AT&T in no rush to build out 4G network

[AppleInsider]

Apple's exclusive iPhone wireless carrier AT&T said this week it's in no hurry to begin deploying a fourth-generation wireless network, as it believes there's two to three years of "runway" left in its current and future 3G technologies.

Speaking at the 4G Executive Summit on Tuesday, AT&T's VP of Architecture Hank Kafka downplayed any perceived urgency on the part of the carrier to push out a 4G network based on LTE, or the so-called Long Term Evolution standard.

He said AT&T's existing HSPA 3G network already offers a superior mobile broadband experience to that of its primary rival Verizon, whose EV-DO technology sports a limited future.

“HSPA is more economical for carriers to deploy,” Kafka said, adding that the extendibility of the technology offers the ability for smooth transitions to new technology, such as his firm's upcoming 20Mbps HSPA+ 3G network planned for sometime next year.

The exec also cited the iPhone as a device that has only just begun to open the eyes of consumers to mobile broadband and its inherit internet capabilities.

When asked specifically about his company's 4G plans, Kafka reportedly danced around the subject, saying he couldn't provide a concrete answer because specifications for such technology aren't yet finalized.

“Future evolutions may meet 4G requirements, but for now, true 4G technologies don’t exist because the requirements haven’t been defined,” he said. 


With that said, Kafka added that he’d be surprised if LTE wasn’t significantly available "within five years." In the meantime, AT&T has about two to three years of "runway left with HSPA and HSPA-plus," he told the summit.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[Larz2112]

AT&T has a bit of work to do on their 3G network, let alone 4G. Folks I know that have the 3G iPhone can't even get 3G service most of the time... in Austin, TX, which should be an area that 3G service is reliable. I've got a 1G iPhone and my reception over the past couple of months has been horrible... incoming calls not registering, dropped calls, poor reception, you name it.

Considering their mammoth ad campaign about "more bars in more places", maybe AT&T should focus all their energies on making good on that claim.

[bloggerblog]

Earlier this week Sprint launched the first 4G in Baltimore, and soon it will arrive in Virginia and DC. Although here in DC I'm satisfied with the availability of 3G however, it could be better. Like Larz said ATT should focus on a better user experience. I personally think 3G is fast enough (1.2 to 1.7 Mbits), it's the signal that makes it seem flaky and slow.
I've tried my friends Verizon's 3G AirCard on my PowerBook, and it felt as fast as a WiFi g network. It was quite impressive, keep in mind Verizon's 3G is actually slower than ATT's maxing out at 1.2 compared to ATT's 1.7Mbits.

My conclusion is ATT must focus on user experience and widening their Network, adding towers and strengthening signals.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by Larz2112

AT&T has a bit of work to do on their 3G network, let alone 4G. Folks I know that have the 3G iPhone can't even get 3G service most of the time... in Austin, TX, which should be an area that 3G service is reliable. I've got a 1G iPhone and my reception over the past couple of months has been horrible... incoming calls not registering, dropped calls, poor reception, you name it.

Considering their mammoth ad campaign about "more bars in more places", maybe AT&T should focus all their energies on making good on that claim.

Agreed. AT&T is pathetic.

[backtomac]

I'm not surprised. The cost of LTE is great and with the economy taking a turn for the worse here recently it makes sense for ATT to hold onto their cash.

This could be a great benefit for Sprint/Clearwire. They may be able to get their WiMax network entrenched with users before Verizon and ATT are able to roll out their LTE networks. I look forward to reviews of mobile WiMax in the Baltimore area. I hope it lives up to its hype.

If Apple were smart they would develop an iPhone that works on the WiMax network.

[SpamSandwich]

The economy will surely put the kibosh on most upgrade plans, and although I personally would like WiMax to roll out quicker to take advantage of these delays, I just haven't been seeing the kind of leadership needed to do this by Clearwire or the group they are allied with.

In other news AAPL looks like it might drop below the psychological barrier of $100 today. OMG things are not looking good. I am totally opposed to this bail-out and I'm certain it will destroy our economy, or plunge us into a decade-long depression if it goes through. For the sake of our country, PLEASE contact your Congressional representatives to voice your opposition.

[digitalclips]

I say skip it and go to 5G now

[backtomac]

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

I am totally opposed to this bail-out and I'm certain it will destroy our economy, or plunge us into a decade-long depression if it goes through. For the sake of our country, PLEASE contact your Congressional representatives to voice your opposition.

Why do you think that the TARP legislation will cause a depression?

Rampant inflation, maybe but depression?

[bdkennedy1]

Superior to Verizon maybe, but crap to everyone else.

They can't even get 3G right and it's been out for years.

[aduzik]

Uh, AT&T is in no rush to build out their 3G network, near as I can tell. I live in a city of over half a million people and we still don't have 3G coverage here. 4G is a complete fantasy at this point.

[BlackSummerNight]

I live in a city with about 250K, and 450k in the metro area, and AT&T 3G is rock solid. Why move to 4G when so many don't have 3G yet. I say get 3G for everyone rock solid first.

[RichL]

I'm more interested in Verizon's plans. How are they going to transition from EV-DO (which still uses their 2G CDMA network for voice) to LTE? Who will want to make CDMA+LTE dual modem phones? It's not like they can instantly switch on an entire LTE network nationwide.

[DanaCameron]

I haven't had a single dropped call since the 2.1 update. And I live in the worst 3G coverage area in Richmond, VA.

[dshel]

AT & T's 3G Network is very narrow and spotty. It certainly doesn't have the coverage Verizon does. They should finish 3G properly before they strap on a 4G attempt!

[winterspan]

Originally Posted by Larz2112

AT&T has a bit of work to do on their 3G network, let alone 4G. Folks I know that have the 3G iPhone can't even get 3G service most of the time... in Austin, TX, which should be an area that 3G service is reliable. I've got a 1G iPhone and my reception over the past couple of months has been horrible... incoming calls not registering, dropped calls, poor reception, you name it.
Considering their mammoth ad campaign about "more bars in more places", maybe AT&T should focus all their energies on making good on that claim.

Originally Posted by bloggerblog

My conclusion is ATT must focus on user experience and widening their Network, adding towers and strengthening signals.

You guys are both on target. Although Verizon's EV-DO 3G network loses out to AT&T's HSPA network on maximum speed when they both have excellent signals, the fact remains that Verizon's 3G rollout is *much* more extensive than AT&T, with excellent coverage throughout not just the largest metropolitan areas, but nearly every small and medium sized city, and surrounding suburbs. AT&T has been building it out at a feverish pace, but they are still far behind Verizon, especially in most suburban/rural areas. They need to spend their resources on infrastructure and not on the stupid marketing.

Besides, they haven't even come close to maxing out HSDPA/HSUPA speeds, and they still have the rollout of "HSPA+" / "evolved HSPA" to complete before the transition to 4G. HSPA+ is a pretty easy upgrade for the tower, but phones have to have a new chipset to support it (it uses multiple antennae MIMO tech), so perhaps the next iPhone will do so. Since AT&T's HSPA+ network will reach up to 20mbps speeds, it should last them a while. However, besides just taking connection speeds through the roof, a major benefit of the upcoming LTE "4G" standards will be in vastly increased network capacity.. I wouldn't be surprised if it was network congestion in dense urban areas that ultimately give them the final push ahead to 4G and not phone download speeds. I have no details about their network, but from all the reports of iPhone 3G users, it appears their network capacity is being maxed out in areas. Now, whether that was solely a result of the rumored iPhone firmware bugs, or something AT&T can easily correct by increasing the backhaul bandwidth from the towers, I don't really know.

Originally Posted by backtomac

I'm not surprised. The cost of LTE is great and with the economy taking a turn for the worse here recently it makes sense for ATT to hold onto their cash. This could be a great benefit for Sprint/Clearwire. They may be able to get their WiMax network entrenched with users before Verizon and ATT are able to roll out their LTE networks. I look forward to reviews of mobile WiMax in the Baltimore area. I hope it lives up to its hype.
If Apple were smart they would develop an iPhone that works on the WiMax network.

