Related
I was a G1 user forever... And I remember there being talk of making the G1 able to utilize the HSPA network... so does that mean it is possible for any phone utilize it? or.... ??? I am kinda confuised... maybe it can utilize it... but not be able to utilize the maximum HSPA+ speeds....
It's hardware. Don't you think every phone would have HSPA+?
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
renocivik said:
I was a G1 user forever... And I remember there being talk of making the G1 able to utilize the HSPA network... so does that mean it is possible for any phone utilize it? or.... ??? I am kinda confuised... maybe it can utilize it... but not be able to utilize the maximum HSPA+ speeds....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, you heard right. pretty much all the newer tmo smart phones will be getting a boost, but they will not be getting the full speed unless they have the hardware. So, you will get the full 3G speed and depending on your reception, you might go a little faster. Almost like a speed boost. To take advantage of the full 4g or HSPA+ you will need the hardware.
I heard there isn't a HUGE difference as of yet between the normal HSPA and HSPA+ hardware in terms of speed. I was in LA two months ago and I was getting 4.5 megs down with my Nexus One which isn't HSPA+.
Maybe later on down the line when HSPA+ is full rolled out across the country and they bump the speeds up even more then at that point having the HSPA+ hardware will make a difference but I don't see that happening for a while.
In the meantime, here's to hoping we all get covered by the network soon!
i live in So Cal with normal 3g now. a few months ago when i had mt3g, I Went to an area where they had to new network. it was MUCH faster. and this was with mt3g
"The Vibrant will have HSPA+ when the Froyo update comes out. T-mobile Is dropping it this month. So really soon." was searching for that same question of the vibrant getting some sort of update that would allow the hardware to decode the data packages, its the same thing like the g1. when the towers updated to hspa+ from regular hspa it was only a software upgrade what makes anyone think that these new powerful phone wont be able to get a software upgrade also? so the answer is more to yes than no. and to "It's hardware. Don't you think every phone would have HSPA+?" why dont you think about that for a little. g1 did it so can this & yes the original galaxy s has hspa+ hardware but i think it was disabled in the us version until we would need it since it would use more power just being left on without it being used. also rumor is that the hummingbird chip is running at 1.2 gighertz in the i9000 so i overclocked my virbrant at 1.2 gighertz & its running with no problems! also we might need those extra 200 hertz to keep things running normal if we get the hspa+ upgrade im pretty sure it will need it.
Well as many EVO users know there is a distinct possibility (probability) that Sprint will be getting out of the WiMax game at some point in the next couple of years and joining the LTE bandwagon. Of course, it's a simple switch to make on their end as it only requires a firmware update, however on the phone's end it is not quite that simple.
Has anyone heard anything about the possibility of the 3D having a dual mode chip? I would like to hang on to this next phone for a while and I'm hoping we won't be saddled with only 2.5 ghz spectrum wimax (the spectrum is also something I'm curious about with the former nextel bands' uncertain future).
Can you explain why Wimax is so bad.
toxicfumes22 said:
Can you explain why Wimax is so bad.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well it's spectrum isn't effective at structure penetration. Built up cities like NY have a lot of problems with getting signal on one block, then losing it the next "sort of thing". LTE's lower frequency would eliminate some of that issue.
I'm not saying it's bad, and I'm avoiding saying anything about LTE being faster because we need to give it time, once enough people load down the network, itll be a wrap.
Also, Sprint/Clearwire were testing a new format that utilized LTE/WiMax combined with a real world data throughput of somewhere around 70-80Mbs. Why would you not want that?
toxicfumes22 said:
Can you explain why Wimax is so bad.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's a very blunt way of phrasing the question but I'll do my best:
WiMax in and of itself is not necessarily "bad", but to sum it up, Clearwire (who Sprint has partnered with in its 4G endeavors) is pretty well tanking, and I believe that LTE is the superior standard if you base it solely on tech specs. Add to this the fact that LTE has become the de-facto standard via its adoption by ATT & VZW.
Other complicating factors are the fact that Sprint's 2.5 Ghz spectrum has well-known issues with building penetration, the fact that the 800Mhz former nextel spectrum would be a good candidate for rolling out LTE and having better service, the fact that LTE (supposedly) lends itself better to carrier control (ie not in favor of net neutrality) and probably some others, and the fact that sprint has itself said it is investigating the possibility of going LTE, it doesnt even really matter if WiMax is "bad" because it's probably going to happen one way or another.
