devices connected to it. But, what % of the population even does this? 1%? And your capped on data anyways....so again what's the point?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I use my phone constantly for work and personal. Anything other than LTE in Pittsburgh has horrible browsing speeds. I tether my tablets through my phone. I DO have unlimited data. Everyone keeps complaining about price but LTE plans are the same price as any other plans.
That being said. I'm still not a fan of VZW and I'll probably get a Nexus 4 and try to find a month-to-month plan to test out for a while. I'm doubting I'll stick with it but who knows.

More than 97% of my data use is over wifi, and I have pretty decent HSPA+42 access averaging 11-13Mbps where I am geographically situated. I'll take longer batter life over faster mobile data speed every time.

itznfb said:
I use my phone constantly for work and personal. Anything other than LTE in Pittsburgh has horrible browsing speeds. I tether my tablets through my phone. I DO have unlimited data. Everyone keeps complaining about price but LTE plans are the same price as any other plans.
That being said. I'm still not a fan of VZW and I'll probably get a Nexus 4 and try to find a month-to-month plan to test out for a while. I'm doubting I'll stick with it but who knows.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If I was paying what people pay Verizon then I would expect the best....but I'm switching to Tmobile and gonna spend about 30 dollars a month. And i just need good data speed for occasional browsing and streaming on spotify. LTE just seems like overkill for what most of the population actually needs.
Also, can't justify spending over 3x more money for extensive Verizon LTE when its just not needed (at least for me)

FlukerFlakes said:
If I was paying what people pay Verizon then I would expect the best....but I'm switching to Tmobile and gonna spend about 30 dollars a month. And i just need good data speed for occasional browsing and streaming on spotify. LTE just seems like overkill for what most of the population actually needs.
Also, can't justify spending over 3x more money for extensive Verizon LTE when its just not needed (at least for me)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The only plan I've found so far (probably the same one you're talking about) that makes me consider switching is the $30 Web Exclusive. But according to their site it seems to be a limited time thing. If I'm paying $50+ for a plan I'll just stick with my $70 VZW.

itznfb said:
The only plan I've found so far (probably the same one you're talking about) that makes me consider switching is the $30 Web Exclusive. But according to their site it seems to be a limited time thing. If I'm paying $50+ for a plan I'll just stick with my $70 VZW.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yeah that's the one im gonna start with.
also might try Slovai (sp?) for 49 a month...unlimited everything with 4GB of HSPA+ speed. plus decrease price if you get others to join

Forgot to mention, I am on AT&T's HSPA+ network, and it only supports 21Mbps