Would it ever be possible for Verizon to become a cdma provider? I know nothing about how it works honestly but if its something they could chnagr and keep existing network they could if they'd have to start over obviously not. Just curious since where I live Verizon is the only choice but GSM just beats cdma on many levels. Sorry if this is in the wrong section or if it sounds as dumb as I fear it does.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using XDA
No. They're (effectively) never going to drop CDMA. For the foreseeable future they will be using CDMA as a legacy fallback network. Eventually they'll push to VoLTE (Voice over LTE) and start to phase out sales of new CDMA devices, but that's far into the future. They still have to support millions of legacy CDMA devices.
Verizon is too large with too big of a user base to pivot to GSM. Honestly at this point even if they wanted to (they don't), it wouldn't be worth the time and effort considering they're pushing LTE as their next network technology. It'd just be a complete waste of time.
Damn. Reading about all the new nexus devices being only cdma has me hating where I live as T-Mobile or att would have no service 90% of the time.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using XDA
Verizon is switching to GSM since they are moving to lte and the lte voice. They'll never go backwards to hspa though, and they likely will keep their cdma network for more than 5 years.
Notice new Verizon phones have sim cards?
RogerPodacter said:
Verizon is switching to GSM since they are moving to lte and the lte voice. They'll never go backwards to hspa though, and they likely will keep their cdma network for more than 5 years.
Notice new Verizon phones have sim cards?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ya isn't lte the GSM type tech and umb or whatever its called was the cdma technology.
I was reading that vodafone (one of the biggest carriers in the world, GSM, has stock in verizon) and Verizon decided together that lte was the future instead of the cdma version.
Even with the switch to LTE, Verizon's LTE operates in the 700MHz band, which none of the GSM/LTE networks will be compatible with. The result will in all likelihood be two separate LTE networks.
With the investment that Verizon already has in their 700MHz equipment, it is highly unlikely for them to make a switch.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using XDA
cslester said:
Even with the switch to LTE, Verizon's LTE operates in the 700MHz band, which none of the GSM/LTE networks will be compatible with. The result will in all likelihood be two separate LTE networks.
With the investment that Verizon already has in their 700MHz equipment, it is highly unlikely for them to make a switch.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using XDA
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ATT is 700mhz as well.
Cdma keeps connection when traveling between towers much more reliably as well.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
adrynalyne said:
ATT is 700mhz as well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But different "parts" of 700mhz.
I don't know whether or not cell phone providers actually do this, (I'm not terribly familiar with how they work) but you can fit multiple carrier signals into the same frequency by adjusting the phase and polarity.
I know satellite providers do this. The even transponders use linear polarity (modulating based on variable strength of the signal,) and the odd ones use circular polarity (modulating based on the directional vector at a given point in time.) In addition to that (and I don't think satellite providers do this yet) you can add a second linear modulation with a phase shift of 90 degrees to add yet another carrier signal.
adrynalyne said:
ATT is 700mhz as well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, AT&T uses A & B blocks in lower 700MHz. VZW is C-Block Upper 700MHz. While you could probably make an LTE radio that combines the Lower A, B and C (lower C =! upper C), getting all four bands to play nice is going to be very difficult.
blackhand1001 said:
Cdma keeps connection when traveling between towers much more reliably as well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So does GSM, as long as it's operating in UMTS mode (which it will, unless you're making a voice call on T-Mobile from an airboat 5 miles south of Alligator Alley (I-75) in the middle of the Florida Everglades & barely have a viable signal to begin with, in which case it will fall back to legacy TDMA-based 1G GSM).
I know satellite providers do this. The even transponders use linear polarity (modulating based on variable strength of the signal,) and the odd ones use circular polarity (modulating based on the directional vector at a given point in time.) In addition to that (and I don't think satellite providers do this yet) you can add a second linear modulation with a phase shift of 90 degrees to add yet another carrier signal.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They could... except then your phone would only work when uplinked & downlinked through a fixed, securely-mounted antenna. Doppler shift does terrible things to phase-based modulation. Just ask anybody who's ever tried to watch an 8VSB-modulated ATSC TV transmission during a hurricane (when the transmission antenna is wobbling) or from a moving vehicle. In theory, there are exotic antenna designs that can untangle polarized signals while moving by simultaneously receiving multiple phases & using a DSP to separate them out "after the fact", but they're *way* out of the current realm of viability for mass-market consumer electronics, and WAY more demanding than a 2" metal stub embedded inside your phone.
Truth be told, spectrum isn't the problem. Tower density is. The nice thing about CDMA is that you can literally fix almost any bandwidth problem just by throwing more tower sites at it & letting the network sort itself out like magic. CDMA has very few "hard" limits. Some, like 1.25MHz or 5MHz channel pairs, are carved in stone and can't be engineered around. Once you're in the club and own the spectrum, though, it's really just a question of "what kind of tower density are you willing to pay for. Crowded mall? Give it its own cell. More-crowded mall? Spread a dozen picocells around it, especially the food court.
