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.
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
...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.
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
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."
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
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
[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.
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."
Quote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Do you have any sources on that? I *highly* doubt that Verizon's transition to LTE would involve GSM of any form.. or UMTS for that matter. LTE is a totally new air interface requiring different hardware than GSM or UMTS so it would be pointless to have to install two entire new networks. But at the same time, I don't know how they are going to transition this. They are using new spectrum (700mhz) though, so they can build out the new LTE network along side their existing CDMA network. Perhaps they will be selling dual-mode CDMA/LTE phones for a while..
Comments
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
I say skip it and go to 5G now
AT&T isn't exactly the Apple of cell phone providers
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.
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.
...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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Do you have any sources on that? I *highly* doubt that Verizon's transition to LTE would involve GSM of any form.. or UMTS for that matter. LTE is a totally new air interface requiring different hardware than GSM or UMTS so it would be pointless to have to install two entire new networks. But at the same time, I don't know how they are going to transition this. They are using new spectrum (700mhz) though, so they can build out the new LTE network along side their existing CDMA network. Perhaps they will be selling dual-mode CDMA/LTE phones for a while..