47% of US consumers feel they don't need 4G LTE - Page 2

 

Interesting. On the morning that the Retina iPad was announced, I knew within an hour or so if 4G/LTE was going to be usable here in Australia. But I personally know at least one person who didn't bother to check, bought it and then complained about it.

Edited by sennen - 8/22/12 at 6:57am

 

I love the build quality of that Samsung Note. Just sayin'.

Don't you mean 1GB cap? That's where Verizon and AT&T start at with the new share plans... totally idiotic. 

 

I'm glad I jumped on Straight Talk. Yeah, there's a good chance they won't have the new nanoSIM cards for a while, which the next iPhone will most likely use. There's also a very, very good chance it'll be forever and a day before LTE is supported on Straight Talk, but that's fine, too. My iPhone 4S (locked to AT&T) is working sufficiently with their service to justify the lower monthly cost... not perfect, but sufficient.

 

I'm hoping when I buy the new iPhone, unlocked from Apple, it'll work better with Straight Talk. I hope I can find a good way to trim the SIM card if (most likely) it uses the new nanoSIM.  

I know exactly what 4G is.  I understand all of the 4G standards that are currently available, I understand the extra bandwidth they provide, the lower latency and most importantly the bigger battery drain.  And I'll be the first to admit that until this year I had no need for 4G, and simply didnt crave it.  For 90% of the shyt I do on my phone, Verizon's 3G network with average 1Mb download speeds work perfectly fine.  They allow me to check email, surf the net, facebook, watch videos, stream music, stream video, etc.. etc.  3G is absolutely liveable for me and I consider myself a "tech guy".

 

Now lets talk about that 10%.  With a jailbroken iPhone, Im able to use Facetime over cellular.  Im able to play YoutubeHD.  Im able to stream Pandora with unlimited skips/no ads.  Im able to stream HD movies, music & data from iCloud, and also enjoy my Vulkano streamed cable box programming (Slingbox copycat).  That 10% is when I find 3G speeds horribly frustrating.  The little buffer circle does get annoying.  And it almost always happens when Im trying to show someone a piece of media and Im in a hurry.  So many times I've wanted to show a video, play a song, check the score of the game.. and theres that akward moment where you have to wait anywhere from 10seconds to a full minute or so for it to start playing.

 

I welcome the iPhone5.  I welcome 4G/LTE.  I welcome a bigger screen.  And I welcome NFC technology.  Those are all major features, that have matured and are hugely popular in the smartphone market.  If those features are in the iPhone5, then I'll be one of the first people to pre-order online.  As a unlimited data customer with Verizon.. I'm even paying full price for the phone to keep my unlimited plan.  Thats not any easy task to do.. as full price 64GB iPhone4S currently sells for $800!!  I expect the same pricing for the next gen 5 release.  Atleast Amazon is offering $455 tradein value for my current 32GB 4S.

LTE only has two standards. What everyone is using and what China Mobile designed for themselves and at least one Japanese carrier. Both are part of Qualcomm chips so that isn't an issue.

Where the issue lies with LTE is that the spectrums are all over the place. Apple needs 3 spectrums just for the US for two carries. I think Sprint uses a 4th but I'd have to look it up. I think Australia needs around 3. It looks like they need about 12 operating bands just to get the major markets with LTE now. Note that 5 operating bands were only supported for 3G in 2010. So how are we to get a dozen (or more) in 2012? The two possibilities I see for widespread LTE support are 1) Apple and Qualcomm have found a way to use chips that can cover many frequencies (which we haven't seen, and 2) Apple releases iPhones that are almost alike expect for the operating band support for different countries (which we also haven't seen expect for the Verizon iPhone 4 which did use the company's first worldmode chip).

Good luck with that in the future. Kernel level ASLR might be a problem.

And no one needed color TV, sound in movies, DVDs, Playstations/Xboxes/Wiis, ebooks, retina MacBook Pros, quad core GPU iPads, dual-core retina iPhones etc.  I could go on and on about technology that "no one needed" but yet is today considered vital to many people.  4G is about a more efficient usage of spectrum.  By being able to provide a higher throughput more users can be supported in a smaller slice of spectrum even if capped at 3G speeds.

 

If we listened to people like you we'd still be running PCs with 640KB of RAM with 8-bit color VGA graphics from the CLI.  No one needs 32-bit color graphical UIs.

my work email is downloaded onto my iphone while i sleep and shower in the morning. if i feel like it i check it in the subway or i just read a book.

 

4G/LTE will do very little for me

I totally agree with this.  I'd rather have a cheaper 3G phone/data payment then faster service and higher cost.