Verizon is unlikely to ever support legacy GSM or UMTS directly, and can really only evolve into LTE going forward. Sprint could, in theory, buy T-Mobile, and instantly consolidate GSM/UMTS into any cell site where it has deployed Network Vision (~3% of the US, so far) as long as it had the use of T-Mobile's spectrum, with little more than a site visit, software upgrade, and some software reconfiguration. Verizon can't do that, because it ALREADY upgraded its network, and has too much in sunk costs to scrap everything and redo every cell site the way Sprint is (and MUST). Truth be told, Sprint won't do it either unless it merges with T-Mo, and the feds are unlikely to allow it (it's not 100% impossible, but VERY unlikely to happen unless there were simultaneously a merger between US Cellular, MetroPCS, Sprint's "rural" partner networks, and/or Cincinnati Bell (to preserve the status quo Quadropoly).
AT&T and Cingular switched to GSM because they had no meaningful upgrade path from TDMA. In fact, AT&T was actually planning to switch to CDMA until they bought Cingular, and altered their plans only because Cingular was already deploying GSM. In theory, Sprint+Tmo (with the spectrum of both) could semi-gracefully migrate towards GSM with backwards compatibility for CDMA2000 voice and 1xRTT (like Telus did in Canada), but NOBODY could really get away with "flipping a switch" and forcing a wholesale changeover anymore. Hell, Sprint doesn't even have enough Nextel customers left to pay the electric bill for their added tower costs, and the official iDEN sunset is STILL two years away.
Related
Boy Genius report "Not wanting to be extremely late to the show like they were with 3G devices for GSM networks (bringing up painful memories, anyone?), the folks over at RIM HQ recently decided to create a work team that’s been specifically entrusted with the task of creating an LTE BlackBerry. The intention of the RIM execs is to have an LTE BlackBerry ready at approximately the same time that LTE begins worldwide deployment, something that could come as early as late 2009 if Motorola has their way. Motorola’s seemingly overly zealous ambitions aside, 2011 is the year when LTE is generally expected to be available with the major carriers of the world. In case some of you are wondering what the hell LTE is, it’s also known as 4G network technology and is the heir to 3G and 3.5G networks. Think of it as an IP-based network in which voice and data connections are streamed together without distinction and are broadcasted through a ridiculously fast connection that has up to four-times the efficiency at delivering data-packets than the 3.5G networks of today. As with all of our scoops, we’ll be sure to keep monitoring this situation and keep you updated with the latest news."
Wow, now imagine some Windows Mobile devices having this speed for data and voice, I know that the blackjack II has great speed in ATT network, but seriously, why don't carriers have a more unified network, look at Tmobile, with there obscure frequency, instead of having the same frequency as ATT and being able to have those folks that defect to Tmobile and would like a fast connection, they don't realize that ATT's 3G connection keeps a lot of customers happy, its just fast as hell and like me and I'm sure there are a ton of us out there but oh well, enough ranting
blackjack2 said:
Boy Genius report "Not wanting to be extremely late to the show like they were with 3G devices for GSM networks (bringing up painful memories, anyone?), the folks over at RIM HQ recently decided to create a work team that’s been specifically entrusted with the task of creating an LTE BlackBerry. The intention of the RIM execs is to have an LTE BlackBerry ready at approximately the same time that LTE begins worldwide deployment, something that could come as early as late 2009 if Motorola has their way. Motorola’s seemingly overly zealous ambitions aside, 2011 is the year when LTE is generally expected to be available with the major carriers of the world. In case some of you are wondering what the hell LTE is, it’s also known as 4G network technology and is the heir to 3G and 3.5G networks. Think of it as an IP-based network in which voice and data connections are streamed together without distinction and are broadcasted through a ridiculously fast connection that has up to four-times the efficiency at delivering data-packets than the 3.5G networks of today. As with all of our scoops, we’ll be sure to keep monitoring this situation and keep you updated with the latest news."
Wow, now imagine some Windows Mobile devices having this speed for data and voice, I know that the blackjack II has great speed in ATT network, but seriously, why don't carriers have a more unified network, look at Tmobile, with there obscure frequency, instead of having the same frequency as ATT and being able to have those folks that defect to Tmobile and would like a fast connection, they don't realize that ATT's 3G connection keeps a lot of customers happy, its just fast as hell and like me and I'm sure there are a ton of us out there but oh well, enough ranting
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
T-mobile and At&T can't have the same frequencies unless they were the same business. Since they are separate entities, if they used the same bands, there would be interference and the present 3g would not work on either network. I wish that wireless carriers would simplify aswell, however there is the fact that they are businesses, and businesses want more money. They are not parts of the government.
skyler17 said:
T-mobile and At&T can't have the same frequencies unless they were the same business. Since they are separate entities, if they used the same bands, there would be interference and the present 3g would not work on either network. I wish that wireless carriers would simplify aswell, however there is the fact that they are businesses, and businesses want more money. They are not parts of the government.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, if THAT were true, how do you explain the fact that Tmobile and ATT use the same regular GSM frequencies (850, 1900..) ? Or, how would explain the fact that there's SEVERAL carries throughout Europe that ALL use 3G bands at the same time ?
