  thenderScreen tycoonPremium
join:2009-01-01
Brooklyn, NY
kudos:1
1 edit | I'd love to see it. My HTC Incredible couldn't handle more than 770 KBps via wifi for a local FTP transfer for two machines connected to the same wifi router within 15 feet of it. If they think they can do over 10 mbps on a cellphone, I'm all for it!
--
If you're going to repair your own Macbook, benefit from my experiences. | |
|
 |  sapoCruising Down Memory LanePremium
join:2002-09-16
Sacramento, CA
kudos:1 | Re: I'd love to see it. Yeah true, it will probably be the future phones that can take full advantage of this.
--
Bratwurst und kaese | |
|
| | | | Re: I'd love to see it. Will be interesting to see if the phone has any bottlenecks compared to data cards. While my Clearwire WiMAX fixed modem can do 15Mbps+, my EVO phone can only do about 8, implying the phone has a bottleneck independent of WiMAX. The Epic phone can apparently can do 12Mbps.
The phone itself can have limits or other bottlenecks depending on performance of phone/OS or how designed. Not that there is a phone app that needs more than 4Mbps anyway. | |
|
| | | sapoCruising Down Memory LanePremium
join:2002-09-16
Sacramento, CA
kudos:1 | Re: I'd love to see it. What apps even require more than 1 Mbps? Youtube HQ streaming is somewhere around 600 to 800 Kbps if you want it silky smooth. Give me reliable coverage for at least 1 Mbps all over the place and I would be happier than having 12 Mpbs downtown. However I am very glad to see T-Mobiles coverage growing like crazy around me. They will be a contender this Christmas for my next phone upgrade.
--
Bratwurst und kaese | |
|
1 edit | Just wondering If HSPA+ Can do up to 20Mbps, why even bother to go to LTE?
So let's say realworld numbers will be 10 Megabits, isn't that more than sufficient. | |
|
| |
| | | | Re: Just wondering So if it can handle up to 56mbps, why even bother to go to LTE. It sounds like hspa+ right off the bat can beat the speeds that VZ is promising for LTE, and the 6megabits that clear is currently offering.
So what's the catch? | |
|
| | | | | Re: Just wondering The catch is that LTE can handle more users in the same bandwidth. LTE should also be easy to upgrade to LTE-Advanced (even more bandwidth efficient) that has theoretical speeds up to 1 Gbps and practical speed of 100 Mbps. | |
|
| | | |  cchhat01Dr. Zoidberg
join:2001-05-01
Elmhurst, NY | Re: Just wondering latency and bandwidth efficiency....
thats why LTE is better...
but for the time being, we can all live with the HSPA+ latency if the speeds are anywhere near 10 mbps...
--
Chirag's Website | |
|
| | |  RRedlineRated RPremium
join:2002-05-15
Williamsport, PA | said by flyingjoey:So if it can handle up to 56mbps, why even bother to go to LTE. It sounds like hspa+ right off the bat can beat the speeds that VZ is promising for LTE, and the 6megabits that clear is currently offering. So what's the catch? Verizon is planning to limit initial speeds. My guess is that they want to make a slow progression towards much higher speeds in order to give them time to address adding back haul to all their sites to handle the increased traffic.
LTE is capable of MUCH HIGHER speeds than HSPA+. Also, Verizon is the only provider that is making a commitment to offer these next generation speeds to their entire coverage area. They already offer 3G to almost their entire footprint, which is why so many consider them to have the best overall network in the US.
--
One nation, under Zod! | |
|
| | | |  GbcueAlmost P.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8 | Re: Just wondering Verizon's "3G" speeds are so slow.
I ran a test on EVDO Rev. A and it was barely 1mbps.
--
My Blog 2.0 | |
|
| | | | | RRedlineRated RPremium
join:2002-05-15
Williamsport, PA | Re: Just wondering said by Gbcue:Verizon's "3G" speeds are so slow. I ran a test on EVDO Rev. A and it was barely 1mbps. Yeah but the alternative in most of the geographical United States is the competitors' 2G service which is much slower than that. I am much happier now with Verizon's 1Mbps+ speeds than I was with AT&T's 0.1Mbps EDGE (and that's when I had any data service at all).
Verizon really seems to be the only provider interested in providing consistent service across all of its coverage areas. Anyone can throw up a raging fast network in just a few coverage areas, but that shouldn't give them bragging rights to the "fastest wireless network".
