Database Users

[INFO] WiMax vs. LTE

First, this isn't one of "those" threads that just talks about "OMGZ WiMax is so much betterz kthx" it's a technical discussion, so be prepared for lots of technical jargon.
I don't really know where to start, so lets just dive right in:
Clear & Sprint - Bandwidth & an Open Relationship:
Even if LTE does end up winning in the global market, Sprint & Clear (from here on out, if I mention one, assume the other is mentioned too) can easily switch. Their 2.5Ghz spectrum is widely used worldwide for both LTE & WiMax, so not only can they easily switch in software, they will have better global roaming potential than the other big carriers here in the USA that are using 700Mhz spectrum for there nets.
Clear is running tests this year in both TD-LTE and FDD-LTE. They are clearly shaping up to be one hell of a 4G provider, and even a backbone provider with their large WiMax buildout so far done. (WiMax is a nearly perfect technology for wireless backhaul, in case you didn't know)
Also, Sprint has MASSIVE spectrum holdings in the 2.5Ghz channels, so that gives them many more advantages that I'll get into later.
Frequency, frequency, frequency!
I cannot stress how important this is! Everyone is saying how much better LTE is than WiMax because of its better building penetration & lower build out costs. Being on 700Mhz here in the USA, it will require ~1/4th of the equipment vs WiMax to get the same coverage area & building penetration.
Thats fine & dandy, until you talk global roaming. See, in the EU, LTE is actually slated for the 2.6Ghz channel, and WiMax is still on 2.5Ghz. So here in the USA, LTE probably does have an advantage coverage & cost wise to carriers, but it also hamstrings them in multiple ways. In Europe, with it on the 2.6 channel it will actually be on par if not slightly worse than WiMax coverage & penetration wise. It will also cost about the same to roll out.
Roaming:
Obviously being on 700Mhz here in the USA, people will be able to roam between Verizon & AT&T, and anyone else on that channel. The problems come when you go overseas. As mentioned above, in Europe LTE is on a completely different freq than here, so global roaming without multi-band radios is pretty much out. This increases cost for devices.
Clear will be using 2.5Ghz spectrum for LTE (should they switch) so they should be able to roam globally, although they may not. This is a HUGE advantage.
Size DOES matter!
No, you pervs, not like that.
Because of the vast spectrum that Sprint holds, they can take advantage of it and provide much higher throughput over the same technology. While VZW & AT&T are limited spectrum wise because of using 700, Sprint isn't. Most LTE carriers in the US can only offer 10Mhz channels for upload & download. This leads to the weak (relatively) speeds of 5-12Mbps down Verizon is promising at launch.
On the other hand, Clear can take advantage of all that spectrum & offer channels of anywhere from 20-40Mhz Actually, they are using paired 20Mhz channels for a total of 40Mhz throughput per connection on LTE, providing FOUR TIMES the throughput of other networks. That's how they can promise speeds of 20-70Mbps downlink. Chalk another one up for Clear.
Is It True 4G?
It depends. LTE is a true 4G standard no matter how you slice it.
WiMax-16e is what Clear currently has rolled out. It is NOT true 4G. It has most of the qualifications (full IP backbone network, etc) but it doesn't meet speed requirements. Fixed you have to (theoretically) be able to provide 1Gbps downlink & 100Mbps mobile to qualify as 4G. LTE (if you use the right frequencies & have the spectrum to provide wide enough channels) can do that. 16e can't. Enough said.
BUT! WiMax-16m (WiMax2, as it's been branded) is a true 4G standard. It was finalized as a standard this summer, and equipment providers (Alcatel-Lucent, Motorola, etc) are expected to be able to provide backend gear for it by early next year & user devices by the end of next year. This is where WiMax really can compete with LTE. Think of the WiMax to WiMax2 upgrade as the HSPA to HSPA+ rollouts going on on T-Mobile & Bell/Rogers in Canada. Another plus for WiMax 2 (16m) is that it is completely backward compatible with WiMax (16e), again just like HSPA devices are compatible with HSPA+ networks.
Other Advantages:
LTE does offer a standardized voice transmission method, whereas WiMax (2) doesn't. This is a big thing for carriers, and I'm not going to say it doesn't matter, because it does. Sprint & any other WiMax provider worldwide will have to maintain their GSM or CDMA2000 networks to keep providing voice. That also means that mobile devices will have to provide dual-mode CDMA/WiMax or GSM/WiMax chips to stay connected. This could change. They could implement it down the road, but in its current state, WiMax can't do it. OTOH, EvDo devices also have to be dual mode, since the EvDo standard that CDMA carriers chose couldn't do voice, whereas different techs (such as EvDv from Qualcomm) could do both. So it's not really new to many of them, just something to consider.
Wrapup (my opinion):
Both are great technologies if done right. Right now, WiMax has the advantage because its more rolled out & it has the spectrum available to operators to provide higher speeds. That could easily change in the future, especially if more telcos can provide larger channels for LTE to reach its full speeds. WiMax 2 could also be a game changer in the industry.
In all actuality, the technologies are almost identical. It isn't like HD-DVD vs BluRay, where there was a clearcut winner. There won't be that here, both are excellent technologies & will continue to coexist. Much like Cable vs. DSL in the landline world. WiMax offers great technology as wireless backhaul & last mile delivery for rural broadband, but is also becoming a good access technology for 4G wireless. LTE was designed by carriers & for carriers as the natural progression to HSPA to carry voice as well as data. It is an access network at heart. WiMax is more flexible, it can do access or backhaul. It really comes down to carrier choice & what freqs they have available to them.
Hope this helps clear some stuff up. I've seen a lot of uneducated posts about this & it really annoys me.
EDIT - More info:
Topography is another huge factor. For some markets LTE will be a better choice, and for others WiMax will. Again it comes down to what freqs the telcos have available to deploy on.
Also, I forgot to clarify a couple more things about Clear's LTE trials. I mentioned that they were using TD-LTE & FDD-LTE (a good article on them here). A key difference is that TD is able to be used on the same unpaired freqs as WiMax is, so where carriers that only had access to the unpaired freqs before had to go with WiMax can now go with a variation of LTE (although still not the same as the normal carriers). FDD is what most telcos already have access to today, so they are building on it. Clear has both. Another win. Clear's TD-LTE trials are using paired 10Mhz channels for a total of 20Mhz, which will provide speeds potentially faster than WiMax but slower than FDD-LTE. Their FDD-LTE trials will be using paired 20Mhz channels for 40Mhz total.
Several more good articles on the subject here, here, and here.
WiMax is currently seen as the predominant tech of choice in India because of the abundance of unpaired spectrum available there. Good articles on that here & here. Intel is a huge backer of WiMax in India as well as the US, and are offering SoC's & laptop chipsets with WiMax integrated. They are also offering standalone Mini-PCIe WiMax cards. See more info on big WiMax players in the WiMax Forum group.
I'm trying to be as unbiased as possible here & give the (dis)advantages of both techs here. There are links in defense of both techs above, and I'm not a "fanboy" for either one.

Reserved just in case.
Also, vote this to the front page if you think it's educational!

Wow, that was really well written. Bookmarked for future reference, and to share in other forums or blog posts/comments

WiMax carriers wouldn't necessarily have to carry dual-mode for voice. Why couldn't they just use a VoIP technology? Latency on WiMax in good coverage is low enough to sustain a stable and high-quality VoIP call. Even SIP traffic through a carrier-specific VPN tunnel would probably be sufficient to handle any voice demand.

afazel said:
WiMax carriers wouldn't necessarily have to carry dual-mode for voice. Why couldn't they just use a VoIP technology? Latency on WiMax in good coverage is low enough to sustain a stable and high-quality VoIP call. Even SIP traffic through a carrier-specific VPN tunnel would probably be sufficient to handle any voice demand.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's true, but like I said, there's no STANDARD for voice on WiMax. Carriers can implement their own, but it could vary between networks. As far as the IEEE standards are concerned there is no voice. On the other hand, LTE has a standard across networks.