NRGZ28 said:
Well, if THAT were true, how do you explain the fact that Tmobile and ATT use the same regular GSM frequencies (850, 1900..) ? Or, how would explain the fact that there's SEVERAL carries throughout Europe that ALL use 3G bands at the same time ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True, I agree with you, I'm sure its done on purpose so people like me who buy ATT phones can't use them to full specs on Tmobile and vice versa, If Europe can deal with tons of 3G towers, why can't we, MONEY, MONEY.
NRGZ28 said:
Well, if THAT were true, how do you explain the fact that Tmobile and ATT use the same regular GSM frequencies (850, 1900..) ? Or, how would explain the fact that there's SEVERAL carries throughout Europe that ALL use 3G bands at the same time ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Haha nice way to put it... they do use the same frequency as when you are roaming on t-mobile it will pick up at&t at times... therefore it has to be the same frequency...
Hi - I'm looking for some good answers - I think I know the basics...
After much shopping, I bought 2 of these...
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=170623785892&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT
(HTC Touch Pro 2 s - the wife likes for our phones to match so I can teach, set up, etc...)
I think they are called T7373 SEA's South East Asia Versions, and I flashed to 2.07.707/4.49.25.91 radio just fine to get current at WM6.5. (I like factory ROM's - the books work, etc - despite my appreciation for the effort to cook.)
Now - I'm currently ATT, and when they go to Data Plan me, I'm going to T-Mobile prepaid.
So - I get to looking at 3g frequencies - of course!
The book for the device says 900/2100 HSPA/WCDMA.
The sellers' ad says
3G Network HSDPA 900 / 2100
HSDPA 850 / 1900 / 2100 or HSDPA 1700 / 2100
(It's not really clear what the 'or' means)
Now, I'm not *****ing at the seller, I want to really understand, and they knew I was US and they asked ATT or Tmobile.
Would they like have reached into one of three bins, to sell me one of three truly different hardware phones - OR - picked a phone up and flashed it (Radio or full ROM) to my provider, or did they just configure the existing system so it picked Tmobile and its freqs for instance? (When the phone boots, it asks T-Mobile or 2 other Asian-sounding systems) How else could the phones do as advertised? (9/21, 8.5/19, or 17/21)
If the frequencies are not a settings, but a ROM/Radio issue, can I load the 'other US guys' flash and have it work?
If not, does anyone know what really is changed in the hardwares (I imagine the antennas' length might vary by X%, but then here that's % of mms.)
Thanks - great answers and experience really appreciated!!
The device in the picture of the ad is a European unbranded model (RHOD100). It's 3G frequencies are on the 2100MHz band. If they sent you the one pictures, you will not get 3G with any US provider. AT&T uses 850MHz and 1900MHz for their 3G service, while T-Mobile uses 1700/2100MHz. 3G radios are hardware dependent, not software dependent. This means that you must purchase the device that contains the radio for the 3G service you wish to use. They will work on 2G networks anywhere in the world. 3G is really the only difference between carriers.
The AT&T device is the RHOD300 model, also known as the Tilt 2. The T-Mobile version is the RHOD210.
The short answer is that if they send you the exact device in the picture from the ad, you will only be able to get 3G in some parts of Asia and Europe.
The description on the eBay listing is just cut and paste from somewhere (like HTC's website), so that is why it says "or" for the 3G bands. One is for the Euro model, the other is for the Asia model. Either way, neither have the correct bands to give you 3G on AT&T or T-Mobile. And as cajun mentioned, bands are hardware dependent, and there is no way to change it.
If you want 3G on AT&T, you need to buy the AT&T branded Tilt2. But since they will be able to read the IMEI number of the phone (since its ATT branded), they will probably add a smartphone data plan very quickly. So its probably not even worth getting a Tilt2, if you don't want a smartphone data plan. If you want 3G on T-Mobile, you need to buy a T-Mobile branded TP2.
Bottom line, if the phones you bought are unbranded, then they don't have the correct hardware to get 3G on either AT&T or T-Mob.
THX
Hey guys(?) thanks, I think I understand.
So - basically the ad HAS to be a lie, at least for 3G.
So I'm still wondering... What does HTC actually change in the phones - a crystal (I doubt this in modern times), a chip, a pack, an antenna length? There is a small area in the phone that looks 'potted' we used to call it.
