I's called an error or a lie depending on your viewpoint. Highest performing cellular data at the moment is LTE with HSPA+ a very close second.
Regs, Jarkko
Testing shows Verizon's LTE (and AT&T's) to be top dog, followed by T-Mobile's 42mbps-enabled 3G network, followed by Sprint's WiMax and then AT&T's 3G network... just like you said.
The real advantage of LTE over other technologies is the latency, which is much better than 3G technologies and even WiMax. Exciting!
What, only 14.4 Mbps? Switzerland is already rolling out 42 Mbps HSDPA+ and testing 100 Mbps LTE.
Oh, and for the record, the iPhone 4S does NOT have 4G since HSDPA is classed as 3.5G. You need full LTE to qualify as 4G.
1) These comments strike me as so odd. You clearly talk of handsets yet reference a carrier doing some preliminary test. Switzerland rolling out 42Mb/s at their towers does not mean that phones in Switzerland have 42Mb/s chips. IT's a completely different situation with the cellular tech coming wll after the carrier's tech.
2) Sure it does. It has '4G' because the carrier defined it as their 4th generation network. They can use any measure they wish because there is no governing body that says you can't use a number followed by the letter 'G' unless you first get approval from the ITU. And nowhere on these carriers's sites are they saying this is '4G" as defined by the ITU. So what's your problem.
3) Oh yeah, as previously discussed, 14.4Mbps is HSPA+ and the ITU-R included LTE and HSPA+ as '4G'.
Apple notwithstanding, any carrier promising 3G beyond 5mbps is outright lying and should be taken to task for their blatant deception. Like I said, show me in volume around the world where you can get 5mbps sustained on 3G. HS-whatever-PA is all nice on paper but in practice you're pushing the limits of what is possible with 3G networks as they currently stand around the world.
Exactly, technology on paper is unlimited. Problem is most of us don't live on paper and I'm getting real tired of all the bogus claims companies like to throw around.
I don't understand this quote from the article, my current VZW Thunderbolt 4G LTE is showing speed tests around 30 Mbps down and 12Mbps up currently. Can someone explain what they mean by highest performance cellular data technology with a theoretical rate of 14.4 Mbps?
How many seconds faster does your phone load a common website vs say an iphone? Even if you are getting 30mbps down consistently, the limitations of your phone would prevent it from loading the page any faster than a desktop pc on a 3mbps connection.
Downloading files/apps would be the only advantage, which is usually done over wifi.
I don't understand this quote from the article, my current VZW Thunderbolt 4G LTE is showing speed tests around 30 Mbps down and 12Mbps up currently. Can someone explain what they mean by highest performance cellular data technology with a theoretical rate of 14.4 Mbps?
No doubt that Verizon's LTE network, where available, is much faster than HSPA 14.4. I don't actually see where Apple is claiming that HPSA 14.4 is the highest performance. However, your Thunderbolt has under 3 hours of battery life in Anandtech's smartphone web browsing test. The iPhone 4 has 6.65 (AT&T) or 7.67 (VZW) hours. Undoubtedly the Qualcomm add-on LTE chip used in the Thunderbolt is fast - but it is also big and power hungry. If you don't mind the very short battery life and you live in LTE deployed territory, I can see how you can be swayed by this. But that's a very small percentage of people. Most of Apple's customers have pretty high expectations for their phones, like decent battery life - and that means some engineering compromises, even if that means not using the 1st generation LTE chipsets, not cranking the clock speed beyond what is reasonable given the current process technology and ARM CPU design.
But just like there are people that like buying 10-12 pound 17" gaming laptops with desktop processors and 45 minute battery life, there are people willing to buy the current 4G LTE handsets. Just don't expect Apple to ship unbalanced products like that. 4G HSPA+ phones are pretty much the same in the real world in 2011 and possibly 2012 as the iPhone 4S (HSPA, not plus), which is what Apple is saying. I don't know why Apple didn't ship a HSPA+ phone, maybe they didn't like the quality or power characteristics of the available Qualcomm chips.
BTW, if you really "need" LTE now, it probably makes more sense to get a LTE hotspot device with its own big battery so you have it in the car or wherever you can handle the bulk and otherwise use 3G/3.5G in your phone the rest of the time.
