Database Users

Htc Evo 4g Is for all user or only Sprint???????

Who knows that?

eshghman189 said:
Who knows that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The 4g portion will only be compatible with sprint's network.
The phone can technically work with other cdma carriers if you know what your doing, and will require some skill to get it to work, or a guide from someone that figures it out. 3G and 1x would possibly work if stuff is configured correctly, the radio is technically compatable with other carriers for everything other than 4g
This doesn't mean you can walk into bell south or verizon and say "hook it up" because that will definitely not work. You gotta make it work, I'm sure more info on how to do it will arise as people get their hands on it, as some have gotten the hero to work off sprints network.

I doubt 4G will work on Verizon's network those are to my knowledge the only major CDMA netwrks (in the US at least).
Verizon's take on 4g will be LTE while Sprint is going WiMax so I seriously doubt the phone's 4G radio will work across the board however the 3G and the call CDMA radio should work.

Sebrina said:
I doubt 4G will work on Verizon's network those are to my knowledge the only major CDMA netwrks (in the US at least).
Verizon's take on 4g will be LTE while Sprint is going WiMax so I seriously doubt the phone's 4G radio will work across the board however the 3G and the call CDMA radio should work.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From what I gather the radios will operate on different frequencies
wimax on 2.5 GHz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WiMAX#Spectrum_allocation
lte is on 700 MHz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3GPP_Long_Term_Evolution#Frequency_bands_and_channel_bandwidths
so I'm going to go ahead and say not a chance of it working.... although I may be wrong

Tanx
Plz tell me more

more about what? the different frequencies?
Um well, for example you can't tune your tv to the radio channel even though they use similar technologies. (well you could back in the day depending on your tv but that isn't helping my point ) But it just uses different frequencies, look at this for a better understanding of frequency allocation,
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...locations_Chart_2003_-_The_Radio_Spectrum.jpg
The chart is rather busy, but see how each is boxed off? That is what a radio designed to operate on will be limited to. the wimax and lte are very far apart from each other in this spectrum, it will be extremely unlikely it will be able to operate on both frequencies.
This talks about the radio used in the EVO.
http://www.thesearethedroids.com/2010/03/25/sprint-evo4-chipset-qsd8650-supports-gsm-and-hspa/
Not an insane amount of LTE info is out there other than what's been cleared by the FCC, more info on the radios that will be used as soon as one is released. I know one thing, the freqs are different so the same roaming you enjoy now with sprint 3g will not be shared with 4g with verizon when they kick off LTE. 3g roaming will stay unaffected per sprint and verizon's roaming agreement because of same technologies and freqs used. Only the 4g portion will be different.
One chipset to be on the lookout for is this http://www.beceem.com/ends_4G_debate_LTE.html it will support both technologies, but it unfortunately will not be in the sprint EVO. Be on the lookout though as something with this chipset might counter the aforementioned roaming problem.

johnsongrantr said:
more about what? the different frequencies?
Um well, for example you can't tune your tv to the radio channel even though they use similar technologies. (well you could back in the day depending on your tv but that isn't helping my point ) But it just uses different frequencies, look at this for a better understanding of frequency allocation,
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...locations_Chart_2003_-_The_Radio_Spectrum.jpg
The chart is rather busy, but see how each is boxed off? That is what a radio designed to operate on will be limited to. the wimax and lte are very far apart from each other in this spectrum, it will be extremely unlikely it will be able to operate on both frequencies.
This talks about the radio used in the EVO.
http://www.thesearethedroids.com/2010/03/25/sprint-evo4-chipset-qsd8650-supports-gsm-and-hspa/
Not an insane amount of LTE info is out there other than what's been cleared by the FCC, more info on the radios that will be used as soon as one is released. I know one thing, the freqs are different so the same roaming you enjoy now with sprint 3g will not be shared with 4g with verizon when they kick off LTE. 3g roaming will stay unaffected per sprint and verizon's roaming agreement because of same technologies and freqs used. Only the 4g portion will be different.
One chipset to be on the lookout for is this http://www.beceem.com/ends_4G_debate_LTE.html it will support both technologies, but it unfortunately will not be in the sprint EVO. Be on the lookout though as something with this chipset might counter the aforementioned roaming problem.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
tanx,very useful

interesting
Not that my phone ever roams (I don't travel much), but when it does my Sprint will only go to Verizon? Did I understand that correctly?

