Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Again, you're wrong. iPhone 5 utilizes Qualcomm's MDM9x15 Cat 3 baseband chipset, capable of hitting 100Mbps if the carrier has at least 15Mhz channels deployed. Like Telstra for example. Any other Cat 3 smartphone can do the same thing.

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.

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.

Brian Klug says you're wrong.

Brian Klug has since changed his speculation. He won't disclose why he thinks it has changed, which lends to him not just guessing IMO.

https://twitter.com/nerdtalker/status/369269947613990912

Starting to suspect 5S might actually include MDM9615M+WTR1605L as opposed to earlier optimistic speculation of 3rd gen modem (MDM9625M)
 
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.
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.
 
That's not the point. We were talking about technical details and you're wrong.

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 far as over 10Mhz 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.

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.

Something fishy or wonky.

All that is realistically capable of at the Application Layer after protocol overhead is going to be ~70mbps and even thats a stretch.

http://www.qualcomm.com/chipsets/gobi 9615
 
Last edited:
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.

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 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.

And I've proved to you that it's possible.

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
 
Last edited:
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. :eek:

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. :mad:
 
LTE Advanced is the first TRUE 4G cellular technology. This is exciting! In the next few years our mobile data connections may be faster than our wired connections! Can't wait for AT&T to roll this out, as well as the other US carriers.
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 :rolleyes:
 
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 :rolleyes:

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:
What? It sounds like you are describing carriers in the UK and parts of Europe.
The US was 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.

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:
They should first try first to get a full coverage of the standard LTE over here. It's available nearly nowhere...
 
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.
Because that isn't true. It was Sprint that's charging $10 for "Premium smartphone 4G" data, whatever that is...
 
Thought I read that the Verizon version of the galaxy s4 is already LTE A ready and supports its aws band
 
Nice. I've been wanting to download this 1.5GB iTunes movie to my iPhone lately but didn't really find 3.5 minutes to do it.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0600.PNG
    IMG_0600.PNG
    778 KB · Views: 63
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.

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.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.