When the actual LTE chipsets intended for phone use come out in 2012, what are you going to think about the brick that is your Thunderbolt then? Sometimes the earliest adopter gets screwed.
Which is good because Apple sells more iPhones outside of the US than in the US. Despite the sales figures the iPhone has been quite US-centric (and continues to be so).
Yes, I think about 15% US vs. 85% rest of the World.
They are not the same thing and 4S does not do HSPA+. 4S does HSPA.
- 3GPP Release 5 introduced HSDPA (High Speed Downlink Packet Access) with speeds up to 14.4Mbps in the downlink and this tech was deployed to networks roughly around 2007-2009.
- 3GPP Release 6 introduced HSUPA (High Speed Uplink Packet Access) up to 5.8Mbps in the uplink direction. Deployed roughly 2008-2010
These two together are collectively known as HSPA
- 3GPP Release 7 brought HSPA+, which increased speeds in both directions (DL 21Mbps-84Mbps) and brought many other improvements. This is what has been deployed in networks globally during the last few years or so.
- 3GPP Release 8 brought LTE and is being deployed as we speak
- Release 9 will bring improvements to LTE. Next 1-3 years for deployment
- Release 10 will bring HSPA+ to 168Mbps
- Release 11 will bring HSPA+ Advanced (speeds up to 678Mbps). 3-5 years from now in real life.
Regs, Jarkko
Thanks! So it looks like the internet speed from the 4S will be exactly the same as my 3GS. Is that a correct statement?
Thanks! So it looks like the internet speed from the 4S will be exactly the same as my 3GS. Is that a correct statement?
Nope. The 4S will potentially provide 2x the data rate at 3GS and 4 users in areas where ATT has HSDPA 14.4 coverage. So, if you're in such an area, you'll get up to 4 to 10 Mbit/s depending on conditions.
With the 3GS, people tend to get 0.5 to 3.5 Mbit/s down and <0.3 Mbit/s up.
With the 4, people tend to get 0.5 to 3.5 Mbit/s down and 0.5 to 1.5 Mbit/s up.
With the 4S, people should get from 0.5 to 8 Mbit/s down and 0.5 to 1.5 Mbit/s up.
These are not exact numbers as it is dependent on local conditions, obviously, you need to be in an 14.4 area to get those 2x data rates over the 3GS/4.
On the bright side, people in other parts of the world (like Europe, Australia) are more guaranteed to get 5 to 10 Mbit/s as their 14.4/21 Mbit/s networks are more mature and built out.
With all due respect, I don't think comparing NZ to the 270 million sq miles and 150+ million mobile phone subscribers is apples to apples (pardon the puns).
Can you explain what you mean, I wasn't comparing NZ to whatever you think I was.
3) Oh yeah, as previously discussed, 14.4Mbps is HSPA+
Only if the phone supports Release 7 signalling features (fractional DPCH, CPC, Fast Dormancy etc.), which Apple has not given any statements on. So if it's just a bump from using 10 codes to 15 codes in parallell, it's still HSPA.
Until Apple clarifies (or someone grabs signalling traces), then it's safer to assume HSPA.
Testing shows Verizon's LTE (and AT&T's) to be top dog, followed by T-Mobile's 42mbps-enabled 3G network, followed by Sprint's WiMax and then AT&T's 3G network... just like you said.
The real advantage of LTE over other technologies is the latency, which is much better than 3G technologies and even WiMax. Exciting!
Common misconception. I've seen WCDMA networks, with 25-35 ms roundtrip delay. If you build your WCDMA network architecture the same way as LTEs (as defined in 3GPP R6), then there should be negligible difference in delay between LTE and WCDMA.
LTE is speedwise only 10-20% better than WCDMA when you compare oranges to oranges (most sites don't). It's drawback is the differing spectrums allocated globally (think how compatible your phones are between WCDMA operators in the US to get an idea), which leads to phones not being usable globally at least in the beginning.
So no, LTE is not the shining start many think. Good yes, heads above WCDMA? No. Not yet (and for a good years to come). Better than WCDMA? In some places, yes.
Only if the phone supports Release 7 signalling features (fractional DPCH, CPC, Fast Dormancy etc.), which Apple has not given any statements on. So if it's just a bump from using 10 codes to 15 codes in parallell, it's still HSPA.
