Related
I just noticed yesterday that T-mobile has a 4G network in my area and I was wondering if there was a way to force roam 4G on tmobiles network? So that I could pick up 4G.
If its possible how?
Oh and sprint needs to hurry up and put 4g everywhere
You said it yourself. T-Mobile is HSPA+, Sprint 4G is WiMax. So, no.
Naa dude. HSPA+ is not compatible with cdma(sprint). Matter of fact t-mobile is using 4G now because its "trendy" and everybody else is using it. Their network is closer to 3G in infrastructure. But thats up for debate.
That sucks like hell. There's 4G here I just can't have it. AHHHHHHH!!!
Well if its like 3G I guess I'm not missing much.
david279 said:
Naa dude. HSPA+ is not compatible with cdma(sprint). Matter of fact t-mobile is using 4G now because its "trendy" and everybody else is using it. Their network is closer to 3G in infrastructure. But thats up for debate.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are on the money. HSPA+ is no more than an upgrade to existing 3G technology. If I remember right, it only has a theoretical max of 54 Mbps down. It is not, nor will it ever be, 4G.
Granted, the current 802.16e standard of WiMax is not 4G either...just waiting for that 802.16m standard to be finalized =). Which once that is complete, infrastructure can be updated and we should be able to utilize it with a simple firmware update.
Stalte said:
That sucks like hell. There's 4G here I just can't have it. AHHHHHHH!!!
Well if its like 3G I guess I'm not missing much.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No its way faster than your normal 3G. Faster than WIMAX too. Its nothing to pull down 7 or 8 Mb.
I bet it's better on battery than wimax is on ours.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
overthinkingme said:
I bet it's better on battery than wimax is on ours.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It uses the same radio for voice. The EVO has a separate 4G radio thats has to be activated and scan then connect. So 2 radios running at the same time would use more battery than 1 GSM radio running. Also CDMA has a tendency to use more battery when searching for signal in low signal areas.
Having installed T-mobiles 3g upgrade here in Chicago market back in 2008, I can say definitively that HSPA is just a radio cabinet addition to the existing cellular framework. Depending on the layout of the tower/site, "Flex radios" handle the data on 1, or sometimes more antennae, while the voice travels over GSM through remaining antennae. Very similar to ATT infrastructure, but tiny radios handling big bandwidth.
Having said all that, 4G is a silly buzzword that Sprint started, and T-mobile is now exploiting.
In a way, Sprint is just using extra radios on top of their existing 3G cellular, and just integrating the enhanced data speeds of Clearwire's network into their own.
T-mobile's speeds are indeed fast both HSPA and HSPA+, but to call them 4g may be overstating it, as it is just an upgrade to their existing technology, and not a new technology.
As another poster stated, nobody officially has 4g yet, not even Sprint, and until the 802.16 commission finalizes and LTE is launched we still won't.
To re-emphasize to the OP, not a chance, and don't believe the hype.
I can see sprint(or clear) and T-mobile going to bed for some real 4G'ness.
david279 said:
I can see sprint(or clear) and T-mobile going to bed for some real 4G'ness.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, I heard a rumor that Sprint may eventually adopt LTE.... It makes sense.
Wimax will make a great backhaul, and could stay in place, not to mention supporting cities and rural areas. But LTE will be the big daddy, and similar to WiMax, works on it's own and should be seamlessly integrated on top of cellular.
I'm not sure but I think it can work with CDMA or GSM, hooray for global WiFi!
Mitch Matrixx said:
Yeah, I heard a rumor that Sprint may eventually adopt LTE.... It makes sense.
Wimax will make a great backhaul, and could stay in place, not to mention supporting cities and rural areas. But LTE will be the big daddy, and similar to WiMax, works on it's own and should be seamlessly integrated on top of cellular.
I'm not sure but I think it can work with CDMA or GSM, hooray for global WiFi!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wouldn't count on LTE on Sprint just yet. Hesse denounced it last week; however, Sprint, Clearwire, Google, Time-Warner, and a couple others purchased Spectrum not only in the 2.5 GHz, but the 2.3 GHz band also. So the bandwidth is there and, in the past, Hesse has been quoted saying they can easily switch to LTE if need be.
Edit: http://gigaom.com/2010/10/29/sprint-ceo-dan-hesse-on-clearwire-lte-wimax/
topdawgn8 said:
I wouldn't count on LTE on Sprint just yet. Hesse denounced it last week; however, Sprint, Clearwire, Google, Time-Warner, and a couple others purchased Spectrum not only in the 2.5 GHz, but the 2.3 GHz band also. So the bandwidth is there and, in the past, Hesse has been quoted saying they can easily switch to LTE if need be.
