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.
On a phone, LTE is overkill. On laptops, tablets it's desirable.
The biggest issue is network providers not providing adequate 3G performance. I.e. capacity issues on existing networks.
Additionally LTE is also a standards nightmare... look at the iPad sold to Australia. At least 3G is a standard that is compatible around most of the world.
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).
You don't need a quad core, 2,623Ghz CPU to check email. Nor do you need the latest mega performance graphics card. And you certainly don't need 10,000 channels on your cable subscription.
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.
I find 4G substantially more productive here in NYC. On my commute to work, I like to check my mails, web servers, google analytics and such. 3G was very slow and spotty. When I bought the 3rd generation iPad, the performance was 10x. Pages load like wifi. In this city, waiting longer is getting less done. Simple as that.
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.
Many people don't need something they don't have, so that's understandable. But ask them what the would like and I'm willing to brt reasonably priced data plans would be at the top of the list.
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 find 4G substantially more productive here in NYC. On my commute to work, I like to check my mails, web servers, google analytics and such. 3G was very slow and spotty. When I bought the 3rd generation iPad, the performance was 10x. Pages load like wifi. In this city, waiting longer is getting less done. Simple as that.
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.
I am amazed that 47% of people are sane. Having 100 Mbit (100Mbit is 4G. LTE is not 4G. LTE advance is 4G) in you phone is nothing you need.
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.
Consumers want services and products, not technologies. New services and products will rely on LTE. Only then will consumers need LTE.
I'm sure 47% of consumers didn't feel the need for broadband before YouTube, Hulu, etc. came along.
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.
The biggest issue is network providers not providing adequate 3G performance. I.e. capacity issues on existing networks.
Additionally LTE is also a standards nightmare... look at the iPad sold to Australia. At least 3G is a standard that is compatible around most of the world.
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.
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.
If I were the phone companies, I would be more concerned that over 70% either don't think they need it or don't really care (aka, "they are all the same"). I would put myself in the "I don't NEED it group." Sure, it would be nice, but I'm really not willing to pay anything extra for the additional speed.
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.
I find 4G substantially more productive here in NYC. On my commute to work, I like to check my mails, web servers, google analytics and such. 3G was very slow and spotty. When I bought the 3rd generation iPad, the performance was 10x. Pages load like wifi. In this city, waiting longer is getting less done. Simple as that.
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.
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).
LTE is probably more welcome elsewhere as Europeans and Asians have long enjoyed faster HSPA speeds for years.
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.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by 845032
Oh, I got it.
So, next iphone is not LTE
I love the build quality of that Samsung Note. Just sayin'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by msantti
4G is so awesome with a 2 GB data cap!
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp
You don't need a quad core, 2,623Ghz CPU to check email. Nor do you need the latest mega performance graphics card. And you certainly don't need 10,000 channels on your cable subscription.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBlongz
I find 4G substantially more productive here in NYC. On my commute to work, I like to check my mails, web servers, google analytics and such. 3G was very slow and spotty. When I bought the 3rd generation iPad, the performance was 10x. Pages load like wifi. In this city, waiting longer is getting less done. Simple as that.
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by WisdomSeed
Many people don't need something they don't have, so that's understandable. But ask them what the would like and I'm willing to brt reasonably priced data plans would be at the top of the list.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBlongz
I find 4G substantially more productive here in NYC. On my commute to work, I like to check my mails, web servers, google analytics and such. 3G was very slow and spotty. When I bought the 3rd generation iPad, the performance was 10x. Pages load like wifi. In this city, waiting longer is getting less done. Simple as that.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 845032
Really? Which country do you live in ?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL
Consumers want services and products, not technologies. New services and products will rely on LTE. Only then will consumers need LTE.
I'm sure 47% of consumers didn't feel the need for broadband before YouTube, Hulu, etc. came along.
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.
Quote:
The biggest issue is network providers not providing adequate 3G performance. I.e. capacity issues on existing networks.
Additionally LTE is also a standards nightmare... look at the iPad sold to Australia. At least 3G is a standard that is compatible around most of the world.
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.
Meanwhile, 47% of people are still waiting for that faster horse...
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831
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).
LTE is probably more welcome elsewhere as Europeans and Asians have long enjoyed faster HSPA speeds for years.
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.