Until Apple clarifies (or someone grabs signalling traces), then it's safer to assume HSPA.
Regs, Jarkko
Good point. I didn't even consider that when looking at all the other '4G' phones the iPhone 4S was compared to.
Nope. The 4S will potentially provide 2x the data rate at 3GS and 4 users in areas where ATT has HSDPA 14.4 coverage. So, if you're in such an area, you'll get up to 4 to 10 Mbit/s depending on conditions.
With the 3GS, people tend to get 0.5 to 3.5 Mbit/s down and <0.3 Mbit/s up.
With the 4, people tend to get 0.5 to 3.5 Mbit/s down and 0.5 to 1.5 Mbit/s up.
With the 4S, people should get from 0.5 to 8 Mbit/s down and 0.5 to 1.5 Mbit/s up.
These are not exact numbers as it is dependent on local conditions, obviously, you need to be in an 14.4 area to get those 2x data rates over the 3GS/4.
On the bright side, people in other parts of the world (like Europe, Australia) are more guaranteed to get 5 to 10 Mbit/s as their 14.4/21 Mbit/s networks are more mature and built out.
Is there any data on ATT's progress on their 14.4 network? Any locations that supposedly have it?
Is there any data on ATT's progress on their 14.4 network? Any locations that supposedly have it?
Just check attwireless.com. My eyeballs say they've got coverage for most of the high population metro areas. I'd estimate 200m people are covered in the USA, including cities in Puerto Rico, Hawaii and Alaska. My area is covered.
Exactly, technology on paper is unlimited. Problem is most of us don't live on paper and I'm getting real tired of all the bogus claims companies like to throw around.
Jarkko, see above. I am not doubting the science or the technicalities, clearly I am no expert in this area.
Edit: see my next post for the best proof I can find...
It is a point of frustration that many users around the world on 3G, 3.5G, 3.5G+ HS-whatever... whatever you call it, it is rare to see 5mbps sustained in many major cities.
There are claims by LTE and WiMax 4G providers that 3G was designed for voice and so there is an inherent disadvantage. Newer 3G standards as you mention can perhaps remove these disadvantages, if they exist. Now the question to you would be, do you believe that there are these disadvantages compared to LTE and WiMax. Secondly, do you believe that telcos around the world, or at least AT&T are addressing these disadvantages. How is Verizon? Does their LTE speed and consistency show a marked improvement over AT&T's fastest 3G speeds?
At what stage does a telco need to focus strongly on LTE to be able to feed enough bandwidth to customers?
Looking at LTE vs 3G in the US, what is the scenario as it stands?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
Would you ellaborate as to why not? 15 codes, 16QAM + MIMO or Dual Cell will get you real speeds beyond 5Mbps quite easily. Just as with LTE it can be done, it can be done with HSPA+ (or soonish HSPA+Adv). It's mainly a matter of dimensioning the radio network and transmission to fit your needs. The first google search I did came up with: http://www.signalsresearch.com/Docs/MWC-%20SRG.pdf. How many of such research papers would you need to satisfy your "in volume around the world" hypotheses?
A while back many networks fell in the 2-3Mbps practical range (achieved with 5-10 codes and 16QAM), but the higher speeds (5-10Mbps) have been on the increase for a while now and should be reality in quite a few locations already since 10-15 codes and dual-cell has become more prevalent and the reception will improve with advanced receivers (FDE, Interference cancellation, CPC and FDPCH) coming to commercial devices withouth changing network HW (SW upgrade required).
The proof I will present is the data by NetIndex which is as much as I can find. Scroll down to the breakdown by ISP. A quick run through shows that some countries can provide 3G averages above 3mbps but not often... and never averages above 5mbps except for very few countries. Of course, these tests are done by those using laptops and phones that support Speedtest.net apps. Which poses some caveats to the data. But interestingly, we do get a good sample of mobile broadband use, since anything lesser than a smartphone cannot run the test AFAIK. So the data rightfully excludes phones that would never get decent 3G speeds anyway.
Here we can try to see average speeds from tests done.
For Australia, notice Vivid is a 4G WiMax provider. Vodafone is a 3G provider. Optus and Telstra's results are both fixed line and wireless which complicates things.