Manicmobileaddict said:
Not that my phone ever roams (I don't travel much), but when it does my Sprint will only go to Verizon? Did I understand that correctly?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, your Sprint phone will only roam on Verizon's network cause their both cdma networks.

Luckily for Sprint users Verizon covers more area than any other carrier in the US.

Luckily for Sprint users Verizon covers more area than any other carrier in the US.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
that's not true Sprint has the biggest coverage area of all the us carriers. don't beleave everything you hear from a commercial.
Sent from my HERO200 using the XDA mobile application powered by Tapatalk

chippillie said:
that's not true Sprint has the biggest coverage area of all the us carriers. don't beleave everything you hear from a commercial.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Where is this info from?

whole world
I think this phone is for the whole world not sprint,
sprint is only for 4g

eshghman189 said:
I think this phone is for the whole world not sprint,
sprint is only for 4g
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do WHAT?!
This phone is built for Sprint. Sprint is 3G/4G.

eshghman189 said:
I think this phone is for the whole world not sprint,
sprint is only for 4g
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.thesearethedroids.com/2010/03/25/sprint-evo4-chipset-qsd8650-supports-gsm-and-hspa/
However, it’s almost guaranteed that you won’t be able to use over half of those networks because the phone will lack the right amplifiers and/or antennas
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

big band
It is support width band,I think u can change rillphone to work with other country and netwoek

eshghman189 said:
It is support width band,I think u can change rillphone to work with other country and netwoek
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I highlighted the part you need to re-read in my last post (it was a pretty lengthy quote)
but unless you plan to electrically (as in soldering iron and tiny electronic parts) modify your phone, don't plan on it being able to actually use those other frequencies.
They are not advertising it as a world phone (sprint has made worldphones before and advertised it because it's a selling point) so they are not going to put needless hardware that they won't enable, doesn't make sense, and it costs them additional money to make it that way.
If you did get that modification in, you will then have to edit the programming of your phone's cellular radio to talk on those frequencies and towers because they will not be built into whatever radio firmware ships with it because it wasn't needed because the amplifiers were left out. That will be an almost as equally difficult task.
I don't know man... good luck if you don't believe me.

Sprint to LTE???

Welp, looks like it's going that way...
http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/15/sprint-evaluating-switch-to-lte-over-the-next-four-to-six-months/
...thing is, there hasn't been any new WiMAX phone announced this year, so either they're relying on riding that EVO and Epic wave to get new WiMAX customers, or maybe they do have something up their sleeve.
In any event, I don't see that many new customers signing up for Wimax, so to LTE Sprint will go. Now what do we do with our Evo at that point?

Other than the shifts but if they give me a choice to choose a new phone I'm in
Sent from my gingerbread evo 4g

It's like sprint is playing the "you can't get mad at me, i'm not touching you" while holding hand in front of face game with all these changes that piss everybody off without letting them go etf-free

Oh, they would have to provide us with a LTE phone if they do switch. At least offer us a pretty hefty discount. Otherwise, I see a huge class-action lawsuit headed over their way. I'd love for this switch to happen. WiMax is just not cutting it.

From the user comments of the linked article:
They're still going to roll out WiMax and then just add LTE functionality later on. Again, It's just a baseband card swap and a software upgrade. The phones would probably use a dual-mode WiMax/LTE chip (like the one introduced last year by Beceem). Sprint did a pretty good job of future-proofing their network and WiMax was a better/cheaper choice for "4G"... Verizon was having some major 3G/4G handoff issues in mid-December and there's still no word of that being resolved. That's a major issue for Big Red and could slow or kill LTE adoption (imagine having to either wait about 2 minutes or even having to reboot your phone whenever you go from 4G back to 3G). I'm not even getting into AT&T and Verizon's LTE spectrum limitations.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

m4rk0358 said:
From the user comments of the linked article: They're still going to roll out WiMax and then just add LTE functionality later on. Again, It's just a baseband card swap and a software upgrade. The phones would probably use a dual-mode WiMax/LTE chip (like the one introduced last year by Beceem). Sprint did a pretty good job of future-proofing their network and WiMax was a better/cheaper choice for "4G"... Verizon was having some major 3G/4G handoff issues in mid-December and there's still no word of that being resolved. That's a major issue for Big Red and could slow or kill LTE adoption (imagine having to either wait about 2 minutes or even having to reboot your phone whenever you go from 4G back to 3G). I'm not even getting into AT&T and Verizon's LTE spectrum limitations.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But they would eventually have to actually flip the switch to LTE.. would they not have to pick one or the other?