They are way too pretty, and way too functional 'as is' to mess with (so I'm not gonna go module or whatever shopping), and we are pretty much 'emergency only' web people (for maps, pizza places, etc) and 2G will be fast enough. The value of a keyboard for texting, the Windows interoperability, and no damn contract is good enough.
We are deciding which ROM level we want before we try ATT to see if they know the numbers... T-Mobile prepaid is the backup plan.
THX
tshephard said:
Hey guys(?) thanks, I think I understand.
So - basically the ad HAS to be a lie, at least for 3G.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A lie in that it looks like a lazy cut and paste, with either no proof-reading to catch the error, or a seller that does not fully understand what he is selling. They are a high volume seller, and also just used stock photos (not photos of the actual item), so its just a rushed auction posting. I don't think it was an intentional lie meant to mislead you. But if you want to dispute the sale, I think you have very good grounds, since the information in the auction is incorrect, and its actually impossible to tell what exact model (Euro or Asian) they are selling from the description.
AT&T most likely won't be able to correlate the IMEI with the right phone brand/model. But I've seen cases where they think its a smartphone, but the wrong one, and try to add a smartphone plan. I read a post where a guy was using a Nexus One, and their system was reading it as a Blackberry. I think he just told them it was an unlocked dumbphone, and they removed the smartphone plan.
Please Correct me if I'm wrong...
presently I'm using Sprint Touch Pro 2, and I have read on the internet that it is possible to work with AT&T or T-Mobile (which uses different technology other than Sprint's CDMA) after proper unlocking. Is it possible?
Regards.
chris8989 said:
presently I'm using Sprint Touch Pro 2, and I have read on the internet that it is possible to work with AT&T or T-Mobile (which uses different technology other than Sprint's CDMA) after proper unlocking. Is it possible?
Regards.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, but you will not be able to use any other network's 3G service. The best you will get is EDGE on another network.
To follow up...
ATT stuck me on $25 Smartphone within 24 hours. (We went to $15 later, and they dropped us to a $10 cheaper talk plan.) For this particular set of phones, apparently the first 8 or so digits of the IMEI is phone type (which they clearly knew from Tilt 2's) and the rest is item serial number. Couldn't argue there...
Speeds, freqs... I don't get a clear definition of G's anywhere, but I show a H before I long on, and another H with bars as I use data. I have used cellular data at up to 1.1mbs per speed sites - I don't know if that's over E, or G, or H but it seems pretty fast to me. All that's on ATT, when I went to the T-Mobile store and tried their card, the best I got was 200kbs on about 5 tries.
Love the phones, added HTC task manager pulldown, and 1.6 VC from here - THX
tshephard said:
To follow up...
ATT stuck me on $25 Smartphone within 24 hours. (We went to $15 later, and they dropped us to a $10 cheaper talk plan.) For this particular set of phones, apparently the first 8 or so digits of the IMEI is phone type (which they clearly knew from Tilt 2's) and the rest is item serial number. Couldn't argue there...
Speeds, freqs... I don't get a clear definition of G's anywhere, but I show a H before I long on, and another H with bars as I use data. I have used cellular data at up to 1.1mbs per speed sites - I don't know if that's over E, or G, or H but it seems pretty fast to me. All that's on ATT, when I went to the T-Mobile store and tried their card, the best I got was 200kbs on about 5 tries.
Love the phones, added HTC task manager pulldown, and 1.6 VC from here - THX
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
G stands for GPRS, and it is a 2G service. It stands for General Packet Radio Service. It is the slowest data service you can get with speeds normally under 50Kbps. It is occasionally known as 2.5G service.
E stands for EDGE. It stands for Enhanced Data Rates for GSM Evolution. It was a revision to the 2G service implementation and features speeds from about 100Kbps to 250Kbps depending on location, service provider, and signal. It is occasionally referred to as a pre-3G technology. It fits in the ITU's definition of 3G, but few people refer to it as such. It is normally marketed as 2.9G.
UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunications System) was a revision to the voice service, and did not address much data-wise. This was the first widespread usage of the term and use of 3G. It is normally the service that your device is using when it shows the 3G icon. 3G speeds are normally 350Kbps - 500Kbps.
H stands for HSPA. It stands for High Speed Packet Access. It is one step higher than what is commonly known as 3G.It is also known as 3.5G. It features speeds closer to 1.5Mbps. HSPA is normally grouped in with 3G service when it is being discussed.
As for your test with T-Mobile, that wasn't really a fair comparison since you can't get 3G speeds on a Tilt2 on T-Mobile's network. You can only ever get EDGE service. Therefore, you were comparing AT&T's 3G service to T-Mobile's EDGE service. This is like trying to race a Mustang with a Moped. If you get the Rhod210 model, you will get the faster connection with T-Mobile. There isn't much to compare between AT&T and T-Mobile. AT&T 3G speeds are slower than T-Mobile. The services are also much cheaper on T-Mobile.
THX for reply, I generally understood all the abbreviations, but like you said - the marketing hype really seems to very from the technology.