(Just change the 2,1 in the URLs to 2,2 2,3 2,4 etc. to get the different countries. e.g. http://netindex.com/download/2,10/USA (the country word actually doesn't seem to matter)
Note Maxis Broadband Sdn Bhd, Digi, Celcom Internet Service Provider are 3G providers. YTL Communications is a 4G WiMax provider. Packet One Networks is also a 4G WiMax provider. Anything above 6mbps except for YTL Communications is fixed line broadband, not wireless.
Only if the phone supports Release 7 signalling features (fractional DPCH, CPC, Fast Dormancy etc.), which Apple has not given any statements on. So if it's just a bump from using 10 codes to 15 codes in parallell, it's still HSPA.
Until Apple clarifies (or someone grabs signalling traces), then it's safer to assume HSPA.
There are claims by LTE and WiMax 4G providers that 3G was designed for voice and so there is an inherent disadvantage. Newer 3G standards as you mention can perhaps remove these disadvantages, if they exist. Now the question to you would be, do you believe that there are these disadvantages compared to LTE and WiMax.
3G was marketed originally as designed with Voice AND data in mind. In practice data got as much attention as possible at the time as long as it didn't risk voice. Sensible move in 1995.
Many of the shortcomings have already been fixed in the 3G specifications and many of the network vendors are pushing out these capabilities now. The issue is twofold. Even if the operators do deploy these changes, it takes surprisingly long for the mobile devices to actually implement these features.
By taking just a few features into use, the phones could more than double their talk time at the same time allowing continuous data connections and reduce noise in the cell (increased total capacity for all users). They've been available now for at least a year and a half. It's just that none of the phones support these features yet so why should the operators buy, test and deploy them? Talk about chicken and egg...
The disadvantages that the LTE and WiMAX guys tout were there, but many have been largely removed and many of the remaining ones greatly exaggerated. They also have their own disadvantages that WCDMA doesn't....
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
Secondly, do you believe that telcos around the world, or at least AT&T are addressing these disadvantages. How is Verizon? Does their LTE speed and consistency show a marked improvement over AT&T's fastest 3G speeds?
At what stage does a telco need to focus strongly on LTE to be able to feed enough bandwidth to customers?
Looking at LTE vs 3G in the US, what is the scenario as it stands?
The second question I don't know how to answer fully, but let's consider a few points:
- Not all operators are going to get LTE licences
- WCDMA is very near in capabilities to LTE (for the next 5 years at least) if you take the latest improvements and ship them. Remember HSPA+ advanced for example promises speeds over 600Mbps. It just requires so much spectum and HW, that it's unlikely we will see it in real life. Same goes for similar LTE speeds as well. It all boils down to the shannon theorem after all.
- WCDMA chipsets for now are more power efficient than LTE ones ->much better battery life
So if you were an operator with no LTE license, what would you do? Make sure your existing (invested) network is competitive? Many of the WCDMA imrovements are a mere SW update.
OTOH if you had an LTE license, how would you market your new and expensive tech? Would you then invest in your existing 3G network?
The BW issue is not necessarily a question of LTE or not. Many operators have already started to ship 3G on secondary bands. This easily doubles capacity and improves coverage. You can also add smaller cells to congested areas. When that runs out: introduce a third band or go LTE? If you're willing to introduce a whole new tech (LTE) on a new band, why not a third band for a known tech?
So as you can see, the question is multifaceted and not an easy one to answer.
LTE is marketed like mad and with the momentum it now seems to have, I have a hard time believing it'll not succeed. But then again 3G tech is very similar in capability and not all operators get LTE licenses. So 3G will not go away anytime soon either since the established 3G guys without LTE will put up a fight and bring in the latest and greatest 3G capabilities. Just look at the operators rolling out 84Mbps WCDMA today.
Interesting. Wonder what R7 features they actually implemented if it really is an HSPA+ device since they didn't go for any of the speedups...... Or could the AT&T marketing dept. done some hasty assumptions?
Need to get a 4S into the lab to grab some signalling traces..... Anyone got a spare to lend?
Comments
I's called an error or a lie depending on your viewpoint. Highest performing cellular data at the moment is LTE with HSPA+ a very close second.