Wimax 2 might hold promise but I honestly am already over my head here and I'm saying I don't want to be stuck with a phone that overtly clashes with Sprint's 4G vision of the future.
nappydj said:
Well it's spectrum isn't effective at structure penetration. Built up cities like NY have a lot of problems with getting signal on one block, then losing it the next "sort of thing". LTE's lower frequency would eliminate some of that issue.
I'm not saying it's bad, and I'm avoiding saying anything about LTE being faster because we need to give it time, once enough people load down the network, itll be a wrap.
Also, Sprint/Clearwire were testing a new format that utilized LTE/WiMax combined with a real world data throughput of somewhere around 70-80Mbs. Why would you not want that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just to clarify, I believe Wimax actually isn't the problem, if it were deployed on a lower spectrum it would have comparable signal penetration.
IF sprint switches to lte (hope not) then it won't be soon enough to worry about with the evo 3d, you will undoubtably upgrade your phone in that time, unless you can withhold the temptation to buy quadcore superphones next year
Project leapfrog is in the works for sprint. Meaning, they're coonverting to LTE by 2013. Which, in theory, means the Evo 3D will NOT have LTE capabilities because it'll be most likely another year or two before you start seeing LTE on Sprints network.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA Premium App
Wimax is more efficient than LTE, it's the spectrum they are using that is hurting them. I doubt it will be but the Evo was the first 4G phone out so it would make sense. Even if it's unused when the phone is released.
The Evo is ready for Wimax2 (real 4G) and I don't think the standard hasn't even been finalized yet.
Can anyone explain why Sprint is expanding it's Wimax offering if they are going to be changing it in 2 years?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704004004576271523786624948.html
Interesting read sort of gives some insight about what Sprint may be angling for. If the problem with Wimax is the frequency that sprint is using, perhaps their acquiring new frequencies fixes the problem?
lte
Sprint was already testing lte in phoenix . They also dont need to aquire any new frequency as they are getting rid of the iden - nextel really soon and will probably use that as wimax or lte if they choose it . Iden was in the 700 mhz range and will give a much better coverage
I somewhat doubt they'd do 700mhz WiMax. The reason I say that is because WiMax is an IEEE standard, specifically 802.16m, and they specified profiles at 2.3ghz, 2.5ghz, and 3.5ghz.
Clear isn't there just to provide services to sprint, Clear is there to be a broadband provider. That said, they're going to be working with devices that follow the IEEE spec.
It's possible they'd do 700mhz, but unlikely.
Rakeesh_j said:
I somewhat doubt they'd do 700mhz WiMax. The reason I say that is because WiMax is an IEEE standard, specifically 802.16m, and they specified profiles at 2.3ghz, 2.5ghz, and 3.5ghz.
Clear isn't there just to provide services to sprint, Clear is there to be a broadband provider. That said, they're going to be working with devices that follow the IEEE spec.
It's possible they'd do 700mhz, but unlikely.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sprint doesn't have anything in the 700MHz area last I checked. They didn't win the auction when it was held.
sprint has 806 MHz to 824 MHz and 851 MHz to 869 MHz bands. http://www.accedian.com/blog/news/sprint-vacated-iden-spectrum/
"There is no uniform global licensed spectrum for WiMAX, however the WiMAX Forum has published three licensed spectrum profiles: 2.3 GHz, 2.5 GHz and 3.5 GHz, in an effort to drive standardisation and decrease cost." -per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WiMAX
Regardless of what they own you are right in that Spring/Clearwire cant just wake up and decide to deploy WiMax on a lower Freq that they own b/c at this point in time its flat out not provisioned for it. However I have no clue as to how hard/easy it would be to get such a provision so anything is possible.
The thing with LTE is its provisioned across all freq bands defined for UMTS, which typically consist of 800MHz, 900MHz, 1800MHz, 1900MHz. per http://www.pixaware.com/LTE and WiMAX Comparison-TejasBhandare.pdf
I personally speculate that they will go the dual route b/c WiMax has its advantages over LTE in its own areas.
I understand that but I know that clear does what sprint says since they own more than 50% . Sprint will do something with the band width that nextel was using and it looks like the test in phoenix was good. I would not think they would go dual but its only software its easy to go from wimax to lte and so forth but I think it would send the wrong message if they did it . Should be interesting whatever they do . But I bet they use the nextel bandwidth to implement lte
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA Premium App
you said LTE is being adopted by att and verizon...its actually ONLY being taken by verizon. att is hspa+, just like tmobile. and hspa+24 is faster than LTE actually, and that will be rolling out in less than a year. so LTE isnt the best.