You've been pulled into the hype. Besides the fact that Sprint won't have anywhere near the coverage of even AT&T's 3G network for at least another 24+ months (and not even close to Verizon's 3G EVDO), the fact remains that their mobile Wimax is not performing anywhere near what most people would consider "4G" speeds. Sprint says customers should see speeds between 1.5-3.0Mbps download and 0.5-1.5Mbps upload. Now that certainly isn't terrible, but even in the best scenario, it's not a whole lot faster than what AT&T (and verizon) have been offering for years (AT&T's UMTS network is currently offering speeds of 0.7 - 2.0mbps download and 0.5 - 1.2mbps upload per AT&T's website) and they are currently upgrading their network to faster speeds (7.2mbps). They said in 2009, they will be moving to HSPA+ aka Evolved HSPA which will take the existing 3G network up to a theoretical max of ~20mbps. Even if users only saw average speeds of 1/3 of that, it would be noticeably faster than Sprint's "4G-ish" WiMax network!

[JDraden]

It sounds good to me that AT&T is going to focus on getting their 3G network perfected before moving to 4G. I have read so many complaints about coverage that I want to share my experience: the 3G network in the Los Angeles area has been excellent for me. I even have great 3G coverage when traveling throughout the general area, including Glendale, Pasadena, Covina, and San Dimas. Still, considering all the complaints, it is definitely a good idea to work on improving the current network.

[boomhowler]

1) WiMax is in no way 4G in its current state (this is a really annoying term that wimax forum uses alot, without forfilling the demands of the IMT advanced standard proposal).. It is not only speed that is taken into account of what will be the 4g standard (IMT advanced, wikipedia it..) , but also other factors such as how it handles IP data etc. Those things aside, 3mbit at the max? HSPA (3G technology, sometimes known as turbo 3G) is capable of 7.2Mbit and i can in good conditions get 3mbit out of my iPhone. LTE has shown data rates far above 20Mbit (even above 100) on a handheld device... HSPA manages 2Mbit in a car even in more rural areas.

2) LTE ain't 4G either, but the evolution of LTE (lte advanced) will be. This won't even compare to WiMax which is yesterdays news..

3) Why LTE is a bit expensive at the moment might be that there is no product yet It will probably arrive next year.

[boomhowler]

... this is what the next 3G stuff will manage. May also be handheld devices for this technology ready next year. It was actually rumoured that the 3G iPhone should be HSPA evolution compatible, although this proved false...

42Mbit in downlink sure sounds super!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSPA_Evolution

edit: noticed that this was already mentioned.. but now you have the link as well

[mstone]

Originally Posted by winterspan

Sprint says customers should see speeds between 1.5-3.0Mbps download and 0.5-1.5Mbps upload. Now that certainly isn't terrible, but even in the best scenario, [B]it's not a whole lot faster than what AT&T (and verizon) have been offering for years.

Not terrible for sure. That is, conservatively, almost twice as fast as T1, but the high frequency signal it uses exhibits the same poor building penetration and signal strength issues since it doesn't travel as far as lower frequency signals such as Verizon's. Ultimately it will be really expensive for them to build out twice as many towers to get decent coverage.

[winterspan]

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

OMG things are not looking good. I am totally opposed to this bail-out and I'm certain it will destroy our economy, or plunge us into a decade-long depression if it goes through. For the sake of our country, PLEASE contact your Congressional representatives to voice your opposition.