--
One nation, under Zod! | |
|
| | | | | | Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·T-Mobile US
·AT&T Wireless Br..
 ·ViaTalk
·Verizon Broadban..
| Re: Just wondering said by RRedline:said by Gbcue:Verizon's "3G" speeds are so slow. I ran a test on EVDO Rev. A and it was barely 1mbps. Yeah but the alternative in most of the geographical United States is the competitors' 2G service which is much slower than that. I am much happier now with Verizon's 1Mbps+ speeds than I was with AT&T's 0.1Mbps EDGE (and that's when I had any data service at all). Verizon really seems to be the only provider interested in providing consistent service across all of its coverage areas. Anyone can throw up a raging fast network in just a few coverage areas, but that shouldn't give them bragging rights to the "fastest wireless network". Over 75% of the US population is covered by AT&T 3G now, AT&T simply just doesn't care about putting 3G in cowtowns or towns they don't feel have a large concentration of their user's. It would be a waste to put up 3G for a whole town when the majority of that town is using another carrier.
--
2010 Ford Fusion Sport | |
|
| | | | | | | RRedlineRated RPremium
join:2002-05-15
Williamsport, PA | Re: Just wondering said by iLive4Fusion:Over 75% of the US population is covered by AT&T 3G now, AT&T simply just doesn't care about putting 3G in cowtowns or towns they don't feel have a large concentration of their user's. It would be a waste to put up 3G for a whole town when the majority of that town is using another carrier. Why would it be a waste to compete and gain more customers? The reason so many people badmouth AT&T is because, as you say, they only care about 3/4 of their potential customers. Verizon's ads pointed this out, and apparently the truth hurt them (AT&T).
I live in an area where AT&T doesn't provide 3G service anywhere for many miles, and yet they still charged me the same $30 per month for their "3G" service that they charged people who actually HAD 3G service.
And again, Verizon has already stated that they will upgrade their entire coverage area to LTE. Nobody else is willing to make a similar commitment even with 3G, let alone 4G. AT&T could easily do this, but they are not willing to.
--
One nation, under Zod! | |
|
| | | | | | | |  tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1
·T-Mobile US
| Re: Just wondering said by RRedline:said by iLive4Fusion:Over 75% of the US population is covered by AT&T 3G now, AT&T simply just doesn't care about putting 3G in cowtowns or towns they don't feel have a large concentration of their user's. It would be a waste to put up 3G for a whole town when the majority of that town is using another carrier. Why would it be a waste to compete and gain more customers? The reason so many people badmouth AT&T is because, as you say, they only care about 3/4 of their potential customers. Verizon's ads pointed this out, and apparently the truth hurt them (AT&T). I live in an area where AT&T doesn't provide 3G service anywhere for many miles, and yet they still charged me the same $30 per month for their "3G" service that they charged people who actually HAD 3G service. And again, Verizon has already stated that they will upgrade their entire coverage area to LTE. Nobody else is willing to make a similar commitment even with 3G, let alone 4G. AT&T could easily do this, but they are not willing to. Since ATT has 850 licenses and extensive wireline infrastructure, I can't exactly argue on their behalf. I'm continually surprised by how insufficient ATT's 3g network really is.
That said, it's a HELLUVA lot easier and cheaper to cover the nation with 700mhz than it is with 1700 or 1900. So that's a very simple claim for Verizon to make. Their spectrum ownership and basic physics makes that possible. Their coverage will continue to be great, while their speeds will continue to be mediocre (even on LTE) when compared to T-Mobile and ATT HSPA+.
Moreover, Verizon's network has benefitted from being the SAME network over the past 15 years. From CDMA->CDMA2000->EvDO - all of those have been upgrades to the same towers, same radios, same infrastructure. EvDO is a 3g bolt-on to a 2g voice network.
For ATT and TMO, they effectively run two distinct networks. UMTS (3g)and GSM (2g) are separate networks. So while ATT and TMO have had to add new radios and new infrastructure to "upgrade" to 3g, Verizon has had the luxury (along with their 850mhz holdings) of being able to use their capex to expand coverage to rural areas. ATT and especially TMO (since they don't own ANY 850) haven't had that luxury.
It's easy to get caught up in the marketing BS, but the reality of the situation is far different. Each company has its benefits.