Edit: http://gigaom.com/2010/10/29/sprint-ceo-dan-hesse-on-clearwire-lte-wimax/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the info.
I think the most important thing in the article is that LTE can happen if necessary.
Sorry for getting off topic.
Official Sprint Answer:
Sprint is committed to delivering the highest quality network experience. Our Network Vision plan will improve your network experience, but it does not include any EVDO Rev B launch. Sprint has evaluated EVDO Rev B and chosen to go directly to 4G connections. Since we are not launching EVDO Rev B, none of our handsets supports EVDO Rev B.
It looks like maybe no Rev. B after all. Hopefully they'll push 4G LTE and keep going.
FINALLY! Thank goodness. Let's stick a fork in this horse.
BTW, where is your source? (I know others will ask)
Just throwing this out there bit talked to a sprint rep at my local corporate store and guy said that lte is not faster than wimax infact wimax is true 4g and he told me that lte is like turning your volume to 11 and is just a little better than 3g. Said lte will most likely cover more areas but wimax is still a lot faster.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
corybucher said:
Just throwing this out there bit talked to a sprint rep at my local corporate store and guy said that lte is not faster than wimax infact wimax is true 4g and he told me that lte is like turning your volume to 11 and is just a little better than 3g. Said lte will most likely cover more areas but wimax is still a lot faster.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What good is speed if hardly anybody can get it? Give me more coverage!
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk
corybucher said:
Just throwing this out there bit talked to a sprint rep at my local corporate store and guy said that lte is not faster than wimax infact wimax is true 4g and he told me that lte is like turning your volume to 11 and is just a little better than 3g. Said lte will most likely cover more areas but wimax is still a lot faster.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
not surprising that a Sprint rep would say that..unfortunately, the truth seems to be just the opposite in the real world, based on everything I have read about Verizons LTE, and my friends who have it say the same thing..makes Sprints non sense look lame compared to it..
and just like i said in the other thread.....you people were freaking out over a baseless rumor
now how many of these idiots actually turned there phones back in
---------- Post added at 04:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 PM ----------
corybucher said:
Just throwing this out there bit talked to a sprint rep at my local corporate store and guy said that lte is not faster than wimax infact wimax is true 4g and he told me that lte is like turning your volume to 11 and is just a little better than 3g. Said lte will most likely cover more areas but wimax is still a lot faster.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
getting your info from a sprint rep is like getting info from sarah palin about the economy....
Neither the LTE that's being rolled out by Verizon and ATT or sprints current Wimax meet the international standard that 4g is supposed to be.
But the LTE technologies being rolled out are a step in the right direction.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using XDA App
spencer88 said:
What good is speed if hardly anybody can get it? Give me more coverage!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Word! I'll take any form of 4G in San Diego, even if I have to follow a donkey around with a WiMax tower, built by a few guys behind a 7-11 with straws and Big Gulp cups, strapped to its back.
corybucher said:
Just throwing this out there bit talked to a sprint rep at my local corporate store and guy said that lte is not faster than wimax infact wimax is true 4g and he told me that lte is like turning your volume to 11 and is just a little better than 3g. Said lte will most likely cover more areas but wimax is still a lot faster.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is simply idiotic. It makes no sense.
Sprint's WiMax implementation sucks. Putting LTE on those same frequencies would also suck. Maybe worse.
It's not the protocol it's the spectrum. Clearwire/Sprint's WiMax is on a handful of razor-thin bands on high frequencies. It's not surprising that it sucks so much and the word "WiMax" has nothing to do with it.
imtjnotu said:
and just like i said in the other thread.....you people were freaking out over a baseless rumor
now how many of these idiots actually turned there phones back in
Haha right. All that bull**** about rev b and the **** ain't even happening. U said it correctly. The people who returned their phones based on that are IDIOTS
sent from my DAMN phone!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wimax doesn't HAVE to be any worse than LTE or suck -- Clear just did a crap job of deploying the most minimal subset of the standard possible. WiMax CAN do soft hand-offs... Clear just didn't bother buying the software license to enable it to work, and instead chose to deploy them the cheapest way possible, and configured them to act like wifi access points that just happen to have ~1km footprints).