If I saw, regularly, over 1 mbs and the H bars to the right of the H block, do ya' think I was H/HSPA over 8.5/9/19/21 freqs?
tshephard said:
THX for reply, I generally understood all the abbreviations, but like you said - the marketing hype really seems to very from the technology.
If I saw, regularly, over 1 mbs and the H bars to the right of the H block, do ya' think I was H/HSPA over 8.5/9/19/21 freqs?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
On AT&T it would be HSPA on the 850MHz and/or 1900MHz frequencies. T-Mobile uses 1700MHz for HSDPA and 2100MHz for HSUPA. The frequencies for 2G services are all the same for everyone. This is why you will get up to EDGE service with any GSM carrier, but never 3G service unless you buy a device that explicitly supports that carrier's 3G service.
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..
This does not look good for sprint's partnership
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/210745-fcc-moves-to-kill-lightsquared
Yup, read this this morning...
I'm definitely a little sad about it...Falcone has a couple of options, as do the investors who have bought their debt.
Sprint should be fine, though it would have been nice to have that $9 billion. Having already extended their options with clearwire looks like a shrewd move in light of this.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
This definitely sucks but my question is: is the network vision tied into this or is it separate from LS? By that I mean was network vision going to use this spectrum/network to operate or is it not effected by this decision? No LTE would be a huge bite in the ass to Sprint and us consumers.
KCRic said:
This definitely sucks but my question is: is the network vision tied into this or is it separate from LS? By that I mean was network vision going to use this spectrum/network to operate or is it not effected by this decision? No LTE would be a huge bite in the ass to Sprint and us consumers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
we are rolling out our own LTE network, light-squared was more of a way to expand our coverage, all my knowlagents say mid 2012
I need a little clarification I thought the LTE we were planning to roll out was lightsquared so how and who will be the maker/supplier of our LTE network, isnt LTE that is the source of the gps interference?
LightSquared was going to be hosted on Sprint's new Network Vision towers in exchange for cash and access to the new network for resale to Sprint subscribers. It would have effectively given Sprint 20 mhz (or so) of extra LTE capacity on the 1500 mhz band. However, Sprint has plans to roll out LTE on its own spectrum in the PCS (1900 mhz) and ESMR (800 mhz) bands. This decision by the FCC will not impact the coverage of Sprint's LTE, but it will reduce the total capacity of the network by about 50%. The effect will be most noticeable for users outside the range of PCS LTE, because now the more spectrum constrained 800 mhz band will have to take on all of these users.
There is hope however, because Sprint still has Clearwire. Clearwire holds a ton of spectrum in the 2500 mhz band. In many urban areas, they hold over 100 mhz of spectrum, or enough for ~1 gbps (!) to be shared between the users of each sector of each cell site when using LTE-Advanced. They're the current provider for WiMax, and they're planning on overlaying LTE on the most stressed parts of their existing network. Recently, when LightSquared was first running into trouble with the FCC, Sprint and Clearwire agreed to a system much like the current one with WiMax, where Sprint would be able to resell their 4G to its subscribers. However, since Clearwire is pretty short on cash, they won't be able to invest much into network expansion in their current state. Their future LTE coverage will be even further behind their disappointing WiMax coverage.
However, Sprint holds a majority stake in Clearwire, and if they decided to buy them out (see here), they could potentially use their spectrum on their Network Vision towers, and completely alleviate the possibility of slow data speeds due to spectrum scarcity. Now that LightSquared has failed to come through for Sprint, there is a good possibility for this (or an agreement that accomplishes something similar) to become Sprint's next course of action.
As a 12 year Sprint subscriber, I must say, as strange as it sounds, that I am happy about the FCC's ruling....
Unfortunately, finding my way home from 100 miles offshore in the gulf stream is a bit more important to me than Sprint's near term LTE network capacity.
postq said:
As a 12 year Sprint subscriber, I must say, as strange as it sounds, that I am happy about the FCC's ruling....
Unfortunately, finding my way home from 100 miles offshore in the gulf stream is a bit more important to me than Sprint's near term LTE network capacity.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then go complain to garmin about why their 900.00 chart plotter had to be built using a frequency that their not allowed to use ... They cheaped out on it for more profit.... Instead of building it right
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Epix4G said:
Then go complain to garmin about why their 900.00 chart plotter had to be built using a frequency that their not allowed to use ... They cheaped out on it for more profit.... Instead of building it right
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is the side I heard before. So annoying.
Sprint is rolling out its own LTE network. They were going to be paid $9 billion to roll out Lightsquares for them.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
schwab002 said:
This is the side I heard before. So annoying.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So you're fine using something that's that fallible? Remember that stealth drone that Iran captured? You know how they did it? They blocked it's GPS signal which put it into autopilot. Then they sent their own "GPS" signal - stronger than the one the military was using and told it to land inside their country at a known spot.