As long as I got a huge discount on an LTE phone, I'd be okay with this. I like WiMAX, but for the dev community, LTE is going to be way better.

akarol said:
Oh, they would have to provide us with a LTE phone if they do switch. At least offer us a pretty hefty discount. Otherwise, I see a huge class-action lawsuit headed over their way. I'd love for this switch to happen. WiMax is just not cutting it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They're facing this scenario now, if they turn off the iDen network to use LTE. Some speculate that Sprint will lose a lot of money on this, but all they have to do is sell the spectrum that wimax is on now. T-Mobile would buy it...

AbsolutZeroGI said:
As long as I got a huge discount on an LTE phone, I'd be okay with this. I like WiMAX, but for the dev community, LTE is going to be way better.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm also curious about the stuff I've been reading recently regarding how tightly controlled LTE access can be by carrier. Presumably the same restrictions would apply when tethering?

they will have pry my evo from my cold dead hands....
cyanogen/evervol-acies flavored gingerbread

drbadass said:
But they would eventually have to actually flip the switch to LTE.. would they not have to pick one or the other?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not really cause Wimaxx is just another channel or frequency. I mean they still have 2G/3G and now 4G, LTE will just be another channel that they will be able to accomidate

I say the only reason why the would make that switch is to keep up or ahead with the other carriers, t-mobile, att, Verizon so why not make the switch everyone gsm and running on sim chips mmm nice different phones on different networks sounds fun
Sent from my PC36100-EVO-using Tapatalk

drbadass said:
I'm also curious about the stuff I've been reading recently regarding how tightly controlled LTE access can be by carrier. Presumably the same restrictions would apply when tethering?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is what scares me. I know LTE is faster than wimax. (Job I work at sells both Wimax capable cards and LTE broadband cards now and I have installed both on computers, and speedtest wise, LTE was pulling 15 down and 1.5 up. Wimax in our area usually does 5-7 down, and 1 up.
But I don't want Sprint to be able to decide that what I do with the data access I am provided isn't what they think I should. The fact they can block sites, charge rates for sites, and so forth is very bothersome. It is the same crap certain ISP carries are looking to do.
It is this reason (among data caps) that I decided not to wait for the LTE thunderstorm phone(or w/e its called, im kinda tired ) and go with verizon over sprint.
I just with their Wimax was better in the Cincinnati, OH area than it currently is. Map shows I should have 4G outside everywhere but my backyard. And I barely get it in my front lawn where I should have a perfect signal.

Does anyone have a link to the story of how carriers can control access to the web using LTE. I read it but don't remember where. This is very disturbing that the carriers will have this much power over our web viewing habits

Don't worry fellow evonauts, they (probably) won't block your fetish adult entertainment.
But seriously, better speeds would be awesome, better coverage would be great but the capability to throttle or block what i want to do with my "unlimited" connection is unacceptable.

Here's some things to remember before anyone gets up in arms over this:
1. Between the Sprint, Clear, Comcast, and Time Warner brands there are millions of users on the Clearwire WiMax network, many of whom are in contracts based on WiMax devices or services. They're not going to just flip a switch in a few months and suddenly none of us have 4G anymore. I would not expect to see much further WiMax development beyond what's known about at the time of any LTE announcement, but by the time the WiMax network goes dead anyone posting here will have moved on to a newer phone.
2. There's no reason at all that this would need to be done as an on/off type switch. They install the hardware bits needed for LTE, then switch channels of their available spectrum over as dictated by utilization. AT&T's migration from TDMA to GSM after the Cingular buyout took years to complete.
3. The Evo Shift just came out and the Blackberry Playbook with WiMax has been announced and given a rough street date. Like most of us existing users, these users will likely for the most part be in contracts, meaning if Sprint does anything that significantly impacts the usability of those devices (such as terminating WiMax service) they'll need to either give us cheap/free upgrades to LTE phones or let us out of contract ETF-free.
tl;dr version: LTE is probably coming, since Sprint's rapidly becoming the odd man out in the 4G cell world, but there's no reason for current WiMax users to panic.
edit:
drbadass said:
I'm also curious about the stuff I've been reading recently regarding how tightly controlled LTE access can be by carrier. Presumably the same restrictions would apply when tethering?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ghodzilla5150 said:
Does anyone have a link to the story of how carriers can control access to the web using LTE. I read it but don't remember where. This is very disturbing that the carriers will have this much power over our web viewing habits
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Any ISP has about the same power. It has nothing to do with the last mile medium and LTE will change nothing about this.
Regarding tethering, there is no way to tell for certain by looking at the data transmitted whether a user is tethering or not when a modern smartphone is involved, since they're capable of doing anything a full PC could do with that data connection. Certain types of data may be suspicious and more likely to have come from a PC, but nothing could be proven to any reasonable standard as long as they have not loaded a "tattler" program in to the OEM ROM to explicitly identify tethering. Assuming a rooted phone, this could be removed and of course would not even be in AOSP-based ROMs.