There's nothing magic about Verizon's LTE -- they have more backhaul, and allocated more bandwidth to it than Clear did. Sprint LTE can suck every bit as badly as Sprint/Clear Wimax does, and it won't be any more compatible with AT&T or Verizon's LTE than Sprint phones are with their 3G service.
LTE's standard-ness is wildly over-hyped, and almost completely meaningless in the US. In Europe and Asia, it might matter and mean something. Unfortunately, America's wireless phone market is as messed up as Japan's, and unlikely to ever change. If Sprint bought and merged with T-Mobile, and deployed a nationwide unified network with CDMA2000 voice & 1xRTT, legacy GSM & GPRS/EDGE, EVDO (rev.A, B, and Advanced), WiMax, AND LTE... AT&T and Verizon would still manage to find ways to be incompatible with it and each other, because they don't WANT their networks to be commodity-like wireless pipes to the internet where consumers can switch service providers at will and without repercussions.
IMHO, the best thing Sprint could possibly DO right now is repurpose the Wimax for backhaul, and use it to fully saturate their EVDO spectrum (and, once the furor over rev.B dies down, quietly enable and advertise it with some stupid name like "Ultim8 Vision" since their new tower hardware is almost certainly capable of it). Deploying two separate loosely stapled-together data networks was just about the worst idea in mobile phone history, especially when you consider that the move was 100% marketing and had nothing to do with real-world performance.
In most places, unless you're having a picnic lunch outdoors next to the tower, you'd get better sustained performance from Rev.A with enough backhaul bandwidth to fully saturate it, let alone Rev.B -- and unlike Sprint's disastrous experiment with 4G, your phone wouldn't spend half its time madly thrashing back and forth between 3G and 4G trying to make up its mind which one it wants to use (leaving you without network access for 10-30 seconds or more each time). For proof, just look at T-Mobile in places like Chicago. Same un-sexy UMTS as before, but in places where they've put it to full use and squeezed every bit of performance out of it they can, it blows Sprint's 4G away in real-world usability.
Concise and all encompassing. I couldn't have said it better my self. Meaning I actually do not have it in my own capacity to say it better, or even as well, myself.
Your presence in our forum is an asset. You truly know what's up.
That said, I couldn't agree more...lol
I talked to a sprint from corp in lisa angeles he told me lte and wimax have almost the same speeds and lte can go further
corybucher said:
Just throwing this out there bit talked to a sprint rep at my local corporate store and guy said that lte is not faster than wimax infact wimax is true 4g and he told me that lte is like turning your volume to 11 and is just a little better than 3g. Said lte will most likely cover more areas but wimax is still a lot faster.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sent from my SPH-D710 using XDA App
Verizon's current LTE and Sprint's WIMAX are not true 4G. LTE Advanced and WIMAX 2 (802.16m) are the true 4G standards.
F that true 4g stuff. They are the 4th major data network type for their respectable providers
Sent from my SPH-D710 using XDA App
bitbang3r said:
Wimax doesn't HAVE to be any worse than LTE or suck -- Clear just did a crap job of deploying the most minimal subset of the standard possible. WiMax CAN do soft hand-offs... Clear just didn't bother buying the software license to enable it to work, and instead chose to deploy them the cheapest way possible, and configured them to act like wifi access points that just happen to have ~1km footprints).
There's nothing magic about Verizon's LTE -- they have more backhaul, and allocated more bandwidth to it than Clear did. Sprint LTE can suck every bit as badly as Sprint/Clear Wimax does, and it won't be any more compatible with AT&T or Verizon's LTE than Sprint phones are with their 3G service.
LTE's standard-ness is wildly over-hyped, and almost completely meaningless in the US. In Europe and Asia, it might matter and mean something. Unfortunately, America's wireless phone market is as messed up as Japan's, and unlikely to ever change. If Sprint bought and merged with T-Mobile, and deployed a nationwide unified network with CDMA2000 voice & 1xRTT, legacy GSM & GPRS/EDGE, EVDO (rev.A, B, and Advanced), WiMax, AND LTE... AT&T and Verizon would still manage to find ways to be incompatible with it and each other, because they don't WANT their networks to be commodity-like wireless pipes to the internet where consumers can switch service providers at will and without repercussions.
IMHO, the best thing Sprint could possibly DO right now is repurpose the Wimax for backhaul, and use it to fully saturate their EVDO spectrum (and, once the furor over rev.B dies down, quietly enable and advertise it with some stupid name like "Ultim8 Vision" since their new tower hardware is almost certainly capable of it). Deploying two separate loosely stapled-together data networks was just about the worst idea in mobile phone history, especially when you consider that the move was 100% marketing and had nothing to do with real-world performance.
In most places, unless you're having a picnic lunch outdoors next to the tower, you'd get better sustained performance from Rev.A with enough backhaul bandwidth to fully saturate it, let alone Rev.B -- and unlike Sprint's disastrous experiment with 4G, your phone wouldn't spend half its time madly thrashing back and forth between 3G and 4G trying to make up its mind which one it wants to use (leaving you without network access for 10-30 seconds or more each time). For proof, just look at T-Mobile in places like Chicago. Same un-sexy UMTS as before, but in places where they've put it to full use and squeezed every bit of performance out of it they can, it blows Sprint's 4G away in real-world usability.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Clears coverage could be the exact same as Verizon's LTE and it would still be garbage due to the frequency its on.
---------- Post added at 05:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:22 AM ----------
Tuffgong4 said:
Verizon's current LTE and Sprint's WIMAX are not true 4G. LTE Advanced and WIMAX 2 (802.16m) are the true 4G standards.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you think consumers give a damn about this? Honestly...
bitbang3r said:
Wimax doesn't HAVE to be any worse than LTE or suck -- Clear just did a crap job of deploying the most minimal subset of the standard possible. WiMax CAN do soft hand-offs... Clear just didn't bother buying the software license to enable it to work, and instead chose to deploy them the cheapest way possible, and configured them to act like wifi access points that just happen to have ~1km footprints).
There's nothing magic about Verizon's LTE -- they have more backhaul, and allocated more bandwidth to it than Clear did. Sprint LTE can suck every bit as badly as Sprint/Clear Wimax does, and it won't be any more compatible with AT&T or Verizon's LTE than Sprint phones are with their 3G service.
LTE's standard-ness is wildly over-hyped, and almost completely meaningless in the US. In Europe and Asia, it might matter and mean something. Unfortunately, America's wireless phone market is as messed up as Japan's, and unlikely to ever change. If Sprint bought and merged with T-Mobile, and deployed a nationwide unified network with CDMA2000 voice & 1xRTT, legacy GSM & GPRS/EDGE, EVDO (rev.A, B, and Advanced), WiMax, AND LTE... AT&T and Verizon would still manage to find ways to be incompatible with it and each other, because they don't WANT their networks to be commodity-like wireless pipes to the internet where consumers can switch service providers at will and without repercussions.
IMHO, the best thing Sprint could possibly DO right now is repurpose the Wimax for backhaul, and use it to fully saturate their EVDO spectrum (and, once the furor over rev.B dies down, quietly enable and advertise it with some stupid name like "Ultim8 Vision" since their new tower hardware is almost certainly capable of it). Deploying two separate loosely stapled-together data networks was just about the worst idea in mobile phone history, especially when you consider that the move was 100% marketing and had nothing to do with real-world performance.
In most places, unless you're having a picnic lunch outdoors next to the tower, you'd get better sustained performance from Rev.A with enough backhaul bandwidth to fully saturate it, let alone Rev.B -- and unlike Sprint's disastrous experiment with 4G, your phone wouldn't spend half its time madly thrashing back and forth between 3G and 4G trying to make up its mind which one it wants to use (leaving you without network access for 10-30 seconds or more each time). For proof, just look at T-Mobile in places like Chicago. Same un-sexy UMTS as before, but in places where they've put it to full use and squeezed every bit of performance out of it they can, it blows Sprint's 4G away in real-world usability.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very nicely put even though I am quite sad about no rev b which I think would be a good idea to help with speed and capacity they are applying 1x advanced which will help capacity issues and enable simultaneous voice and data which will be nice. But the combined tower spectrums once phones come out with chips that will take advantage of it it should increase data speeds and coverage greatly the problem now is the wait they need to hurry up and get every one off Nextel, and start the conversion.
Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk
I would be more than happy if they just fixed Rev A to work at a reasonable speed like 1.5-2M (which is what Verizon is providing in my area).
As to "true" 4G, I don't think anybody really cares, they just want something that works, not some experiment where you turn it on to run speed tests and brag to your friends, then turn it off because your battery will die or because you don't get signals indoors.
Gotta love how in all the discussion about frequency strength, frequency distance, speed, technology etc; people tend to forget the meaning of G in 2g, 3g and 4g is GENERATION.