Moreover, the benefits differ on your own usage. If you're traveling a lot, you're probably going to want Verizon. If you're a data fiend in the city, Sprint and T-Mobile are probably the best option. And ATT falls kinda in between.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
|
| | |
|  vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | said by flyingjoey:If HSPA+ Can do up to 20Mbps, why even bother to go to LTE? So let's say realworld numbers will be 10 Megabits, isn't that more than sufficient. I believe T-Mobile just announced that it would be at least a few years until they go to LTE.
LTE does have some advantages, however. It has a theoretically higher throughput (144Mbps down, 57Mbps up), and it has a minimum latency of 10ms vs HSPA+'s 50ms. | |
|
| | | | Re: Just wondering The lower latency is the driving force for things like VOIP and more responsive apps, lowering the latency is very important for a number of applications. | |
|
| | | tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
| Re: Just wondering said by MovieLover76:The lower latency is the driving force for things like VOIP and more responsive apps, lowering the latency is very important for a number of applications. Indeed it is. While HSPA+ provides for good voip quality (which according to white papers is a connection consistently under 100ms), LTE should make that far more reliable. Of course, as it stands right now, there's still no ready-to-deploy LTE voice standard, and until then, LTE will remain a data-only layover network for Verizon where offered. Pretty much identical to Sprint's WiMax but with better coverage and caps.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·T-Mobile US
·AT&T Wireless Br..
·ViaTalk
·Verizon Broadban..
| Re: Just wondering said by tiger72:said by MovieLover76:The lower latency is the driving force for things like VOIP and more responsive apps, lowering the latency is very important for a number of applications. Indeed it is. While HSPA+ provides for good voip quality (which according to white papers is a connection consistently under 100ms), LTE should make that far more reliable. Of course, as it stands right now, there's still no ready-to-deploy LTE voice standard, and until then, LTE will remain a data-only layover network for Verizon where offered. Pretty much identical to Sprint's WiMax but with better coverage and caps. I can use a MagicJack with my T-Mobile Rocketconnect 2.0 on HSPA+ around here with great results.
--
2010 Ford Fusion Sport | |
|
| | Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| So this is all nice and dandy but in all honestly most people can't even get a decent connection at home, and this is wired, now imagine wireless.
Verizon may have good coverage right now with the EvDO offering but AT&T's 3g coverage although dismal and not as extensive as VZ's certainly offer higher speeds.
This past weekend I was camping in the backwoods of PA and managed to get 1 bar and 3G and I was getting speeds of 2.5mb and sometimes 3mbps while my buddy who works for VZ's LTE deployment group was only getting about .6 kbps. | |
|
| | | vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | Re: Just wondering said by flyingjoey:So this is all nice and dandy but in all honestly most people can't even get a decent connection at home, and this is wired, now imagine wireless. Verizon may have good coverage right now with the EvDO offering but AT&T's 3g coverage although dismal and not as extensive as VZ's certainly offer higher speeds. This past weekend I was camping in the backwoods of PA and managed to get 1 bar and 3G and I was getting speeds of 2.5mb and sometimes 3mbps while my buddy who works for VZ's LTE deployment group was only getting about .6 kbps. I'm not really sure what your point is. Whatever technology they use, they need adequate coverage or it won't matter, but with LTE there's less of a bottleneck due to the technology (as opposed to the footprint). | |
|
| |
tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
| Only a 14.4 device? I hadn't noticed until today, but the device is limited to 14.4mbps... while those are some great speeds for a phone (and admittedly, I can't think of many reasons why a phone needs over 10mbps at this point), it's unfortunate that the G2 doesn't seem capable of taking full advantage of the 21mbps HSPA+ network.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
|
|  ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4 | Re: Only a 14.4 device? I would imagine that the phone would need 10mbps in the future for tethering abilities. | |
|
| |
| | tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
1 edit | Re: Only a 14.4 device? said by iLive4Fusion:said by tiger72:I hadn't noticed until today, but the device is limited to 14.4mbps... while those are some great speeds for a phone (and admittedly, I can't think of many reasons why a phone needs over 10mbps at this point), it's unfortunate that the G2 doesn't seem capable of taking full advantage of the 21mbps HSPA+ network. If it's only 14.4 then wouldn't it not be considered an HSPA+ phone but an HSDPA/HSUPA or HSPA phone? From what I understand HSPA+ doesn't begin until the 21+ profile. That's what I'm thinking... If it's not hitting 21mbps, it aint an HSPA+ device. It's faster than all of their other phones (including the 10.6mbps Nokia), and it benefits more from the HSPA+ upgrades, but it aint an HSPA+ device...
