Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Lol what a joke. So you can hit your 300mb monthly cap in seconds. All this speed is worthless if you are afraid to use it. Also get your service working all over a major city before you waste money on super high speed service no one can use

-Telekom customer in Germany
 
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.

I would call carrier aggregation pretty interesting.

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.

I think that trivializes the design effort that goes into building a device that has to be ergonomic, small and work in a variety of odd user-imposed conditions. It's not a simple thing to add antennas like that, else why would they have not done it yet? Of course, there's no question it would be of a big benefit. The full Rx and Tx diversity they added to the 4S for calls did help measurably.
 
Lol what a joke. So you can hit your 300mb monthly cap in seconds. All this speed is worthless if you are afraid to use it. Also get your service working all over a major city before you waste money on super high speed service no one can use

-Telekom customer in Germany

On 100MBit/s, it takes three iTunes movies and 4m40s to hit even the 5GB cap.

However, you're also free to replenish you volume for the generous sum of 4,95€ at http://pass.telekom.de. Do that once every couple of days and let me know how your bill turned out.

Ah, the good old days - when you could just reconnect the 3G modem a couple of times and if you did it quickly enough, fool the cellular tower into giving you unlimited 3G. Gotta love buggy, Chinese software.
 
Last edited:
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.
T-Mobile USA is already working on 4x2 MIMO deployment which is actually a half-step to 4x4 MIMO. This won't necessarily increase the peak throughput, but improve the coverage, increase the average throughput, and cell edge performance. Current 1x2 SIMO user equipment will benefit, and nothing extra is required on the UE side.

The challenge of higher order MIMO (4x4) on the UE side is avoiding interference due to small form factor, and insane battery drainage. So that probably won't happen anytime soon.
 
Last edited:
I'm guessing, no LTE-Advanced this year, but I'll happily eat my words, if I'm wrong.
Bon appétit! :D

----------

Lol what a joke. So you can hit your 300mb monthly cap in seconds. All this speed is worthless if you are afraid to use it. Also get your service working all over a major city before you waste money on super high speed service no one can use

-Telekom customer in Germany
HSDPA (≈ 42 MBit/s) is fast enough, and available in many countries.

----------

The US was the first to deploy LTE, and there was no extra charge.
That's obviously wrong.

Wikipedia said:
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTE_(telecommunication)

“The world's first publicly available LTE service was launched by TeliaSonera in Stockholm and Oslo on December 14, 2009.”

.
 
Bon appétit! :D

----------


HSDPA (≈ 42 MBit/s) is fast enough, and available in many countries.

Yeah, but in reality, there aren't many places that actually deliver the full 42mbps over HSDPA (certainly not in the US; the fastest I've seen was around 7mbps).

LTE already delivers speeds above 20mbps fairly consistently, even in the US. The need for even more speed is pretty small until they give us more bandwidth (say.. 50GB instead of 5GB). I'd personally rather see money go into increasing data limits than speed
 
Yeah, but in reality, there aren't many places that actually deliver the full 42mbps over HSDPA (certainly not in the US; the fastest I've seen was around 7mbps).
That's certainly not correct. HSPA+42 will peak right under 35Mbps since 42Mbps advertised speed doesn't account for the overhead. LTE advertised peak throughput does include the overhead.

Here is T-Mobile's HSPA+42 in NYC compared to 2x5Mhz LTE network:

IuX85j8l.png
 
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.

That's because you're thinking of it one way. If a guy is on 2G (Edge), he's probably not going to even bother trying to download an album or TV show as it would take longer than he might have. On the other hand, if there was time to download 2 HD movies in LTE-Advanced Mach 9, a person might be much more tempted to go for it.

I doubt the idea of a Netflix app for cellular use would have been interesting back in 2G times. But 3G and 4G makes great sense. Apple keeps "innovating" data eating "next big things" in iOS. For example, why iRadio? Because streaming radio is a data hog and crucial partners to Apple can be made happy by Apple applying it's innovation machine toward eating more data so that we consumers can pay higher monthly tolls. Apple likes the lucrative subsidies crucial to selling iPhones. Those paying the subsidies want Apple to do two things: roll out new phones to bring in more subscribers AND roll out data-eating apps to make it more likely that all iPhone subscribers will burn data into the next tier(s).

LTE-Advanced will bring LTE-Advanced app ideas to "help" us burn data faster than ever. Yet the tiers will remain the same or get tighter... and tier prices will remain the same or go up. I think we should just skip to "mach 9" LTE so that we can download all 2GB in the first tier in 1 second. Our speed test bragging numbers will be so incredible and we'll lose the weight of that spare cash in our wallets to boot.