To arbitrarily define how fast something should be to be considered a new "generation" should be insulting and stupid to pretty much everyone. It'd be like saying Generation X were just Baby Boomers 2g because they weren't good enough to be their own generation.
Put a sock in it. 4th generation of mobile networks = 4g. Nuff said.
AbsolutZeroGI said:
Gotta love how in all the discussion about frequency strength, frequency distance, speed, technology etc; people tend to forget the meaning of G in 2g, 3g and 4g is GENERATION.
To arbitrarily define how fast something should be to be considered a new "generation" should be insulting and stupid to pretty much everyone. It'd be like saying Generation X were just Baby Boomers 2g because they weren't good enough to be their own generation.
Put a sock in it. 4th generation of mobile networks = 4g. Nuff said.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"Quoted for the truth"
LOVE the "Baby Boomers 2G analogy"!
I guess all the BS marketing hype by the phone carriers has actually worked on the mindless lemmings that walk among us..
For the many of you that don't understand/don't "believe" in network vision...
Android police posted this article which is actually pretty informative.
http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/0...ce-but-the-800mhz-rollout-will-drop-your-jaw/
mattykinsx said:
Android police posted this article which is actually pretty informative.
http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/0...ce-but-the-800mhz-rollout-will-drop-your-jaw/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
...I understand the underlying concepts and already knew that's what the 800mHz band was capable of....but...to see it laid out like that--even as overly optimistic as internal corporate presentation slides likely are--holy ****.
Thanks for the post...I gotta admit, my jaw dropped as well.
daneurysm said:
...I understand the underlying concepts and already knew that's what the 800mHz band was capable of....but...to see it laid out like that--even as overly optimistic as internal corporate presentation slides likely are--holy ****.
Thanks for the post...I gotta admit, my jaw dropped as well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've talked to Sprint technicians that are working on the project and they truly believe this will bring them inline with, or better than, the big two.
And that seems very likely.
Lets just hope they keep unlimited data and don't turn into At&t and Verizon.
I've had Sprint for able 6 years, my family has had it for I wanna say 15+, they've had their ups and downs but I believe it's a stable cell phone provider. I can't ever picture myself without it loving my speeds, loving my service (I currently live in the country AND getting 4G) I'll always be a loyal sprint customer and this link you posted makes me happy haha
Anyone have the link to check and see if you have tower updates in your area in the past 6 months or scheduled?
Oh wow...I knew Network Vision was supposed to give them a boost but I didn't think it'd be this much of a boost.
cds0699 said:
Anyone have the link to check and see if you have tower updates in your area in the past 6 months or scheduled?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
network.sprint.com
It burns when I tapatalk...
Still impresses me every time I see it, thanks for the reminder of what's to come.
It burns when I tapatalk...
I've learned over the years to believe it when it is done rather than believe the powerpoint.
There are always caveats like, coverage is factoring in 800MHz, but some phones aren't FCC certified to work at 800MHz even though they might be otherwise capable (Photon comes to mind)
Are they running both the 1xAdvanced voice and EVDO carrier at 800 in every market on just the voice carrier or only augmented 800 in select markets? If some markets only get LTE on 800, then that won't help our phones out.
Conceptually Network Vision is the right thing to do, but there can be a significant difference between the design and implementation. The latter is where they usually see the unanticipated issues.
So yeah, it looks good on paper, let's see it in action.
Beejis said:
network.sprint.com
It burns when I tapatalk...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you very much.
Hopefully Sprint does not have too much trouble raising the additional $3 billion needed to complete Network Vision.
I just went on an ADD fueled wikipedia/internet spree because I realized as I was reading that article that I knew nothing about sprints actual network or network at all. I had to keep looking up each term, staring further down Sprint's rabbit hole. I found a lot of interesting information but what really stunned me was that WiMax 4G network runs at 2.5Ghz. By comparison, Verizon's LTE network, which technically by definition is not a true 4G network, runs at 700Mhz.
I cannot wait for this upgrade to come to my area soon enough.