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
|
| | Nexus One Sorry, the Nexus One supports HSPA+ and has been out since January. This is NOT "the first smartphone to that will be able to take advantage of the speeds". | |
|
|  IIIBradIIIComm M-E-L Instr
join:2000-09-28
Greer, SC
·T-Mobile US
| Re: Nexus One said by mykul :
Sorry, the Nexus One supports HSPA+ and has been out since January. This is NOT "the first smartphone to that will be able to take advantage of the speeds".
The N1 doesn't support HSPA+, it only supports HSPA, along with the Galaxy/Vibrant, MTSlide, etc. | |
|
| |  AlcoholPremium
join:2003-05-26
Climax, MI
kudos:3
·Comcast
| Re: Nexus One said by IIIBradIII:said by mykul :
Sorry, the Nexus One supports HSPA+ and has been out since January. This is NOT "the first smartphone to that will be able to take advantage of the speeds".
The N1 doesn't support HSPA+, it only supports HSPA, along with the Galaxy/Vibrant, MTSlide, etc. Speaking of the Vibrant, it's definitely an excellent buy for $0.01
»www.engadget.com/2010/08/18/t-mo···bout-it/
--
I found the key to success but somebody changed the lock. | |
|
| |
|
| |
 jweekPremium
join:1999-08-27
Reno, NV |  nice, but won't help the rest of us
how about finishing the rollout of your HSPA+ to your existing customers? some of us are still plugging along with slow 3g! | |
|
| AlcoholPremium
join:2003-05-26
Climax, MI
kudos:3 | Re: nice, but won't help the rest of us And some of us without any 3g. | |
|
| GbcueAlmost P.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8 Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| said by jweek:Hey T-Mob! how about finishing the rollout of your HSPA+ to your existing customers? some of us are still plugging along with slow 3g! I just got HSPA+ this week in my area.
--
My Blog 2.0 | |
|
| | | | Re: nice, but won't help the rest of us said by Gbcue:said by jweek:Hey T-Mob! how about finishing the rollout of your HSPA+ to your existing customers? some of us are still plugging along with slow 3g! I just got HSPA+ this week in my area.
How can you tell? | |
|
| | | GbcueAlmost P.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8 Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: nice, but won't help the rest of us said by compton:said by Gbcue:said by jweek:Hey T-Mob! how about finishing the rollout of your HSPA+ to your existing customers? some of us are still plugging along with slow 3g! I just got HSPA+ this week in my area. How can you tell? Much faster speeds.
--
My Blog 2.0 | |
|
 jgkoltPremium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH | caps and overages It will be interesting which carrier will be the most customer friendly(or not follow the trend) with caps and overages. | |
|
 JTCAlways Mount A Scratch Monkey
join:2002-01-09
USA |  Rumor has it that it won't have a physical keyboard? BOO!
No keyboard? If this turns out to be accurate, forget it, I'm not upgrading.
If, by some obscure chance, someone from T-Mo or HTC happens to see this, quit crippling your phones and have a real keyboard on them!
I'm still running my old G1 and looking forward to when the current batch of custom Froyo ROMs are bug free enough to be my daily driver. I could have upgraded a long time ago, but I've not done so for one reason: None of the phones available that would actually be an upgrade over the G1 have a freaking hardware keyboard!
Until a phone is released with said keyboard, HTC and T-Mo will never get a sale from me for a newer phone (and I'm not the only one who feels this way)
--
All hardware sucks, all software sucks, some just suck more than others | |
|
| | | Re: Rumor has it that it won't have a physical keyboard? BOO! The G2 is supposed to have a keyboard. The HTC MyTouch HD is the one without a keyboard. That is supposed to be designed similar to the Sprint EVO. | |
|
| | JTCAlways Mount A Scratch Monkey
join:2002-01-09
USA | Re: Rumor has it that it won't have a physical keyboard? BOO! said by tdouglas22:The G2 is supposed to have a keyboard. The HTC MyTouch HD is the one without a keyboard. That is supposed to be designed similar to the Sprint EVO. If that's the case, then it's about time. The quick search I did on it indicated that there wouldn't be a physical keyboard, just the on-screen software keyboard.
--
All hardware sucks, all software sucks, some just suck more than others | |
|
| chuckkk
join:2001-11-10
Warner Robins, GA | T Mobile sells "3G" in my area, yet due to lag, etc. it does no better than "EDGE" or "2G" | |
|
|
|
Teaser website is down