Regs, Jarkko
Testing shows Verizon's LTE (and AT&T's) to be top dog, followed by T-Mobile's 42mbps-enabled 3G network, followed by Sprint's WiMax and then AT&T's 3G network... just like you said.
The real advantage of LTE over other technologies is the latency, which is much better than 3G technologies and even WiMax. Exciting!
What, only 14.4 Mbps? Switzerland is already rolling out 42 Mbps HSDPA+ and testing 100 Mbps LTE.
Oh, and for the record, the iPhone 4S does NOT have 4G since HSDPA is classed as 3.5G. You need full LTE to qualify as 4G.
1) These comments strike me as so odd. You clearly talk of handsets yet reference a carrier doing some preliminary test. Switzerland rolling out 42Mb/s at their towers does not mean that phones in Switzerland have 42Mb/s chips. IT's a completely different situation with the cellular tech coming wll after the carrier's tech.
2) Sure it does. It has '4G' because the carrier defined it as their 4th generation network. They can use any measure they wish because there is no governing body that says you can't use a number followed by the letter 'G' unless you first get approval from the ITU. And nowhere on these carriers's sites are they saying this is '4G" as defined by the ITU. So what's your problem.
3) Oh yeah, as previously discussed, 14.4Mbps is HSPA+ and the ITU-R included LTE and HSPA+ as '4G'. PS: Show me where the ITU has classed HSPA+ as a corny '3.5G'.
Apple notwithstanding, any carrier promising 3G beyond 5mbps is outright lying and should be taken to task for their blatant deception. Like I said, show me in volume around the world where you can get 5mbps sustained on 3G. HS-whatever-PA is all nice on paper but in practice you're pushing the limits of what is possible with 3G networks as they currently stand around the world.
Exactly, technology on paper is unlimited. Problem is most of us don't live on paper and I'm getting real tired of all the bogus claims companies like to throw around.
I don't understand this quote from the article, my current VZW Thunderbolt 4G LTE is showing speed tests around 30 Mbps down and 12Mbps up currently. Can someone explain what they mean by highest performance cellular data technology with a theoretical rate of 14.4 Mbps?
How many seconds faster does your phone load a common website vs say an iphone? Even if you are getting 30mbps down consistently, the limitations of your phone would prevent it from loading the page any faster than a desktop pc on a 3mbps connection.
Downloading files/apps would be the only advantage, which is usually done over wifi.
I don't understand this quote from the article, my current VZW Thunderbolt 4G LTE is showing speed tests around 30 Mbps down and 12Mbps up currently. Can someone explain what they mean by highest performance cellular data technology with a theoretical rate of 14.4 Mbps?
No doubt that Verizon's LTE network, where available, is much faster than HSPA 14.4. I don't actually see where Apple is claiming that HPSA 14.4 is the highest performance. However, your Thunderbolt has under 3 hours of battery life in Anandtech's smartphone web browsing test. The iPhone 4 has 6.65 (AT&T) or 7.67 (VZW) hours. Undoubtedly the Qualcomm add-on LTE chip used in the Thunderbolt is fast - but it is also big and power hungry. If you don't mind the very short battery life and you live in LTE deployed territory, I can see how you can be swayed by this. But that's a very small percentage of people. Most of Apple's customers have pretty high expectations for their phones, like decent battery life - and that means some engineering compromises, even if that means not using the 1st generation LTE chipsets, not cranking the clock speed beyond what is reasonable given the current process technology and ARM CPU design.
But just like there are people that like buying 10-12 pound 17" gaming laptops with desktop processors and 45 minute battery life, there are people willing to buy the current 4G LTE handsets. Just don't expect Apple to ship unbalanced products like that. 4G HSPA+ phones are pretty much the same in the real world in 2011 and possibly 2012 as the iPhone 4S (HSPA, not plus), which is what Apple is saying. I don't know why Apple didn't ship a HSPA+ phone, maybe they didn't like the quality or power characteristics of the available Qualcomm chips.
BTW, if you really "need" LTE now, it probably makes more sense to get a LTE hotspot device with its own big battery so you have it in the car or wherever you can handle the bulk and otherwise use 3G/3.5G in your phone the rest of the time.
When the actual LTE chipsets intended for phone use come out in 2012, what are you going to think about the brick that is your Thunderbolt then? Sometimes the earliest adopter gets screwed.