Spectrum doesn't mean **** if you can't get connected inside. Many, many places this will be a huge issue. Even if you can get connected the signal loss will hamper bandwidth so again whats the point?
LTE is going to be the clear winner. Clear will eventually switch and the only losers will be handsets like the EVO and Eipc for anyone that is still using them with 4g in mind because inside of a couple of years I doubt they will continue to work (4g).

Aridon said:
Spectrum doesn't mean **** if you can't get connected inside. Many, many places this will be a huge issue. Even if you can get connected the signal loss will hamper bandwidth so again whats the point?
LTE is going to be the clear winner. Clear will eventually switch and the only losers will be handsets like the EVO and Eipc for anyone that is still using them with 4g in mind because inside of a couple of years I doubt they will continue to work (4g).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Youre spectrum point is only valid in the US since in other regions LTE is on a higher freq. Plus my spectrum points were all about LTE. WiMax is currently using 10Mhz channels too. I was saying that Clear's FDD-LTE trials will use 40Mhz channels. Their TD-LTE trials will be using paired 10Mhz channels for 20Mhz total.
Also, if Sprint builds the network properly (ie densely enough) then you won't have connection problems. That's the catch here in the US & why LTE will win here, but in other regions its still a fair fight.

While it's nice knowing our phones are just that little bit more "future proof",by the time any carrier has respectable lte /wimax2 networks, the majority of us would have already been upgraded to the next big thing which would have those capabilities out of the box.

from what i remember
almost all the carriers in the world (80+%) are planning to use LTE
sprint seems like the only major one that uses wimax (and planning to convert to LTE )

cLOUDFAn said:
from what i remember
almost all the carriers in the world (80+%) are planning to use LTE
sprint seems like the only major one that uses wimax (and planning to convert to LTE )
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually Yota in Russia is a major WiMax/GSM carrier & several telcos in Japan (can't remember names) are both behind WiMax. There are also several in India, which is one of the larger markets in the world.
Both will coexist happily I think. A major part of Clear's LTE trials this year are to test performance of providing both LTE & WiMax over the same channel. Another thing to consider is topography. I don't remember where I saw it but I saw a graphic that showed the range of 2.5 WiMax vs 700 LTE. Obviously the LTE provided better range, but depending on the topography WiMax can be a better option because it provides better service in dense urban areas if the network is planned right (less than 15dBm of loss from structures is a good level, 19 or 20 is the norm)

wimax in ugunda as well cool story, anyways I have a Q, the dual voice data thing, are you saying wimax wont support making calls and surfing net at the same time in the future and LTE will?

crakerjaks said:
wimax in ugunda as well cool story, anyways I have a Q, the dual voice data thing, are you saying wimax wont support making calls and surfing net at the same time in the future and LTE will?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, WiMax & LTE both support simultaneous voice & data. LTE supports it the right way, just like WCDMA/HSPA support it now.
WiMax supports it but only because it requires a dual mode radio (one for voice/EvDo, one for WiMax)
What I said means that if you have JUST an LTE connection (IE no 2G/3G/etc fallback network at all) you can make a phone call. If you have JUST a WiMax connection with no fallback network you can't make a call.
IE: WiMax is currently a data only network, like when T-Mobile launched their 3G network there was no voice coverage. Sprint could add it down the road (and probably will, if they don't switch to LTE) by using as the other poster said one of several possible VoIP options to deliver calls. LTE also uses VoIP as their call standard, since its a completely IP based backbone network like WiMax.

Aridon said:
Spectrum doesn't mean **** if you can't get connected inside. Many, many places this will be a huge issue. Even if you can get connected the signal loss will hamper bandwidth so again whats the point?
LTE is going to be the clear winner. Clear will eventually switch and the only losers will be handsets like the EVO and Eipc for anyone that is still using them with 4g in mind because inside of a couple of years I doubt they will continue to work (4g).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats true. Wimax has rolled out in Salt Lake City and its pretty much useless. It works on the main streets but as soon as you go off those,it fades fast. Inside buildings,you can rarely get a signal. It may get better,but right now the line of sight characteristics of the 2.5ghz signals are really a problem and Im not yet convinced that they can put in enough towers to overcome it.

Great OP !
...as an european, I am waiting for a nice LTE device

Great post so far - enjoying it very much.
What are your thoughts on the current Sprint WiMAX? Do you guys think the cities that are live will be kept the way they are? I remember reading somewhere when most cities are live Sprint will go back and improve the older cities so people can get more of a consistent signal. Its not WiMAX perse, its Sprint ATM.

Anybody know the energy efficiency (on the users end) of LTE, WiMax, and even HSPA+? WiMax is great even in it's US infancy, ~100 ping + 6-10Mbps down for me, but it's so much more energy inefficient compared to 3G that it's only something that I turn on if I want to tether and can connect my EVO to a power source.
Now compare that to the iPhone 4 which I also have. I don't think it's a HSPA+ phone but it can still take advantage (albeit not fully) of it if the signal is there. So I end up getting around the same ping and 4 Mbps and change on the down link. Now the thing that interests me the most is that it doesn't seem to effect the battery life as much if at all. So I actually get to enjoy the increased speed. Of course, I don't know by how much, if at all, this is effected if the phone is HSPA+ capable (20Mps+).
I know WiMax is very similar to WiFi, and we all know that WiFi is a lot nicer to the battery than 3G. So is WiMax's battery hogging maybe related to the poor coverage and can possibly be significantly improved when there's more coverage? Is anybody really, really near a tower and feel a difference?
What about LTE? Anybody from Sweden (or any other place that has LTE rolled out) here?
Edit: Now that I think of it, wouldn't LTE be better in this regard since it only has to power one radio for both voice/data?

Award Tour said:
Anybody know the energy efficiency (on the users end) of LTE, WiMax, and even HSPA+? WiMax is great even in it's US infancy, ~100 ping + 6-10Mbps down for me, but it's so much more energy inefficient compared to 3G that it's only something that I turn on if I want to tether and can connect my EVO to a power source.
Now compare that to the iPhone 4 which I also have. I don't think it's a HSPA+ phone but it can still take advantage (albeit not fully) of it if the signal is there. So I end up getting around the same ping and 4 Mbps and change on the down link. Now the thing that interests me the most is that it doesn't seem to effect the battery life as much if at all. So I actually get to enjoy the increased speed. Of course, I don't know by how much, if at all, this is effected if the phone is HSPA+ capable (20Mps+).
I know WiMax is very similar to WiFi, and we all know that WiFi is a lot nicer to the battery than 3G. So is WiMax's battery hogging maybe related to the poor coverage and can possibly be significantly improved when there's more coverage? Is anybody really, really near a tower and feel a difference?
What about LTE? Anybody from Sweden (or any other place that has LTE rolled out) here?
Edit: Now that I think of it, wouldn't LTE be better in this regard since it only has to power one radio for both voice/data?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its the phone not the network, really. ****ty battery life only gets ****tier when you are searching for a weak signal.

werxen said:
Its the phone not the network, really. ****ty battery life only gets ****tier when you are searching for a weak signal.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, but you have imagine that there are battery differences between LTE, WiMax, and HSPA+; just as there is between "2G", "3G", and WiFi

In Europe at least, LTE is pushed by a much stronger lobby and will be THE 4G standard.
It's already being deployed in Japan as well and will be in the USA. I think this is the next worldwide standard, so the prices will go down and that will leave only minor networks to Wimax as a mobility technology.
Wimax is already used in some places as a fixed internet acces (no mobility, only fixed wireless).
In France, I don't see LTE happening before 2013 because there have been many investments in the WCDMA networks so they will use HSPA+ to push and perfect the 3G network before eventually switching to LTE.