My area:
Past 6 months: 3 data speed upgrades
Planned: 4 data capacity upgrades
Nice!
doesn't Verizon use a 700mhz wavelength for lte which would make better
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Well i just speed tested both a sprint EvDo revA and roamed on versizons EvDo rev0.... Guess what. I got 1.2mb/sec on sprint ( its 3am here so ones on the towers) on verizon i got 1.9mb/sec.... Wtf!?!? I though EvDo revA was way faster than Rev0!? Yet rev0 its litterally 80% faster! Please, some one explain this to me. Please, this is actually a serious queztion
Sent From My Epic Touch 3g
bluefire808 said:
Well i just speed tested both a sprint EvDo revA and roamed on versizons EvDo rev0.... Guess what. I got 1.2mb/sec on sprint ( its 3am here so ones on the towers) on verizon i got 1.9mb/sec.... Wtf!?!? I though EvDo revA was way faster than Rev0!? Yet rev0 its litterally 80% faster! Please, some one explain this to me. Please, this is actually a serious queztion
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Rev0 vs RevA is just the air interface. If you connect a fast air connection to a slow backhaul then the lowest common denominator is the backhaul and that will limit your speeds. If there are too many people on the tower sharing the limited bandwidth, that will limit your speeds too.
If you connect a 802.11n wireless router to a 56k modem, what would you expect your Internet speeds to be? That is analogous to what is happening with Sprint, though the backhauls are more capable (and also shared amongst more people)
Assuming you are sure the Verizon connection was Rev 0, it is theoretically capable of 2.45Mbps while Rev A is theoretically capable of 3.1Mbps. Drop around 18-20% for actual use and you get the real-world #s.
So a fast Rev0 could easily beat a rate limited RevA on the download side.
Now the upload side, RevA beats Rev0 by more than an order of magnitude. .15M vs 1.8M theoretical. I'd be surprised if a Rev0 uplink beat a RevA uplink, but if the towers are overloaded enough, anything can happen.
sfhub said:
Rev0 vs RevA is just the air interface. If you connect a fast air connection to a slow backhaul then the lowest common denominator is the backhaul and that will limit your speeds. If there are too many people on the tower sharing the limited bandwidth, that will limit your speeds too.
If you connect a 802.11n wireless router to a 56k modem, what would you expect your Internet speeds to be? That is analogous to what is happening with Sprint, though the backhauls are more capable (and also shared amongst more people)
Assuming you are sure the Verizon connection was Rev 0, it is theoretically capable of 2.45Mbps while Rev A is theoretically capable of 3.1Mbps. Drop around 18-20% for actual use and you get the real-world #s.
So a fast Rev0 could easily beat a rate limited RevA on the download side.
Now the upload side, RevA beats Rev0 by more than an order of magnitude. .15M vs 1.8M theoretical. I'd be surprised if a Rev0 uplink beat a RevA uplink, but if the towers are overloaded enough, anything can happen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That was just the info i needes. I had also wiki'd it and saw that too. But i like your real world explanation. Yup 2Mb/sec on verizon rev0 and 1.2Mbsec on sprinta revA. Eh o well. Thanks again for getting back to me. Big props to you brother!
Sent From My Epic Touch 3g
iSkylla said:
I found a lot of interesting information but what really stunned me was that WiMax 4G network runs at 2.5Ghz. By comparison, Verizon's LTE network, which technically by definition is not a true 4G network, runs at 700Mhz.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They have a wider bit of spectrum down there at 700mhz at a much lower wavelength. WiMax and LTE are pretty much just protocols. Verizon's LTE would suck on that thin slice of 2.5gHz and Sprint's WiMax would kick ass at 700mHz....roughly....and that's not taking into considering signal propagation and obstruction penetration.
My 3G speeds suck... but who cares, 4G has gone through the roof down here.
3mb/s -> 9mb/s in my living room
5mb/s -> 18mb/s in my friend's house
I'm gonna go drive all over and run speed tests now.
Orrr... they are showing the map like that because there won't be any buildings in 2013 to penetrate.
Food for thought gentleman.
PS. Jk
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
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
For well over a year now Sprint customers have been dealing with sluggish 3G and 4G WiMAX data speeds. Network woes for America’s third largest wireless carrier have worsened over the past six months or so, as the carrier’s outdated WiMAX 4G offerings were halted in an effort to focus on building a new 4G LTE network. While this decision has good intentions, it has left the bulk of Sprint’s customers stranded on its old, overcrowded CDMA 3G network. However, all hope may not be lost for Sprint and its customers, as the troubled carrier has pledged to deploy its new LTE services by mid-2012, which is literally a couple of weeks away. Set to hit Atlanta, Baltimore, Houston, Dallas, Kansas City, and San Antonio, the question remains if Sprint’s new network setup can hold its own with already established 4G LTE from its competition.