Will those of us who don't think of money as something to freely burn tell us what they don't download now on a day-to-day basis but would download to their iPhone if their connection was- say- twice the speed of LTE? What is not loading fast enough at LTE speeds or even 3G HSPA that we actually need LTE-A on a day-to-day usage basis (again with a respect for avoiding the costs that come with stepping into higher tiers)? It's easy to answer this question if we don't think about the tier tolls but think about them and then give us an answer. Even the "think about the future" possibilities seem odd to me. Do we really need to stream a 4K movie in the future to a 4-6 inch phone screen? Do we need to stream the Library of Congress complete if we can only read one book at a time? Etc.

Don't get me wrong: fix the consumer-averse economics of the concept and I love the idea of Super LTE-R, S, and T speeds ASAP. But I still argue it's stupid to have a situation where we have 2GB tiers and froth at being able to run through those tiers faster than ever before... unless one doesn't care about money... or is an executive of AT&T, Verizon, etc. looking forward to bigger bonuses on higher revenues from the same pool of people on board now.

Yes, downloading a page of Macrumors will be the same amount of data either way but that page of Macrumors downloads plenty fast even at 2G Edge speeds. If we're going to upgrade the planet's wireless speed to load Macrumors pages faster than LTE or even 3G, we're playing an overkill game for next to no noticeable gain.
 
Last edited:
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.
Maybe in the USA, with your crippled version of LTE.

LTE is already faster than wired connections in australia. We are about to switch part of our office to LTE because it has reliable 50Mpbs upstream according to our tests.

I wouldn't count on AT&T giving you a a properly fast version of LTE-A. They didn't do it with 3G and they didn't do it with LTE. Why would they start now?

PS: I looked it up, and Telstra (Australia's best carrier) is working on 300Mbps LTE-A, expecting to roll it out "soon".
 
Maybe in the USA, with your crippled version of LTE.
I wouldn't count on AT&T giving you a a properly fast version of LTE-A. They didn't do it with 3G and they didn't do it with LTE. Why would they start now?

Umm, what?
How is over 60 Mbps on AT&T LTE slow and crippled? I just ran a test and got over 38 Mbps in my house.
 
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.

That's because you're thinking of it one way. If a guy is on 2G (Edge), he's probably not going to even bother trying to download an album or TV show as it would take longer than he might have. On the other hand, if there was time to download 2 HD movies in LTE-Advanced Mach 9, a person might be much more tempted to go for it.
...
Yes, downloading a page of Macrumors will be the same amount of data either way but that page of Macrumors downloads plenty fast even at 2G Edge speeds. If we're going to upgrade the planet's wireless speed to load Macrumors pages faster than LTE or even 3G, we're playing an overkill game for next to no noticeable gain.

You guys are just having trouble differentiating between your own desire to stream video without paying for the data and the advancement of technology improving our lives by saving us time.

If faster speeds cause you to use more data, that's something you'll personally have to work out. Meanwhile, I'll be enjoying every webpage loading as if it were a local file and spending far less time looking up movie showtimes than you. All while continuing to not even come close to my limit.
 
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.

Deutsche Telekom isn't technically deploying LTE Advanced. The standard for that is a maximum speed of 1Gbps. No one seemed to mention that tidbit of information.
 
Brian Klug, from Anandtech, has been able to tell the pad patterns from the leaked PCB. It matches the 9615, which is apparently not pin compatible with the 9625.

https://twitter.com/nerdtalker/status/375757081409617920

It doesn’t really change my mind, the leaked boards I’ve seen have the pad numbers for 9615

Seems like the only out is if that was a pre-production version that was changed later to have the 9625. I don't think we've ever seen parts change from a leak to final PCB though.
 
Last edited:
Deutsche Telekom isn't technically deploying LTE Advanced. The standard for that is a maximum speed of 1Gbps. No one seemed to mention that tidbit of information.
Your claim is absolutely false. There isn't a standard... You either have LTE-Advanced features deployed to your network, or you don't.

Plus how can you have a "standard" for maximum speed? WTF?

----------

Brian Klug, from Anandtech, has been able to tell the pad patterns from the leaked PCB. It matches the 9615, which is apparently not pin compatible with the 9625.

https://twitter.com/nerdtalker/status/375757081409617920



Seems like the only out is if that was a pre-production version that was changed later to have the 9625. I don't think we've ever seen parts change from a leak to final PCB though.
Except, we aren't sure if that's iPhone 5C or iPhone 5S PCB.
 