That doesn't make any sense at all. Although I am certainly skeptical of this haphazard bailout plan (and think Paulson is an incompetent idiot), the last thing I think it would actually CAUSE is a great depression. If anything, according to all the economists reports I have read, it will either work as intended (somewhat unlikely) or just act as a short-term delay to the inevitable. This isn't targeted at you -- I'm just making a general point --- but It kills me to see the hordes of American citizens who weren't interested in spending even one minute to learn about and express an opinion on all of the major financial legislation passed and actions taken (mostly deregulation) over the last 15 years, but suddenly become armchair macroeconomics experts overnight when things go south. The truth is, no one really knows how much of an effect this bail-out package will have if it passes, but the alternative looks to be much worse. But to be spreading the idea that the bailout itself is going to causally lead to a great depression?? That is nonsense IMHO

[winterspan]

Originally Posted by mstone

Not terrible for sure. That is, conservatively, almost twice as fast as T1, but the high frequency signal it uses exhibits the same poor building penetration and signal strength issues since it doesn't travel as far as lower frequency signals such as Verizon's. Ultimately it will be really expensive for them to build out twice as many towers to get decent coverage.

Indeed, one major thing I left out in my original post is that Sprints WiMax "Xohm" network uses spectrum around 2500mhz, whereas AT&T's UMTS network uses both 850mhz and 1900mhz. In the future, I believe both AT&T and Verizon's "4G" LTE networks will utilize the recently-auctioned 700mhz bands. Therefore, it should not only be much cheaper to build out with fewer towers needed, but will also have much better penetration into homes and buildings.

[OriginalMacRat]

Originally Posted by winterspan

But to be spreading the idea that the bailout itself is going to causally lead to a great depression?? That is nonsense IMHO

The tent cities have already begun.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4493104.shtml

[jmnikricket]

Originally Posted by digitalclips

I say skip it and go to 5G now

AT&T isn't exactly the Apple of cell phone providers

[mogers641]

3G, 4G,5G, WiMx all ATT has to do to make me happy is buy US Cellular so I will have coverage in Rural MO. I don't even live that far from KC, about 30 miles. But ATT coverage .... nothing, Edge, 3g, or anything else.

[Lafe]

Originally Posted by aduzik

Uh, AT&T is in no rush to build out their 3G network, near as I can tell. I live in a city of over half a million people and we still don't have 3G coverage here. 4G is a complete fantasy at this point.

Rural areas, small cities, medium-sized cities -- all ignored. We have EDGE. Pathetic.
AT&T needs to get 3G out to everyone before theorizing about 4G. They are not
living up their marketing by a long-shot.

[thomasfxlt]

Originally Posted by Lafe

Rural areas, small cities, medium-sized cities -- all ignored. We have EDGE. Pathetic.
AT&T needs to get 3G out to everyone before theorizing about 4G. They are not
living up their marketing by a long-shot.

Agreed.....and they have "no comment" on their plans to build out the balance of the 3g network.

[bloggerblog]

Originally Posted by winterspan

...suddenly become armchair macroeconomics experts overnight when things go south. The truth is, no one really knows...

Speak for yourself. We're becoming so passified that everytime there is an important decision to be made all the public can rely on from our great gov is the infamous "no one really knows" crap. If we are really a democracy, we should be able to vote on such crucial decisions especially if they're unconstitutional.

Anyway back to the topic, even if 4G is available today the iPhone in its current state does not seem capable of handeling such speeds, for example the iPhone does not handle full Wifi speeds yet, so 4G is something for the distant future, maybe 5 years or more.

I feel 3G is fast enough as a mobile network (ATT aircard page claims upto 1.7Mbits) all is needed is coverage area and siganl strength.

[Daniel0418]

Originally Posted by bloggerblog

Earlier this week Sprint launched the first 4G in Baltimore, and soon it will arrive in Virginia and DC. Although here in DC I'm satisfied with the availability of 3G however, it could be better. Like Larz said ATT should focus on a better user experience. I personally think 3G is fast enough (1.2 to 1.7 Mbits), it's the signal that makes it seem flaky and slow.
I've tried my friends Verizon's 3G AirCard on my PowerBook, and it felt as fast as a WiFi g network. It was quite impressive, keep in mind Verizon's 3G is actually slower than ATT's maxing out at 1.2 compared to ATT's 1.7Mbits.

My conclusion is ATT must focus on user experience and widening their Network, adding towers and strengthening signals.

Just so everyone is clear and not listening to your misleading post. Sprint has not rolled out 4g they haven't even claimed to. They rolled out wifi basically for the city. It's for laptops and mobile pcs. It is irrelevant to their phones. And ATT if it really does go up to 20 Mbps it will be 10 times faster than the wifi sprint provides. Anyway yes cool if AT&T increases the speed but please first put up way more 3g towers... I never hve 3g I spent 199 on this phone and I am paying like 90 bux a month and have no 3g my dad doesn't have 3g on his palm my mom doesn't have it on her lg phone here.

[GregAlexander]

Originally Posted by bloggerblog

Earlier this week Sprint launched the first 4G in Baltimore

XOHM isn't really 4G, but the whole "3G/4G" terms are a bit misleading.

At the VERY best it's the 3.5G of wireless internet (not 3.5G of mobile phones where HSPA sits, or even mobile internet), and there are debates on whether it works correctly. It seems that there are several commercial wimax successes internationally for in-home wireless broadband, but that mobile wireless has had many more problems.

Originally Posted by backtomac

The cost of LTE is great and with the economy taking a turn for the worse here recently it makes sense for ATT to hold onto their cash.

I don't fully understand the LTE technologies. As I understand it, it aggregates multiple signals, and doesn't require a wide frequency band - so if a provider has a little bit of great frequency (eg 700Mhz) and a lot of less-penetrating frequency (eg 2500Mhz and higher) it can use them both simultaneously. It'll enable better handover between frequencies and maximise the effectiveness of the best frequencies for devices in poor reception areas.

Does that sound right?
In addition to that I think an LTE handset is planned to be able to use today's HSPA as one of the multiple signals it aggregates, so it doesn't just "fall back" to HSPA where LTE isn't available, but works with it in an integrated manner.

Originally Posted by RichL

I'm more interested in Verizon's plans. How are they going to transition from EV-DO (which still uses their 2G CDMA network for voice) to LTE? Who will want to make CDMA+LTE dual modem phones?

There'll be dual phones. Many operators want to do the same switch.

Originally Posted by Daniel0418

Sprint ... rolled out wifi basically for the city. It's for laptops and mobile pcs. It is irrelevant to their phones.

Yeah that's my understanding of WiMax as it stands today, though they want to make phones work. It sounds like Sprint will release a dual EVDO/WiMax handset at the end of the year - I expect that ALL voice calls will stay on CDMA while data picks the best available network.

Originally Posted by Lafe

AT&T needs to get 3G out to everyone before theorizing about 4G.

Well, to be fair, AT&T said they weren't getting into 4G. So that fits with what you'd like.

I'd be cautious about that though - should AT&T have held off 3G until they got EDGE out to everyone? Should they have held off EDGE until everyone had regular 2G?

I'm actually surprised AT&T said they don't want to do 4G. I'm used to Telcos promising the world and then under-delivering.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by bdkennedy1

Superior to Verizon maybe, but crap to everyone else.

They can't even get 3G right and it's been out for years.

Dream on.
AT&T = dropped calls.

[bloggerblog]

Originally Posted by Daniel0418

Just so everyone is clear and not listening to your misleading post. Sprint has not rolled out 4g they haven't even claimed to. They rolled out wifi basically for the city. It's for laptops and mobile pcs. It is irrelevant to their phones. And ATT if it really does go up to 20 Mbps it will be 10 times faster than the wifi sprint provides. Anyway yes cool if AT&T increases the speed but please first put up way more 3g towers... I never hve 3g I spent 199 on this phone and I am paying like 90 bux a month and have no 3g my dad doesn't have 3g on his palm my mom doesn't have it on her lg phone here.

Yes they did roll it out and yes they did claim so. It's your reply that is misleading mister, here it is from the horse's mouth:

"HERNDON, Va. – Sept. 29, 2008
A next-generation 4G wireless network based on mobile WiMAX technology debuted today in Baltimore, heralding the start of a new era for wireless consumers as Sprint (NYSE: S) officially launched XOHM TM mobile broadband commercial service in the first major U.S. city."