In an effort to answer this burning question, PCMag recently spent some candid time with Sprint’s new LTE network and ran several tests comparing it to both Verizon’s and AT&T’s LTE services. The tests were conducted in Atlanta, Georgia in five different locations using a “specially provisioned” LG Viper 4G LTE phone and a PC Mag’s in-house Sensorly app, along with Ookla’s Speedtest.net app.
The results reveal that Sprint’s LTE is indeed fast, but not quite as fast as peak speeds seen on AT&T’s and Verizon’s networks. This is to be expected, due to Sprint decision to use 5MHz channels band instead of the 10MHz channels that its competition uses. However, the networks still appear to be very competitive. Using the Sensorly speed test app in four different test locations, PCMag found that Sprint’s network produced an average download speed between 9 and 13Mbps, which is on a par with AT&T’s 5MHz channel LTE. Sprint’s download speeds peaked at 26.5Mbps, which also remained competitive with AT&T’s peak 5MHz speeds of around 27.8Mbps.
Surprisingly Sprint’s network speeds were comparable to Verizon’s 10MHz setup, but keep in mind that Verizon’s network is already used by its customers, while Sprint’s was near empty and in a controlled testing environment. In regards to upload speeds, Sprint’s LTE averaged 2.19Mbps, which remained consistant with its own WiMAX 4G, AT&T’s LTE, T-Mobile HSPA+, but was still slower than Verizon.
Obviously focused on LTE, Sprint is aggressively pushing new LTE-capable phones such as the Galaxy Nexus, LG Viper, and HTC EVO 4G LTE, but as it stands these new devices are stuck in the mud on Sprint’s 3G network until its 4G LTE network goes live for customers. While Sprint has committed to a midyear LTE deployment, the carrier has remained coy about its complete network release schedule. This restrictive strategy places a great deal of Sprint’s customers in the dark about their network’s future, and the carrier runs the risk of losing customers to existing LTE networks offered by its competitors.
While Sprint continues to remain in network limbo, its biggest beacon of hope for its customers is its noted commitment to true unlimited data. This is something that its major competitors have abandoned and will likely be Sprint’s saving grace if the carrier’s data speeds are attractive to consumers. However, if Sprint doesn’t deliver on its promises sooner than later, the only speed the carrier will be experiencing is a rapid loss of existing customers.
Source:http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2405675,00.asp
Good article and nice find, but...
Did you paraphrase the article?
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
squshy 7 said:
Good article and nice find, but...
Did you paraphrase the article?
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The article is from techno Buffalo but they were not the actual testers so I put the original source if somebody wanted to read the full article
Sent from my GS2 the next big thing
Well its a win win when lte is live everywhere it will be easing congestion but otherwise if people leave in droves it will still free resources LOL
But unlimited data is the only thing keeping anyone here anyway
I rather have slow steady unlimited than capped super sonic speeds
Sent from my SPH-D710 using XDA
If those are the speeds they're getting with nobody on the network, then that's poor.
Imagine when it actually launches, even in only the 6 initial markets and millions actually start using it...
LordLugard said:
If those are the speeds they're getting with nobody on the network, then that's poor.
Imagine when it actually launches, even in only the 6 initial markets and millions actually start using it...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think it will hold up
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
revamper said:
I think it will hold up
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think so too. The network is still growing so I doubt it'll be that slow.
Plus, once your above a consistent 4-5Mbps that holds while actually moving itll only ever make a noticable difference whike downloading ROMs, and that will still be WiFi recommended.
Those speeds arent good at all though, my WiMAX is right there with it. The difference will be in the connectivity while mobile.
auau465121 said:
For well over a year now Sprint customers have been dealing with sluggish 3G and 4G WiMAX data speeds. Network woes for America’s third largest wireless carrier have worsened over the past six months or so, as the carrier’s outdated WiMAX 4G offerings were halted in an effort to focus on building a new 4G LTE network. While this decision has good intentions, it has left the bulk of Sprint’s customers stranded on its old, overcrowded CDMA 3G network. However, all hope may not be lost for Sprint and its customers, as the troubled carrier has pledged to deploy its new LTE services by mid-2012, which is literally a couple of weeks away. Set to hit Atlanta, Baltimore, Houston, Dallas, Kansas City, and San Antonio, the question remains if Sprint’s new network setup can hold its own with already established 4G LTE from its competition.
In an effort to answer this burning question, PCMag recently spent some candid time with Sprint’s new LTE network and ran several tests comparing it to both Verizon’s and AT&T’s LTE services. The tests were conducted in Atlanta, Georgia in five different locations using a “specially provisioned” LG Viper 4G LTE phone and a PC Mag’s in-house Sensorly app, along with Ookla’s Speedtest.net app.