I average about 40 minutes of my Phone plan (AT&T) every month...i have the minimum plan.  I text pay-per-use about 1/2 dozen times per month...the rest is Wifi or 3g Data.

I have the AT&T unlimited data 3G plan.  I wish these carriers would do what many other countries do.  For example, in China it's pretty common to pay a flat fee for the SIM card (around $10-$20) and then pay-per-use.

Plus with the advent of apps like Google Voice, voice/text to non-iPhones can become free over 3G Data.

 

I see a day where Cellular Data will be the only service.  Phone/Text service is on it's way out.

 

I think that's a function of capacity. 3G networks are overloaded here in NYC, so LTE is a big benefit.

 

As for the survey itself, it doesn't surprise me. It also doesn't help matters that the ITC loosened the rules so that T-Mobile and AT&T could rechristen their existing 3G networks as "4G." Consumers may not even realize that there is a difference between "4G" and "LTE." As long as they can download what they want, they are happy. Having said that, LTE is more efficient, so once everyone is on LTE, they will be more likely to be able to get those downloads.

You're quoting the ITU's original standard, which has been considerably watered down since then. Just take a look at T-Mobile's marketing, it's not even LTE but they call it 4G. Most others consider LTE to be what makes it 4G.

I had an employee that felt he had to have 4G, even though it puts him on a more expensive carrier, with an additional monthly fee for that feature, can only use it at his other work place and he doesn't actually do work, and he really didn't have the money to justify the costs.

I'm all for 4G, but I think the increased battery drain is still a concern, and coverage is still a major concern. I have the third iPad for Verizon and I couldn't get anything in Houston when I visited last month, which leads me to the question of why bother. If you do have coverage and can maintain battery power, then you're golden.

In light of this poll, AT&T has decided to block the built-in Safari, Weather, Stocks, Maps, Notes, Photos, Calendar, Camera, App Store, iTunes, and Reminders apps on the iPhone unless users pay for their more expensive data plan.

 

When questioned as to the legality of this move, they replied, "Because we can."

 

In other news, the government to continue to ignore AT&T.

In Finland a truly unlimited 3G data subscription is about 17 USD/mo if on a two year deal. Real speeds on an iPhone 4 are in the 3-4Mbps range. On the new iPad easily double that due to the dual-cell functionality being so widespread. Best case scenarios are even higher. A USB modem is included. LTE is about 24USD.

 

Phone call about 9 us cents per minute and SMS is 9 cent per minute. Monthly cost is about 90 cents / month for the subrsciption itself. No charges on reception of calls or SMS. Seems to be pretty similar in the nordics and not far off in Europe in general.

Those are examples of technologies that were brought to the living room where most media is enjoyed.  However, LTE isn't a technology that allows you to watch a movie and drive a car at the same time, for example.

 

There are eight and 16 core computers out there but 95% of computer buyers don't buy them.  So it's not always the case that people generate a need out of a new offering.

 

In the US the performance issues seem to be due to lack of investment in 3G sites and backhaul which seems to come from a degree of lack of  competition between operator's due to fragmented frequencies, differing technologies and lack of pricing transparency via bundling of long term contracts and terminals. Do you have number portability mandated in the US?

 

Regarding LTE, the issue is not a standards nightmare. It's the exact same problem that we've had with north america since 2G. The FCC has given out frequencies to operators which do not match with the rest of the world or even other operators within the US. This is where the issue came from, not the LTE specification itself (china's protectionist efforts not withstanding). Most of the world is starting LTE with 2.6, 1.8 and 0.8 GHz frequencies (too many). In the US, they allocated at least 2.1, 1.9, 1.7 & 0.7 GHz to operators. These frequencies do not match other countries besides US and Canada.

 

With 3G it was basically simpler. The world used 2.1 GHz and now lately 900MHz while the US uses a lot more frequencies with none matching these. That's why the world phones in 3G required a 5-band device, which saw light around two years ago for the first time. These devices work all around the world and now on most US networks. Now imagine how easy it is to create a device, that works in at least 7 bands in the range 700-2600 MHz. This would be a minimum requirement to get a "mostly global" coverage LTE device.

Edited by jahonen - 8/22/12 at 8:08am

Meanwhile, 47% of people are still waiting for that faster horse...

Unsurprising survey result.

Something like 90-95% of American smartphone users consume less than 2GB of cellular data per month. With that sort of consumption (68MB average per day), the faster 4G LTE speeds aren't critical.

The main benefit of 4G LTE might be range. AT&T and Verizon are both using allocated 700MHz spectrum which tends to have better range than higher frequencies. If LTE power consumption can be optimized, it might end up be better, but we haven't yet seen cellular LTE chipset that show such power optimization.