Hmm... seems GPS isn't all it's cracked up to be. How would you like to be on a flight and have that happen? Imagine a night flight where the pilot can only rely on instruments and GPS. Mainly GPS. Someone sends a signal telling the receiver that it's climbing when in truth it's not. Guess what the pilot will do? Or the signal could just tell the receiver that it's off course, then the pilot flies into the middle of the ocean, runs out of fuel, and crashes. I don't pretend to be a pilot or know what goes on in that cockpit but if they can't see anything they must rely on the GPS.
The government knows GPS is just a huge crisis waiting to happen but they are too worried about other 'more important' issues to deal with it. Remember when Americas infrastructure was the best in the world? Neither do I but my grandparents and parents do. So I say they should let LS build the LTE network. If GPS fails that badly then it was worthless to begin with and needs to be retooled.
In terms to that GPS on the drone. GPS is a lot more secure than you think...
Epix4G said:
Then go complain to garmin about why their 900.00 chart plotter had to be built using a frequency that their not allowed to use ... They cheaped out on it for more profit.... Instead of building it right
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not really true in any meaningful way. The amount and size of filtering required to filter out the spill over from the 100W towers that were planned would have blocked the GPS for your Garmin, Phone, and pretty much any receiver smaller than a cinderblock and even then would have been a questionable thing.
Lightsquared was trying to repurpose bandwidth explicitly designated for low powered satellite communications and didn't succeed in constraining their signal enough.
lifyre said:
Not really true in any meaningful way. The amount and size of filtering required to filter out the spill over from the 100W towers that were planned would have blocked the GPS for your Garmin, Phone, and pretty much any receiver smaller than a cinderblock and even then would have been a questionable thing.
Lightsquared was trying to repurpose bandwidth explicitly designated for low powered satellite communications and didn't succeed in constraining their signal enough.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That being said both sides are at fault....GPS should not be infringing on said frequency ...And too bad ls could not make it work for their purpose...
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
GPS is not infringing on said frequency it would have been infringed upon by lightsquared.
gharlane00 said:
GPS is not infringing on said frequency it would have been infringed upon by lightsquared.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No .... That is wrong .... GPS is listening on frequencies that are owned by LS .... But when first made they didn't care.. LS bought their spectrum and did nothing with it until now but GPS is infringing on their spectrum but the FCC told LS they could do their build out if they could make it work without interfering with GPS ...both are at fault ...you need to read up on it before making statements like that
FCC told ls they could repurpose the spectrum for terrestrial use if it didn't cause problems with GPS
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
The bottom line is Sprint will not be recieving the 9 billion in funds over time from LS. Sprint will continue it's network Vision upgrades regardless. But as already mentioned, sprint will likely look at ClearWire from a different angle now. I hope Sprint can get their network up to par in a timely fashion because Verizon's LTE is very fast (43+mbps down/12+mbps up) and I'd rather pay more for service that actually works and pay $10 a gig if i go over.
And this is why I'm thinking of going back to Verizon and their tiered data plans:
tx_dbs_tx said:
The bottom line is Sprint will not be recieving the 9 billion in funds over time from LS. Sprint will continue it's network Vision upgrades regardless. But as already mentioned, sprint will likely look at ClearWire from a different angle now. I hope Sprint can get their network up to par in a timely fashion because Verizon's LTE is very fast (43+mbps down/12+mbps up) and I'd rather pay more for service that actually works and pay $10 a gig if i go over.
And this is why I'm thinking of going back to Verizon and their tiered data plans:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You do know that Lightsquared was not apart of Network Vision? Sprint is on budget and still will meet its goal. Lightsquared neither speed up the process nor slowed it down.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Yes I'm pretty sure Sprint has been planning ahead and not relying on Lightsquared for quite some time. The gps issue has been known from the get go. I was just speaking on actual ''business'' side of things with the potential income that sprint needs. So technically yes this LS deal getting shut down does impact Sprint's potential cash flow but its not going to affect current network vision upgrades.
Epix4G said:
No .... That is wrong .... GPS is listening on frequencies that are owned by LS .... But when first made they didn't care.. LS bought their spectrum and did nothing with it until now but GPS is infringing on their spectrum but the FCC told LS they could do their build out if they could make it work without interfering with GPS ...both are at fault ...you need to read up on it before making statements like that
FCC told ls they could repurpose the spectrum for terrestrial use if it didn't cause problems with GPS
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Again, not true in any meaningful sense.
Almost every (read: any that aren't scientifically calibrated and tuned every 3 to 6 months) receiver is sensitive to signals outside the target range. This goes for the antennas in your phone, your WiFi unit, your car, and your TV. When two closely spaced signals are similar in strength this is easily remedied and the filtering is relatively simple, and can often be done in software. When one of the signals is in the range of millions of times stronger than it's neighbor (100W ground stations for L^2, 10^(-16)W average surface signal strength for GPS) this is neither easy, cheap, or small and often is virtually impossible. Especially since signals do not have a hard edge... They're more like a flashlight than a laser.
