And anything over 10Mhz is not a realistic expectation in the US. I've yet to see anyone post a speedtest from an iPhone 5 showing 100 Mbps.
Brian Klug says you're wrong.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Deutsche Telekom Announcement Fuels Renewed Talk of Possible LTE-Advanced Support for iPhone 5S
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And anything over 10Mhz is not a realistic expectation in the US. I've yet to see anyone post a speedtest from an iPhone 5 showing 100 Mbps.
Brian Klug says you're wrong.
That's not the point. We were talking about technical details and you're wrong.
As far as over 15Mhz and 20Mhz channels in US, Verizon is already deploying them in AWS band in certain markets, should be live by the end of 2013. T-Mobile is also planning to have 20Mhz channels in 2014. AT&T... not so much.
My first post provided no technical details. I simply said 100 Mbps is impossible and provided a link showing LTE has overhead. I didn't mention anything about carrier bandwidth, MIMO, etc. You simply assumed I was saying it's impossible in all scenarios. I would have provided more detail if I thought I was going to be berated for not providing a detailed discussion of LTE radio specs.
As I said, not yet realistic.
There are many ATT and Verizon customers getting 100mbps link speed and sharing.
Dozens in this thread: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1449989/
Any speedtest approaching 60mbps is going to have a 100mbps link speed.
And link != actual data rate. The average consumer is going to hear the big number and assume that's what they actually get. That's the misguided expectation I was trying to dispel.
Last edited:
The avg consumer. My mother, my sister, grandmother doesn't even have a speedtest app and don't care about those numbers. Don't have a clue what mbps even relates to. Their facebook photos load fast and that's all they care about.
The nerds comparing speed test numbers should understand link bandwidth and the overhead required for a robust and reliably network; the OSI layers of network topology.
The person quoted didn't mention speedtest. They simply said 'where's my 100 mbps?! ZOMG' This is common enough that I wanted to point out that it's not realistic. When challenged, I pointed out that speedtest (pretty much the only route for curious people to know what they're getting), isn't going to give them that number either. When dealing with technology that makes it into millions of hands, it's best to assume your users are technically disinclined to start with and change the discussion when they show a deeper knowledge.
I already knew. It's in the link I provided for crying out loud. Like I said, I should have explained my post more. I edited the original post with italics, kind of making it mess, but being clear with the conditions I'm talking about and the iPhone 5 itself.
Last edited:
The problem with Deutsche Telekom's LTE option is rather that the speed is still 64kbit/s down and 16kbit/s up¹, even if you'd connect your phone to the cell tower via Gigabit Ethernet.
¹ 2, 10MBit/s upload and 16, 25, 50, 100MBit/s download for the first 0.75, 1, 2, 5GB, depending on the contract
¹ 2, 10MBit/s upload and 16, 25, 50, 100MBit/s download for the first 0.75, 1, 2, 5GB, depending on the contract
Last edited:
really, how many faster horses do you think you need? to do what with? and battery life? get real please. 
LTE-A would be nice, but I'm just as interested in getting the fastest/most reliable WiFi chipset in it for when I'm home.
My cell data consumption is moderate at worst bc I am cognizant of my rate of use. And I have unlimited data.
I really want faster cell data while I'm at work, which is 500 yards from a VZ office and I get horrendous speed. According to the speed trackers, only TMO gets good speed here, ATT & VZ both suck here.
My cell data consumption is moderate at worst bc I am cognizant of my rate of use. And I have unlimited data.
I really want faster cell data while I'm at work, which is 500 yards from a VZ office and I get horrendous speed. According to the speed trackers, only TMO gets good speed here, ATT & VZ both suck here.
Ahahahahahhahahahaha..... At the rate the US carriers move we'll see this in 2023 with a premium data fee as well as a ridiculous data cap
Ahahahahahhahahahaha..... At the rate the US carriers move we'll see this in 2023 with a premium data fee as well as a ridiculous data cap
What? It sounds like you are describing carriers in the UK and parts of Europe.
The US was one of the first to deploy LTE, and there was no extra charge.
In the UK, 2 major carriers just launched LTE last month and they are charing an arm and a leg extra for the extra speed. AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile include it at no charge. (Sprint did charge $10 for their WiMax network, but nothing for LTE.
Last edited:
IIRC, Verizon charged a $10 premium when the thunderbolt launched that eventually went away.
edit: I can't find anything that supports that. Not sure what I'm remembering. Maybe a minimum data plan for 4G devices.
Last edited:
Because that isn't true. It was Sprint that's charging $10 for "Premium smartphone 4G" data, whatever that is...
Thank you. I don't know why I thought it was Verizon. I knew a US carrier had done it though.
but some people are more likely to use more data if their data is faster.
for example, if my cell connection was a little faster, I'd be streaming Breaking Bad episodes to my iPad Mini during my 45-min each way bus commute to work each day... instead, I browse tech articles using Flipboard. Flipboard uses less data than Netflix, but if I had consistently fast LTE on my commute, I'd be streaming TV shows/movies instead of browsing news articles.
Less here than meets the eye.
MOST of what is interesting in LTE-advanced is in the cell tower, NOT in the phone.
This consists of things like better co-ordination between cell towers to balance load, to reduce power so they don't interfere, to co-ordinate frequency usage, basically a bunch of stuff that goes by the name SON (self optimizing network).
The most important aspect of this is to provide better coverage at cell edges, it doesn't do much for performance near the cell center.
Next we have capabilities to use more spectrum. Fine --- for the future. But the spectrum has to be fought over, allocated, and acquired. Until that happens, this particular feature doesn't benefit any phone that has it.
Finally we have the theoretical capability to use more antennas on the phone and at the cell tower. Nice, BUT: a phone could get much of the benefit this offers today by just adding a second transmit and third receive antenna, and using them for diversity. (If you're cheap, hooking them up to a switch-and-stay multiplexer; if you're doing it right hooking them up to a full extra RF path and doing MRC.) This does not require any changes at the cell tower or anything LTE-A related (including an LTE-A chip), but would give real performance improvements. This, IMHO, is a far smarter path for any vendor the next year than "real" LTE-A. That only makes sense when the new spectrum is available and/or enough tower have had their antennas upgraded.
MOST of what is interesting in LTE-advanced is in the cell tower, NOT in the phone.
This consists of things like better co-ordination between cell towers to balance load, to reduce power so they don't interfere, to co-ordinate frequency usage, basically a bunch of stuff that goes by the name SON (self optimizing network).
The most important aspect of this is to provide better coverage at cell edges, it doesn't do much for performance near the cell center.
Next we have capabilities to use more spectrum. Fine --- for the future. But the spectrum has to be fought over, allocated, and acquired. Until that happens, this particular feature doesn't benefit any phone that has it.
Finally we have the theoretical capability to use more antennas on the phone and at the cell tower. Nice, BUT: a phone could get much of the benefit this offers today by just adding a second transmit and third receive antenna, and using them for diversity. (If you're cheap, hooking them up to a switch-and-stay multiplexer; if you're doing it right hooking them up to a full extra RF path and doing MRC.) This does not require any changes at the cell tower or anything LTE-A related (including an LTE-A chip), but would give real performance improvements. This, IMHO, is a far smarter path for any vendor the next year than "real" LTE-A. That only makes sense when the new spectrum is available and/or enough tower have had their antennas upgraded.