Related
I'm not versed in spectrum-talk, so here it goes: Why is it that T-Mobile HSPA+ states peak speeds of 21.6 Mbps, yet the G2 states peak speeds of 14.4 Mbps?
Also, what is the difference between HSDPA+ and HSPA+?
The HSPA+ network is capable of 21 Mbps, but the HSPA+ radio chip in the G2 is only rated at 14.4 Mbps. Currently the only device tmobile has that is capable of 21 Mbps is the web connect rocket.
HSPA = High Speed Packet Acces
HSPA includes both
HSDPA = High Speed Downlink Packet Access
and
HSUPA = High Speed Uplink Packet Access
HSPA+ = HSPA of 14.4 Mbps or faster (21 Mbps or the next step is 42 Mbps.
joebobjoe said:
I'm not versed in spectrum-talk, so here it goes: Why is it that T-Mobile HSPA+ states peak speeds of 21.6 Mbps, yet the G2 states peak speeds of 14.4 Mbps?
Also, what is the difference between HSDPA+ and HSPA+?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HSPA+(3.75G) is actually newer and faster than HSDPA+(3.5G). In terms of speed, theoretically HSPA+ can reach speeds of 56Mbit/s while HSDPA+ can reach 21Mbit/s. Though in really the fastest your going to get for HSPA+ is 21.6 Mbps. As for why the G2 14.4 Mbps I have no clue. but its faster then my home internet
mtl171,
Technically HSPA+ consists of HSDPA+ and HSUPA+ just like HSPA contains both HSDPA and HSUPA.
I agree that we are unlikely to see HSPA+ networks faster than 21 Mbps in the U.S., I think carriers including T-Mobile will be investing in LTE before 42 Mbps HSPA+ especially since the speed on 21 Mbps is on par with many home broadband connections.
LTE has more benefits for carriers than just speed.
atlp99 said:
Technically HSPA+ consists of HSDPA+ and HSUPA+ just like HSPA contains both HSDPA and HSUPA.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
my bad. forgot about that.
atlp99 said:
I agree that we are unlikely to see HSPA+ networks faster than 21 Mbps in the U.S., I think carriers including T-Mobile will be investing in LTE before 42 Mbps HSPA+ especially since the speed on 21 Mbps is on par with many home broadband connections. LTE has more benefits for carriers than just speed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True. though i thought Verizon and AT&T were going for LTE while T-Mobile and Sprint are going with Wi-Max. though i might be mistaken...
Well there are rumors about a merger between Clearwire and T-Mobile.
Anyway, does HSDPA+/HSPA+ rely on MIMO?
Sprint is the only carrier using WiMax
T-Mobile is also going to LTE.
Verizon , ATT, and T-Mobile have all committed to LTE for long term 4G networks.
Sprint is the only one using WiMax, and there is a chance they will switch to LTE also in the long run. Clearwire (which Sprint the majority shareholder) has indicated that their WiMax network could be converted to LTE without much effort.
T-Mobile is deploying HSPA+ currently before deploying LTE.
This makes sense to me, since the speeds of HSPA+ are higher than LTE will be at launch and T-Mobile does not have the network congestion problems that ATT and Verizon have. The biggest advantage of LTE is increased network capacity because of more efficient spectrum usage. I don't think that LTE speeds will pass HSPA+ speeds for at least a couple of years, but LTE has the potential to be faster in the long run.
Verizon is starting to deploy LTE for data cards the end of this year and is rumored to be launching LTE handsets towards the last half of 2011. Depending on the rumors, they may be running behind due to issues with calling over LTE but there are conflicting rumors at this point.
Joebojoe,
HSPA+ running at 42 Mbps and above technology similar to MIMO to download from 2 towers simultaneously.
There are rumors about a Clearwire and T-Mobile partnership. It could make sense for them to partner together for a LTE network roll out, and Clearwire has indicated that it could switch its network over to LTE or run LTE and WiMax.
The other option that has been rumored is that T-Mobile would simply buy some of the excess spectrum that Clearwire has.
Either of those options could make sense, but are just rumors with no real facts to support them. It's fun speculating though.