From a mobile operator perspective, LTE makes more efficient use of spectrum, so they are motivated to get people over to 4G. HSPA/HSPA+ is a relatively inefficient use of wireless spectrum (by today's telecommunication standards).

Of course, if American cellular consumers dramatically increase their data usage, 4G LTE might become more attractive to these people. But certainly while it might be useful or enjoyable, it's not "needed" by most Americans.

LTE is probably more welcome elsewhere as Europeans and Asians have long enjoyed faster HSPA speeds for years.

I don't *need* a roof over my head, but it sure is nice

 

Last I checked food, water, oxygen and toilet paper is all I need.  But I will be getting 4G LTE because I want it.

Apple needs to be concerned about this too. No doubt the next iPhone will help drive 4G LTE adoption in major metropolitan areas, but despite the carriers claims it is far from widespread. Many, especially rural customers are going to find it means exactly squat to them. But my guess is a large percentage of iPhone 4 owners are not going to be compelled to upgrade on this one. Higher prices, lower data caps, spotty coverage, higher energy drain ... especially if this is how consumers really feel about 4G. Aside from the larger screen, which I personally eschew, I'm not sure what other major selling points are going to draw a crowd, other than it's the latest must have from Apple. And, once the usual tech-crazed core adopters realize that the new dock configuration is going to cause widespread incompatibility with their existing equipment, resulting in a larger hit to their budget, they may not be as quick to jump on their usual update train, and save some money in this economy for a change. The 3G & 3GS crowd are going to be the most likely buyers, as they have so much to gain, and might be enough to drive sales for Apple for the next generation.

LTE tends to be faster than domestic broadband/free-wifi with much lower latency. However until the data caps are increased to reasonable levels, it will never cause "cord cutting" in the same way cable tv and telephone has. Most cable cutters, to date, either don't use, or minimally use television/telephone. With data, there is no such thing as "minimal" use. I took my iPad3 out to a local convention, and used 36MB (no free WiFi, 1 bar of LTE) only from visiting one web page. Considering that the web page is about 2MB, the remaining 34MB was all overhead from twitter, email, and anything else I installed but wasn't using. So spread that over a month, and that takes it just over 1GB, which also happens to be the data cap.

When I went to the Seattle Convention center early this year, there was no LTE coverage anywhere in the city. (I'm not sure if this is still the case), Trying to use 3G data on AT&T on the same iPad used most of the data cap in 3 days, but had less success in actually using it. At one point it was dropped to 2G on the train.

The way to solve some of the "Do I need LTE?" is to just side-by-side show people the difference in places that they'd need it, convention centers, transit, office buildings, shopping malls.

 

How so? Currently LTE tops out around 100Mbps. If you compare oranges to oranges and take HSPA+ at 20MHz and 2x2 MIMO, you'll actually get a theoretical peak of 168Mbps....

 

LTE has taken up much more slowly elsewhere exactly because HSPA+ is good enough for now and still has a lot of growth potential so there's been little hurry to adopt LTE on the consumer side.

Good. More LTE for me.

I understand technology and don't need 4G, either. Nothing on my phone or tablet requires anything beyond 3G, I'd much rather networks spent their money improving their 3G network and eliminating the metered data plans. For fast Internet access I have my 300mbps wired connection at home..

I have 4G LTE on my Lumia 900, and I always have it turned off, 3G is plenty fast, and i get great battery life with it. When I run on edge I get about 3-4 days of battery life with normal usage. If I get a iPhone 6 (yes, thats what it really is, just like how the 4S is really the 5), LTE will be off 90% of the time. I'll take longer battery life any day on my phone over speed.

People don't know what they need until it comes out.  This is what Apple is very good at doing, and the rest of the industry just tags along.

However, to paraphrase:

I don't "need" a flying car.
 

(in the 70's) - I don't need to access other computers that are connected to other computers, from my computer!

(in the early 1900's.)  I don't need an automobile.  I just want a faster horse. :)

 

4G LTE... So you can exceed your bandwidth and pay hundreds in overage charges to your cellular provider more quickly?

 

I certainly understand what the technology is, but unless the useless wankers running the phone companies change their plans to support reasonable bandwidth, count me out of "wanting" or "needing" it. $30 to watch a movie seems a bit much no matter how much their TV ads like to show that ability. I typically see download speeds in the 5-8Mbps range on 3G - fine for email and surfing - and any case that I can think of where I'd really want higher throughput is tempered by the idiotic data plans.

LTE has already been out for a couple years now, so that argument is moot.

Strictly speaking, the rest of the industry has been offering LTE devices already, and Apple is tagging along. However, Apple isn't always about being the first with a technology, to assume such is to misunderstand how they operate.