I found in the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) website a diagram about different telecom generations:
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
From: http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/imt-2000/Revised_JV/IntroducingIMT_item3.html
So the WiMAX IEEE 802.16e (and f) and LTE (3GPP Release 9) can be considered as "3.9G".
The ITU has selected two technologies for the 4G (IMT-Advanced) which are the WiMAX IEEE 802.16m and LTE-Advanced (3GPP Release 10) [url=http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/27_series/27.007/27007-a00.zip](1st Rev. zip file)[/url].
I would add also that Qualcomm who is the inventor of the CDMA technology may prefer LTE-Advanced (3GPP Release 10) over WiMAX IEEE 802.16m.
Here, a pdf presentation about the benefits of the LTE-Advanced from his website:
http://www.qualcomm.de/documents/files/lte-advanced-benefits.pdf
More info about the 4G (IMT-Advanced):
http://www.itu.int/itunews/manager/display.asp?lang=en&year=2008&issue=10&ipage=39&ext=html

AT&T's response to my BBB complaint... "they aren't capping upload speeds"..yea right

AT&T's response to my BBB complaint... "they aren't capping upload speeds"..yea right
On March 09, 2011, the business provided the following information:
AT&T Mobility Tele: 952.703.4316
Regulatory Response Team Fax: 952.703.2307
AGENCY'S NAME:
Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan
Texas COMPANY'S NAME:
AT&T
ADDRESS:
1600 Pacific Ave Suite 2800
Dallas TX 75201 ADDRESS:
Office of the President
2325 N. University
Lubbock, TX 79415
AGENCY REP: N/A COMPLAINANT'S NAME:
Keith Geissler
AGENCY'S FILE NO.:
91172869 COMPANY'S FILE NO.:
CM20110302_18007584
AT&T Mobility (AT&T) received the above-referenced customer complaint and appreciates the opportunity to respond. Specifically, Keith Geissler complains that the recently released Motorola Atrix does not offer speeds anywhere near what advertised speeds claim. He is requesting activation of 4G services and removal of the cap on the Motorola Atrix services.
Account research regarding this complaint shows that AT&T is focused on delivering a wide choice of solutions and the best possible Smartphone experience to our customers. Be assured that AT&T has not "capped" the upload speeds on the ATRIX. The ATRIX is a HSUPA-capable device, and we currently are performing the testing and preparations necessary to ensure that, when we turn this feature on, you will continue to have a world class experience.
We ask that you please keep in mind; software is only one of many factors that can affect speeds experienced. Factors such as location, time of day, network capacity and facilities, can have an impact as well. Again, in order to ensure the best possible customer experience services will become available once testing has been completed.
AT&T sincerely regrets any inconvenience this issue may have caused. Please feel free to contact me directly at 952-703-4316 if you have any additional questions or concerns in this matter.
Name: Sheila Utech, Customer Appeals Manager, Executive Response

You must not have read the letter very well, now did you?
The ATRIX is a HSUPA-capable device
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
when we turn this feature on, you will continue to have a world class experience.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

Thing is...I live in Dallas where 4G is "suppose" to be turned on.

It is not capped but we will turn it on ...SMH

I think the best idea would be to play the waiting game. Perhaps see what happens when they're finally done with the backhaul?

kgeissler said:
Thing is...I live in Dallas where 4G is "suppose" to be turned on.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Understood. However, it has been heavily discussed that HSUPA is infact DISABLED on the device its self. Hence their response.
HSPA+ is SHOWN on the device as active in all markets, however that is due to tower upgrades to reflect that... it does not mean you have HSPA+ yet if the back haul has not been upgraded to support the speeds.

PixoNova said:
I think the best idea would be to play the waiting game. Perhaps see what happens when they're finally done with the backhaul?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is likely the case. Download speeds are not capped on the phone, only limited to what the backhaul to the tower in your area can support.
That said, HSUPA is in fact disabled, so you WILL NOT see speeds above 300k/s until they enable it with a firmware upgrade (or a dev here on xda fixes it )

A read of the sentence following the one you highlighted in bold indicates AT&T admits that HSUPA is not enabled yet. I'm hearing it will be enabled in June in 7 markets. A better question to AT&T might be why are they limiting access to existing HSPDA+ today, that testing has already been done.

Jim_R said:
A read of the sentence following the one you highlighted in bold indicates AT&T admits that HSUPA is not enabled yet. I'm hearing it will be enabled in June in 7 markets.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The truth comes out... its good to know the BBB is good for something, as they couldnt just give a BS line in that response. Now we know they did infact disable it on purpose AND it will be activated.

I am still waiting on a letter from AT&T's office of the president...

it doesn't matter if you are living in a 4g zone, the fact is that the atrix won't do hsupa until an update for the phone gets released to enable it. at least they admitted that it's turned off

Op. How did you go about filling this complaint? Email? Or is there some link on the bbb site?

substance12 said:
Op. How did you go about filling this complaint? Email? Or is there some link on the bbb site?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Went here: http://www.bbb.org/
Put in my zip code, and there was a link to "file a complaint". I just put all the information in and submitted it online.

I filed a BBB complaint with this, to clear their BS responses about 4G and backhaul upgrades, which has not a single iota to do with our issue:
Currently, AT&T is disabling HSUPA and high speed internet on all smartphones EXCEPT the iPhone 4. I understand 4G is not fully deployed, I'm still trying to get 3G speeds, but this is disabled on my 1-year-old Samsung Captivate, as well as the new Atrix 4G.
This has nothing to do with network upgrades, backhauls, or 4G. I'm simply trying to get 3G speeds as the iPhone 4 has with HSUPA. This was maliciously, and intentionally, disabled by AT&T on all non-Apple phones.
I can take my wife's iPhone 4, put it next to my Atrix or Captivate, run speeds tests, and the iPhone will be 2-4x faster. They are intentionally disabling HSUPA on Android phones, to preserve some notion of "upscale" on the iPhone 4, and this is fraudulent, and false advertising, as the specifications for both the Captivate and the Atrix say it has HSUPA, which is high-speed upload on 3G.
Again, this has NOTHING to do with 4G, or the network upgrades. I just want to get what I pay/paid for, and many of us are finding out that if you take a Captivate and experiment with the Bell Canada software for the modem, it enables the high-speed data, again NOT 4G, just like the iPhone 4, which is NOT a 4G device.
That experiment alone proves AT&T is deliberately and maliciously handicapping non-Apple smartphones.
I pay JUST AS MUCH every month for data as iPhone owners do, so it's not fair that they get 4 times the speed that I do, when the current 3G towers are more than capable of HSUPA.