Thanks for the reply, yet I'm still curious why the G2 is labelled HSPA+ yet only supports 14.4 Mbps. 14.4 Mbps sounds more like HSDPA to me.
joebobjoe said:
Thanks for the reply, yet I'm still curious why the G2 is labelled HSPA+ yet only supports 14.4 Mbps. 14.4 Mbps sounds more like HSDPA to me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
idk. design limitations? its still plenty fast. highly doubt people actually get 14.4 Mbps on a HSDPA connection.
Update: its design limitations. According to Qualcomm's website, "MSM7230(proccessor used in G2) support for HSPA+ networks - up to 14 Mbps downloads and 5.76 Mbps uploads"
Like mtl171 posted the 14.4 Mbps speed on the G2 is a limitation of the chipset. I don't think any of the chipsets available for phones HSPA+ at 21 Mbps. The next generation 1.2 and 1.5 Ghz Snapdragon chipsets are supposed to be capable of faster data speeds (if i remember correctly)but they have not reached the market yet.
Joebobjoe,
HSPA and HSPA+ are basically versions of the same technology Hspa+ is the newest iteration. The main difference is the speed.
Please explain... if there are chipsets that support it for the usb dongle, why can't the same thing work on a phone? Have they just not made the chipset small enough for a phone yet?
rpmccormick said:
Please explain... if there are chipsets that support it for the usb dongle, why can't the same thing work on a phone? Have they just not made the chipset small enough for a phone yet?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
patience young one the geniuses at qualcomm are working on this. meanwhile we just need to patiently wait a year or so for them to release it
Aren't those chipsets coming out in January?
joebobjoe said:
Aren't those chipsets coming out in January?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
to tell you the truth, i don't know. but my guess is phones released next year should support it.
Last I heard the 1.2 Ghz Snapdragon chipsets should be released to handset manufacturers late this year or early next year. Then add a couple of months for manufacturers to get handsets built with them, so probably late Q1 for those handsets to get market
rpmccormick,
The chipset in the usb dongle only has to transmit data, it does not have support the other functions of a phone (O.S., wifi, Bluetooth, screen, audio, video, power management, etc..), plus since the usb pulls power from your computer so power management is not as important. The usb dongle uses a much simpler chipset, that only has to transmit data while your computer handles everything else.
atlp99 said:
Last I heard the 1.2 Ghz Snapdragon chipsets should be released to handset manufacturers late this year or early next year. Then add a couple of months for manufacturers to get handsets built with them, so probably late Q1 for those handsets to get market.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1.2 ghz early next year. 1.5 dualcore Q4 next year.
http://androidandme.com/2010/09/news/is-qualcomm-and-htc-in-trouble-with-their-dual-core-processors/
Bringing this back since its relavant now....
So just found out about the new Samsung Galaxy S 4g with the new chipsets that give 21+ theroetical speeds....
I am a VERY VERY angry G2 owner who while loves my phone am very upset to find that I will be getting much less speeds out of their network labeled the SAME on both devices. I think this was a VERY deceiving move and hope that with enough complaints we can get some sort of retribution like lower data plan price or what not (the what not are better solutions like a free upgrade but i know those things dont happen as easy)
The only hope is that it can be updated to use 21+ from 14+ but this is HIGHLY unlikely.
Im curious to see what others think of this?
EDIT: this is a smart forum so lets not discuss the fact that not all areas will have that speed and just pretend that im in a market that already is pushing that when using one of those usb sticks..
no6969el said:
So just found out about the new Samsung Galaxy S 4g with the new chipsets that give 21+ theroetical speeds....
I am a VERY VERY angry G2 owner who while loves my phone am very upset to find that I will be getting much less speeds out of their network labeled the SAME on both devices. I think this was a VERY deceiving move and hope that with enough complaints we can get some sort of retribution like lower data plan price or what not (the what not are better solutions like a free upgrade but i know those things dont happen as easy)
The only hope is that it can be updated to use 21+ from 14+ but this is HIGHLY unlikely.
Im curious to see what others think of this?