Good rational post. Thanks.
wolrah said:
Here's some things to remember before anyone gets up in arms over this:
1. Between the Sprint, Clear, Comcast, and Time Warner brands there are millions of users on the Clearwire WiMax network, many of whom are in contracts based on WiMax devices or services. They're not going to just flip a switch in a few months and suddenly none of us have 4G anymore. I would not expect to see much further WiMax development beyond what's known about at the time of any LTE announcement, but by the time the WiMax network goes dead anyone posting here will have moved on to a newer phone.
2. There's no reason at all that this would need to be done as an on/off type switch. They install the hardware bits needed for LTE, then switch channels of their available spectrum over as dictated by utilization. AT&T's migration from TDMA to GSM after the Cingular buyout took years to complete.
3. The Evo Shift just came out and the Blackberry Playbook with WiMax has been announced and given a rough street date. Like most of us existing users, these users will likely for the most part be in contracts, meaning if Sprint does anything that significantly impacts the usability of those devices (such as terminating WiMax service) they'll need to either give us cheap/free upgrades to LTE phones or let us out of contract ETF-free.
tl;dr version: LTE is probably coming, since Sprint's rapidly becoming the odd man out in the 4G cell world, but there's no reason for current WiMax users to panic.
edit:
Any ISP has about the same power. It has nothing to do with the last mile medium and LTE will change nothing about this.
Regarding tethering, there is no way to tell for certain by looking at the data transmitted whether a user is tethering or not when a modern smartphone is involved, since they're capable of doing anything a full PC could do with that data connection. Certain types of data may be suspicious and more likely to have come from a PC, but nothing could be proven to any reasonable standard as long as they have not loaded a "tattler" program in to the OEM ROM to explicitly identify tethering. Assuming a rooted phone, this could be removed and of course would not even be in AOSP-based ROMs.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding something but I'm taking this switch from WiMAX to LTE as Sprint just has to change the cards on their ends and send us current WiMAX users a software update and we can use LTE.

rkjg24 said:
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding something but I'm taking this switch from WiMAX to LTE as Sprint just has to change the cards on their ends and send us current WiMAX users a software update and we can use LTE.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Half right. The Wimax chip in the Evo is straight Wimax...no LTE capability.

Since the wiMax is actually from Clear as far as i know, Sprints choice shouldnt really matter in the long run. WiMax wont disappear so your "old" phone should work, and Sprint actually having its own 4G network means more than likely better battery life and better connection/coverage

Sprint to deploy 4G LTE network

Looks like Sprint's getting ready to deploy LTE. What does everyone think?
http://www.bgr.com/2011/06/17/sprint-to-deploy-4g-lte-network-with-lightsquared/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-17/falcone-s-lightsquared-venture-reaches-a-15-year-network-deal-with-sprint.html

Last i heard, LightSquared was told by the FCC they weren't allowed to broadcast because they were overpowering civilian and aviation GPS units. Has this issue been resolved? A 15 year deal ain't worth squat if you can't turn on the juice!!

SilverStone641 said:
Last i heard, LightSquared was told by the FCC they weren't allowed to broadcast because they were overpowering civilian and aviation GPS units. Has this issue been resolved? A 15 year deal ain't worth squat if you can't turn on the juice!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, thats what I'm worried about, I wish/hope its as easy as a change of a frequency channel.

I"m sure they will iron those wrinkles before flipping the switch.

It would be like Sprint to throw its weight behind a technology that is failed, different or inferior. WiMAX isn't exactly inferior to LTE, but the 2.5 GHz band it relies on most certainly is inferior to the 700 MHz band that Verizon's LTE uses.