Which is good because Apple sells more iPhones outside of the US than in the US. Despite the sales figures the iPhone has been quite US-centric (and continues to be so).
Yes, I think about 15% US vs. 85% rest of the World.
They are not the same thing and 4S does not do HSPA+. 4S does HSPA.
- 3GPP Release 5 introduced HSDPA (High Speed Downlink Packet Access) with speeds up to 14.4Mbps in the downlink and this tech was deployed to networks roughly around 2007-2009.
- 3GPP Release 6 introduced HSUPA (High Speed Uplink Packet Access) up to 5.8Mbps in the uplink direction. Deployed roughly 2008-2010
These two together are collectively known as HSPA
- 3GPP Release 7 brought HSPA+, which increased speeds in both directions (DL 21Mbps-84Mbps) and brought many other improvements. This is what has been deployed in networks globally during the last few years or so.
- 3GPP Release 8 brought LTE and is being deployed as we speak
- Release 9 will bring improvements to LTE. Next 1-3 years for deployment
- Release 10 will bring HSPA+ to 168Mbps
- Release 11 will bring HSPA+ Advanced (speeds up to 678Mbps). 3-5 years from now in real life.
Regs, Jarkko
Thanks! So it looks like the internet speed from the 4S will be exactly the same as my 3GS. Is that a correct statement?
Kevin
Thanks! So it looks like the internet speed from the 4S will be exactly the same as my 3GS. Is that a correct statement?
Nope. The 4S will potentially provide 2x the data rate at 3GS and 4 users in areas where ATT has HSDPA 14.4 coverage. So, if you're in such an area, you'll get up to 4 to 10 Mbit/s depending on conditions.
With the 3GS, people tend to get 0.5 to 3.5 Mbit/s down and <0.3 Mbit/s up.
With the 4, people tend to get 0.5 to 3.5 Mbit/s down and 0.5 to 1.5 Mbit/s up.
With the 4S, people should get from 0.5 to 8 Mbit/s down and 0.5 to 1.5 Mbit/s up.
These are not exact numbers as it is dependent on local conditions, obviously, you need to be in an 14.4 area to get those 2x data rates over the 3GS/4.
On the bright side, people in other parts of the world (like Europe, Australia) are more guaranteed to get 5 to 10 Mbit/s as their 14.4/21 Mbit/s networks are more mature and built out.
With all due respect, I don't think comparing NZ to the 270 million sq miles and 150+ million mobile phone subscribers is apples to apples (pardon the puns).
Can you explain what you mean, I wasn't comparing NZ to whatever you think I was.
3) Oh yeah, as previously discussed, 14.4Mbps is HSPA+
Only if the phone supports Release 7 signalling features (fractional DPCH, CPC, Fast Dormancy etc.), which Apple has not given any statements on. So if it's just a bump from using 10 codes to 15 codes in parallell, it's still HSPA.
Until Apple clarifies (or someone grabs signalling traces), then it's safer to assume HSPA.
Regs, Jarkko
Testing shows Verizon's LTE (and AT&T's) to be top dog, followed by T-Mobile's 42mbps-enabled 3G network, followed by Sprint's WiMax and then AT&T's 3G network... just like you said.
The real advantage of LTE over other technologies is the latency, which is much better than 3G technologies and even WiMax. Exciting!
Common misconception. I've seen WCDMA networks, with 25-35 ms roundtrip delay. If you build your WCDMA network architecture the same way as LTEs (as defined in 3GPP R6), then there should be negligible difference in delay between LTE and WCDMA.
LTE is speedwise only 10-20% better than WCDMA when you compare oranges to oranges (most sites don't). It's drawback is the differing spectrums allocated globally (think how compatible your phones are between WCDMA operators in the US to get an idea), which leads to phones not being usable globally at least in the beginning.
So no, LTE is not the shining start many think. Good yes, heads above WCDMA? No. Not yet (and for a good years to come). Better than WCDMA? In some places, yes.
Regs, Jarkko
Only if the phone supports Release 7 signalling features (fractional DPCH, CPC, Fast Dormancy etc.), which Apple has not given any statements on. So if it's just a bump from using 10 codes to 15 codes in parallell, it's still HSPA.