EDIT: this is a smart forum so lets not discuss the fact that not all areas will have that speed and just pretend that im in a market that already is pushing that when using one of those usb sticks..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wouldn't worry about it too much. If you had a 4G galaxy s side by side with a G2 the galaxy s would very rarely achieve higher speeds. The G2 is a high end android phone that will not be obsolete anytime soon. You could always hold out for the next great phone but no matter what there will always be something better in a few months.
You should be happy about your decision to buy a G2 because its a fast, solid device and still the best phone in Tmo's lineup.
Sent from my HTC Vision using XDA App
Seriously you are getting that upset? Why do people get so uptight about so many things? Like the previous poster stated, real world is different. But technology moves forward, it doesn't stop for anyone. Life is much more difficult then getting one or two mbps less then another phone. I would be more upset if we never get a gingerbread update (yeah I know I would never use it seeing as I'm a xda member running cm7) simply because of principal. The whole vibrant fiasco would have me really ticked. It wasn't until people really started calling it out and got really loud did things really happen.
Sent from my HTC Vision
I always thought WiMax = 4G but I read somewhere today it's not.
Can someone explain please?
I tried reading the article and those complicated words didn't make any sense.
Same here idk what day hell is wimax so I don't use it lol
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
arozer said:
I always thought WiMax = 4G but I read somewhere today it's not.
Can someone explain please?
I tried reading the article and those complicated words didn't make any sense.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wimax is the method that Sprint/Clear delivers us 4G. Verizon delivers 4g using LTE.
So yes, Wimax=4G
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WiMAX
Sent from my PC36100
WiMAX is one of the three competing "4G" (which I now call FauxG) technologies being used in the United States. The other two being LTE (Long Term Evolution) and HSPA+/HSPA Advanced
All three are capable of effectively managing spectrum allocations, capacity, and delivering voice over internet protocol dependent on set up, but the main use for these technologies is for mobile internet/data.
WiMAX started first, and Sprint/Clearwire wanted a head start and went with this. LTE the more world standard technology came later, AT&T and Verizon both use this and many other companies are switching to LTE soon. LTE trial tests are being conducted on Sprint and Clearwire should either company decide to change over. HSPA+/HSPA Advanced started a little late in the game and is essentially a 3G technology that behaves like and gives application usage like a 4G network such as WiMAX or LTE. T-Mobile is the main company to use HSPA+ however AT&T is overlaying much of their network, albeit much slower than T-Mobile, with HSPA+ and calling it "4G" prior to their LTE roll out.
WiMAX unfortunately is only on 2.3, 2.5 and 3.5Ghz frequencies for the time being, meaning the signal while capable of fast speeds, does not penetrate buildings or walls easily or effectively enough for indoor use, even with closely spaced tower placement.
Sprint and Clearwire hope to change this with a network upgrade plan which would essentially recycle unused 800/850, 1900 spectrum for use with WiMAX and CDMA, as well as using the current 2.5Ghz spectrum for WiMAX and CDMA.
LTE on the other hand, was deployed at 700Mhz. While the signal travels though buildings and walls easily, the lower frequency will result in slower maximum data speeds over all and lower battery life.
HSPA+ is a 3G technology, so if you are familiar with T-Mobile or AT&T or any GSM type network you know it is the same as before, only new hardware handsets and a software upgrade at the cell site have enabled faster speeds. The only hardware from the tower that needs replacing is backhaul.
To elaborate on Williefdiaz's "FauxG" comment, there has been some controversy (among tech geeks at least) as to what's "really" 4G. ITU had defined it as a network supporting 100 Mbit/s for mobile installations and 1Gbit/s for fixed or nearly fixed installations (phones would of course be mobile). Neither WiMax nor LTE meet that yet, but they're sufficiently fast enough compared to 3G that the industry has chosen to market it as such. Even T-Mo's HSPA+ technology, which is even further from the 4G requirements in that it's not an all-IP packet switched network, is being marketed as 4G because it can provide similar speeds.
In the end, it looks like anything capable of delivering speeds of 5-10Mbit/s (or more) is going to be called 4G, regardless of the ITU's definition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G
Try This: http://tinyurl.com/5tyebn7
bkrodgers said:
To elaborate on Williefdiaz's "FauxG" comment, there has been some controversy (among tech geeks at least) as to what's "really" 4G. ITU had defined it as a network supporting 100 Mbit/s for mobile installations and 1Gbit/s for fixed or nearly fixed installations (phones would of course be mobile). Neither WiMax nor LTE meet that yet, but they're sufficiently fast enough compared to 3G that the industry has chosen to market it as such. Even T-Mo's HSPA+ technology, which is even further from the 4G requirements in that it's not an all-IP packet switched network, is being marketed as 4G because it can provide similar speeds.
In the end, it looks like anything capable of delivering speeds of 5-10Mbit/s (or more) is going to be called 4G, regardless of the ITU's definition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you both very much for elaborating. Igot a clear understanding now.
Does the GSM Nexus Prime do 4g speeds, or only 3g? I'm finding mixed information when I search for an answer.
The GSM model supports HSPA, HSDPA, and HSUPA, so yes, it supports things that fall under the 4G title.
Ok, I was under the impression the things you listed have been available for a while and were available as far back as the Nexus One. Am I mistaken here? The target network would be T-Mobile, if that helps.
My post may have been a bit confusing ^_^
HSPA+, both which the Galaxy Nexus GSM supports, are the "4G" technologies, with HSPA+ being closer to "real 4G". It ALSO supports HSDPA and HSUPA which is the 3G technology.
Ok, so it sounds like it'll go faster than my N1 then. For some reason I thought the N1 did HSPA+, but I think I was confused. Thanks.
harfdorf said:
Ok, so it sounds like it'll go faster than my N1 then. For some reason I thought the N1 did HSPA+, but I think I was confused. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
N1 does not have HSPA+. It tops out at 3.6mbps on the downlink. By a similar token, the GSM SGN doesn't have 4G. I've used HSPA+ and I have an LTE device. I've seen LTE hit 60Mpbs, with a 30Mb upload, with lower latency throughout. That's not even the fastest speed the phone's baseband is capable of.
It murders the battery, though. While HSPA isn't 4G, I don't think the extra "g" is worth halving the battery life.
UMTS = 3G, HSDPA = 3.5G/2M, HSUPA = 3.75G/5.76M and HSPA+ = 4G Technology whiles speed upto 21M.
I get great 4G speeds in Scottsdale, AZ
HSPA+ is NOT 4G. It never will be. According to the official definition of 4G the closest we have right now is LTE which technically isn't 4G either. Carriers are using the term 4G so loosely. Look at Sprint and Wimax and Ma Bell and T-Mobile with HSPA+ carriers are using the term to denote something new and to the average consumer it doesn't make a difference .. but when you get technical there is a HUGE difference.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
LTE-Advanced, which is not even in use anywhere on this planet except maybe in research labs, is the first true fourth-generation wireless technology.
Everything else is 3G, no matter what the dumbass carriers say.
synaesthetic said:
LTE-Advanced, which is not even in use anywhere on this planet except maybe in research labs, is the first true fourth-generation wireless technology.
Everything else is 3G, no matter what the dumbass carriers say.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LTE-Advanced will rule
harfdorf said:
Does the GSM Nexus Prime do 4g speeds, or only 3g? I'm finding mixed information when I search for an answer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yes. Up to 21mbit
Sent from my GSM Galaxy Nexus on TMoUS using Tapatalk
My own personal definition goes by putting up new hardware technology towers. So we had 2g gsm and edge, then put up new hardware on the towers for 3g umts with hspa added as a software upgrade to the base stations. Then new hardware again had to be put up for lte or wimax.
To me each new physical hardware jump is what should count as a new generation.
To those saying only LTE is the closest to 4G, thats not entirely true.
The ITU has modified their definition of what falls under 4G to include WiMax, HSPA+, etc.
http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2010/48.aspx
Following a detailed evaluation against stringent technical and operational criteria, ITU has determined that “LTE-Advanced” and “WirelessMAN-Advanced” should be accorded the official designation of IMT-Advanced. As the most advanced technologies currently defined for global wireless mobile broadband communications, IMT-Advanced is considered as “4G”, although it is recognized that this term, while undefined, may also be applied to the forerunners of these technologies, LTE and WiMax, and to other evolved 3G technologies providing a substantial level of improvement in performance and capabilities with respect to the initial third generation systems now deployed. The detailed specifications of the IMT-Advanced technologies will be provided in a new ITU-R Recommendation expected in early 2012.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
synaesthetic said:
LTE-Advanced, which is not even in use anywhere on this planet except maybe in research labs, is the first true fourth-generation wireless technology.
