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.
AT&T Migrating 3G Network to 7.2 Mbps, Planning for 21 Mbps Later This Year?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Now what would be nice is if Apple or AT&T offered some sort of recall-upgrade for current iPhone owners to allow us to purchase a chipset/logic board or whatever upgrade to take advantage of 4G technology. Drop off the phone, get it refitted, and come back a week or so later with $150 or so for the trouble. I'd pay for that type of upgrade. Who wouldn't?
They'd likely do that for you for $199 and a two-year extension to your contract.
Same in New York City - and I think other big cities. Kinda' inexcusable no? I don't need net all the time, but I do need a phone and TXT all the time so stickin' with my Verizon LG voyager and its crap browser.
Looks like Verizon's LTE and the end of the rumored 5 year Apple/ATT deal will converge - here's hopin' iPhone buyers get a choice of companies then.
Throwing around the air interface speeds really doesn't mean much. What is your average latency now?? How much will that improve? Still 5G cap, like driving on a freeway with a brick wall. Its just hype now.
I was stating that the HSPA+ was in the article...I just remember seeing the 4G speeds from somewhere else (i actually was like that can't be right when i read 100 mbsp)
Too many ppl are getting too excited at just the theoretical max speeds - reached in a lab.
I've grown up using multiple cellphones from the ages of ...
GSM
GPRS
EDGE MSC 10
and 3.5G - 3.6Mbps or HSDPA & HSPA 7.2Mbps currently
I've only once used CDMA and hated it and left it back before 1X was ever announced.
Living in Canada ... I've reached the following speeds:
GSM 4kbps Ericsson T18z on Fido [Microcell Wireless*]
GPRS 46.1kbps Ericsson T39m [Microcell Wireless] - 2000 & 2001 [Rogers AT&T Wireless]
EDGE (Peaked 160kbps = phone limitation) avg: 118kbps, Nokia 6620 & Ericsson z500 [Rogers AT&T Wireless - 2002-2003 Rogers Wireless after they bought back shares from AT&T and purchased Microcell Wireless & Fido brand] 850Mhz initial rollout only.
3G/UMTS 800kbps avg 4-500kbps SE K850i (850/1900Mhz bands; 1900 Primarily 850 is for camping for voice) [2008].
3.5G HSDPA - 2.5mbps avg to 3mbps Nokia E71-2 [Rogers Wireless]; WLAN radio turned off or ON while using JoikuSpot Light for using the data providers' APN like a cable modem and my phone as a wlan router.
Now recall I live in Canada ... where in Toronto the police cars use EDGE data set as priority for connecting to their central database while 3G (3.5/hspa 7.2mbps) is open for the taking. Toronto has just under 3million ppl, Canada's population is around 37-40million ppl with 23million using cellphones, and out of them 16million using data (cellphones,smartphones or laptop aircards/data cards/modems - got I still use that word modem). Of course the ppl & populations are estimates here.
Most of you like in USA with congested cities of say 15million or more ... do you REALLY think that you're going to get 14.4 or even 10Mbps on AT&T if they go with HSPA 14.4Mbps max with over 5000 iPhone + 8000 Bold users in your hood?! I highly doubt that.
Remember to keep your expectations in reality.
Population - the higher, the more congestion or demand on data in any metropolis city.
Signal strength and quality of the signal (barriers) will play a key roll in data throughput.
availability ... makes no sense saying your phone can enjoy the data when there is non available in your area.
So now ... we wait and see.
For the people complaining about coverage areas, higher capacities is just going to make the problem worse. It takes 4 times the SNR to get twice the capacity. On the tower side, they're plugged into Hoover Dam, so no problem-- just boost the carrier.
On the mobile side, however, you're running on battery so just dumping more juice into the radio is considered bad form. Since received power falls off as the square of distance, the other answer is to cut the average distance from user to tower in half-- but that requires a lot more towers (probably less than 4 times as many, but more than twice).
They aren't going to put 4 times as many towers across Kansas. High data rates are going to remain an unreliable and urban phenomenon.
On the mobile side, however, you're running on battery so just dumping more juice into the radio is considered bad form. Since received power falls off as the square of distance, the other answer is to cut the average distance from user to tower in half-- but that requires a lot more towers (probably less than 4 times as many, but more than twice).
They aren't going to put 4 times as many towers across Kansas. High data rates are going to remain an unreliable and urban phenomenon.
It is not just speed. 4G networks will be IP only. All services (including voice) will be IP based. Because of the large number of devices that will be used, 4G will probably be based on IPv6.
Christian
I live in Leominster, but I work around Worcester. I get great 3G coverage around Worcester, and pretty much anywhere east. But as soon as I start heading home up 190, it drops out. At my house I'm lucky to have 3 bars of EDGE!
It will have to be IPv6, with the number of cell phones in just the US you would just about use up all the available IPv4 addresses that are left.
But knowing the cell phone companies they will use IPv4. And probably give each tower 1 IP.
That's nice but...
Once again it's only useful if you're operating in a major city. Instead of spending money on making it faster, IMHO the priority should be to increase coverage.
Once again it's only useful if you're operating in a major city. Instead of spending money on making it faster, IMHO the priority should be to increase coverage.
re: AT&T and increased data speeds / long-term plans
As I was telling someone on another forum, I just attended a "lunch and learn" session sponsored by AT&T at a local hotel, here in St. Louis, MO, last week.
The topic was "The future of AT&T mobility". What I found interesting was how clear they made it that the iPhone is a crucial piece of their future roadmap.
The guest speaker didn't want to discount other devices they support like the Blackberry, but still made it clear that only the iPhone's larger display screen made a lot of things possible that AT&T wants to do.
Essentially, AT&T seems to believe that the entire concept of a cellphone being primarily a device you use to talk to each other is "outdated", and we need to start viewing cellphones as more of portable data platforms. (He reminded people that the processor power in an iPhone is greater than what was in people's full-blown desktop computers a decade ago.)
A discussion on "tethering" was notably absent from the entire session. Rather, AT&T was really "hot" on promoting value-added services and software solutions they wanted to start offering businesses, to enable publishing "remote" versions of their server applications, so an iPhone user (or alternately, a Windows Mobile user) could work with them remotely.
They also pointed out that really, a modern cellphone like an iPhone can *become* a full-blown computer if you could only attach a bigger screen and a regular size keyboard to it. (And they hinted that limitations preventing that today are likely to be removed with new iPhone firmware updates.)
All of that said? I think "tethering" will continue to be an option they'll sell an interested party - but they're mainly focused on these faster connections serving their *cellphone* customers, so they can make the devices more useful as substitutes for carrying around a notebook computer.
I don't think they'd want their cellular network to become a *primary* data link for home users though. They pointed out that they view the "land based" Internet as the ultimate place you WANT your connection to be. All wi-fi and cellular does is bridge you back to that faster LAND-based connection anyway.
As I was telling someone on another forum, I just attended a "lunch and learn" session sponsored by AT&T at a local hotel, here in St. Louis, MO, last week.
The topic was "The future of AT&T mobility". What I found interesting was how clear they made it that the iPhone is a crucial piece of their future roadmap.
The guest speaker didn't want to discount other devices they support like the Blackberry, but still made it clear that only the iPhone's larger display screen made a lot of things possible that AT&T wants to do.
Essentially, AT&T seems to believe that the entire concept of a cellphone being primarily a device you use to talk to each other is "outdated", and we need to start viewing cellphones as more of portable data platforms. (He reminded people that the processor power in an iPhone is greater than what was in people's full-blown desktop computers a decade ago.)
A discussion on "tethering" was notably absent from the entire session. Rather, AT&T was really "hot" on promoting value-added services and software solutions they wanted to start offering businesses, to enable publishing "remote" versions of their server applications, so an iPhone user (or alternately, a Windows Mobile user) could work with them remotely.
They also pointed out that really, a modern cellphone like an iPhone can *become* a full-blown computer if you could only attach a bigger screen and a regular size keyboard to it. (And they hinted that limitations preventing that today are likely to be removed with new iPhone firmware updates.)
All of that said? I think "tethering" will continue to be an option they'll sell an interested party - but they're mainly focused on these faster connections serving their *cellphone* customers, so they can make the devices more useful as substitutes for carrying around a notebook computer.
I don't think they'd want their cellular network to become a *primary* data link for home users though. They pointed out that they view the "land based" Internet as the ultimate place you WANT your connection to be. All wi-fi and cellular does is bridge you back to that faster LAND-based connection anyway.
Nope. In France, they have octets instead of bytes.The beauty of the internet is the open standards everywhere, across the planet. A bit is a bit, a byte is a byte, no matter where you go
IMO I think they are going to up the speed for use of iChat that the new iPhone will have. Makes perfect sense. The only way you can use the iChat program is to upgrade your iphone to the new model. 3G iPhone users will be able to use the regular chat
Functionality (the same goes for the first generation iPhone).Users of the new iPhone HD will be able to leave video message for those using older iPhone versions. Older model iPhones will be able to view
The
Video message but will only be able to respond by using the chat portion of the program.
Basically it will work like if I were to ring my wife on her G4 without iSight from one of my
Macs with builtin iSight
I know I know. There won't be iChat.BUT as several forum members have said in another forum thread that ATT's network is took slow to tote the functionality. With them boostng it now and the reboosting the network before years end. I think this will be a very high possibility
Functionality (the same goes for the first generation iPhone).Users of the new iPhone HD will be able to leave video message for those using older iPhone versions. Older model iPhones will be able to view
The
Video message but will only be able to respond by using the chat portion of the program.
Basically it will work like if I were to ring my wife on her G4 without iSight from one of my
Macs with builtin iSight
I know I know. There won't be iChat.BUT as several forum members have said in another forum thread that ATT's network is took slow to tote the functionality. With them boostng it now and the reboosting the network before years end. I think this will be a very high possibility
I pay $50/mo. also for my Comcast connection and get a decent 15-18 Mbps most of the time. The lowest I had seen it drop was 7-9 Mbps.
Really?
and i dont pay as much as you do
The lowest i've ever seen it go is 21 mpbs...
Nope. In France, they have octets instead of bytes.
Well, that's France for you. Being all difficult and such
Anyways, a byte is 8 bits (technically, it can be different, but that's another discussion), so "octets" is, well, slang I guess, as it is still referring to the same thing...
Why not improve the network so I do not drop calls every day in the same four spots on the 280 freeway in SF, or when the phone seems to switch from 3G to EDGE!
Great! faster data downloads for streaming media and other fun stuff, but the call quality and drop out frequency still SUCK!
Great! faster data downloads for streaming media and other fun stuff, but the call quality and drop out frequency still SUCK!
Now if I only had service at my house. Sigh...
Amen. Try my last 2 homes in two different major cities
haha that's funny, i go from 3G to edge on 190 right after Nortons. You must too!
That's weird. I get great service on the 101 from going from the Valley to Orange County. The only problem I have is at the tower switch at that dip on the 101 right in front of Universal.