Develop Bugs

[Q] Can I use Tmobile HSPA+ Network

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.

[Q] 4G on The T-Mobile G2

Is the T-Mobile G2 or HTC Desire Z open for 4G networking? I was going through my billing information and it said additional $20.00 for 4G services but at the top of my phone it says 3G? IDK if it is because of root etc. But I was wondering if this phone is 4G. Leave comments and please support my question. Thanks ahead!

Mine runs 4G, so yes its open to it.

The G2 supports HSPA+ on T-mobiles '4g' network.
Or are you wanting to buy the desire Z and use it in the US?
And you shouldnt be getting billed extra for 4G. That's Sprints thing.

I think on the G2, "H" shows "4G" services.. I could be wrong though. I have a Desire Z.
crazy talk said:
Or are you wanting to buy the desire Z and use it in the US?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They have the same radios apart from frequencies. I believe the Desire Z is more suited for AT&t bands?? [EDIT: Wrong, DZ is UTMS 900/2100]
crazy talk said:
And you shouldnt be getting billed extra for 4G. That's Sprints thing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats daylight robbery if you are!! On this phone, "4G" isn't any more than "3G" HSDPA with a higher uplink speed, Thats good marketing on their part.
I used to switch off HSDPA (HSPA+) on my phones for much better battery life.
Craig

Should I contact T-Mobile. Because it charges me on my billing but i don't have it... If I ask would they disapprove of helping me because of my rooted phone. Could.this just be an error?

I heard somewhere on xda that sometimes "H" shows when you are still only on 3G, that they were overemphasizing the H instead of the G or something of that nature.

I AM VS4 said:
Should I contact T-Mobile. Because it charges me on my billing but i don't have it... If I ask would they disapprove of helping me because of my rooted phone. Could.this just be an error?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats your call mate, I don't know how T-Mobile USA does its billing. That could be your data plan or something. However, I dont think they'd disapprove about the rooted phone TBH, just don't tell them. You could confirm you're in a "4G" (HSPA+) area with a simple query. Also, if its a custom ROM (Cyanogen etc) ask in their thread to see if they have a similar issue.
Mog said:
I heard somewhere on xda that sometimes "H" shows when you are still only on 3G, that they were overemphasizing the H instead of the G or something of that nature.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, I'd heard similar. On the UK stock Desire Z it constantly sits at "3G" until data is in use then it negotiates "H" (depends on network support) A very good battery saving feature if you've ever used Windows Mobile phones!
Craig

So what is the average speed everyone is seeing?

I just went on a month-long road trip, taking my G2 out of the new orleans hspa coverage area for the first time, and I noticed a marked difference between hspa (H) and 3G (G) coverage. And edge might as well be no connection at all, it would seem. My friend uses verizons cdma networks, and while a lot of times he didnt have data connectivity either, he at least had phone capability, which was more than i could say for t-mobiles gsm. but now that im out of the desert and back in the city, my phone is the rad again.

The Desire Z/G2 does NOT have 4G or/and "4G".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_HSPA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G

riahc3 said:
The Desire Z/G2 does NOT have 4G or/and "4G".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_HSPA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
nothing you can buy today meets the technical definition for '4g' and nothing will for quite awhile.
my G2 is just as fast as my Friends EVO on Wimax, and my friends Thunderbolt on LTE. so as far as me and the general consumer should be concerned the G2 is a 4G phone because it offers significantly faster data speeds compared to 3G only devices.

So does or does it not? Who is most sure because I here different answers about the T-Mobile G2 being 4G. I am using MIUI and is this a known problem for them because there is no MIUI forum section, I need all the help I can get!!!

I AM VS4 said:
So does or does it not? Who is most sure because I here different answers about the T-Mobile G2 being 4G. I am using MIUI and is this a known problem for them because there is no MIUI forum section, I need all the help I can get!!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the problem is the definition of 4G. there isn't one.
the G2 is hspa+ capable, if you have a signal.
verizons LTE is multitudes faster up and down.
there is _NO_ such thing as 4G.