I was saying that lte was better than wimax . They tested it in phoenix and got over 70 mbps . But some say wimax 2 is coming and such . It is never ending just like fios and cable . It will always be a search for speed . But right now you can google sprint and lte test in phoenix . may be the way they are going
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA Premium App
darkraiderfan said:
you said LTE is being adopted by att and verizon...its actually ONLY being taken by verizon. att is hspa+, just like tmobile. and hspa+24 is faster than LTE actually, and that will be rolling out in less than a year. so LTE isnt the best.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea but by the time they roll that out, they will probably be working on upgrades to lte. It will be a never ending battle. Someone is always gonna have the upper hand for half a year.
darkraiderfan said:
you said LTE is being adopted by att and verizon...its actually ONLY being taken by verizon. att is hspa+, just like tmobile. and hspa+24 is faster than LTE actually, and that will be rolling out in less than a year. so LTE isnt the best.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wrong
http://www.wireless.att.com/learn/why/technology/4g-lte.jsp
http://www.appleinsider.com/article..._accelerated_plans_for_4g_lte_deployment.html
nubsors said:
Can anyone explain why Sprint is expanding it's Wimax offering if they are going to be changing it in 2 years?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704004004576271523786624948.html
Interesting read sort of gives some insight about what Sprint may be angling for. If the problem with Wimax is the frequency that sprint is using, perhaps their acquiring new frequencies fixes the problem?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sprint isn't doing anything. They don't have a 4g network. They lease it from clear (they are majority owners).
i agree with what others have said, the problem with clear's wimax network is the 2.5Ghz spectrum it runs on.
Wimax is open source, it's theoretically cheaper to build than LTE, but i haven't heard of clear expanding the coverage fast as verizon and tmobile.
Here's to all of you The EVO 3D might have compatability woe Wimax R2 or the 802e/m which will destroy LTE in speed and No Sprint will not switch over its to much money
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
nappydj said:
Well it's spectrum isn't effective at structure penetration. Built up cities like NY have a lot of problems with getting signal on one block, then losing it the next "sort of thing". LTE's lower frequency would eliminate some of that issue.
I'm not saying it's bad, and I'm avoiding saying anything about LTE being faster because we need to give it time, once enough people load down the network, itll be a wrap.
Also, Sprint/Clearwire were testing a new format that utilized LTE/WiMax combined with a real world data throughput of somewhere around 70-80Mbs. Why would you not want that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have LTE, yea and it is as flaky if not more or less than wimax, trust me I was just browsing the 3d forums to see when it will be released or so and the rumors.
AT home I get constant dropouts in LTE, hell I cant even get a constant signal, and walk 100 meters out in the open and I get great LTE coverage. While I have a laptop with built in wimax module and I got free thirty days and I get a constant connection and great coverage. I have never lost connection.
LTE is faster but seriously after 3mb down it all becomes pointless unless you are using your phone for home internet and need a lot of traffic, for a phone a connection at 2-3mb constant is plenty fast.
My wimax module gets me 3-5mb consistently at my house, I have never seen it go below.
Can anyone atest to this? There's a thread on a another forum about this. People are saying that the Focus S has twice the speed on the network (non-Wi-Fi) than the Titan.
http://forums.wpcentral.com/titan/184114.htm
Check your speed here:
http://mobilespeedtest.net
I noticed this inthe ATT store, when I was checking out the Titan and Focus S.They were side by side, every page loaded much faster on the Focus S. I even asked if there was a way to change the settings on the Titan because I had a feeling ATT would do this. They did it for the Focus. I was lose connection all the time until I turn my speed up.
I was checking reviews and specs, and the speeds of the Focus S are faster than on the Titan. Whether this is from AT&T dicking around, or from the radios inside the hardware, or some other factor, idk. I have yet to have an issue with it though, and the speed difference is not that noticeable in my opinion.
Has anyone actually tried to contact AT&T or HTC regarding this? The Titan has
850/900/2100 MHz bands while the Focus S has 850/1900/2100 if that matters.
Contacted At&t about data speeds, both cellular and wi-fi.
The I got pushed through to a senior engineer who took my information and reset the provisions on my phone. Speeds increased quite a bit, between 3g and 4g speeds. Big difference from the sub 3g speeds I was getting. Also websites aren't timing out like before.
Wi-fi still hasn't improved for still around 14-17Mb downloads compared to 22-24Mb download speeds on my Iphone.
The engineers final resolution was to keep an eye on my 30 day return policy and recommended I go with a real LTE device.
What did he do to provision your settings?
The AT&T Titan is also 850/1900/2100.