Everyone should go to bbb.org and file a complaint and state specifically that the iPhone 4 works as HSUPA capable, the Atrix should as well since it is advertised as such.
Sharkonwheels said:
I filed a BBB complaint with this, to clear their BS responses about 4G and backhaul upgrades, which has not a single iota to do with our issue:
Currently, AT&T is disabling HSUPA and high speed internet on all smartphones EXCEPT the iPhone 4. I understand 4G is not fully deployed, I'm still trying to get 3G speeds, but this is disabled on my 1-year-old Samsung Captivate, as well as the new Atrix 4G.
This has nothing to do with network upgrades, backhauls, or 4G. I'm simply trying to get 3G speeds as the iPhone 4 has with HSUPA. This was maliciously, and intentionally, disabled by AT&T on all non-Apple phones.
I can take my wife's iPhone 4, put it next to my Atrix or Captivate, run speeds tests, and the iPhone will be 2-4x faster. They are intentionally disabling HSUPA on Android phones, to preserve some notion of "upscale" on the iPhone 4, and this is fraudulent, and false advertising, as the specifications for both the Captivate and the Atrix say it has HSUPA, which is high-speed upload on 3G.
Again, this has NOTHING to do with 4G, or the network upgrades. I just want to get what I pay/paid for, and many of us are finding out that if you take a Captivate and experiment with the Bell Canada software for the modem, it enables the high-speed data, again NOT 4G, just like the iPhone 4, which is NOT a 4G device.
That experiment alone proves AT&T is deliberately and maliciously handicapping non-Apple smartphones.
I pay JUST AS MUCH every month for data as iPhone owners do, so it's not fair that they get 4 times the speed that I do, when the current 3G towers are more than capable of HSUPA.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

I find it odd that AT&T is still sucking so hard on the teets of Apple. Apple was literally waiting for the day to leave AT&T and join other carriers. And through all the years I was with AT&T they gave me crap service because I had a smartphone that didn't start with an "i".
What they NEED to be doing is focusing MORE on us Android users like Verizon did with theirs while they didn't have the iPhone. Because eventually iPhone users are going to want better service (drop calls much?) and potentially migrate to Verizon. Then all AT&T will have left is bitter Android users waiting for their contracts to expire.
Thank God I bailed on AT&T. In a strange twist for me is that my download speeds on Sprint sometimes aren't as high as my upload o_0. No matter since I still get over 1500kbps both ways.
edit: Man this thread is on every major tech blog now

leadguy68 said:
Understood. However, it has been heavily discussed that HSUPA is infact DISABLED on the device its self. Hence their response.
HSPA+ is SHOWN on the device as active in all markets, however that is due to tower upgrades to reflect that... it does not mean you have HSPA+ yet if the back haul has not been upgraded to support the speeds.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The fact "H+" is shown has nothing to do with towers or markets.
by looking through the framework images (shown below), they have completely replaced the 3G or H (without a Plus next to it) with an "H+" icon.
So it doesn't matter if you are on 3G, HSPA, or HSPA+, it will display "H+"
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
notice the lack or "3G" or "H"

Sharkonwheels said:
I filed a BBB complaint with this, to clear their BS responses about 4G and backhaul upgrades, which has not a single iota to do with our issue:
Currently, AT&T is disabling HSUPA and high speed internet on all smartphones EXCEPT the iPhone 4. I understand 4G is not fully deployed, I'm still trying to get 3G speeds, but this is disabled on my 1-year-old Samsung Captivate, as well as the new Atrix 4G.
This has nothing to do with network upgrades, backhauls, or 4G. I'm simply trying to get 3G speeds as the iPhone 4 has with HSUPA. This was maliciously, and intentionally, disabled by AT&T on all non-Apple phones.
I can take my wife's iPhone 4, put it next to my Atrix or Captivate, run speeds tests, and the iPhone will be 2-4x faster. They are intentionally disabling HSUPA on Android phones, to preserve some notion of "upscale" on the iPhone 4, and this is fraudulent, and false advertising, as the specifications for both the Captivate and the Atrix say it has HSUPA, which is high-speed upload on 3G.
Again, this has NOTHING to do with 4G, or the network upgrades. I just want to get what I pay/paid for, and many of us are finding out that if you take a Captivate and experiment with the Bell Canada software for the modem, it enables the high-speed data, again NOT 4G, just like the iPhone 4, which is NOT a 4G device.
That experiment alone proves AT&T is deliberately and maliciously handicapping non-Apple smartphones.
I pay JUST AS MUCH every month for data as iPhone owners do, so it's not fair that they get 4 times the speed that I do, when the current 3G towers are more than capable of HSUPA.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is great! Wish i would have had this earlier today when i filed my bbb complaint and called att to complain. Im gonna use your words next time i have this conveersation.

mburris said:
The fact "H+" is shown has nothing to do with towers or markets.
by looking through the framework images (shown below), they have completely replaced the 3G or H (without a Plus next to it) with an "H+" icon.
So it doesn't matter if you are on 3G, HSPA, or HSPA+, it will display "H+"
notice the lack or "3G" or "H"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow that is unethical! So we will never know the truth running att/moto firmware!?

Somewhat depressing since it was more of a case of..oops we got caught what can we tell them now. Now we all get to wonder how long are they going to make us wait till we can get this update that they are "testing".. I certainly hope it is soon since it is depressing that the 4g phone is slower than now 4g branded devices.
Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk

Clear Says It Can Achieve 90Mbps Downstream via LTE -- And LightSquared Is Involved

Interesting...
http://www.dailywireless.org/2011/03/08/another-rumor-lightsquared-sprint/
Looks like Sprint and LightSquared might be linking up to provide LTE over S's existing spectrum.
Meanwhile, in the same article, it seems that Clear is also looking at converting their towers to LTE base-stations, with the ability to deliver 90Mbps (in un-congested cells) downstream (the carrier in Japan that's getting the EVO said their WiMax network was going to deliver similar capability).
So, is it a done deal: Sprint to LTE (with some spectrum at 2.5GHz standardized around the world), with Clear's network augmenting and providing density?
Also interesting: Best Buy is buying wholesale access from LightSquared -
http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/23/best-buy-signs-up-for-lightsquareds-wholesale-lte-service/
Looks like a very fast, and very LTE future for S. Anyone up for an EVO 5LTE?

really interesting so their not using the 700 mhz band like verizon theyre using the 2.5ghz isnt that bad because it cant penetrate buildings as easily?

Halabeaster54 said:
really interesting so their not using the 700 mhz band like verizon theyre using the 2.5ghz isnt that bad because it cant penetrate buildings as easily?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Verizon has bought all the good spectrums
A drop of Chuck Norris's semen was placed on Android OS. We now have CyanogenMod.

Lightsquared I believe owns spectrum in the 1400-1500mhz frequencies. If they are going to use Clear's 2500mhz frequency to augment and help with capacity that sounds like a plan.
Edit - article states lightsquared owns spectrum in the 1600mhz frequency. That's still much better than Clear's 2500mhz, and Sprint was able to build their PCS network with 1900mhz frequency.
Sent from my ADR6400L using XDA App

That 2.5GHz band is apparently a world-standard. Maybe they have to bump up the wattage to get better penetration into dense buildings?
I was reading a couple of other articles and they are suggesting that Sprint might be talking about acquiring LightSquared. They apparently will be doing some network-sharing definitely.
http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/report-lightsquared-talks-sprint-network-sharing-deal/2011-02-23
And interestingly in this ^^^ same article, Dan Hesse is saying that actual field deployment of LTE in their eight largest metro areas will start in the "August timeframe." What??!!
That's interesting to me, because that dude BSOD over at the Android Forums said that the new EVO 3D would be WiMax- and LTE-capable. Makes me wonder if there's a little trick hidden up the EVO 3D's sleeve -- WiMax AND LTE capability -- that Sprint is being coy about right now...

TonyArmstrong said:
That 2.5GHz band is apparently a world-standard. Maybe they have to bump up the wattage to get better penetration into dense buildings?
I was reading a couple of other articles and they are suggesting that Sprint might be talking about acquiring LightSquared. They apparently will be doing some network-sharing definitely.
http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/report-lightsquared-talks-sprint-network-sharing-deal/2011-02-23
And interestingly in this ^^^ same article, Dan Hesse is saying that actual field deployment of LTE in their eight largest metro areas will start in the "August timeframe." What??!!
That's interesting to me, because that dude BSOD over at the Android Forums said that the new EVO 3D would be WiMax- and LTE-capable. Makes me wonder if there's a little trick hidden up the EVO 3D's sleeve -- WiMax AND LTE capability -- that Sprint is being coy about right now...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is rumored that the Evo 3D is both WiMax/LTE capable.