Ok, so lets say they deploy this 4g lte network... what happens to their 4g wimax network? From what little I know about wimax and lte chipsets, I dont think it would be possible for a firmware upgrade to turn wimax to lte. What happens to clear? One important thing to remember is that I didnt actually read the article so these questions may already be answered. haha.
Although, if my evo became a 3g only device, I would actually be ok with that if they drop the $10 a month surcharge

ZachPA said:
It would be like Sprint to throw its weight behind a technology that is failed, different or inferior. WiMAX isn't exactly inferior to LTE, but the 2.5 GHz band it relies on most certainly is inferior to the 700 MHz band that Verizon's LTE uses.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Words straight out of my mouth.

is there a resource that lists open frequency ranges?

Could the new radio(SMR) thats in the evo 3d work on this frequency and be a dual wimax/lte combo?
Sent from my PC36100

"The company can use LightSquared’s network to lessen the load on its own network as data demand has skyrocketed, an issue that has plagued other carriers. "
It sounds like they will be using them for backhaul, I don't see anything about Sprint using LTE. Right now backhaul is what Sprint is lacking so this will be a good thing for not just 4G but 3G speeds.

Cloyd said:
is there a resource that lists open frequency ranges?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
here is a chart..
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.pdf

I assume any potential move to lte will address wimax's inferior latency?

Sprint end users will NOT use LTE most likely ever. Sprint (the provider service) will utilize LTE strickly for back haul only. This is a very good thing for us the end user, basically means to us that we will have lots of bandwidth on tap. Wimax offers up to 12MB d/l transport speeds which most of us probably never see anyway. I personally get 7-8 around Baltimore/Annapolis areas of Maryland and this will hopefully allows us to have the bandwidth assuming more towers are deployed for our cell connectivity. This is a very good thing for us and the sooner the better!

sounds like lte will come later on firat is evdo rev o then rev a then rev b then do then do advance then lte
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA Premium App

I have spoken to my sprint rep a lot about how Sprint works. He used to work for Samsung and distributed phones to carriers in the northeastern part of the united states. Because of this, he learned a lot about Sprint. One thing that he learned was that Sprint has the most bandwidth out of all the carriers, and it is one of the main reasons why theory data is truly unlimited.
Just throwing that out there.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA Premium App

xHausx said:
"The company can use LightSquared’s network to lessen the load on its own network as data demand has skyrocketed, an issue that has plagued other carriers. "
It sounds like they will be using them for backhaul, I don't see anything about Sprint using LTE. Right now backhaul is what Sprint is lacking so this will be a good thing for not just 4G but 3G speeds.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It talks about Sprint using LTE in the third paragraph of the Bloomberg article.
“LightSquared and Sprint will jointly develop, deploy and operate LightSquared’s 4G LTE network,” according to the letter. “Sprint will become a significant customer of LightSquared’s 4G LTE network.”

Yet more money wasted on Wimax and shoveled into another bad relationship (Clearwire) Stay comfy in number 3 because you're going to be seated here a while, Sprint. At the very least they woke up and realized LTE is the way to go.
However even after Clearwire's long gone. Those who already have Wimax 4g will still be supported until after their devices are long gone. The only ones who will be bit will be the ones that should have upgraded lone ago. Like the ones today who are still carrying around Cingular phones refusing to upgrade to AT&T So at least Sprint will keep their core customers happy to an extent.

Sprint desperate to jump into the LTE iPhone train next year?
Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk

What good is backhaul when the airwaves can't reach end users?
It's like having a download server capable of gigabit speed, along with an ISP who can deliver it to you. Except you're saddled with a 1991-vintage 10 Mbps ethernet card.
That's the problem I've been noticing with WiMAX. Sprint has one hell of a data network, but the airwaves used to deliver that network are congested and not well suited to the consumer's needs.

I wonder how likely it is that an upcoming Galaxy 2 or Photon 4G will be LTE / Wimax on Sprint...

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.

[Discussion] Is it possible to get VoLTE thru an OTA? T-Mo just did...

http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2789485
Maybe this can/will happen to us? Or is it Sprint phone's hardware makes it not available? Kinda confused as to how they got that thru an OTA, I thought it had to do with hardware and not software.... gave me some hope maybe we will get it someday! lol
FYI: VoLTE= being on a call and being able to use LTE data

Joe0113 said:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2789485
Maybe this can/will happen to us? Or is it Sprint phone's hardware makes it not available? Kinda confused as to how they got that thru an OTA, I thought it had to do with hardware and not software.... gave me some hope maybe we will get it someday! lol
FYI: VoLTE= being on a call and being able to use LTE data
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It has nothing to do with hardware.
Did WiFi calling require new hardware? :silly:
It's all software based.
So short answer, yes we COULD do it/have it, but SPRINT has to do it and support it.
FWIW the WiFi calling at the moment is using a third party provider/service sprint pays, which I find funny. The future is VoIP, you'd think the providers have they own crap together by now.