Sent from my Titan using XDA Windows Phone 7 App
Just a question for anyone who ever used a hspa+ device. How fast is if compared to LTE in your experience? I've been extremely unhappy with sprint so far and don't see myself with them after this year so I want to know how fast the networks on aa&T or t–mobile are compared to it. Is it a lot slower?
mazzmoney said:
Just a question for anyone who ever used a hspa+ device. How fast is if compared to LTE in your experience? I've been extremely unhappy with sprint so far and don't see myself with them after this year so I want to know how fast the networks on aa&T or t–mobile are compared to it. Is it a lot slower?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm came from T-Mo and think they are by far the worst major carrier out there. I had a G2x and got 9mbps down once (in Kansas City) and never more than 1mbps up. My LTE results have been around 11-12 down and 6-11 up so far, but certainly difficult to find. I left T-Mo mainly because I spent 50 hours/week in a major metro area with zero coverage. I'm sure it varies by area and personal experiences of course, but I'm patient enough to wait out the full LTE roll-out.
I've never had AT&T so I can't comment on them.
mazzmoney said:
Just a question for anyone who ever used a hspa+ device. How fast is if compared to LTE in your experience? I've been extremely unhappy with sprint so far and don't see myself with them after this year so I want to know how fast the networks on aa&T or t–mobile are compared to it. Is it a lot slower?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The 3G network is terrible at the moment, mostly because of the "Network Vision" which includes adding LTE and "improving" 3G. It will get better (a lot better actually) but it will take some time.
HSPA+ isn't really "4G". It's kinda like 3.5G lol. LTE in theory should be faster up and down.
I know it depends on where you live I just wanted a little comparison. Odds are I will get LTE before the end of the year so I don't want to go from something incredibly fast to super slow. If it's like half the speed I can deal with it.
HSPA is quite fast in the iteration that tmobile uses, but its also not as efficient with its use of spectrum as LTE is, making it a spectrum hog.
One company I consult for provides T-Mobile phones for employees. The Galaxy S2s they have regularly get 15-20Meg down, 2-5Meg up. This is in Plano, TX.
Considering today us the first time I've gotten LTE on my EVO LTE, and the best I could get was 8/8 (up/down), speed on HSPA+ is currently better.
I am pretty sure on AT&T if the phone is LTE it is also HSPA+........but don't quote me on that
I was traveling for work today and saw 5G signal. Wanted to see how fast it was, and was a bit surprised. Left me wondering what's so good about it?
Screenshots are of LTE and 5G speed tests.
Lower latency, faster speeds, better spectrum efficiency. It will get faster once the Sprint 5G is added in after the merger.
LLStarks said:
Lower latency, faster speeds, better spectrum efficiency. It will get faster once the Sprint 5G is added in after the merger.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Interesting. Didn't see any of those benefits.
Benefits? Live faster, die younger. Like anyone asked for it
5G with T-Mobile is taking the opposite approach as Verizon/AT&T. Instead of trying to get INSANE speeds with very short range, they're building a network that has better than LTE speeds with much further range (higher frequencies=lower range, higher speeds, lower frequencies=lower speeds, higher range). Currently, it's not well-optimized since it's pretty new, but will improve within the next year.
Current 5G networks on T-Mobile are exclusive to 5G phones, making existing 5G networks so much less crowded. So while speeds may fluctuate, you're not having to share that network with anyone else basically, and you'll see better speeds in certain rural areas.
In Western VA, where coverage had been historically terrible, I was getting about 80mbs in places where my Pixel 3a XL was barely hitting 2mbs if I was lucky. It all depends on where you live right now.
Crisisx1 said:
I was traveling for work today and saw 5G signal. Wanted to see how fast it was, and was a bit surprised. Left me wondering what's so good about it?
Screenshots are of LTE and 5G speed tests.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was getting over 100 in Saint Paul so not terrible.
Currently on the consumer side there are much more negatives than benefits. Higher power consumption, lower coverage, short ranges, higher cost. Otherwise on the consumer side, the benefits of 5G are much higher speeds (although this will drop drastically from the theoritical and current speeds once it gets wide adoption -- just as 4G) and lower latency.
5G is currently mainly still a push on the enterprise side. It allows them to direct the waves of the signal towards the users/devices and in turn provide a better connection. Another huge benefit is being able to connect much more devices at once. In a few years with smart home appliances, and self-driving cars with TVs in them they will be ready to sell you the streaming/bandwidth services you'll want for entertaiment in those devices.
If you never though "gee my 4G is pretty slow, I wish it was faster" (I personally never have), there is no need to get 5G.