TonyArmstrong said:
And interestingly in this ^^^ same article, Dan Hesse is saying that actual field deployment of LTE in their eight largest metro areas will start in the "August timeframe." What??!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Haha, I just totally went to Wikipedia to see where San Diego was on the list of largest U.S. cities. #8.
I'm really hoping that Sprint does start to move to LTE soon, as it seems like the spread of WiMax has either slowed to a crawl, or completely stopped. Not really a point in having a 4G phone, if you're never going to get the 4G that your phone has a radio for.
That said, I really hope the E3D is WiMax/LTE...it's the only phone I've seen so far that I will trade my EVO for.

DirtyShroomz said:
It is rumored that the Evo 3D is both WiMax/LTE capable.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly. But no one is talking about it right now.
Kinda makes me think that Sprint has an "October Surprise" of its own planned.

once we get a tear down of this phone we can know for sure what it has in it.

blackroseMD1 said:
Haha, I just totally went to Wikipedia to see where San Diego was on the list of largest U.S. cities. #8.
I'm really hoping that Sprint does start to move to LTE soon, as it seems like the spread of WiMax has either slowed to a crawl, or completely stopped. Not really a point in having a 4G phone, if you're never going to get the 4G that your phone has a radio for.
That said, I really hope the E3D is WiMax/LTE...it's the only phone I've seen so far that I will trade my EVO for.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I hope Los Angeles gets it. Plenty cities got WiMAX before Los Angeles, which I found odd considering LA is one of the largest metropolitan areas in the country. Of course, LA is also very spread out, whereas other major metropolitan centers are more compact (see: New York City). Here's hoping for some lovely LTE on our new Evo 3Ds.

I'm still trying to figure out what all the hype about LTE is over. Sure Clear's spectrum sucks for building penetration and their bandwidth is way to small at 10MHz but how would using LTE make it any better?
This may be slightly off topic since I know light squared is bringing more spectrum to the table, but I'm seriously confused about it all.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA Premium App

xHausx said:
I'm still trying to figure out what all the hype about LTE is over. Sure Clear's spectrum sucks for building penetration and their bandwidth is way to small at 10MHz but how would using LTE make it any better?
This may be slightly off topic since I know light squared is bringing more spectrum to the table, but I'm seriously confused about it all.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lightsquared has a lot of Spectrum in the 1600mhz spectrum. With the rumors of them partnering with Sprint on the Network Vision/Project Leapfrog buildout, they will put their equipment on Sprint's towers. This helps with the speed of the build out, and building penetration won't be as much of an issue as 2500mhz Wimax. Most of Sprint's towers were spaced for 1900mhz (they didn't have 800mhz until acquiring Nextel), so I would assume 1600mhz LTE should be fine for indoor use.
Sent from my ADR6400L using XDA App

Yay lets achieve 90mbps in areas that already have 4G and not roll it out to the little guys who still can't get 4G(very populated area). Sprints network blows.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA Premium App

blackroseMD1 said:
Haha, I just totally went to Wikipedia to see where San Diego was on the list of largest U.S. cities. #8.
I'm really hoping that Sprint does start to move to LTE soon, as it seems like the spread of WiMax has either slowed to a crawl, or completely stopped. Not really a point in having a 4G phone, if you're never going to get the 4G that your phone has a radio for.
That said, I really hope the E3D is WiMax/LTE...it's the only phone I've seen so far that I will trade my EVO for.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
totalanonymity said:
I hope Los Angeles gets it. Plenty cities got WiMAX before Los Angeles, which I found odd considering LA is one of the largest metropolitan areas in the country. Of course, LA is also very spread out, whereas other major metropolitan centers are more compact (see: New York City). Here's hoping for some lovely LTE on our new Evo 3Ds.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think the operative term is "their eight largest" metropolitan areas -- meaning the eight markets that have the most Sprint customers, regardless their place in the overall largest metro areas. I assume that Sprint's 8 largest markets are roughly similar to the largest metro areas overall.
Hopefully, we'll all be benefiting from dramatically faster mobile broadband speeds.

Sprint's 4G solution is at a crawl or complete stop, because that's exactly what happened. The rollout is at a complete stop, and both companies still are not at an agreement. The ones who are still committed to Clear stopped investing, and it's just a mess. Sprint wants Clear to join their Network Vision, which would save both companies billions of dollars. This is the holdup on Sprint's decision towards LTE. Lightsquared is ready to use their Network Vision, and will pay Sprint for it. Clear better make their decision quick, or other companies will help Sprint make the decision soon.
The 8 largest metropolitan cities that Hesse was talking about was their multi-mode towers, and nothing more. Sprint have "soft" LTE markets, but nothing close to launch. Clear is holding **** up.
As for the EVO 3D having Beceem's BCS500 chip, which will be the first of its kind and not even in mass production, is driving me up the wall. That and a firmware, not hardware revisions, will make their old 4G capable devices run LTE. People don't think for themselves anymore. MSM8660 is not LTE-capable or 1X- Advanced/SVDO ready, but if BSOD said it, it's true. I guess I have to find the secret Sim Card later on today.

Don't be so quick to jump on the Lightsquared bandwagon. They will soon be shutdown by the FCC and FAA if they can't solve the bleed over problem. Seems their tech interferes with GPS and WAAS receivers making them a danger to aviation and air traffic control. During tests an aircraft within 15 miles of their towers have had total GPS failure. They've been working on it for a while but haven't been able to fix it. Now they are trying to blame the GPS manufacturers, but it is a spectrum issue and the FAA may force the FCC to block the spectrum if they can't solve their noise bleedover problem into the GPS spectrum.

TonyArmstrong said:
Interesting...
http://www.dailywireless.org/2011/03/08/another-rumor-lightsquared-sprint/
Looks like Sprint and LightSquared might be linking up to provide LTE over S's existing spectrum.
Meanwhile, in the same article, it seems that Clear is also looking at converting their towers to LTE base-stations, with the ability to deliver 90Mbps (in un-congested cells) downstream (the carrier in Japan that's getting the EVO said their WiMax network was going to deliver similar capability).
So, is it a done deal: Sprint to LTE (with some spectrum at 2.5GHz standardized around the world), with Clear's network augmenting and providing density?
Also interesting: Best Buy is buying wholesale access from LightSquared -
http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/23/best-buy-signs-up-for-lightsquareds-wholesale-lte-service/
Looks like a very fast, and very LTE future for S. Anyone up for an EVO 5LTE?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Doubt sprint moves fully to a LTE only network anytime in the near future.
Check out this video with the Clearwire CTO discussing the LTE trials.
http://www.lightreading.com/video.asp?doc_id=205968&
He clearly talks about how they are looking at doing both. He also says their trails will not be done for a few more months.
The good thing is the speed he reports being able to get is outstanding!