The results reveal that Sprint’s LTE is indeed fast, but not quite as fast as peak speeds seen on AT&T’s and Verizon’s networks. This is to be expected, due to Sprint decision to use 5MHz channels band instead of the 10MHz channels that its competition uses. However, the networks still appear to be very competitive. Using the Sensorly speed test app in four different test locations, PCMag found that Sprint’s network produced an average download speed between 9 and 13Mbps, which is on a par with AT&T’s 5MHz channel LTE. Sprint’s download speeds peaked at 26.5Mbps, which also remained competitive with AT&T’s peak 5MHz speeds of around 27.8Mbps.
Surprisingly Sprint’s network speeds were comparable to Verizon’s 10MHz setup, but keep in mind that Verizon’s network is already used by its customers, while Sprint’s was near empty and in a controlled testing environment. In regards to upload speeds, Sprint’s LTE averaged 2.19Mbps, which remained consistant with its own WiMAX 4G, AT&T’s LTE, T-Mobile HSPA+, but was still slower than Verizon.
Obviously focused on LTE, Sprint is aggressively pushing new LTE-capable phones such as the Galaxy Nexus, LG Viper, and HTC EVO 4G LTE, but as it stands these new devices are stuck in the mud on Sprint’s 3G network until its 4G LTE network goes live for customers. While Sprint has committed to a midyear LTE deployment, the carrier has remained coy about its complete network release schedule. This restrictive strategy places a great deal of Sprint’s customers in the dark about their network’s future, and the carrier runs the risk of losing customers to existing LTE networks offered by its competitors.
While Sprint continues to remain in network limbo, its biggest beacon of hope for its customers is its noted commitment to true unlimited data. This is something that its major competitors have abandoned and will likely be Sprint’s saving grace if the carrier’s data speeds are attractive to consumers. However, if Sprint doesn’t deliver on its promises sooner than later, the only speed the carrier will be experiencing is a rapid loss of existing customers.
Source:http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2405675,00.asp
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'll have to disagree on a couple points. The truly unlimited data was the first enticing thing to bring me to Sprint in the first place. Second, was the fact that they have the least demanding credit assessment. AT&T wanted me to pay a deposit of $146+, more or less, asking for my landline that I owe them on still. Verizon? Don't get me started there.. after my credit assessment through them, they wanted over $1G for the deposit.. I laughed and immediately went to AT&T's go phone at that time. Limited in data, yes, but the only way I could get on a cell with poor credit, as Sprint was wanting a $100 deposit, not bad, but being unsure of where my next funding was coming from, this did not bode well. It was a couple years before I tried Sprint again, and found out, not only did I have no deposit this time, I could trade in my old AT&T go phone, and got a nice credit towards a descent phone within my price range, the Nexus S 4G. On top of that, Sprint works with several companies to offer an employment discount, mine being 17%, something AT&T has abandoned for a LOT of employers.
Now, let's talk about customer service. IMHO, Sprint is unmatched in providing excellent customer service (in fact, I just found out recently, they've been ranked #1 in this department). Something you won't find with the other 2. They let me know of services they offer, that in order to get it out of AT&T or Verizon, you have to go through an area manager - not something a LOT of people want to deal with. Verizon? The sales rep that ran my credit couldn't understand half of what I was saying. With Sprint, I have only gotten a foreign rep* ONE time (out of the maybe, 15, times, I've had to call in), and they STILL were able to CLEARLY understand the problem I was having and easily helped me to resolve it.
So the bottom line here is, they have too many ups to have the down of their technology being a little behind, to lose too much of a customer base.
I know your article is put together from research and comment follow-ups to the testing articles, but it is still a good write-up, nonetheless.
BTW, if you've looked a little more recently, July 15th is the rollout date for the above mentioned cities, for LTE. Fortunately, I just happened to be in Metro ATL.
Well, that sums up my rebuttle. (however, that's spelled) Please don't take it personally. I'm just preaching from personal experience.
Peace,
~WickiD_D~
* edited to add: I mean no disrespect, no racism, and no stereo-typing in any way. I just think that there are a LOT of people who will agree that there is a natural language barrier that can occur when calling a customer service line, and it makes it very difficult to resolve customer service issues, at those times, for both the caller and the rep, because of it. I sincerely apologize if I offended anyone in any way, because I know we all come from different parts of the world in this forum, and would never intentionally want to hurt anyone here..