Until Apple clarifies (or someone grabs signalling traces), then it's safer to assume HSPA.
Regs, Jarkko
Good point. I didn't even consider that when looking at all the other '4G' phones the iPhone 4S was compared to.
Nope. The 4S will potentially provide 2x the data rate at 3GS and 4 users in areas where ATT has HSDPA 14.4 coverage. So, if you're in such an area, you'll get up to 4 to 10 Mbit/s depending on conditions.
With the 3GS, people tend to get 0.5 to 3.5 Mbit/s down and <0.3 Mbit/s up.
With the 4, people tend to get 0.5 to 3.5 Mbit/s down and 0.5 to 1.5 Mbit/s up.
With the 4S, people should get from 0.5 to 8 Mbit/s down and 0.5 to 1.5 Mbit/s up.
These are not exact numbers as it is dependent on local conditions, obviously, you need to be in an 14.4 area to get those 2x data rates over the 3GS/4.
On the bright side, people in other parts of the world (like Europe, Australia) are more guaranteed to get 5 to 10 Mbit/s as their 14.4/21 Mbit/s networks are more mature and built out.
Is there any data on ATT's progress on their 14.4 network? Any locations that supposedly have it?
Is there any data on ATT's progress on their 14.4 network? Any locations that supposedly have it?
Just check attwireless.com. My eyeballs say they've got coverage for most of the high population metro areas. I'd estimate 200m people are covered in the USA, including cities in Puerto Rico, Hawaii and Alaska. My area is covered.
Exactly, technology on paper is unlimited. Problem is most of us don't live on paper and I'm getting real tired of all the bogus claims companies like to throw around.
Jarkko, see above. I am not doubting the science or the technicalities, clearly I am no expert in this area.
Edit: see my next post for the best proof I can find...
It is a point of frustration that many users around the world on 3G, 3.5G, 3.5G+ HS-whatever... whatever you call it, it is rare to see 5mbps sustained in many major cities.
There are claims by LTE and WiMax 4G providers that 3G was designed for voice and so there is an inherent disadvantage. Newer 3G standards as you mention can perhaps remove these disadvantages, if they exist. Now the question to you would be, do you believe that there are these disadvantages compared to LTE and WiMax. Secondly, do you believe that telcos around the world, or at least AT&T are addressing these disadvantages. How is Verizon? Does their LTE speed and consistency show a marked improvement over AT&T's fastest 3G speeds?
At what stage does a telco need to focus strongly on LTE to be able to feed enough bandwidth to customers?
Looking at LTE vs 3G in the US, what is the scenario as it stands?
Would you ellaborate as to why not? 15 codes, 16QAM + MIMO or Dual Cell will get you real speeds beyond 5Mbps quite easily. Just as with LTE it can be done, it can be done with HSPA+ (or soonish HSPA+Adv). It's mainly a matter of dimensioning the radio network and transmission to fit your needs. The first google search I did came up with: http://www.signalsresearch.com/Docs/MWC-%20SRG.pdf. How many of such research papers would you need to satisfy your "in volume around the world" hypotheses?
A while back many networks fell in the 2-3Mbps practical range (achieved with 5-10 codes and 16QAM), but the higher speeds (5-10Mbps) have been on the increase for a while now and should be reality in quite a few locations already since 10-15 codes and dual-cell has become more prevalent and the reception will improve with advanced receivers (FDE, Interference cancellation, CPC and FDPCH) coming to commercial devices withouth changing network HW (SW upgrade required).
Regs, Jarkko
Here we can try to see average speeds from tests done.
Australia
http://netindex.com/download/2,18/Australia/
For Australia, notice Vivid is a 4G WiMax provider. Vodafone is a 3G provider. Optus and Telstra's results are both fixed line and wireless which complicates things.
