Related
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..
Does the GSM Nexus Prime do 4g speeds, or only 3g? I'm finding mixed information when I search for an answer.
The GSM model supports HSPA, HSDPA, and HSUPA, so yes, it supports things that fall under the 4G title.
Ok, I was under the impression the things you listed have been available for a while and were available as far back as the Nexus One. Am I mistaken here? The target network would be T-Mobile, if that helps.
My post may have been a bit confusing ^_^
HSPA+, both which the Galaxy Nexus GSM supports, are the "4G" technologies, with HSPA+ being closer to "real 4G". It ALSO supports HSDPA and HSUPA which is the 3G technology.
Ok, so it sounds like it'll go faster than my N1 then. For some reason I thought the N1 did HSPA+, but I think I was confused. Thanks.
harfdorf said:
Ok, so it sounds like it'll go faster than my N1 then. For some reason I thought the N1 did HSPA+, but I think I was confused. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
N1 does not have HSPA+. It tops out at 3.6mbps on the downlink. By a similar token, the GSM SGN doesn't have 4G. I've used HSPA+ and I have an LTE device. I've seen LTE hit 60Mpbs, with a 30Mb upload, with lower latency throughout. That's not even the fastest speed the phone's baseband is capable of.
It murders the battery, though. While HSPA isn't 4G, I don't think the extra "g" is worth halving the battery life.
UMTS = 3G, HSDPA = 3.5G/2M, HSUPA = 3.75G/5.76M and HSPA+ = 4G Technology whiles speed upto 21M.
I get great 4G speeds in Scottsdale, AZ
HSPA+ is NOT 4G. It never will be. According to the official definition of 4G the closest we have right now is LTE which technically isn't 4G either. Carriers are using the term 4G so loosely. Look at Sprint and Wimax and Ma Bell and T-Mobile with HSPA+ carriers are using the term to denote something new and to the average consumer it doesn't make a difference .. but when you get technical there is a HUGE difference.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
LTE-Advanced, which is not even in use anywhere on this planet except maybe in research labs, is the first true fourth-generation wireless technology.
Everything else is 3G, no matter what the dumbass carriers say.
synaesthetic said:
LTE-Advanced, which is not even in use anywhere on this planet except maybe in research labs, is the first true fourth-generation wireless technology.
Everything else is 3G, no matter what the dumbass carriers say.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LTE-Advanced will rule
harfdorf said:
Does the GSM Nexus Prime do 4g speeds, or only 3g? I'm finding mixed information when I search for an answer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yes. Up to 21mbit
Sent from my GSM Galaxy Nexus on TMoUS using Tapatalk
My own personal definition goes by putting up new hardware technology towers. So we had 2g gsm and edge, then put up new hardware on the towers for 3g umts with hspa added as a software upgrade to the base stations. Then new hardware again had to be put up for lte or wimax.
To me each new physical hardware jump is what should count as a new generation.
To those saying only LTE is the closest to 4G, thats not entirely true.
The ITU has modified their definition of what falls under 4G to include WiMax, HSPA+, etc.
http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2010/48.aspx
Following a detailed evaluation against stringent technical and operational criteria, ITU has determined that “LTE-Advanced” and “WirelessMAN-Advanced” should be accorded the official designation of IMT-Advanced. As the most advanced technologies currently defined for global wireless mobile broadband communications, IMT-Advanced is considered as “4G”, although it is recognized that this term, while undefined, may also be applied to the forerunners of these technologies, LTE and WiMax, and to other evolved 3G technologies providing a substantial level of improvement in performance and capabilities with respect to the initial third generation systems now deployed. The detailed specifications of the IMT-Advanced technologies will be provided in a new ITU-R Recommendation expected in early 2012.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
synaesthetic said:
LTE-Advanced, which is not even in use anywhere on this planet except maybe in research labs, is the first true fourth-generation wireless technology.
Everything else is 3G, no matter what the dumbass carriers say.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the carriers aren't dumb, the consumer that believes the carrier is dumb. The carriers market lies because we accept it.... just sayin
Both phones set to CDMA EVDO only, no LTE radios active. Location is 3G EHRPD enabled, but does not have any 4G towers for miles. I held both phones the exact same way in the exact same location within 30 seconds of each other to record my results.
Signal Test:
Galaxy Nexus 3G Signal Strength: 0-1 bars, -120dbm 99 asu - -100dbm 1 asu
Thunderbolt 3G Signal Strength: 1-3 bars, -94dbm 2 asu - -85dbm 2 asu
Bandwidth Test:
Galaxy Nexus 3G Bandwidth: 0.86mbps down, 0.54mbps up
Thunderbolt 3G Bandwidth: 2.94mbps down, 0.56mbps up
Bandwidth test was the best of 3 runs using www.speakeasy.net/speedtest connecting to New York, NY. Current location is central NJ.