So... There you go.

[LanPhantom]

Originally Posted by digitalclips

I say skip it and go to 5G now

Just like most businesses are skipping Vista and looking forward to Windows 7?

WiMax will put everything on it's head, the technology will not only be used for Mobile devices but non-line-of-site non mobile installations. Say good by to expensive DSL and Cable Modems, hello WiMaX

[winterspan]

Originally Posted by Daniel0418

Just so everyone is clear and not listening to your misleading post. Sprint has not rolled out 4g they haven't even claimed to. They rolled out wifi basically for the city. It's for laptops and mobile pcs. It is irrelevant to their phones. And ATT if it really does go up to 20 Mbps it will be 10 times faster than the wifi sprint provides. Anyway yes cool if AT&T increases the speed but please first put up way more 3g towers... I never hve 3g I spent 199 on this phone and I am paying like 90 bux a month and have no 3g my dad doesn't have 3g on his palm my mom doesn't have it on her lg phone here.

NO, just so everyone is clear, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, so perhaps you should get back to your homework. WiMax has nothing to do with Wifi, other than they both use a form of OFDM, as will LTE. "4G" is a nebulous concept at best, but WiMax is a "4G" or "pre-4G" (depending on who you ask) long-range wireless broadband service. It's an all-IP network intended primarily for internet access, but they could layer a native voice service (through VOIP at the system level) over the top if they wanted to, and I wouldn't discount that possibility in the future, depending on what they do with their EV-DO network. Their future phones will most likely support dual-mode CDMA/WiMax, but I'm unsure of how they plan on evolving the voice service past CDMA/EV-DO in the future.

Originally Posted by mogers641

3G, 4G,5G, WiMx all ATT has to do to make me happy is buy US Cellular so I will have coverage in Rural MO. I don't even live that far from KC, about 30 miles. But ATT coverage .... nothing, Edge, 3g, or anything else.

Yup, you tens of millions of eithers. I believe there are actually entire *states* without any form of AT&T coverage whatsoever. Although I do have to give them credit since Coeur d' alene, Idaho (pop ~40,000) now has 3G service.

Originally Posted by GregAlexander

I don't fully understand the LTE technologies. As I understand it, it aggregates multiple signals, and doesn't require a wide frequency band - so if a provider has a little bit of great frequency (eg 700Mhz) and a lot of less-penetrating frequency (eg 2500Mhz and higher) it can use them both simultaneously. It'll enable better handover between frequencies and maximise the effectiveness of the best frequencies for devices in poor reception areas.

I'm no telecom engineer, but this is how I understand it:

LTE/E-UTRA is going to be using OFDMA (like Wimax and WiFi) instead of CDMA (CDMA2000), W-CDMA (UMTS) or TDMA (GSM). OFDMA is an advanced form of frequency modulation, in which it divides up the available spectrum into very thin slices, which enables a much better "spectral efficiency" aka throughput and user capacity per unit bandwidth. At the same time it uses MIMO (multiple-input and multiple-output) technology (also used by the newest 802.11N variant of WiFi) which is a so-called "smart antennae" technique that allows the device to utilize multiple independent antennae for both the transmit and receive sides to improve communication performance. Whereas UMTS uses fixed 5mhz blocks of spectrum, LTE can use a variable size slice of spectrum for each user depending on requirements. Although I don't believe that it can use two vastly different frequency bands simultaneously as you suggested.

[Daniel0418]

[QUOTE=winterspan;1316891] but they could layer a native voice service (through VOIP at the system level) over the top if they wanted to,

Obviously it is not wifi in and of itself. That is very clear and common sense. The sentence ive bolded. come on man they "could use it for VOIP" Which sprint phone will be using this? Yes none.... but maybe... one day. That is your opinion. When 2-4 MBPS of download speed.... on a computer. When ATT can already provide that on a cell phone. Sounds like a step backwards to me. Not to mention if ATT really does upgrade their 3G which they have reminded us recently here on appleinsider that they would. Then we have 20MBPS 3g and 3MPBS 4g???? I don't think this makes any sense. lol and I must say again... its not even for a phone. Even if/when a phone will utilize it... How is spring going to roll out towers everywhere for it? They have the worst 3g coverage of a provider out there so good look putting another system when they didn't bother with it before. I don't know whats worse sprint or T mobile.