You can observe this yourself using an old television if you're curious. Except those signal strengths would only be hundreds of times different in strength at worst.
The key to lightsquared losing was that they tried to re-purpose spectrum that has ALWAYS been designated for sat to ground communications. When they bought it they were told satellite only, they tried to change that and failed.
Ok... I have gone round and round and round and round with AT&T on this issue. My data is nearly unusable while on a call. Most of the time it times out, and when it does work, it is ridiculously slow.
I have gone through the stores, technical support, wrote their corporate headquarters (which got no response whatsoever), Twitter, and finally I filed a complaint with the FCC.
The FCC complaint is where I am now, and they want to work with me on this issue. They keep focusing on the towers in my area (although it happens EVERYWHERE), and my phone (even though this is my second phone). Basically I am tired of wasting my time with this issue, and I want to point them to this thread to tell them this this is NOT just me. Maybe it is the Note 2, but I think it is their network. Hopefully this thread will tell me AND THEM.
So with that said, I would love for everyone to post their City/State, and 2 speed tests (one while on a call and one while not on a call). Not moving would be preferable.
I will post mine shortly.
Tampa Bay North
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 4
Not sure why you so frustrated. But signal's are suppose to drop while on a call!! Your using data, and yes we can be on the web and be on a call at the same time. I've been doing it since I was first on AT&T. :thumbup:
But I'm thinking it's your area or the modem. Here's my results after reading your post. I decided to go out for breakfast and perform this test to see if it was that BAD! :what:
Here's my results:
NO CALL HERE
ON CALL NOW
Still above 10 mb down. BUT IT DID DROP DRASTICALLY BECAUSE I'M NO LONGER ON LTE CONNECTION.
Just my 2¢®
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 4
To answer your question, I am upset because they advertise themselves as being able to use voice and data simultaneously and I can barely use my data while on a call. Most of the time it times out and I constantly have to redo my request. I think my problem is the ability to send data (which include acknowledgements and the request). I don't so much mind that it slows down, but being nearly unusable is a whole other story.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 4
Milkman00 said:
To answer your question, I am upset because they advertise themselves as being able to use voice and data simultaneously and I can barely use my data while on a call. Most of the time it times out and I constantly have to redo my request. I think my problem is the ability to send data (which include acknowledgements and the request). I don't so much mind that it slows down, but being nearly unusable is a whole other story.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 4
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And that I have been able to do always. Be on a call and the web. But I understand your frustration on it not writing when you want. And it being so slow.
Not sure what Rom, modem your using? But I don't really see that much of a problem. Unless I'm inside of a metal building!!
Lol
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 4
Yeah look at my on call upload speed compared to you. Definitely a problem.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 4
Milkman00 said:
Yeah look at my on call upload speed compared to you. Definitely a problem.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 4
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree with you completely. On that note! What modem are you using. Take a screen shot of your about phone. Just curious if that is what is causing your problem. Wondering if your on the latest modem release..
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 4
I am rooted stock.
4.1.2
i317ucamc3
3.0.31-578342
As an RBS Engineer I can explain why this happens to you.
Its due to a few reasons
1. What frequency is 1st carrier in your market 1900mhz or 850mhz
2. How many carriers are in your particular area (the most i have seen is 5 in the major metro areas)
3. How far away the next tower is to you
4. How saturated each carrier is
Whwn testing a new LTE site i will get 30-50mbps download and 20mbps up
Thats cuz im the ONLY one on the carrier at the time.
So a tower is made up of carriers, each carrier has sectors with a corresponding antenna that face a different direction (Alpha Beta Gamma)
You have multiple carriers in areas where theres heavy traffic.
now back to your phone its multi banded 1900, 850, 700/2100(lte)
If your market is 850 first carrier and 850 second carrier your data while on the phone will be almost non existent becuase that band on your phone is in use with your call. But if you have 850 1st carrier then 1900 second carrier or vice versa then your speeds will be decent. For whatever reason when you place a call your data automatically switches to HSPA most likely due to the VOIP on the LTE band leaving only the 3g band for data. Now I dont engineer the network itself becuase I dont understand why LTE isnt left open for data while were on calls.
I dont know if i confused you more or if that helped.
Hope it helped though
Its like a highway
A carrier is a single highway with multiple lanes 850mhz 1900mhz 700mhz(for lte 1st carrier) and 2100 (for lte 2nd)
If your area has only 2 carriers 850mhz and 850mhz its like 2 lanes on a highway going in the same direction and the other side of the highway is blocked
If its 850mhz and 1900mhz but there is heavy traffic and not enough carriers its like bieng stuck in 5 o clock traffic and trying to turn around. Its busy on both lanes so everything is slow
Each carrier adds lanes for traffic in a typical metro area you will see someting like
1st carrier 850mhz
2nd 850mhz
3rd 1900mhz
4th 850 mhz
5th 1900 mhz
LTE 1st carrier 700mhz
LTE 2nd Carrier 2100mhz
Thats a lot of lanes for traffic
tramane said:
As an RBS Engineer I can explain why this happens to you.
