Of course there will be a time when LTE will seem as slow as 56kbps. I'm not saying we should just stop and declare LTE "good enough." That would be stupid. One day we will want to be able to download large lossless audio and 4K video onto our huge rollup-able iPads. But right now, at least for me, I would much rather see improvements to non-mobile internet, and for iPhones, much better battery life.
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
Of course there will be a time when LTE will seem as slow as 56kbps. I'm not saying we should just stop and declare LTE "good enough." That would be stupid. One day we will want to be able to download large lossless audio and 4K video onto our huge rollup-able iPads. But right now, at least for me, I would much rather see improvements to non-mobile internet, and for iPhones, much better battery life.
WELL SAID!!
I can't, for the life of me, understand why you would need that kind of speed on a phone,, which, by the way, is most likely capped after 2GB's. 1080 on a Display that size for what,, Jailbreak Tethering? Internet?... Really,,, page to page is not fast enough? Instead of 3 seconds,, need it to be 1 sec?... Emails? WHAT?? YIKES? Misplaced needs!!!
Instead,,, I would LOVE to have LTE at my house,,, but it will take a freakin DECADE to get here... Why don't we push for COMPETE coverage instead of this...
If, we could get that technology for home and dump all Cable ISP's, well that is a different story. Affordable, limitless internet at home would be nice at that spped. But,,, LTE Advanced on a phone??????? WHY??? For the 10 people that will actually use it?
Superior Building penetration Is reason enough for LTE-a. Not to mention voice over LTE. It's not just about speed. Speed was never the issue with 3G and 4G, It was about getting the speed more efficiently. That's where LTE came in
LTE-a doesn't inherently grant better penetration. That's dependent on the frequency. The lower the frequency, the better the building penetration.
Att has legendary bad service in Atlanta, there isnt even coverage in parts Piedmont park.
It's the same exact technology as LTE with added tools out of the toolbox, not a new miraculous technology... How's the building propagation gonna be any different? WTF?
Not to mention that there are no US operators with LTE-A features deployed.
Let's calm down with false statements.
I have no idea what you're trying to say. The various models of the iPhone 5 support LTE on all the major carriers in the U.S. and on many carriers worldwide. How does that make it "behind on all fronts"?
Also, how was LTE a broken promise? LTE is faster than the previous generation GSM technology (HSPA+) and is a ton faster than the previous generation CDMA technology (EVDO). I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you on Sprint LTE or something? Even Sprint's LTE -- while usually slower than AT&T and Verizon LTE -- is markedly faster than Sprint's 3G data speeds.
can you explain why this is so much better than LTE? Don't know a ton about this stuff but my iPhone 5 gets 10-15mbps now and runs pretty quick... thought regular LTE is good up to 100?
Theoretical 150mbps doesn't mean those are actual speeds experienced, right?
Do any carriers in the U.S. support LTE-A yet? I'm thinking the answer is no since they're all still trying to roll out first-gen LTE across their networks. If that's the case, I don't see any reason why Apple would include LTE-A support in the 5S.
The iPhone 5 supports LTE of up to 100 Mbps. That doesn't mean you will get 100 Mbps. If AT&T throttles it at 60 Mbps you cannot and will not get 100 Mbps. That is not Apple's fault. The phone supports it, but the network doesn't.
The iPhone 5 is supposed to get 150 Mbps on WiFi, but my internet is only 80 Mbps, is that Apple's fault? Did they lie to me?
AT&T said they are starting LTE-A deployment this year with a public release next year. T-Mobile is already rolling it out for launch later this year.
I thought this was because LTE-A is what LTE was supposed to be. At least that's what the reports said.
That's why we're not getting those speeds, because LTE doesn't get that fast. Only LTE-A does.
Let's not kid ourselves, we are at least 5 years away from this. I barely get 18MB over my USB 2.0 on my ****** Dell Laptop at work.
----------
Which is why you won't see them anytime soon.
100 Mbps as an actual data rate is actually practically impossible because of current network conditions, deployment scenarios and overhead on the iPhone 5. Here's a link that discusses actual data rates when considering overhead. LTE peak capacity.
Last edited:
That's also false info.
With 15Mhz or 20Mhz channels, and Cat 3 user equipment, utilizing 2x2 MIMO and spatial multiplexing, speeds of 100Mbps are possible under real world conditions.
You can get over 60 Mbps on AT&T today. And that is on a network with a lot of users. If nobody was on the tower, I am sure you can reach close to 100 Mbps.
Speed depends on equipment. With average deployment, if the device supports it, you can get up to 300 Mbps on LTE. LTE-Advanced will push that up to 1 Gbps.
I've honestly never been able to wrap my head around this argument. If I pull up MacRumors on my phone, for example, a faster connection makes that happen faster. This is unquestionably a good thing - less time spent waiting for the same result. A faster connection does not magically create more traffic or affect my data cap in any way.
No. The conditions they were describing, current network capabilities and the chip in the iPhone 5, 100 Mbps is impossible in a practical scenario. Of course, there are scenarios where you can even hit 150 Mbps (as you can see in the link). They're just not going to happen with an iPhone 5, which was the original complaint in the first place.
That is wrong, even the article you linked to shows 298 Mbps as a possibility.
Please read what I'm actually saying. The original person was talking about the iPhone 5. So am I.
There's your answer on whether the 5S will support LTE-A or not. I'm betting the answer is no.
When was the last time the iPhone was ahead of the curve on adopting next-gen cellular network technology? I can't think of a single instance where they've been ahead of the curve and waiting for the wireless providers to catch up with them. Apple usually waits until a cellular technology is widely adopted before they include support for it in their devices.
Again, you're wrong. iPhone 5 utilizes Qualcomm's MDM9x15 Cat 3 baseband chipset, capable of hitting 100Mbps if the operator has at least 15Mhz channels deployed. Like Telstra for example. Any other Cat 3 smartphone can do the same thing.
iPhone 5S will almost certainly use MDM9x25 chipset which is a Cat 4, and allows the entire 150Mbps downlink throughput, with 2x20Mhz channels, or using two 10Mhz component carriers and CA.
awesome, now i can run through my 500 mb on T-Mobile in a matter of seconds 
instead of pushing out all these new techniques just to have a nice new word for marketing how about they offer cheaper and better data plans so you can actually use those speeds without having to think about reaching the limit all the time
instead of pushing out all these new techniques just to have a nice new word for marketing how about they offer cheaper and better data plans so you can actually use those speeds without having to think about reaching the limit all the time
Apple has been ahead before when it comes to wireless standards in computers. They were one of the first to adopt Wireless N in their notebooks and AirPort base stations. All their new MacBooks already support Wireless AC (as well as AirPort and TC). It is possible, especially if efficient cellular chips already exist.
If you read his other comment, he is also talking about how only LTE-A can reach over 100 Mbps (which is not true). If you are going to join our conversation, then keep up!
Here is the quote: