Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
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 :)

A 4G Data package is the EXACT SAME price as a 3G data package.
 
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)

:)
 
Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

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)

:)

I like that too. I think it's crap that the ITU was essentially forced to change the definition because a few companies wanted to market it.
 
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?
 
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?

Thats what I want to know. Sprint 3G is faster than AT&T is where I live /work. As I posted earlier, see below:


Can you have piss poor AT&T 3G service and good AT&T Faux G on the 4GS (HSPA+)? The reason I ask is that according to the AT&T coverage map (I know you need to take these maps with a HUGE grain of salt) I am smack dab in the middle of 4G coverage. Yet my AT&T 3G service is Horrible. I average 1 bar and go from Edge to 3 bars max on my 3GS. I average only 0.47Mbps down and 0.17Mbps up on Speed test . If I get a 4Gs on AT&T, could I see improvement? I am unsatisfied with AT&Ts 3G service in my area and want to know if there is a link to their 4G.
 
I hate these blatant attempts to mislead. Just slap on what ever you think will make the customer feel good.

Exactly.. There is a really simple answer to all of this non-technical sales and marketing ********! Although the acronyms may not mean much to laymen, all you have to do is look at the generation of the modulation scheme to determine what "G" to be apply.

GSM (2G) = TDMA
UMTS/HSPA/HSPA+ (3G) = WCDMA
LTE/WiMAX (4G) = OFDMA

This HSPA+ is "4G" business was started by some moron at T-Mobile because they won't have a real 4G network for years...

Saying HSPA is 3G and HSPA+ is 4G is the same as saying an overclocked Core 2 Duo is the same as a Sandy Bridge CPU....

(Is that enough geek for one post?)
 
HSPA+ is not 4G; I hope Apple says no.

Didn't Schiller state Apple wouldn't get into the argument to what is and what isn't 4G?
 
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)

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.
 
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...

It is a lot more complex than that:

1) 14.4/5.8 is the *absolute theoretical maximum* speed; you won't see anything close to that in practice. To even get 1/2 of that reliably, you need LTE.

2) More importantly, what most people don't understand is that true 4G technologies like LTE/Wimax are far more efficient with their spectrum, so the total throughput of all users combined is much greater --- giving the individual smartphone user far greater average speeds...

----------

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.

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...
 
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?

AT&T doesn't charge extra for 4G service. ;)
 
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
 
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

Exactly how is Apple talking ****?
 
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...

That would be a requirement for a 4G technology, but not the definition.
 
Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

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.

This is a good point, as HSPA+ is new for UMTS in that it allows for an all-IP network like LTE and WiMAX.
 
When they releasea full 4G then the tag should change.

We are on 3.5G with AT&T.
 
They could just add a "H' symbol, just like what Sony Ericsson did with their HSPA enabled phones (Android and feature phones alike). Apple could use H+ to denote HSPA+ or "4G". Less confusing and more appropriate to currently established standards.

As for branding HSPA+ as 4G. Local 3G only carrier (kind of like 3 in the UK) U-Mobile, launched their HSPA+ network and didn't go as far as branding it as 4G. They just refer it to as mobile broadband.

On my phone, it's 3G for bare UMTS and H for HSPA. Guess I have the most old school phone here. :p

Apologies for the large image, my freakin' Sony point and shoot shoots in 16.2 MP.
 

Attachments

  • HSPA.jpg
    HSPA.jpg
    992.3 KB · Views: 98
Last edited:
Call it "4G" and there will be customer confusion

If "4G" appears on the iPhone 4S status bar, customers will think "That's impossible. Battery life is too good."
 
This is so unprofessional

Whosoever allowed marketing of 3G/3.5/3.7G speeds as 4G speeds is an idiot.

3.75G is NOT 4G!
Only LTE is 4G, Apple has an opportunity to stop the confusion.
I hope that they will not agree to change the icon into 4G.

They can settle on 3G+ :)
 
No


No it does NOT, or does it:confused:

http://www.qualcomm.com/news/releas...ls-new-roadmap-gobi-connectivity-technologies

It says up to 14.4Mbs HSPA+ :confused: But that's not +

Quote:
MDM6200™: supports HSPA+ data rates of up to 14.4 Mbps
MDM6600™: supports HSPA+ data rates of up to 14.4 Mbps and CDMA2000® 1xEV-DO Rev. A/Rev. B
MDM8200A™: supports HSPA+ data rates of up to 28 Mbps
MDM8220™: supports dual-carrier HSPA+ for data rates of up to 42 Mbps
MDM9200™: supports LTE data rates of up to 100 Mbps with full backward compatibility to dual carrier HSPA+
MDM9600™: supports LTE data rates of up to 100 Mbps with full backward compatibility to dual carrier HSPA+ and EV-DO Rev. A/Rev. B
 
Last edited:
Simple. Apple just has to update the status bar to reflect the true protocol alongside the "4G" symbol.
 

Attachments

  • Truth.PNG
    Truth.PNG
    424.3 KB · Views: 100
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.