Its due to a few reasons
1. What frequency is 1st carrier in your market 1900mhz or 850mhz
2. How many carriers are in your particular area (the most i have seen is 5 in the major metro areas)
3. How far away the next tower is to you
4. How saturated each carrier is
Whwn testing a new LTE site i will get 30-50mbps download and 20mbps up
Thats cuz im the ONLY one on the carrier at the time.
So a tower is made up of carriers, each carrier has sectors with a corresponding antenna that face a different direction (Alpha Beta Gamma)
You have multiple carriers in areas where theres heavy traffic.
now back to your phone its multi banded 1900, 850, 700/2100(lte)
If your market is 850 first carrier and 850 second carrier your data while on the phone will be almost non existent becuase that band on your phone is in use with your call. But if you have 850 1st carrier then 1900 second carrier or vice versa then your speeds will be decent. For whatever reason when you place a call your data automatically switches to HSPA most likely due to the VOIP on the LTE band leaving only the 3g band for data. Now I dont engineer the network itself becuase I dont understand why LTE isnt left open for data while were on calls.
I dont know if i confused you more or if that helped.
Hope it helped though
Its like a highway
A carrier is a single highway with multiple lanes 850mhz 1900mhz 700mhz(for lte 1st carrier) and 2100 (for lte 2nd)
If your area has only 2 carriers 850mhz and 850mhz its like 2 lanes on a highway going in the same direction and the other side of the highway is blocked
If its 850mhz and 1900mhz but there is heavy traffic and not enough carriers its like bieng stuck in 5 o clock traffic and trying to turn around. Its busy on both lanes so everything is slow
Each carrier adds lanes for traffic in a typical metro area you will see someting like
1st carrier 850mhz
2nd 850mhz
3rd 1900mhz
4th 850 mhz
5th 1900 mhz
LTE 1st carrier 700mhz
LTE 2nd Carrier 2100mhz
Thats a lot of lanes for traffic
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well it seems to happen everywhere that I go which is as far as 70 miles in any direction. The big 3 are in my area (Sprint, AT&T, and Verizon) as well as T-Mobile and Metro (but I am not sure if Metro is their own or they use other carriers).
The major metro areas that I visit are Tampa and Orlando and they do the same thing. I live in a rural area (so the towers are not very saturated), and there is a tower about 1.5 miles (tops) in either direction of me.
I am not sure what frequency my area is. How can I tell?
This is expected. AT&T doesn't support voice over LTE yet, so when you place a phone call the modem needs to switch back to the 3G/Fake 4G HSPA+ network. I'm guessing you just have poor 4G reception. Can you disable LTE and then do a speedtest on the regular 4G network?
Prior to the LTE implementation I was getting far better speeds on the HSPA+ network..
How do I disable LTE to get a current HSPA+ test?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 4
Looks like this might be the easiest way: http://forums.androidcentral.com/t-...3-you-can-disable-hspa-too-2.html#post2551614
Edit: while on a call I get 1663Kbps down and just 93Kbps up, so this might not be unique to you.
saturnspike said:
This is expected. AT&T doesn't support voice over LTE yet, so when you place a phone call the modem needs to switch back to the 3G/Fake 4G HSPA+ network. I'm guessing you just have poor 4G reception. Can you disable LTE and then do a speedtest on the regular 4G network?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
On HSPA+ I get 2.2 meg down and almost 1 meg up (910k).
FAR better than what I get while on a call in an LTE area.
OK after reading this thread. Do y'all think this problem will be fixed for the Note 3 because I read the note 3 will have the strongest LTE chip available? Or will it be determined on how heavy data traffic is on your frequency?
At&t hasn't supported voice+LTE data. Its the original voice+3G data. Its not the phone.
A given market can be very large it can encompass a whole state. I work in the south texas market which is basically EVERYTHING south of killeen texas. I have driven as far as 6hrs to south padre from austin and I remain in the same market. That was almost 400 miles south. Houston is part of the same market as well as all the way to east to the border of lousiana.
rangercaptain said:
At&t hasn't supported voice+LTE data. Its the original voice+3G data. Its not the phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ranger - thanks but that doesn't explain the problems I experienced.
tramane said:
A given market can be very large it can encompass a whole state. I work in the south texas market which is basically EVERYTHING south of killeen texas. I have driven as far as 6hrs to south padre from austin and I remain in the same market. That was almost 400 miles south. Houston is part of the same market as well as all the way to east to the border of lousiana.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So how can I determine the frequency of my market to answer your original inquiry??