I AM VS4 said:
So does or does it not? Who is most sure because I here different answers about the T-Mobile G2 being 4G. I am using MIUI and is this a known problem for them because there is no MIUI forum section, I need all the help I can get!!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So you're asking this because of the billing, right?
I assume you are seeing this on the bill (or something similar): "4G Web Unlimited $30.00"
That's just the way Tmo describes the "unlimited web" on the bill. I don't *think* there's any difference between the dollar amount for say the G2 and the MyTouch 3G, for the data plan.
And, for what it's worth, I'm seeing up to 10mbps down and *up to* 4mbps upload around here... That's close enough to true 4G for my purposes. Beats the pooh outta my DSL line

Mnementh666 said:
So you're asking this because of the billing, right?
I assume you are seeing this on the bill (or something similar): "4G Web Unlimited $30.00"
That's just the way Tmo describes the "unlimited web" on the bill. I don't *think* there's any difference between the dollar amount for say the G2 and the MyTouch 3G, for the data plan.
And, for what it's worth, I'm seeing up to 10mbps down and *up to* 4mbps upload around here... That's close enough to true 4G for my purposes. Beats the pooh outta my DSL line
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There isn't. Even if you have a ****ty ten dollar feature phone, your gonna pay thirty bux and its gonna say 4g on the bill.
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using XDA Premium App

I AM VS4 said:
So does or does it not? Who is most sure because I here different answers about the T-Mobile G2 being 4G. I am using MIUI and is this a known problem for them because there is no MIUI forum section, I need all the help I can get!!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For the purpose or your original question yes, its "4G" capable, in a "4G" area it should be showing "H". Someone who uses the MIUI rom may be able to confirm this. On the stock DZ rom, "H" is both HSDPA and HSPA+
The confusion comes from the definition of "4G" or the lack of! The ITU who maintain telephony standards define "4G" as LTE-Advanced or WIMAX (802.16m). T-Mobile successfully argued with the law that they could market their HSPA+ offering as "4G" on their "new network" which in reality is just a simple upgrade.
For the record, speedtest reports about 3Mbps down and 1Mbps up which is quite respectable. I believe its on HSPA+ at 14.4Mbps.

Okay I get it! They are charging me for the coverage and capability. This means that the phone is cabable. But how come it says 3G though I'm still a little concerned even though it is possible for me to have 4G how come I am paying for something I don't have. Is says 3G loud and clear! At no point has it said 4G but why is it that I am paying for it?! But I do understand your answers... Just answer me that question..

I AM VS4 said:
Okay I get it! They are charging me for the coverage and capability. This means that the phone is cabable. But how come it says 3G though I'm still a little concerned even though it is possible for me to have 4G how come I am paying for something I don't have. Is says 3G loud and clear! At no point has it said 4G but why is it that I am paying for it?! But I do understand your answers... Just answer me that question..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The 3G vs 4G vs H vs H+ is potentially just a matter of graphics or icons?
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=993824
*edit: you appear to be in Houston, so you should be covered by HSDPA*
Download "Speedtest" app, by Ookla, and run a couple tests. See what you get for speeds.

In settings - about - network what does it say?
Sent from my Desire Z

only 3.5g
Sent from my HTC Vision using XDA Premium App

Evdo rev. b shot down by sprint

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..

Ubergizmo on Nokia Lumia 900 4G/3G/Edge switch

Has anyone else found the following web site with instructions on setting up a 4G/3G/Edge switch on the Web
(Do a search to find the link)
I tired it and was able to get the switch, but I have not been able to try it on 4G(LTE) yet as I do not have LTE reception where I live and only have 3G (the phone says 4G, but I know it is 3G+) but will try it at work tomorrow where I can actually get LTE.
But one thing I noticed is that I cannot get EDGE service where I live. I heard that AT&T wanted to get rid of 2G (EDGE). Have they done that already?

Hre is the link:
http://www.ubergizmo.com/2012/04/nokia-lumia-900-gets-edge-3g-4g-toggle/
Im not sure what you mean about trying it on 4G... the only choices are 4G (LTE) 3G or edge so you get one of the 3.
In my LTE market when I choose 4G I get LTE.