Everything else is 3G, no matter what the dumbass carriers say.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the carriers aren't dumb, the consumer that believes the carrier is dumb. The carriers market lies because we accept it.... just sayin
Don't know if already was posted
DG News Service - Sprint Nextel will drop its planned 15-year 4G network partnership with would-be hybrid network operator LightSquared, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.
The end of the Sprint partnership, which was due to expire on Thursday, would be nearly as big a blow to the foundering LightSquared as the U.S. Federal Communications Commission's proposal last month to revoke the carrier's authorization to build a land-based network.
Since the deal was announced last July, Sprint had been planning to host LightSquared's radio spectrum on its Network Vision infrastructure. LightSquared was to pay Sprint US$9 billion in cash for that hosting and said the plan would save it $13 billion over eight years.
For its part, Sprint had looked to the partnership for extra spectrum on which to run its own planned LTE network. It would get $4.5 billion worth of credits to use some of LightSquared's spectrum in addition to its own and that of longtime partner Clearwire. Sprint extended the deal twice to give LightSquared more time to win FCC approval for its network.
Sprint will terminate the LightSquared deal on Friday and return $65 million in prepayments by LightSquared, according to the Journal.
In moving to kill LightSquared's plan, the FCC cited tests it said showed harmful interference between the proposed network and GPS. Since the public notice of its proposal, which was followed by a public comment period that ends this week, two other carrier partners -- FreedomPop and Cricket -- have signed up with Clearwire for wholesale LTE capacity.
Meanwhile, LightSquared has been positioning itself for a possible legal battle that may be its only hope to resurrect its network plans. On Wednesday, the company said it had hired two prominent Washington lawyers. On Friday, the company is expected to file its own comments on the FCC's plan.
Link http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...rtedly_plans_to_dump_LightSquared_partnership
Expected this, it doesn't affect Network Vision and Sprint's rollout of their LTE so I don't really care.
tommydaniel said:
Expected this, it doesn't affect Network Vision and Sprint's rollout of their LTE so I don't really care.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I beg to differ. It may not affect their initial LTE rollout, but Sprint is in a bit of trouble. They desperately need extra spectrum for their LTE network, which is why LightSquared, Failed MetroPCS purchase, and T-Mobile partnership. That was sprint's plan A, B, and C and they all failed.
LightSquared had (never really had) the 1600 Mhz spectrum, but Sprint has the 1900Mhz one and the 800Mhz one (which will be awesome )
bbedward said:
I beg to differ. It may not affect their initial LTE rollout, but Sprint is in a bit of trouble. They desperately need extra spectrum for their LTE network, which is why LightSquared, Failed MetroPCS purchase, and T-Mobile partnership. That was sprint's plan A, B, and C and they all failed.
LightSquared had (never really had) the 1600 Mhz spectrum, but Sprint has the 1900Mhz one and the 800Mhz one (which will be awesome )
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From my understanding they still have Clearwire for their LTE so they should be fine. Right?
Sent from my SPH-D710 using XDA
RayTrue04 said:
From my understanding they still have Clearwire for their LTE so they should be fine. Right?
Sent from my SPH-D710 using XDA
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Clearwire is not a very reliable partner. Verizon will soon have around 50 MHz of quality spectrum devoted to LTE nationwide, while Sprint only has its own 10 MHz in the 1.9GHz spectrum.
Clearwire will not get their LTE up until June 2013, and it will only be available in "small pockets" of big cities to supplement Sprint coverage. Further, phones capable of using LTE on both networks may not be available until 2013.
why won't clear go wimax-advance? which is faster then lte?
Jayavarman said:
Clearwire is not a very reliable partner. Verizon will soon have around 50 MHz of quality spectrum devoted to LTE nationwide, while Sprint only has its own 10 MHz in the 1.9GHz spectrum.