Last edited:
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this already, but the best part of this news for me would be that it would allow the price of existing standard LTE to be driven down. I would be more than happy with a cheaper price for LTE, it's fast enough. It also tends to have the effect that as more people switch to the premium standard, less people are on the older standard, making it faster anyway. Keep moving forward, and let the early adopters pay the premium price, and the rest can get a reasonable price for LTE! Win-win.
 
Except, we aren't sure if that's iPhone 5C or iPhone 5S PCB.

The chip identifier on the PCB suggests the SoC is the successor to the A6. So, I suppose it's possible that the 5C will have the A7 too (or would the 5S have a different A-variant?) but doesn't seem likely. Fewer distinguishing factors and higher BOM cost.
 
The chip identifier on the PCB suggests the SoC is the successor to the A6. So, I suppose it's possible that the 5C will have the A7 too (or would the 5S have a different A-variant?) but doesn't seem likely. Fewer distinguishing factors and higher BOM cost.
The point is that Brian isn't sure himself whether is 5C or 5S PCB, so we shouldn't throw claims left and right like it's (not) happening.

The MDM9x25 yield has increased in the recent months, and there are so many OEMs announcing and releasing smartphones with Snapdragon 800... Even Xiaomi... C'mon now.
 
The point is that Brian isn't sure himself whether is 5C or 5S PCB, so we shouldn't throw claims left and right like it's (not) happening.

The MDM9x25 yield has increased in the recent months, and there are so many OEMs announcing and releasing smartphones with Snapdragon 800... Even Xiaomi... C'mon now.

Yes, so we temper that uncertainty with Apple behavior history. They've never introduced a new iOS device that is supposed to be lower cost with the latest generation SoC (iPad mini). The iPod touch has also kept a previous generation A-series SoC before too. This would be the 1st bifurcation of the iPhone line with two products, but the commonly held belief is that the 5C is the "lower cost" phone, casting doubt on it using the latest SoC.

Second, I don't think Apple cares what other OEMs are doing. The iPhone had to wait for 3G too, and it was one of the biggest product differentiators between those generations. It's possible that could happen again.

KGI also expects the 5C to use the A6, though I'm sure it's debatable what their source is.

kuo_iphone_5s_july.jpg
 
Yes, so we temper that uncertainty with Apple behavior history. They've never introduced a new iOS device that is supposed to be lower cost with the latest generation SoC (iPad mini). The iPod touch has also kept a previous generation A-series SoC before too. This would be the 1st bifurcation of the iPhone line with two products, but the commonly held belief is that the 5C is the "lower cost" phone, casting doubt on it using the latest SoC.

Second, I don't think Apple cares what other OEMs are doing. The iPhone had to wait for 3G too, and it was one of the biggest product differentiators between those generations. It's possible that could happen again.
What you're talking about is SoC. I'm purely talking about Baseband Processor.

Two completely different things.
 
What you're talking about is SoC. I'm purely talking about Baseband Processor.
Two different things.

Yup, and I'm explaining to you that it's unlikely he's talking about the 5C PCB because the leaked PCB has a brand new generation SoC on it.
 
Yup, and I'm explaining to you that it's unlikely he's talking about the 5C PCB because the leaked PCB has a brand new generation SoC on it.
And we do know that Apple has a history of releasing revised SoC (iPad 2) with a completely different manufacturing process. So... wait and see.
 
And we do know that Apple has a history of releasing revised SoC (iPad 2) with a completely different manufacturing process. So... wait and see.

That SoC revision retained the higher order product number and changed a less significant digit. It was S5L8942 for the 32nm A5 vs. S5L8940 for the original 45nm A5. This newest leak has the identifier at S5L8960 (A6 was S5L8950), suggesting a whole new generation SoC.
 
Lol what a joke. So you can hit your 300mb monthly cap in seconds. All this speed is worthless if you are afraid to use it. Also get your service working all over a major city before you waste money on super high speed service no one can use

-Telekom customer in Germany

Lol, this ridiculous assumption has been debunked MULTIPLE times. How do people believe that faster speed means more data consumed?? In your 20 minutes of spare time at lunch break, when you usually stream a few videos.. with LTE+ are you magically going to be able to stream 4 hours instead?? Are the 2 new apps you try each month, suddenly going to eat up gigs of data to download?? Because your Facebook loads faster, you believe that means it is somehow using more data... not just, you know, loading faster??
Way to valiantly try to complain about AWESOME speeds... Sorry it's just not true. I guess you will have to either cheer up, or find some other imaginary issue to be grumpy with.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.