a couple points of clarification;
Re in-building penetration at 2.5 GHz. This is a major downside to using 2.5GHz frequencies, but part of the advantage to network vision is that Sprint will be able to use various technologies at different frequencies. So they'll be able to run WiMax and / or LTE at the 1.9 GHz frequencies that are currently used for CDMA / EVDO, and eventually even at the 800 MHz frequencies currently used by the iDEN network (current PTT users will need to be migrated to next-generation PTT on CDMA before that spectrum can be used for other technologies. The upside to 2.5 GHz is the amount of Bandwidth Sprint's got there. Prior to the Sprint / Nextel merger, each company had enough bandwidth on it's own to run a nationwide 4G network at 2.5GHz (Nextel even trialed a Flash-OFDM based network for a while in 2003/2004, but the technology wasn't ready yet and the real-world performance was not any faster than 3G).
Regarding bandwidth, Sprint / Clear has an average of 120 MHz of bandwidth at 2.5GHz, not 10 MHz. Some of that may be Sprint's and some may be Clears, but my understanding is that most of that is owned by Clear as that bandwidth constituted the bulk of Sprint's investment in Clear. Either company should be able make use of plenty of spectrum at 2.5 GHZ for whatever purposes they deem worthy, assuming they can work out their pricing arguments. Some articles that came out a couple of weeks ago (I think one was in the Wall Street Journal, among other financial sites) made it sound like they're close to hashing out some sort of agreement, and that Clear will have the cash it needs this spring. Can't happen soon enough if you ask me.
And lastly, there's no way Sprint would move to LTE exclusively. The new multi-modal towers make it very easy to deploy multiple technology side by side. Since the network format will be decoupled from network hardware, running a new network on the same tower is as easy as pushing a software update out to the tower. There's no need to uninstall the old technology to enable new technology. Sprint's got too many 4G customers already on board to make them all migrate to a new technology, and Hesse has publicly stated that Sprint's future in 4G will include WiMax regardless of whatever else may be offered.

cruise350 said:
Don't be so quick to jump on the Lightsquared bandwagon. They will soon be shutdown by the FCC and FAA if they can't solve the bleed over problem. Seems their tech interferes with GPS and WAAS receivers making them a danger to aviation and air traffic control. During tests an aircraft within 15 miles of their towers have had total GPS failure. They've been working on it for a while but haven't been able to fix it. Now they are trying to blame the GPS manufacturers, but it is a spectrum issue and the FAA may force the FCC to block the spectrum if they can't solve their noise bleedover problem into the GPS spectrum.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you have any articles about the bleed over? I'd love to read more into this.

SilverStone641 said:
Do you have any articles about the bleed over? I'd love to read more into this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
dude who do you get your internet service from to get that speed in your sig? I know PSINET went under long ago in '01 i think so speedtest is reporting the isp wront on the result there.

Here it comes... WiMAX 2.0

Read here:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/15/wimax-2-standard-and-its-theoretical-1gbps-downloads-to-be-fin/
Notice the second to last line. So it seems like for those of you that are deciding to keep off the Evo 3D bandwagon for this year (and maybe wait for some quad core action next year ) and are still clinging to your Evo's next year, you might see some 100megs down, that is, if Sprint decides to show your town a little love.

Omg if this is real...i just got a boner
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA Premium App

If I were Sprint I would be investing in this ASAP [as long as the lower bands are allowed to be used]

Yeah that's going to be sweet. Sprint is going to have a huge head start and if they plan right and upgrade towers quickly they may be able to get alot of customers back from Verizon. Wimax 2 WILL also be compatible with the Evo 3D because it will use the exact same Wimax chip (although from the article ANY original wimax chip will work). Hopefully Sprint will jump on this and start to truly shine as a stupid-fast, reliable, UNLIMITED network.

What all of you are missing is the bandwidth isn't true and can't reach those speeds IN ANY FORM or way. The max that can goto almost any tower are 100Mb connections. You would have to have 4-7 fibers going to EACH TOWER in order to reach those speeds.
Also what you're also forgetting is that they are "leasing" the bandwidth from the cable/phone providers. Certain states like FL, texas, and others with data centers will be the only ones reaching these speeds. However, it is very sad that we can get faster speeds with our mobile than we can with our hardwire connections directly to our house. lol

runcool said:
What all of you are missing is the bandwidth isn't true and can't reach those speeds IN ANY FORM or way. The max that can goto almost any tower are 100Mb connections. You would have to have 4-7 fibers going to EACH TOWER in order to reach those speeds.
Also what you're also forgetting is that they are "leasing" the bandwidth from the cable/phone providers. Certain states like FL, texas, and others with data centers will be the only ones reaching these speeds. However, it is very sad that we can get faster speeds with our mobile than we can with our hardwire connections directly to our house. lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh no, ONLY 100mbit / second?
Why would they even bother?

I wouldn't expect to see this until like 2012(late) at least.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA Premium App

I know I didn't word it right. but remember. it is a shared connection. with lots of people abusing the speeds. no caps on sprints networks for at least now. lol. BUT I do predict that they will attempt to prevent us from mod'ing our phones. hahahahahaha. *rolls over laughing*

runcool said:
I know I didn't word it right. but remember. it is a shared connection. with lots of people abusing the speeds. no caps on sprints networks for at least now. lol. BUT I do predict that they will attempt to prevent us from mod'ing our phones. hahahahahaha. *rolls over laughing*
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Uh, what in the fun are you talking about?
Mod Edit

Check the post date of that article.
August 15th 2010
WiMax 2 has been in the works for a while. Just like LTE has an upgrade future. Both are moving forward to true 4G speeds.

SSjon said:
Check the post date of that article.
August 15th 2010
WiMax 2 has been in the works for a while. Just like LTE has an upgrade future. Both are moving forward to true 4G speeds.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I read it, but I'm saying for it to become available(for most of the country) I said probably end of 2012. Sprints only going to kick this off in certain areas like with regular wimax(which still isn't available in all major cities yet).
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA Premium App

If Sprint continues to roll with WIMAX, they'd become the black sheep and alienate themselves.
Sprint should make the hop to LTE; The customers would benefit from it more-so by being able to roam on Verizons LTE network.

They are taking forever in Jersey, killin me
@ EVO FRESH

SSjon said:
Check the post date of that article.
August 15th 2010
WiMax 2 has been in the works for a while. Just like LTE has an upgrade future. Both are moving forward to true 4G speeds.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ya this is an older article, but I posted it because it gives facts about they new network. The technology was finally approved today. The article about it is on the main page of engadget.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

goodboynyc said:
If Sprint continues to roll with WIMAX, they'd become the black sheep and alienate themselves.
Sprint should make the hop to LTE; The customers would benefit from it more-so by being able to roam on Verizons LTE network.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In sn interview Dan Hesse said a third of Sprints operating cost was going to back haul fees for using Verizon and at&ts networks. The last thing they probably want is to start roaming on versions network at 10Mbs.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA Premium App

goodboynyc said:
If Sprint continues to roll with WIMAX, they'd become the black sheep and alienate themselves.
Sprint should make the hop to LTE; The customers would benefit from it more-so by being able to roam on Verizons LTE network.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yet again after all the lengthy discussion this topic has had we still get ignotant comments like the one above. Sprint simply switching to LTE will NOT solve the coverage and building pen. problems currently seen with WiMax. Again its based on the Freq band. If they put WiMax on Nextel old freq when its finally put to rest then we'd be getting the same coverage VZ's LTE network would be getting as the building pen on the lower band is much greater.
WiMax isn't going anywhere so just get used to it. I dont expect Sprints 4G to increase and get better till they have taken all the Nextel service off that Freq and can then make their use of that freq with what they want. Likely with Clearwire doing LTE on that and using WiMax and LTE both which will be easy to employ with their network upgrade they are cuttently doing.
The reason I say LTE on the old Freq is because currently WiMax isn't provisioned to work on that freq and is only provisioned for 2.3 GHz, 2.5 GHz and 3.5 GHz currently. But I would think that once that 800MHz freq opens up with Nextel being off it, that sprint/clearwire could get it provisioned for that Freq.

ready by the end of 2012?? the world won't even be here!
mfw how convenient...
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}