hx4700 Killer said:
Hre is the link:
http://www.ubergizmo.com/2012/04/nokia-lumia-900-gets-edge-3g-4g-toggle/
Im not sure what you mean about trying it on 4G... the only choices are 4G (LTE) 3G or edge so you get one of the 3.
In my LTE market when I choose 4G I get LTE.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
On AT&T, there are 4 types of data. 2G/EDGE, 3G, "4G"/3G+/HSPA+ and LTE.
We all know about 2g and 3g, but many people like you don't know about the difference between "4g" and LTE.
This whole thing was started by T-Mobile, because this was the early days of LTE, and Sprint was advertising it's WiMax network as 4G, T-Mobile decided to use a technology called HSPA+ and brand it as 4G. Initially, AT&T scolded T-Mobile for this move, but as soon as it was decided HSPA+ could be considered 4G, AT&T rapidly built up a network of this, almost as large as their 3G network.
HSPA+ is basically a faster version of 3G, hence why it's often called 3G+. However, AT&T tries to advertise it as 4G so they can boast they have the largest 4G network, even though Verizon leads the charge with the most LTE sites. HSPA+ is a bit faster than 3G, but doesn't hold a candle to LTE. However, it does have it advantages, such as being compatible on the iPhone 4S, and unlike Verizon, on AT&T, if you loose LTE coverage, you can fall back on HSPA+, where as on Verizon you fall back on their CDMA network (Which is still slower than AT&T's GSM network).
So over all it's good and leads to faster overall experience, unless of course you're in LTE coverage 24/7, then it doesn't matter that much. My (and others) only problem with this is AT&T branding it as 4G, which tricks consumers.

These days, both AT&T and T-Mobile branded devices display "4G" for *any* UMTS connectivity, instead of 3G/H.
It's lame.

My 900 has this switch in the settings without the need for any hacks

you hit #data# and then hit the ... button at the bottom and set up the toggle between speeds. Then restart the device, go under settings>cellular> select data speed.
With this device's data speed selection, 2G= edge, 3g= HSPA+/UTMS, 4G= LTE. Eventhough ATT modified the registry so that UTMS shows 4G at the top of the device, when you select 3G in the speed selection, you are only making the phone connect to HSPA+/UTMS

hx4700 Killer said:
Hre is the link:
http://www.ubergizmo.com/2012/04/nokia-lumia-900-gets-edge-3g-4g-toggle/
Im not sure what you mean about trying it on 4G... the only choices are 4G (LTE) 3G or edge so you get one of the 3.
In my LTE market when I choose 4G I get LTE.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey, they stole my article that I originally posted on Mobility Digest. (www.mobilitydigest.com). They even took my screen shot. I purposely took that shot when my phone was showing "G". Oh well. Btw, it does work.
Sent from my Lumia 900 using Board Express

no 4G?

hi
i recently got a nexus from google.
it woks like a charm but i notice i have never gotten 4G on my phone.
i know there is cus my friend has 4G on his GS2.
so any one knows why is my phone not connecting to 4G network?
any help will be appreciated
PS: the APN i have is epc.tmo.com

HSPA+ (the H icon) is the same thing as T-Mobile's "4G."
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

its weird, i get a 3G icon then it changes to an H. but when i go to settings i dont have the network mode option to choose from.
C0dy said:
HSPA+ (the H icon) is the same thing as T-Mobile's "4G."
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

It wasn't built to display HSPA+ as 4G for T-Mobile.
Google and rest of Europe considered it plain old 3G.
HSPA+ is not true 4G. It's considered 4G because it's almost as fast as 4G but it's not and people don't mind being tricked by that. They want to feel good about their phone. So they simply accept it.
I would just to brag about it. =p
Look at the AT&T 4S, it has HSPA+ but they don't advertise it as 4G. They just say it's faster then normal 3G.
That's why all my friends on AT&T with a 4S and jailbroken just get winter board and change the 3G to 4G and say they got 4G.
It's as fast so they say, "WTH!!! Let's make people feel like they got 4G and see a symbol that says so, even though they know they don't."
That is why you dont see 4G.

Ahh ok. Im asking cus someone told me i needed a new sim card. But thanks
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using XDA

Yeah I understand why you would be confused. U assume it's 4G since it's as fast. =p
I'd do the same unless I'm told. And since I found out when the 4S came out (I was confused at first), I learned it's just simple 3G on steroids.

Actually one of the firmware updates to the 4S revised the indicator so now it *does* say 4G on AT&T. Which is frustrating because non-technical types now say things like "Well my son didn't get 4G on his Verizon 4G phone in our area, but I get 4G on my AT&T iPhone, so I guess AT&T has better 4G."

I know.
Advertising something that is not true. They can trick people into thinking that the AT&T 4S is better and make people think they have more 4G coverage.
Technically it does since it's considered just as fast. But technically isn't good enough.