USA
http://netindex.com/download/2,1/USA
UK
http://netindex.com/download/2,4/UK
(Just change the 2,1 in the URLs to 2,2 2,3 2,4 etc. to get the different countries. e.g. http://netindex.com/download/2,10/USA (the country word actually doesn't seem to matter)
New Zealand is interesting:
http://netindex.com/download/2,5/NewZealand
2Degrees is 3G but seems to have some good speed
Sweden seems excellent:
http://netindex.com/download/2,6/Sweden
Brazil
http://netindex.com/download/2,13/Brazil
Singapore
http://netindex.com/download/2,17/Singapore
Note they have HSDPA vs normal
Malaysia:
http://netindex.com/download/2,26/Malaysia
Note Maxis Broadband Sdn Bhd, Digi, Celcom Internet Service Provider are 3G providers. YTL Communications is a 4G WiMax provider. Packet One Networks is also a 4G WiMax provider. Anything above 6mbps except for YTL Communications is fixed line broadband, not wireless.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_4vijEfQaQ
Only if the phone supports Release 7 signalling features (fractional DPCH, CPC, Fast Dormancy etc.), which Apple has not given any statements on. So if it's just a bump from using 10 codes to 15 codes in parallell, it's still HSPA.
Until Apple clarifies (or someone grabs signalling traces), then it's safer to assume HSPA.
Regs, Jarkko
Looks like it is HSPA+
There are claims by LTE and WiMax 4G providers that 3G was designed for voice and so there is an inherent disadvantage. Newer 3G standards as you mention can perhaps remove these disadvantages, if they exist. Now the question to you would be, do you believe that there are these disadvantages compared to LTE and WiMax.
3G was marketed originally as designed with Voice AND data in mind. In practice data got as much attention as possible at the time as long as it didn't risk voice. Sensible move in 1995.
Many of the shortcomings have already been fixed in the 3G specifications and many of the network vendors are pushing out these capabilities now. The issue is twofold. Even if the operators do deploy these changes, it takes surprisingly long for the mobile devices to actually implement these features.
By taking just a few features into use, the phones could more than double their talk time at the same time allowing continuous data connections and reduce noise in the cell (increased total capacity for all users). They've been available now for at least a year and a half. It's just that none of the phones support these features yet so why should the operators buy, test and deploy them? Talk about chicken and egg...
The disadvantages that the LTE and WiMAX guys tout were there, but many have been largely removed and many of the remaining ones greatly exaggerated. They also have their own disadvantages that WCDMA doesn't....
Secondly, do you believe that telcos around the world, or at least AT&T are addressing these disadvantages. How is Verizon? Does their LTE speed and consistency show a marked improvement over AT&T's fastest 3G speeds?
At what stage does a telco need to focus strongly on LTE to be able to feed enough bandwidth to customers?
Looking at LTE vs 3G in the US, what is the scenario as it stands?
The second question I don't know how to answer fully, but let's consider a few points:
- Not all operators are going to get LTE licences
- WCDMA is very near in capabilities to LTE (for the next 5 years at least) if you take the latest improvements and ship them. Remember HSPA+ advanced for example promises speeds over 600Mbps. It just requires so much spectum and HW, that it's unlikely we will see it in real life. Same goes for similar LTE speeds as well. It all boils down to the shannon theorem after all.
- WCDMA chipsets for now are more power efficient than LTE ones ->much better battery life
So if you were an operator with no LTE license, what would you do? Make sure your existing (invested) network is competitive? Many of the WCDMA imrovements are a mere SW update.
OTOH if you had an LTE license, how would you market your new and expensive tech? Would you then invest in your existing 3G network?
The BW issue is not necessarily a question of LTE or not. Many operators have already started to ship 3G on secondary bands. This easily doubles capacity and improves coverage. You can also add smaller cells to congested areas. When that runs out: introduce a third band or go LTE? If you're willing to introduce a whole new tech (LTE) on a new band, why not a third band for a known tech?
So as you can see, the question is multifaceted and not an easy one to answer.
LTE is marketed like mad and with the momentum it now seems to have, I have a hard time believing it'll not succeed. But then again 3G tech is very similar in capability and not all operators get LTE licenses. So 3G will not go away anytime soon either since the established 3G guys without LTE will put up a fight and bring in the latest and greatest 3G capabilities. Just look at the operators rolling out 84Mbps WCDMA today.
Regs, Jarkko
Looks like it is HSPA+
Interesting. Wonder what R7 features they actually implemented if it really is an HSPA+ device since they didn't go for any of the speedups...... Or could the AT&T marketing dept. done some hasty assumptions?
Need to get a 4S into the lab to grab some signalling traces..... Anyone got a spare to lend?
Regs, Jarkko