This is my final post for this section, as I'm typing the same **** over and over again, only for it to be ignored. Months passed, as it's a new thread with the same **** I've wrote months ago. Sprint's frequency is the sole reason as to why the building penetration isn't up to stuff, not the technology. LTE IS NOT THE REASON VERIZON'S 4G HAS BETTER BUILDING PENETRATION, IT'S THE FREQUENCY. Multi-mode towers will solve that problem.
Sprint's frequency is not the reason the speeds are ****. The speeds are **** because their 4G strategy is at a standstill. Not only is every current 4G tower in every city suppose to be upgraded, they were to blanket those cities with more towers. If Orlando have 13 towers spread throughout the city, Clearwire was to upgrade those towers, while increasing the total to 20. Clear didn't drop the ball, they punted it out the stadium. Best solution for both parties is for Clear to officially switch to Sprint's Network Vision, and also support Sprint's drive for LTE. Both already have LTE soft markets, but it needs to be made official for the public to know. Another solution is to switch their current WiMax solution to 802.16e Enhanced, while increasing the bandwidth to 20MHz.
Anyway, that's it from me. Go back to arguing with trolls who mentions Sprint more than Hesse himself, but obviously hate the company. It's entertaining.

popular nobody said:
This is my final post for this section, as I'm typing the same **** over and over again, only for it to be ignored. Months passed, as it's a new thread with the same **** I've wrote months ago. Sprint's frequency is the sole reason as to why the building penetration isn't up to stuff, not the technology. LTE IS NOT THE REASON VERIZON'S 4G HAS BETTER BUILDING PENETRATION, IT'S THE FREQUENCY. Multi-mode towers will solve that problem.
Sprint's frequency is not the reason the speeds are ****. The speeds are **** because their 4G strategy is at a standstill. Not only is every current 4G tower in every city suppose to be upgraded, they were to blanket those cities with more towers. If Orlando have 13 towers spread throughout the city, Clearwire was to upgrade those towers, while increasing the total to 20. Clear didn't drop the ball, they punted it out the stadium. Best solution for both parties is for Clear to officially switch to Sprint's Network Vision, and also support Sprint's drive for LTE. Both already have LTE soft markets, but it needs to made official for the public to know. Another solution is to switch their current WiMax solution to 802.16e Enhanced, while increasing the bandwidth to 20MHz.
Anyway, that's it from me. Go back to arguing with trolls who mentions Sprint more than Hesse himself, but obviously hate the company. It's entertaining.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA Premium App

God damn, I get tired of reading posts by people who obviously gained all of their knowledge by skimming articles and parroting what others have said, as opposed to doing any real research or reading.

Which Carrier Do You Have?

Just wondering which carrier people are using. I have Verizon, but thinking of jumping ship because of the whole bootloader thing. Unfortunately, it seems like they are the fastest and in the most markets. Here's what I've come up with...
Verizon: Fastest carrier and in the most markets in the US. Unfortunately, bootloader is locked.
AT&T: Second choice because they have 4g deployed in many markets.
Sprint: It's a gamble because they are going through a huge upgrade with their network. Don't have 4g widely deployed, but they say they will in the future.
T-Mobile: Quick speeds, but not widely deployed.
I'd love to get people's opinion and which carrier they have.

http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1755931

Please DO NOT USE THE POLL!!!
I was stupid and didn't see the other poll. Don't want to duplicate results.
Mods, please remove this. It seems like I can only edit the post and not delete it.
Thanks and sorry about that!

Videotron.

If you plan on making a long-term switch:
Verizon - Verizon will always stay the fastest. They will most likely be first to deploy LTE-Advanced (gigabit/s 4G) on the best spectrum (700mhz). This means fastest speeds + best LTE-Adv coverage.
AT&T - Never considered or would consider. Slow 3G in areas without LTE. I'm not sure about their LTE-Adv plans or what spectrums they currently and will use.
Sprint - Sprint's 3G network is fairly slow in some areas, but can also be up to par with Verizon in others. They use the 1900mhz spectrum but have 3G in most areas so it doesn't really matter. In areas where sprint doesn't have 3G, verizon likely only has 2G or even nothing. You can roam on Verizon's 2G for free if you have Sprint. Basically, coverage is not an issue but you may have slow 3G speeds. Later this year Sprint plans to begin switching 3G to 800mhz, according to wikipedia. This means better speeds which is great and more coverage (although not an issue really).
Now, let's talk 4G. Sprint plans to deploy LTE on the 1900mhz spectrum also which is decent but still means good coverage if they will be able to set up enough towers. Speed would be around what Verizon's LTE offers but probably a little worse. They also plan to move LTE to the 800mhz spectrum in 2014 which means tower range, penetration, and speed on par with Verizon.
I'm not clear on the details and I don't even know if anyone knows yet, but their LTE-Adv. network will supposedly be deployed on 2500mhz which would be terrible and mean no real (non-spotty) coverage unless in huge cities. We know this from sprint's past mistake of putting WiMax on 2500mhz. For reference, 2500mhz coverage is like WiFi but a little more. I'm pretty sure the source I heard this from was wrong and Sprint won't make this mistake again.
What would make more sense is if LTE-Advanced is put on 1900mhz after LTE is moved to 800mhz.
TL;DR: Sprint is the cheapest option and will probably be on-par with Verizon in the future. Samsung bootloaders are unlocked. They have true unlimited data which is also the biggest plus. I'd recommend switching to Sprint.
T-Mobile - Honestly, I don't know enough about T-Mo.

Wow, thank you very much for the in depth and useful information!
I'm still t'ed off at verizon about this whole bootloader locked/encrypted thing. I came from a DX and feel like I missed out on a lot (updates) because of the issues that surround that phone.
So, it sounds like Sprint may be caught up to Verizon in 2014, which is when my contract would end for the s3 with verizon. But then in 2014, who knows what Verizon will have.
I think I'm finally starting to be OK with not having the best or fastest, but something that I will be happy with and get the job done. I use to subscribe to the middle tier for internet, but now thinking of dropping it to the lower one because it's cheaper and same speeds as it was two years ago. I guess as long as I have 20 megabit, I'm happy.

If you have good Tmobile coverage in your area...Tmobile would be the one to go with.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia5iBxqsjW8
PS. If you enough cash to buy the SGS3 outright without a contract, do it! Im on TMobile's $30/month plan and its been awesome. I've cut my cellphone bill by atleast 60%. I get 100 mins, unlimited text and data (1st 5gb at 4G, then throttled to 2G).

babymatteo said:
If you have good Tmobile coverage in your area...Tmobile would be the one to go with.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia5iBxqsjW8
PS. If you enough cash to buy the SGS3 outright without a contract, do it! Im on TMobile's $30/month plan and its been awesome. I've cut my cellphone bill by atleast 60%. I get 100 mins, unlimited text and data (1st 5gb at 4G, then throttled to 2G).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Latency on lte is better tho, that's for sure, but yeah I got tmobile is cheaper for me, i had att, sprint and verizon, if only sprint had lte here I would stay with them, but now I'm happy with tmobile -
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