DLD511 said:
I know.
Advertising something that is not true. They can trick people into thinking that the AT&T 4S is better and make people think they have more 4G coverage.
Technically it does since it's considered just as fast. But technically isn't good enough.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The iPhone 4S utilizes HSPA+ just like the Galaxy Nexus. The only difference is that the 4S has an HSPA+ radio that is limited to 14.4Mbps, just like early T-Mobile HSPA+ devices like the G2x. The Nexus has a 21Mbps radio. Functionally, there isn't a whole lot of difference.
Fortunately, we should see true 4G in the states soon, as T-Mobile plans to roll out LTE-Advanced; which, unlike AT&T, Sprint and Verizon's LTE, is the version that actually complies to all of the initial 4G standards, which are not limited to speed. Unfortunately, it will likely still be quite a while before we see speeds of 100Mbps / 1Gbps, which are also one of the requirements. The backhaul and infrastructure for such a network simply aren't utilized in the US. Also, I don't think we really need speeds like that. The initial LTE we have now is still a battery drainer, where HSPA+ still excels in efficiency. The main benefit of LTE and LTE Advanced is changing from a circuit switched network to a fully IP based system, which HSPA+ partially supports.
Correction: The 4S uses HSDPA+HSUPA, which is close but not identical to HSPA+.
HSDPA+HSUPA Release 6
HSPA+ Release 7
LTE Release 8
LTE Advanced Release 10

3G is UMTS. 4G is HSPA/HSPA+
4G and 3G are not the same in these terms.
"Long is the way, and hard, that out of hell leads up to light."

T-Mobile's LTE gonna be at 48mbps correct??? Gonna be damn fast.

Here's Verizon speeds.

DLD511 said:
T-Mobile's LTE gonna be at 48mbps correct??? Gonna be damn fast.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
T-Mobile's HSPA+ is already at 48Mbps in most cases. No word on the max speed for LTE Advanced yet.
Keep in mind that maximum theoretical speed and maximum real usage speed are two different things, but LTE Advanced supposedly reduces a lot of the issues that HSPA+ has, including the speed degradation that HSPA+ has when it comes to distance from the tower and interference.
Also, to be honest, speed tests are just like benchmarks. They really don't show realistic results most of the time. Besides, most of us really only use about 250kbps-3Mbps in actual real time usage, at best and on high load.

JaiaV said:
T-Mobile's HSPA+ is already at 48Mbps in most cases. No word on the max speed for LTE Advanced yet.
Keep in mind that maximum theoretical speed and maximum real usage speed are two different things, but LTE Advanced supposedly reduces a lot of the issues that HSPA+ has, including the speed degradation that HSPA+ has when it comes to distance from the tower and interference.
Also, to be honest, speed tests are just like benchmarks. They really don't show realistic results most of the time. Besides, most of us really only use about 250kbps-3Mbps in actual real time usage, at best and on high load.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Verizon got to play serious catch up on speed.

DLD511 said:
T-Mobile's LTE gonna be at 48mbps correct??? Gonna be damn fast.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They're already on 48mbps HSPA+. When they deploy LTE, it'll be LTE-Advanced, which is the next iteration above the current LTE deployments by AT&T/Verizon.
DLD511 said:
Here's Verizon speeds.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
cool story.

Verizon gonna do this too???

DLD511 said:
Verizon gonna do this too???
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Verizon's still busy implementing Release 9 LTE. Less incentive for them to upgrade to LTE Advanced, but possible the groundwork has already been laid for it, not entirely certain of what the differences between the hardware needed at the cell site or the hardware needed in the handset have to be.

JaiaV said:
Verizon's still busy implementing Release 9 LTE. Less incentive for them to upgrade to LTE Advanced, but possible the groundwork has already been laid for it, not entirely certain of what the differences between the hardware needed at the cell site or the hardware needed in the handset have to be.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Bet it's gonna **** on the battery.... again.

DLD511 said:
Bet it's gonna **** on the battery.... again.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LTE is quite horrible for battery life. I'm not sure what the difference LTE Advanced will make. I do know that one of the reasons LTE battery life is poor is that LTE coverage is relatively sparse for the time being, as the radio is having to work harder to get and keep a signal than it would if LTE coverage were as prevalent as HSPA+ coverage is.