Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)
Att just wants to do this so they can charge iPhone 4S owners for "4G" data![]()
You mean like the International Telecommunications Union?
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2374564,00.asp
HSPA+ is 4G. It might not be the fastest 4G network, but it's 4G.
Nicky G said:You mean like the International Telecommunications Union?
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2374564,00.asp
HSPA+ is 4G. It might not be the fastest 4G network, but it's 4G.
I gave a talk to an industry group at the end of April, much of which had to do with the future of the internet, wireless communications/data networks, and "cloud" services.
I like the terms I used, I think they should apply:
"4G" (note the quotation marks)
and
Real 4G (referring to LTE Advanced)
![]()
Anyone know if HSPA will actually help speeds in areas with poor coverage?
I have a 3gs now that can theoretically do 7Mbps or whatever, but I'm thrilled to hit anything over 1Mbit.
Is it possible that HSPA+ will give me better coverage/speed, or will the bad reception basically doom me to these 0.3Mbit average rates?
I hate these blatant attempts to mislead. Just slap on what ever you think will make the customer feel good.
There will never be an iPhone 5. The next iPhone will be the SIXTH iPhone
Lara F said:Impressive for sure, but why on earth would you ever need that type of speed on a smartphone?
Video. Wouldn't it be nice to not have YouTube etc. look like crap outside wifi?
I don't get anything near that on my home wired connection, and have no problems streaming video... 14.4/5.8 is more than sufficient for the data limits we're given...
The ITU talks about "real 4G".
If they don't call a technology like that, then it is not endorsed as 4G.
4G is IP-based. It is not about the speed. Calling a technology 4G based on speed makes no sense.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)
Sooooooooo AT&T wants to charge us an extra ten bucks for the data on our "4G" devices?
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)
How about comparing against Galaxy s2 that has 21Mbit/s. Even that isn't 4G so this time apple is talking sh-t
Although speed was not the sole factor, the ITU did (originally) define "4G" as requiring 100mbps for "highly-mobile uses" like cars/trains and 1Gbps for pedestrians/stationary sites...
14.4MB/s or Mb/s?14.4MB/s would definitely be 4G.
![]()
cube said:The ITU talks about "real 4G".
If they don't call a technology like that, then it is not endorsed as 4G.
4G is IP-based. It is not about the speed. Calling a technology 4G based on speed makes no sense.
Whosoever allowed marketing of 3G/3.5/3.7G speeds as 4G speeds is an idiot.