It has to do with Chip Processor in our phone :/. Sprint can't do anything about it

The towers need the hardware/software to handle VoLTE. Our phones are all set for it, there's no special hardware. It just sends voice over LTE. The towers are on CSFB (why we lose data for calls and etc), and eventually will be made VoLTE-ready. When enough towers have it, within a year and a half or so I think, they'll push an OTA to enable it.
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

dpwhitty11 said:
The towers need the hardware/software to handle VoLTE. Our phones are all set for it, there's no special hardware. It just sends voice over LTE. The towers are on CSFB (why we lose data for calls and etc), and eventually will be made VoLTE-ready. When enough towers have it, within a year and a half or so I think, they'll push an OTA to enable it.
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Correct, buuuuuut, that won't be for a very long time. Some throw around 2017, that I've heard, but those are just guesses, I've not seen anything on a roadmap for dates. Perhaps, I'm wrong, but I wouldn't get real excited. They have to complete the 800, 1900, 2600 LTE rollout, then end of next year they'll bump to more carriers on the 2600 band (LTE-A style for mega speeds), which the S5 won't be able to accommodate BTW, then who knows.......if you want VoLTE, you probably should seek other carriers.

http://forums.androidcentral.com/sp...321076-does-sprints-note-3-support-svlte.html

Joe0113 said:
What's that hafta do with the S5? lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If the Note 3 can do it then it has nothing to do with the network as its clearly supported already, contrary to what the person above me posted. That means that it's now up to sprint to decide whether to make it available to the device via a software update or not
The thing with SVLTE is that it doesn't require any additional hardware unlike SVDO (S3 for example) which requires an additional radio.

CNexus said:
If the Note 3 can do it then it has nothing to do with the network as its clearly supported already, contrary to what the person above me posted. That means that it's now up to sprint to decide whether to make it available to the device via a software update or not
The thing with SVLTE is that it doesn't require any additional hardware unlike SVDO (S3 for example) which requires an additional radio.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Incorrect. SVLTE (Think the S4) Does require an additional radio.

It's not an additional radio that's required anymore.
LTE radio exist, EVDO radio exist, thus you have one for voice and data now, though now they are on the same chip technically now.
SVDO did because it needed a radio for voice and one for the data.
With LTE we now have 2 basically.
The issue is antenna and antenna switching design.
The ability to do both was removed because it has a negative impact on reception, performance etc. when using frequencies like Sprint is. Basically you have all your antennas that are routing to a single path on the chip that goes to the radios. The SVDO had multiple paths and thus could do both.
I imagine this time next year it won't be an issue but it could still be because they will begin using spectrum aggregation which again combines everything to a single point.
It will be interesting to see how things change.
SVDO was only around for a few phone model years, but I agree it was a big overlook again. They knew it wasn't going to work but they assumed because it only existed for a few model years most people had been use to not having it, but they forget about people carrier hopping and assuming it would.
CDMA was better vs. GSM in terms of voice and security but it always had this big draw back of no voice/data together without special work arounds. Once 3G is decom like 2G was in a number of years none of this will matter.

booey24 said:
I think your getting SVLTE and VoLTE mixed up.
SVLTE uses 2 radios which the Sprint Note 3 has, but VoLTE uses 1 radio which the S5 has.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Scolias said:
Incorrect. SVLTE (Think the S4) Does require an additional radio.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, it no longer requires an additional radio like the S3 did for SVDO.