---------- Post added at 11:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:08 AM ----------
champ784 said:
5G with T-Mobile is taking the opposite approach as Verizon/AT&T. Instead of trying to get INSANE speeds with very short range, they're building a network that has better than LTE speeds with much further range (higher frequencies=lower range, higher speeds, lower frequencies=lower speeds, higher range). Currently, it's not well-optimized since it's pretty new, but will improve within the next year.
Current 5G networks on T-Mobile are exclusive to 5G phones, making existing 5G networks so much less crowded. So while speeds may fluctuate, you're not having to share that network with anyone else basically, and you'll see better speeds in certain rural areas.
In Western VA, where coverage had been historically terrible, I was getting about 80mbs in places where my Pixel 3a XL was barely hitting 2mbs if I was lucky. It all depends on where you live right now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What you're saying is not possible, research how the 5G technology works and you'll see what I mean. By nature, 5G has much higher bandwidth but much shorter range than 4G. Just the same as 5Ghz vs 2.4Ghz in routers. There is nothing T-Mobile or anyone else can do to change this, as it's the physics of the wave-lenght itself. 5G gets stopped by walls and other obstructions very easily.
What service providers are doing (and the only thing they can do with this techonology) is placing a boat-load of antennaes everywhere. And I mean tens if not hundreds times more antenaes than 4G (but much, much smaller ones). As such, it's not a strech to say that for 5G to be adopted outside of populated cities will take a while. Rural areas might never see 5G.
PS: Not sure what counts as "rural" areas in the USA. I assume most roads and especially big ones, even if the area is considered "rural" will be covered. By rural I mean small villages, woods, mountains etc.
The McLaren on T-Mobile uses low band 5G on the 600MHz band. Low spectrum means greater building penetration and long range (T-Mobile claims up to 2 mile range on low band). There's also extremely high band mmWave 5G, which the McLaren doesn't have. mmWave is the type that's super fast (like gigabit speeds) but has exceptionally short range.
pdagal said:
The McLaren on T-Mobile uses low band 5G on the 600MHz band. Low spectrum means greater building penetration and long range (T-Mobile claims up to 2 mile range on low band). There's also extremely high band mmWave 5G, which the McLaren doesn't have. mmWave is the type that's super fast (like gigabit speeds) but has exceptionally short range.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh, I see. It does make a ton of sense to implement a lower spectrum in less densely populated areas. Nonetheless, the 2 mile range is still far off from 4G range capabilities.
siegmour said:
Currently on the consumer side there are much more negatives than benefits. Higher power consumption, lower coverage, short ranges, higher cost. Otherwise on the consumer side, the benefits of 5G are much higher speeds (although this will drop drastically from the theoritical and current speeds once it gets wide adoption -- just as 4G) and lower latency.
5G is currently mainly still a push on the enterprise side. It allows them to direct the waves of the signal towards the users/devices and in turn provide a better connection. Another huge benefit is being able to connect much more devices at once. In a few years with smart home appliances, and self-driving cars with TVs in them they will be ready to sell you the streaming/bandwidth services you'll want for entertaiment in those devices.
If you never though "gee my 4G is pretty slow, I wish it was faster" (I personally never have), there is no need to get 5G.
---------- Post added at 11:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:08 AM ----------
What you're saying is not possible, research how the 5G technology works and you'll see what I mean. By nature, 5G has much higher bandwidth but much shorter range than 4G. Just the same as 5Ghz vs 2.4Ghz in routers. There is nothing T-Mobile or anyone else can do to change this, as it's the physics of the wave-lenght itself. 5G gets stopped by walls and other obstructions very easily.
What service providers are doing (and the only thing they can do with this techonology) is placing a boat-load of antennaes everywhere. And I mean tens if not hundreds times more antenaes than 4G (but much, much smaller ones). As such, it's not a strech to say that for 5G to be adopted outside of populated cities will take a while. Rural areas might never see 5G.
PS: Not sure what counts as "rural" areas in the USA. I assume most roads and especially big ones, even if the area is considered "rural" will be covered. By rural I mean small villages, woods, mountains etc.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It absolutely is possible. 5G doesn't simply operate on one wavelngth, rather, it refers to the tehcnology that's utlized to deliver more effecient bandwith. Like 4G LTE, there are different wavelenths with different speeds/distances. T-Mobile is running their 5G network on their 600MHz frequency currently which has much slower speeds than gigabit, but still decent ones that tend to perform about as well as a strong LTE signal. In fact, T-Mobile has been putting much focus on certain rural areas starting off, taking the opposite approach as AT&T and Verizon with their mmwave 5G.