You're right if you mean to say that needs and demands change. It used to be you could conduct business with a voice-only phone. Now, you're not competitive. If you're not downloading big files for work, then 4G is more a want than a need. In two years, that might change for more people. But "needing" something for its own sake really doesn't solve anything.

I was trying to be more general than specific to Apple when it comes to just about anything out there.

LTE has been out, but I don't think it was really consistent with carriers which is why Apple did not come out with a 4G phone.  It also reminds me of the USB 3.0 debacle.  Sure the specs were out and some even marketed products on the pre-final specs, but was never ratified and made final, which is why Apple didn't come out with 3.0 on their machines.  It waited until it was a "real" spec and not have something change at the last minute.

You might want to test it first or at least read about tests before doing that. Up until now we're only seen the 1st and 2nd gen LTE chips in use. While it's possible that Apple won't be able to source the 3rd gen 28nm LTE chips from Qualcomm I find that very unlikely. I would expect the LTE to be around as power efficient as 3G chip in the 3rd gen iPhone from 2009. Not too shabby, if that is the case. There might also be some changes to the battery size and chemical makeup, as well as the power efficiency of other components that could lead to an overall increase in longevity, too.

 

The next killer app will require LTE to make it work.

 

It could be turn by turn map instructions

It could be streaming video back to your house

It could be a lot of things... and it will be the speed that makes it 'killer'

 

Most people didn't think they needed a web browser on their phone 10 years ago, and email on a phone was a 'corporate boughsie' affectation.

Now people are complaining if their android pad isn't 1080P, let alone retina like the iPad.   That tells me that the masses are going to evolve to LTE pretty quickly.

I don't think it was a carrier issue but a technology issue. It's hard to find an LTE phone that even comes close to the iPhone's size. Besides trying to use the larger display as a marketing tool agains the iPhone which they couldn't compete with on size they also couldn't put LTE in a small device and expect it to have decent battery life. The new chips do make that considerably more possible. \

Apple did this before with the original iPhone being only 2G. Even in 2008 when the iPhone went 3G the battery life suffered considerably for it even though it was still best in class. That's one thing I can trust with Apple; if they are including it they feel the battery life is in a reasonable usage range. I can't say that about any other vendor across all their devices.

 

This.

 

The other reason is that LTE in 'a few' markets makes it hard for Apple to set a 'expectation' of 'insanely great'.  Carriers in podunk city Iowa can sell a LTE phone, but the rank and file will be sold a cheaper 3G (2G? TDMS?) phone as their local networks allow.  Apple, with 1 flagship model (well, CDMA being 1.5), doesn't want a negative customer experience, so it wants to say '95% of the country is covered by [someone's] LTE'.

 

With 4s's and 4's being 99 and free with contract phones, it may be less of a deal, but Apple doesn't want to sell something if most people can't exploit its killer features.

 

If the next killer app requires LTE, it will be deleted from most phones after people receive the first bill with the overage charges.  LTE won't be needed until these ridiculously low data caps are raised.

Will that really be a problem for most people? I used more a 100GB a couple times with tethering but without that I use well under my 2GB limit. I'm a heavy user and I can't seem to use more than 650MB in any month. In fact, I'm pretty consistent at 550 to 650MB. LTE will surely increase my usage because I do more things in the same time frame but you don't really gain too much time for a video buffering a little faster. When it comes to emails we're talking the exact same data size for the exact same emails. But for any reasoning that LTE might make you use more data the same can be said for faster 3G whether it's on the device or on the network... and I don't recall people complaining when a carrier upgraded the infrastructure.

The physical area of Australia that actually has 4G coverage is VERY limited, with the company that has it milking it for all it's worth in advertising, complete with fine print disclaimers.

 

Australia still needs to hold the auction of 700MHz spectrum before we'll see any real gains in 4G with worldwide compatibility.

 

Meanwhile I guess we'll just have to make do with the theoretical maximum of 42 Mbps that HSDPA+ offers

 

Even a few years ago when Samsung were still copying Nokia, their build quality was often called into question, that and the paucity of their software updates.

 

Times don't change.

First, it's not 4G

Second, no one NEEDS it

Third, some people do WANT it

Fourth, only idiots think that all "4G" networks are the same

Fifth, 4G doesn't even exist

In 2012 I still don't need a car. For very light and sporadic use it's much cheaper to rent them.

I really wish people would stop making up their own definitions and then expecting the world to comply with their narrow views.

By the International standard definition, HSPA+ is 4G. LTE is, also.

This was news to me, I hadn't seen the memo. I knew they seriously reduced the bit rate requirements, bit I didn't know they added a wireless standard to it.