bryanu said:
It's not an additional radio that's required anymore.
LTE radio exist, EVDO radio exist, thus you have one for voice and data now, though now they are on the same chip technically now.
SVDO did because it needed a radio for voice and one for the data.
With LTE we now have 2 basically.
The issue is antenna and antenna switching design.
The ability to do both was removed because it has a negative impact on reception, performance etc. when using frequencies like Sprint is. Basically you have all your antennas that are routing to a single path on the chip that goes to the radios. The SVDO had multiple paths and thus could do both.
I imagine this time next year it won't be an issue but it could still be because they will begin using spectrum aggregation which again combines everything to a single point.
It will be interesting to see how things change.
SVDO was only around for a few phone model years, but I agree it was a big overlook again. They knew it wasn't going to work but they assumed because it only existed for a few model years most people had been use to not having it, but they forget about people carrier hopping and assuming it would.
CDMA was better vs. GSM in terms of voice and security but it always had this big draw back of no voice/data together without special work arounds. Once 3G is decom like 2G was in a number of years none of this will matter.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is technically correct, the best kind of correct. There are multiple radios on the S5 SoC, but only one transmission path so only one radio can be used at a time. (Hence why we have eCSFB) In order for SVLTE to work at the same time using LTE/1x like in the past, you need to have TWO radios that are working simultaneously and not one at a time like on the S5.
In the long run this is a better solution, but I still think they should have held off on single transmission path until VoLTE was ready to roll out.

Here you go kiddos. Exclusive information and details on Sprint's VoLTE.
http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/...th-domestic-and-international-volte-carriers/
sent from an underwater dust storm with my Sprint S5

Scolias said:
This is technically correct, the best kind of correct. There are multiple radios on the S5 SoC, but only one transmission path so only one radio can be used at a time. (Hence why we have eCSFB) In order for SVLTE to work at the same time using LTE/1x like in the past, you need to have TWO radios that are working simultaneously and not one at a time like on the S5.
In the long run this is a better solution, but I still think they should have held off on single transmission path until VoLTE was ready to roll out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The one radio in the S5 saves a lot of power compared to the 2 radios that the HTC One has. Honestly I don't see a reason to even implement VoLTE in the US since they are implementing 1x advanced.
mmark27 said:
Here you go kiddos. Exclusive information and details on Sprint's VoLTE.
http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/...th-domestic-and-international-volte-carriers/
sent from an underwater dust storm with my Sprint S5
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup... Honestly I don't know why VoLTE is preferred. The 1x Advanced that Sprint is putting on the 800 mhz bands (and eventually the 1900 once the older phones start phasing out) frees up a lot of spectrum so they can have a lot more calls going through any single tower. With VoLTE they would suffer the same exact data bandwidth limitations.

numus said:
The one radio in the S5 saves a lot of power compared to the 2 radios that the HTC One has. Honestly I don't see a reason to even implement VoLTE in the US since they are implementing 1x advanced.
Yup... Honestly I don't know why VoLTE is preferred. The 1x Advanced that Sprint is putting on the 800 mhz bands (and eventually the 1900 once the older phones start phasing out) frees up a lot of spectrum so they can have a lot more calls going through any single tower. With VoLTE they would suffer the same exact data bandwidth limitations.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Correct, 800SMR is going to do wonders to Sprint coverage and clarity. The VoLTE will allow simultaneous voice and data again AND it's a global standard protocol....... so that's why it's preferred eventually. Also, once Sprint's network is fully implemented (end of 2015), there will be no bandwidth limitations, that's the upper hand that Sprint has for the patient, tons of spectrum and they're going to utilize it well.
sent from an underwater dust storm with my Sprint S5

mmark27 said:
Correct, 800SMR is going to do wonders to Sprint coverage and clarity. The VoLTE will allow simultaneous voice and data again AND it's a global standard protocol....... so that's why it's preferred eventually. Also, once Sprint's network is fully implemented (end of 2015), there will be no bandwidth limitations, that's the upper hand that Sprint has for the patient, tons of spectrum and they're going to utilize it well.
sent from an underwater dust storm with my Sprint S5
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
When in the history of Sprint have they ever actually done something well, no matter how many resources they have had?!? They are still trying to play catch up to every other network (and are falling behind every day). Personally I think simultaneous voice and data is kinda worthless (had it on my M7 and never used it) and there will always be bandwidth limitations.