Clearwire will not get their LTE up until June 2013, and it will only be available in "small pockets" of big cities to supplement Sprint coverage. Further, phones capable of using LTE on both networks may not be available until 2013.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Where have you read that? Also Clearwire has about 120mhz of Spectrum on 2.5GHz and Sprint has a ton on 800MHz (IDK the exact figure)
Hey guys, since T-mobile is rolling out 1900 Mhz, I was wondering if we could use this on our SGS3s.
I've read reports that say 1900Mhz PCS should be 33% faster than the lower powered 1700Mhz AWS. I would love to test this and seeing as I'm in NYC, I *should* get this.
33% increase source
I did this to test.
*#197328640*#
UMTS->Debug->Phone Control->Network Control->Band Selection->WCDMA Band Preference->1900
Which dropped phone signal, and then promptly found signal again.
It did not, however, register onto the network.
I went to Manual network selection and chose T-mobile. Which told me "error registering on network".
Now, I'm wondering if I've missed a step, or I need a 1900Mhz enabled sim, or could Tmo have just not enabled it yet?
Anyone have any experience with this?
I've read reports that say 1900Mhz PCS should be 33% faster than the lower powered 1700Mhz AWS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Where did you read/hear that the AWS frequency bands operate at lower power? I didn't see anything of the sort at the link you posted, and find it unlikely.
Perhaps there is just no PCS available in your area yet. That is the first thing I would think.
kmdub said:
Where did you read/hear that the AWS frequency bands operate at lower power? I didn't see anything of the sort at the link you posted, and find it unlikely.
Perhaps there is just no PCS available in your area yet. That is the first thing I would think.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah it seems I'm mixing sources. I'll edit the op or this post when I find it after dinner.
Something about aws vs pcs technologies. Once again I'm not researched on these terms so forgive any mismatched sets.
I think you're probably right about lack of 1900 bands in this area. I took a look at the 1900 band spotting map and realized that ny metro distribution is more sparse than implied.
I thought 1900 came out when hspa+ did
Sent from my SGH-T999 using xda premium
It might not be completely rolled out where you live.
Dont try that now. It is currently deployed only in few parts of DC, NY, NJ, SD and vegas. You should try again in jan 2013
Sent from my Nexus One using xda app-developers app
konceptz said:
I've read reports that say 1900Mhz PCS should be 33% faster than the lower powered 1700Mhz AWS. I would love to test this and seeing as I'm in NYC, I *should* get this.
33% increase source
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not sure where you got any of what you said—the article definitely does not say "should" nor does it say anything about "higher power".
It also says T-Mobile's network modernization effort "have shown a" (that's not "should") a 33% increase, not just the move to 1900 MHz. Their modernization effort includes switching to an antenna-integrated radio and a whole host of technical stuff not mentioned in the press release.
---------- Post added at 12:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:14 AM ----------
konceptz said:
Something about aws vs pcs technologies. Once again I'm not researched on these terms so forgive any mismatched sets.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The technology is HSPA+. AWS and PCS are the names of frequently-used wireless bands.
Physics would dictate that performance is WORSE on 1900 MHz (PCS) than 1700 MHz (AWS) (generally, lower the frequency, the better—a big reason why Verizon's LTE on 700 MHz rocks so much).
tamasrepus said:
Not sure where you got any of what you said—the article definitely does not say "should" nor does it say anything about "higher power".
It also says T-Mobile's network modernization effort "have shown a" (that's not "should") a 33% increase, not just the move to 1900 MHz. Their modernization effort includes switching to an antenna-integrated radio and a whole host of technical stuff not mentioned in the press release.
---------- Post added at 12:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:14 AM ----------
The technology is HSPA+. AWS and PCS are the names of frequently-used wireless bands.
Physics would dictate that performance is WORSE on 1900 MHz (PCS) than 1700 MHz (AWS) (generally, lower the frequency, the better—a big reason why Verizon's LTE on 700 MHz rocks so much).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While I'm sure the verbiage I used was not entirely correct, should vs have shown.
Physics does not show lower frequency to carry more information by definition of the word. Implementation certainly can have effects on utilization as well as other factors such as range, but given equal proliferation, a 1900 MHz wave will obviously carry 19/17 more information than a 1700 MHz ( wave.
However knowing some basic light and optics physics, a 700 MHz wave will have a much larger range. Best example being AM vs FM radio.
I did read the power (possibly TX power) of PCS 1900 MHz could be implemented in a higher level than current AWS 1700 MHz, however I now recall it was just a theory that some members at Hofo were kicking around. I didn't source that so I hope readers would not take that slip in verbiage as fact.
konceptz said:
While I'm sure the verbiage I used was not entirely correct, should vs have shown.
Physics does not show lower frequency to carry more information by definition of the word. Implementation certainly can have effects on utilization as well as other factors such as range, but given equal proliferation, a 1900 MHz wave will obviously carry 19/17 more information than a 1700 MHz ( wave.
However knowing some basic light and optics physics, a 700 MHz wave will have a much larger range. Best example being AM vs FM radio.
I did read the power (possibly TX power) of PCS 1900 MHz could be implemented in a higher level than current AWS 1700 MHz, however I now recall it was just a theory that some members at Hofo were kicking around. I didn't source that so I hope readers would not take that slip in verbiage as fact.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The thing with the frequencies is, the lower ones pass through objects and buildings easier. It's not the amount data that can be carried, but the quality of the connection. The higher frequencies get all messed up b buildings and everything else.
brfield said:
The thing with the frequencies is, the lower ones pass through objects and buildings easier. It's not the amount data that can be carried, but the quality of the connection. The higher frequencies get all messed up b buildings and everything else.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah definitely, which is why am is more pervasive than fm.
Physics does not show lower frequency to carry more information by definition of the word. Implementation certainly can have effects on utilization as well as other factors such as range, but given equal proliferation, a 1900 MHz wave will obviously carry 19/17 more information than a 1700 MHz ( wave.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True. The basic rule is higher frequencies are an advantage for capacity, and lower frequencies are an advantage for range/penetration. Of course, this assumes all else being equal. There are many things carriers do to optimize bandwidth and range for whatever use plan they may have. These general rules apply whether the technology is GSM, CDMA, UMTS, LTE, or whatever. Also, remember the AWS bands are only 1700Mhz on the uplink; Downlink is 2100Mhz. That may lead to the perception of lower power, since physics would say the PCS bands will penetrate better.
kmdub said:
True. The basic rule is higher frequencies are an advantage for capacity, and lower frequencies are an advantage for range/penetration. Of course, this assumes all else being equal. There are many things carriers do to optimize bandwidth and range for whatever use plan they may have. These general rules apply whether the technology is GSM, CDMA, UMTS, LTE, or whatever. Also, remember the AWS bands are only 1700Mhz on the uplink; Downlink is 2100Mhz. That may lead to the perception of lower power, since physics would say the PCS bands will penetrate better.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah interesting, I somehow thought that the opposite was true.
You're right that band frequency is just layer 1 of the RX/TX system. But still I'm glad we are able to talk about that to build from the base.
cbhawsar said:
Dont try that now. It is currently deployed only in few parts of DC, NY, NJ, SD and vegas. You should try again in jan 2013
Sent from my Nexus One using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup Vegas have it for sure my friend has an unlocked 4S and it works fine, I wanted to get a gs3 international to try but I'm not sure yet. I mean 500$ ain't worth it at the moment
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
konceptz said:
I did this to test.
*#197328640*#
UMTS->Debug->Phone Control->Network Control->Band Selection->WCDMA Band Preference->1900
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Strange, when I do this I get unable to process request. Must be different in JellyBean?
silverton said:
Strange, when I do this I get unable to process request. Must be different in JellyBean?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No I am running stock rom and I have the same unable to request
Code doesn't work on stock LH2 ROM.
Same thing on CM10... what ROM do you have to be running to use that USSD code?
He put the wrong order, after you type in the numbers the lsst two are #* not *#
Sent from my SGH-T999 using xda premium
xxjrsmith3xx said:
He put the wrong order, after you type in the numbers the lsst two are #* not *#
Sent from my SGH-T999 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah sorry. It's *#xxx#* where x = any code.
Also these codes are program calls and are not included with some roms.
What was the stock one it was on so I can switch it back
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda app-developers app