[winterspan]

Originally Posted by Daniel0418

Obviously it is not wifi in and of itself. That is very clear and common sense.

Well, I certainly thought so. Then again, I wasn't the one who said "Sprint has not rolled out 4g they haven't even claimed to. They rolled out wifi basically for the city."

Originally Posted by Daniel0418

The sentence ive bolded. come on man they "could use it for VOIP" Which sprint phone will be using this? Yes none.... but maybe... one day. That is your opinion. When 2-4 MBPS of download speed.... on a computer. When ATT can already provide that on a cell phone. Sounds like a step backwards to me. Not to mention if ATT really does upgrade their 3G which they have reminded us recently here on appleinsider that they would. Then we have 20MBPS 3g and 3MPBS 4g???? I don't think this makes any sense. lol and I must say again... its not even for a phone. Even if/when a phone will utilize it... How is spring going to roll out towers everywhere for it? They have the worst 3g coverage of a provider out there so good look putting another system when they didn't bother with it before. I don't know whats worse sprint or T mobile.

1) No, sorry, it's not just my opinion that Sprint is going to be deploying cell phones that can utilize their mobile Wimax network (likely dual-mode CDMA/Wimax) in the future, this has been mentioned in the press many times. Wimax chipsets for mobile phones are already developed. What did you think sprint was going to do after their CDMA network gets long in the tooth?

2) I don't know why you are arguing with me about the relative merits of Sprint's Xohm Wimax. I have already said I think it is a very poor idea, given the fact that it is hardly faster than AT&T's current UMTS network and AT&T is currently upgrading their HSPA rollout, and will be transitioning to 20mbit HSPA+ in 2009. Sprint is spending billions building out this entire new network when they should have focused their efforts on upgrading their existing EV-DO network and/or planned a transition to LTE or UMB. I think mobile Wimax was the worst strategy they could have chosen.

[backtomac]

Originally Posted by winterspan

You've been pulled into the hype..

Maybe that's why I'm waiting for an objective review on the service from someone like Ars or Anand.

[backtomac]

Originally Posted by GregAlexander

I don't fully understand the LTE technologies. As I understand it, it aggregates multiple signals, and doesn't require a wide frequency band - so if a provider has a little bit of great frequency (eg 700Mhz) and a lot of less-penetrating frequency (eg 2500Mhz and higher) it can use them both simultaneously. It'll enable better handover between frequencies and maximise the effectiveness of the best frequencies for devices in poor reception areas.

Does that sound right?

If you say so. What I've read and I can't find the link at the moment is that LTE will high higher data transfer rates and less latency, compared to WiMax. Apparently latency is a problem with WiMax but perhaps they've overcome this.

I'm hoping that Sprint's WiMax service does well as that may push ATT and Verizon to move up the roll out of 4G service. Some competition in this area is good IMO.

[jawporta]

They should just get the 3G working first, before even thinking about 4G. Stupid article.

[aplnub]

Originally Posted by jawporta

They should just get the 3G working first, before even thinking about 4G. Stupid article.

I haven't read the thread through so I apologize if this has been mentioned.

Does anyone else get the feeling after hearing AT&T say this, they have a deal with Apple on the iPhone for at least a few more years?

[RaysWayz]

Originally Posted by RichL

I'm more interested in Verizon's plans. How are they going to transition from EV-DO (which still uses their 2G CDMA network for voice) to LTE? Who will want to make CDMA+LTE dual modem phones? It's not like they can instantly switch on an entire LTE network nationwide.

It's no secret that Verizon Wireless has plans to move over to a GSM network because CDMA is a dying technology with very strict limitations. I believe that when they successfully make the switch to GSM, then everyone will see them deploying LTE across their network.