Scolias said:
This is technically correct, the best kind of correct. There are multiple radios on the S5 SoC, but only one transmission path so only one radio can be used at a time. (Hence why we have eCSFB) In order for SVLTE to work at the same time using LTE/1x like in the past, you need to have TWO radios that are working simultaneously and not one at a time like on the S5.
In the long run this is a better solution, but I still think they should have held off on single transmission path until VoLTE was ready to roll out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
numus said:
When in the history of Sprint have they ever actually done something well, no matter how many resources they have had?!? They are still trying to play catch up to every other network (and are falling behind every day). Personally I think simultaneous voice and data is kinda worthless (had it on my M7 and never used it) and there will always be bandwidth limitations.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the info, guys. This is interesting -- in contrast to the Moto X, which already supports simultaneous voice and data (ONLY on LTE). I can confirm it works perfectly on the Moto X. Also, there are no bandwidth limitations, due to Sprints use of TD-LTE (Time Division Long Term Evolution).
(I'm NOT referring to VoLTE)
Nice to have learned something new about the SGS5 though... :good:

samwathegreat said:
Thanks for the info, guys. This is interesting -- in contrast to the Moto X, which already supports simultaneous voice and data (ONLY on LTE). I can confirm it works perfectly on the Moto X. Also, there are no bandwidth limitations, due to Sprints use of TD-LTE (Time Division Long Term Evolution).
(I'm NOT referring to VoLTE)
Nice to have learned something new about the SGS5 though... :good:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The HTC One (M7 not sure about M8) supports the same thing. The reason it is only on LTE is because on all phones, 1x and EVDO are the same radio (working off CDMA2000 with the chip supporting both 1xRTT and 1xEV-DO).
In the case of the Moto X, there is a separate chip specifically for LTE while the Samsung Galaxy S 5 sticks all of them on the same chip. So while the Moto X is supporting both voice and data at the same time, it has to power the radios for 1xRTT or 1xEVDO and the one for LTE, which means you are powering 2 while the Galaxy S 5 is only powered 1... Also there will always be bandwidth limitations... They still rely on a Fiber and/or Microwave back end which doesn't have infinite bandwidth capabilities.

numus said:
The HTC One (M7 not sure about M8) supports the same thing. The reason it is only on LTE is because on all phones, 1x and EVDO are the same radio (working off CDMA2000 with the chip supporting both 1xRTT and 1xEV-DO).
In the case of the Moto X, there is a separate chip specifically for LTE while the Samsung Galaxy S 5 sticks all of them on the same chip. So while the Moto X is supporting both voice and data at the same time, it has to power the radios for 1xRTT or 1xEVDO and the one for LTE, which means you are powering 2 while the Galaxy S 5 is only powered 1... Also there will always be bandwidth limitations... They still rely on a Fiber and/or Microwave back end which doesn't have infinite bandwidth capabilities.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for pointing out the error in my logic: that the MAXIMUM 8.5kbps used by the EVRC/EVRC-B voice codec might actually contribute to "bandwidth limitations" due to using both radios at the same time
Since this would seem beyond insignificant, all things considering, I HAD failed to take this into consideration LMAO.
Nonetheless, thanks for the clarification.
I am well aware of the dual-radio nature of the X....just wasn't aware that the same didn't apply to the SGS5...
Haha I'll keep in mind that I might *possibly* be shorted 8.5kbps the next time I make a call while using my LTE data

samwathegreat said:
Thanks for pointing out the error in my logic: that the MAXIMUM 8.5kbps used by the EVRC/EVRC-B voice codec might actually contribute to "bandwidth limitations" due to using both radios at the same time
Since this would seem beyond insignificant, all things considering, I HAD failed to take this into consideration LMAO.
Nonetheless, thanks for the clarification.
I am well aware of the dual-radio nature of the X....just wasn't aware that the same didn't apply to the SGS5...
Haha I'll keep in mind that I might *possibly* be shorted 8.5kbps the next time I make a call while using my LTE data
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you read what you quote? There is a bandwidth limitation in LTE in general. Unlike 1x Advanced which is dedicated spectrum for calls only, VoLTE is going to run into bandwidth limitations because it is LTE. Guess what happens if everyone is using data at the same time on a tower?!? Guess what happens to Voice that requires data bandwidth to function... Granted you can always support carriers implementing QOS... I am sure everyone would be very happy with that.

numus said:
Do you read what you quote? There is a bandwidth limitation in LTE in general. Unlike 1x Advanced which is dedicated spectrum for calls only, VoLTE is going to run into bandwidth limitations because it is LTE. Guess what happens if everyone is using data at the same time on a tower?!? Guess what happens to Voice that requires data bandwidth to function...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did you read my quote? When I said there were no "bandwidth limitations" on the X --- I was referring to "bandwidth limitations" in respect to using both VOICE and DATA at the same TIME. Why else would have I mentioned "TD-LTE"??? Please explain...