My Galaxy Nexus is running stock 4.0.4 with the newest radios and bootloader, along with Imo's kernel 2.4.1 exp2.
Honestly, after having my Thunderbolt for 8 months, coming to this supposed better phone and having these kind of radio problems is just appalling. The Thunderbolt was always railed for being the pioneer of LTE radios, and for getting weak signal. Well after these tests I am not sure what to believe besides the truth that is sitting in front of me. My brand spanking new Google phone has by far the worst radio I've ever seen in a Verizon smartphone.
I'm going to be hopeful in getting an update that may resolve these radio issues, but the realist in me tells me this is 100% hardware.
I'd like to get some results from other Verizon Galaxy Nexus users running 3G to see what kind of dbm and bar signal, as well as what kind of bandwidth you guys are getting. I am very disappointed and want to know if it's a hardware defect or if this phones radios' really are this bad
Meh. The Qualcomm radios in both of these phones are in fact ****. I think the build of the Galaxy Nexus (whether it be physical or software) has something to do with it. Maybe Samsung herp derped the position of the radios or Google took a **** on the blobs.
Regardless, its a great phone and still gets better data speeds than every other carrier and phone. -coughs- iPhone users -coughs-
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using XDA
Except it doesn't get the best data speeds of any other phones, as my test results conclude.
Even on 4G I've nabbed 40mbps down 15mbps up bandwidth tests on that same exact Thunderbolt when I was in a good signal 4G area. How much have most GN users hit on 4G? 30mbps down?
This phone is a great micro-tablet, but as a phone it is heavily lacking.
DaRkL3AD3R said:
Except it doesn't get the best data speeds of any other phones, as my test results conclude.
Even on 4G I've nabbed 40mbps down 15mbps up bandwidth tests on that same exact Thunderbolt when I was in a good signal 4G area. How much have most GN users hit on 4G? 30mbps down?
This phone is a great micro-tablet, but as a phone it is heavily lacking.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Really, cause I have seen people getting upwards of 50mb/s on the Nexus (seems like most of them live in NYC).
Not to mention I was talking about people on other carriers.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using XDA
Other carriers is a given, but that really isn't what the point of this comparison is. The point is I'm holding two phones on the same carrier, at the same time, the same way, and one performs multitudes greater performance than the other. Has nothing to do with other carriers.
Fact is this phones radio is junk. You can have a quad core 1080p Super AMOLED Plus screen and 2GB of RAM, the best GPU on the market and 128GB of space, but if it can't hold a signal to save YOUR life, then what good is it at as a phone?
Samsung/Google needs to get on this right now and fix this phones radio. I'm just worried that it can't be fixed through a software OTA...
And I'd also like some speed comparisons, namely 3G, from other Verizon GN users if possible please.
On 3g i used to get about -75 at worst with thunderbolt at my house. Currently getting -93 at best with two different galaxy nexus. Usually worse. Used to have a stable 4g signal too. Now it drops after a few seconds
johnprevite said:
On 3g i used to get about -75 at worst with thunderbolt at my house. Currently getting -93 at best with two different galaxy nexus. Usually
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That sounds about right... very disappointed in these radios.
I get the same -120dbm, 99asu with my Nexus at home, where I would get around 95dbm on my old Tbolt. I think the antenna/radio gives up signal quicker at the fringe distances faster on the Nexus - if I go into a city I get the signal strength I am supposed to get. I have a theory that part of the problem may lie with Verizon's use of old Alltel towers (I'm on the VA/NC border) - The signal in my area is consistently weak, but I've gone to other rural areas & gotten good strength. Perhaps Samsung/VZW will give us a software update on the phones...and perhaps when they upgrade our towers around here for LTE it might straighten up the tower's overall firmware...But we probably wont get LTE here until 2020.
strongergravity said:
I get the same -120dbm, 99asu with my Nexus at home, where I would get around 95dbm on my old Tbolt. I think the antenna/radio gives up signal quicker at the fringe distances faster on the Nexus - if I go into a city I get the signal strength I am supposed to get. I have a theory that part of the problem may lie with Verizon's use of old Alltel towers (I'm on the VA/NC border) - The signal in my area is consistently weak, but I've gone to other rural areas & gotten good strength. Perhaps Samsung/VZW will give us a software update on the phones...and perhaps when they upgrade our towers around here for LTE it might straighten up the tower's overall firmware...But we probably wont get LTE here until 2020.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LTE will cover Verizon's current 3G footprint by the end of 2013, FYI.
Here's hoping!
Sent from my A500 using xda premium
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.
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.