yousefak said:
If you plan on making a long-term switch:
Verizon - Verizon will always stay the fastest. They will most likely be first to deploy LTE-Advanced (gigabit/s 4G) on the best spectrum (700mhz). This means fastest speeds + best LTE-Adv coverage.
AT&T - Never considered or would consider. Slow 3G in areas without LTE. I'm not sure about their LTE-Adv plans or what spectrums they currently and will use.
Sprint - Sprint's 3G network is fairly slow in some areas, but can also be up to par with Verizon in others. They use the 1900mhz spectrum but have 3G in most areas so it doesn't really matter. In areas where sprint doesn't have 3G, verizon likely only has 2G or even nothing. You can roam on Verizon's 2G for free if you have Sprint. Basically, coverage is not an issue but you may have slow 3G speeds. Later this year Sprint plans to begin switching 3G to 800mhz, according to wikipedia. This means better speeds which is great and more coverage (although not an issue really).
Now, let's talk 4G. Sprint plans to deploy LTE on the 1900mhz spectrum also which is decent but still means good coverage if they will be able to set up enough towers. Speed would be around what Verizon's LTE offers but probably a little worse. They also plan to move LTE to the 800mhz spectrum in 2014 which means tower range, penetration, and speed on par with Verizon.
I'm not clear on the details and I don't even know if anyone knows yet, but their LTE-Adv. network will supposedly be deployed on 2500mhz which would be terrible and mean no real (non-spotty) coverage unless in huge cities. We know this from sprint's past mistake of putting WiMax on 2500mhz. For reference, 2500mhz coverage is like WiFi but a little more. I'm pretty sure the source I heard this from was wrong and Sprint won't make this mistake again.
What would make more sense is if LTE-Advanced is put on 1900mhz after LTE is moved to 800mhz.
TL;DR: Sprint is the cheapest option and will probably be on-par with Verizon in the future. Samsung bootloaders are unlocked. They have true unlimited data which is also the biggest plus. I'd recommend switching to Sprint.
T-Mobile - Honestly, I don't know enough about T-Mo.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I get 5-10 mb/s on hspa with att. I'd definitely consider that better then slow....
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using xda app-developers app

T-Mobile.
I've posted this before elsewhere but....
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
However, I must say that I live in an area that has strong service with all four "big" carriers and many smaller ones.
I also live in a three story house (on the top floor) surrounded by two story buildings...
Throwing bricks since 2008.....and proud of it.

Proud t-mobile customer since the summer of '06
Sent from my SGH-T999 using xda app-developers app

yousefak said:
If you plan on making a long-term switch:
Verizon - Verizon will always stay the fastest. They will most likely be first to deploy LTE-Advanced (gigabit/s 4G) on the best spectrum (700mhz). This means fastest speeds + best LTE-Adv coverage.
AT&T - Never considered or would consider. Slow 3G in areas without LTE. I'm not sure about their LTE-Adv plans or what spectrums they currently and will use.
Sprint - Sprint's 3G network is fairly slow in some areas, but can also be up to par with Verizon in others. They use the 1900mhz spectrum but have 3G in most areas so it doesn't really matter. In areas where sprint doesn't have 3G, verizon likely only has 2G or even nothing. You can roam on Verizon's 2G for free if you have Sprint. Basically, coverage is not an issue but you may have slow 3G speeds. Later this year Sprint plans to begin switching 3G to 800mhz, according to wikipedia. This means better speeds which is great and more coverage (although not an issue really).
Now, let's talk 4G. Sprint plans to deploy LTE on the 1900mhz spectrum also which is decent but still means good coverage if they will be able to set up enough towers. Speed would be around what Verizon's LTE offers but probably a little worse. They also plan to move LTE to the 800mhz spectrum in 2014 which means tower range, penetration, and speed on par with Verizon.
I'm not clear on the details and I don't even know if anyone knows yet, but their LTE-Adv. network will supposedly be deployed on 2500mhz which would be terrible and mean no real (non-spotty) coverage unless in huge cities. We know this from sprint's past mistake of putting WiMax on 2500mhz. For reference, 2500mhz coverage is like WiFi but a little more. I'm pretty sure the source I heard this from was wrong and Sprint won't make this mistake again.
What would make more sense is if LTE-Advanced is put on 1900mhz after LTE is moved to 800mhz.
TL;DR: Sprint is the cheapest option and will probably be on-par with Verizon in the future. Samsung bootloaders are unlocked. They have true unlimited data which is also the biggest plus. I'd recommend switching to Sprint.
T-Mobile - Honestly, I don't know enough about T-Mo.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LTE will be on 1900 800 and 2500. Voice will be on 1900 and 800. Network Vision takes all the towers they have now and upgrades them with all services. On top of a all new backhaul to support it all. The system is a software update away from LTE-Adv. And will operate on all 3 Bands, replacing LTE. The system will be very cheap to keep upgraded and maintained for many many years to come. It uses fiber to the antenna where a RRU is 6" from the antenna. No lose of single from the long run to the cabinet. This means more power from right off the antennas.
The idea behind it? Say your down town where there is a good 2500 LTE... Your phone switches to it and you have unbeatable service. As you drive away, you signal drops and your phone will switch to the 1900. You pull in to a Bass Pro Shop and get deep in the store. Your signal drops below optimal and you phone switches to 800. You never know, you just know that everywhere you go... You have probably that fastest service out there.
You ask, why not just use the 800 all the time. Spectrum and throughput. That's another long rant.
Conclusion? Sprint is putting out a ton of money for a system that's ahead. It will be very hard to beat, and they plan to share it. $$$. This helps keep our cost down. But this will have to wait till 2014. After Nextel is done and Clear gets LTE rolling. As of now, most suffer from old tech and a T1 backhaul. Unless your lucky and are in a first round market.
Like me.. Hehe as you probably see in the 30 other threads made about we have LTE. lol
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

wiz561 said:
Wow, thank you very much for the in depth and useful information!
I'm still t'ed off at verizon about this whole bootloader locked/encrypted thing. I came from a DX and feel like I missed out on a lot (updates) because of the issues that surround that phone.
So, it sounds like Sprint may be caught up to Verizon in 2014, which is when my contract would end for the s3 with verizon. But then in 2014, who knows what Verizon will have.
I think I'm finally starting to be OK with not having the best or fastest, but something that I will be happy with and get the job done. I use to subscribe to the middle tier for internet, but now thinking of dropping it to the lower one because it's cheaper and same speeds as it was two years ago. I guess as long as I have 20 megabit, I'm happy.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm with sprint and their 3g is really still fine for everything but downloads. It's worth the price.
parsa5 said:
I get 5-10 mb/s on hspa with att. I'd definitely consider that better then slow....
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HSPA+ is more 4g that 3g. Their gsm 3g was what I was talking about.
a454nova said:
LTE will be on 1900 800 and 2500. Voice will be on 1900 and 800. Network Vision takes all the towers they have now and upgrades them with all services. On top of a all new backhaul to support it all. The system is a software update away from LTE-Adv. And will operate on all 3 Bands, replacing LTE. The system will be very cheap to keep upgraded and maintained for many many years to come. It uses fiber to the antenna where a RRU is 6" from the antenna. No lose of single from the long run to the cabinet. This means more power from right off the antennas.
The idea behind it? Say your down town where there is a good 2500 LTE... Your phone switches to it and you have unbeatable service. As you drive away, you signal drops and your phone will switch to the 1900. You pull in to a Bass Pro Shop and get deep in the store. Your signal drops below optimal and you phone switches to 800. You never know, you just know that everywhere you go... You have probably that fastest service out there.
You ask, why not just use the 800 all the time. Spectrum and throughput. That's another long rant.
Conclusion? Sprint is putting out a ton of money for a system that's ahead. It will be very hard to beat, and they plan to share it. $$$. This helps keep our cost down. But this will have to wait till 2014. After Nextel is done and Clear gets LTE rolling. As of now, most suffer from old tech and a T1 backhaul. Unless your lucky and are in a first round market.
Like me.. Hehe as you probably see in the 30 other threads made about we have LTE. lol
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow. Thanks for the well written response. This makes me feel much better about being with sprint.
Sent from my Evo 3D on Sprint's blazing fast 3G network with 4G coverage everywhere