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
No. No, I haven't. I have always had unlimited. I have used about 1.5gb per month consistently since 2009.
Wtf does that have to do with speed though? Oh yeah, NOTHING. That's my point. When I went from 3G to LTE I didn't use more data, when I get LTE+, I won't use more data. More speed does NOT equal more data usage.. unless your habits on your phone suddenly & drastically change. Doing the same things will use the same amount of data. It really seems pretty simple to me.
No, my German friend, although the saying "Ganz einfach" is ubiquitous and quite fashionable in your natural habitat, to explain that a 0.75-2GB monthly plan on an iPhone and in the developed world being sufficient is actually the opposite of fairly easy, especially to people who constantly hit their limit and in markets where prepaid limits are much higher, for much less money than on the contracts which an iPhone requires even after you factored in the monthly deduct for the iPhone, which, even more than the devices most people on prepaid use, actually requires a fair amount of data to even function completely.
It's not like affordable plans >10GB for smartphone usage don't exist in Europe, Exhibit A:
It's a great deal already, and if you've subscribed to their fixed line, they even double it. Being a subscriber to Deutsche Telekom's (and unfortunately, you could replace it with too many carriers around the world) fixed line gives you the equivalent of a fuzzy warm feeling instead. You might've also noticed that connection speeds >7.2MBit/s on prepaid do exist, too. I happen to believe that this is a fair pricing for 2013, as opposed to bandwidth limits that have barely doubled since 2007 but risen in monthly costs.
It's also not fairly easy to explain, at least to me, how 64kbit/s is an appropriate connection speed for an iPhone, under any circumstances – because I do not understand things that give unpleasant experiences.
However, AT&T still tops my list:
I suppose that it includes a monthly candlelight dinner before they send your bill.
Last edited:
Or maybe he is (like me) from Germany which currently means Apple's implementation of LTE will work only on one carriers Network (T-Mobile) and only on one of the used frequencies (1800MHz...only used in very densely populated areas).
So the vast Difference is that Apple has chosen somewhat odd Bands to support for the GSM Versions (or they just don't care that much about the european market?) and this results in being stuck on 3G or EDGE rather frequently with the iPhone and iPad while that other Guy using his Nokia or Samsung Phone is happily using LTE...
Apple may have been ahead of the curve when it comes to computers and networking; but they've been notoriously behind the curve when it comes to adopting the latest and greatest cellular technology in the iPhone/iPad. I will be very surprised if the iPhone(s) announced on Tuesday have support for LTE-A.
No need to compare, both are ridiculously expensive for a diminutive amount of data.
To put this into context: You are on a road trip and want to watch a movie on your iPad, which happens to be 1.5GB – AT&T charges you $45 for it, over four times as much as the movie itself cost on iTunes. You could've bought the Special Edition BluRay with the action figure gimmick for that.
If you watch three movies, you could've bought a BluRay player along with the three movies on BluRay for the same money.
Last edited:
LTE Advanced should give users 75Mbits/second rates, in the real world, I think. I will TAKE IT.
----------
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
You realize that for the last several years, US cellular carriers have basically raced to the front of the pack when it comes to adopting new cellular technologies, right? A few other countries are in our league, but we're hardly toward the end like we used to be.
You are right about fees and caps, though!
----------
Screw you Aussies and your raging wireless! At least porn on the internet isn't illegal here in the USA. ;-P
----------
LTE Advanced will scale to 1Gbit/sec but I don't think the underlying technology require speeds of that rate.
Honestly, I tend to think of the "generations" in terms of orders of Magnitude. Which kind of goes against my point of LTE Advanced being the first true 4G tech, which used to be true, until they redefined HSPA+ and LTE as 4G. But, thinking of it int he following way is actually kind of more useful in some ways:
2G cellular data: upper tens to maybe 100-ish Kbit/sec rates (down)
3G cellular data: Couple of Megabits/sec (down), maybe 1Mbit/up
4G cellular data (counting current generation high-end as 4G): 10-30Mbit/sec (down), maybe 10ish up on a good day here in the USA
So the next real "generation" in this more "layman" way of describing it should give us 100+ Mbit/sec down, probably up to a few hundred. And then after that, we'll be getting to Gigabit speeds.
I expect to see the 100 to several hundred Megabit rates being fairly prevalent in the USA and other places by 2016, and Gigabit wireless cellular around the turn of the decade.
God, and I still remember my screeching 2400 baud modem...
LTE Advanced should give users 75Mbits/second rates, in the real world, I think. I will TAKE IT.
----------
You realize that for the last several years, US cellular carriers have basically raced to the front of the pack when it comes to adopting new cellular technologies, right? A few other countries are in our league, but we're hardly toward the end like we used to be.
You are right about fees and caps, though!
----------
Screw you Aussies and your raging wireless! At least porn on the internet isn't illegal here in the USA. ;-P
----------
LTE Advanced will scale to 1Gbit/sec but I don't think the underlying technology require speeds of that rate.
Honestly, I tend to think of the "generations" in terms of orders of Magnitude. Which kind of goes against my point of LTE Advanced being the first true 4G tech, which used to be true, until they redefined HSPA+ and LTE as 4G. But, thinking of it int he following way is actually kind of more useful in some ways:
2G cellular data: upper tens to maybe 100-ish Kbit/sec rates (down)
3G cellular data: Couple of Megabits/sec (down), maybe 1Mbit/up
4G cellular data (counting current generation high-end as 4G): 10-30Mbit/sec (down), maybe 10ish up on a good day here in the USA
So the next real "generation" in this more "layman" way of describing it should give us 100+ Mbit/sec down, probably up to a few hundred. And then after that, we'll be getting to Gigabit speeds.
I expect to see the 100 to several hundred Megabit rates being fairly prevalent in the USA and other places by 2016, and Gigabit wireless cellular around the turn of the decade.
God, and I still remember my screeching 2400 baud modem...
Current T-Mobile, AT&T and Verizon's 2x10Mhz LTE deployment can peak at 73.6Mbps. Average 5-12Mbps. No US carriers have more than 2x10Mhz LTE deployed at the moment, so you won't see much higher peak until Verizon deploys 2x20Mhz this year, which will peak at 150Mbps.
Keep in mind Verizon isn't even deploying LTE-Advanced, so understand that achieving 150Mbps doesn't mean your network is LTE-A. You just have to have more spectrum for wider channels.
That said, to scale it close to 1Gbps, you'd need 5 times 2x20Mhz for a max of 100Mhz of spectrum, and higher order MIMO. That's not happening as no carriers have that much spectrum. And no user equipment can bond more than two times 2x10Mhz, so 150Mbps is the limit.
Time to relax, there isn't a magic button that will make your phone magically go 1Gbps...
Last edited:
I've found that 20 Mbps is adequate for anything I've ever wanted to do. My phone regularly hits 30+ Mbps on T mobile (have a DAS on a church right next door) when at home and my cable is actually limited to 21 Mbps and it's never been an issue, so these posts fretting about more bandwidth are always amusing. I can understand for a tethering user though.
It's not what you are doing today. It's what having gobs of bandwidth allows for in the future, that isn't even possible now. I am exceptionally excited about ridiculous wireless bandwidth hitting over the next decade, it's going to allow for stuff that we literally haven't even yet imagined.
Very soon, most people will have a single computer, and it will be mobile. Everything else will just be an interface for that one computer. A huge amount of what you do with the "computer" will really be tapping into cloud (I hate that word) services.
All of the other interfaces -- for touch, screen, speakers, you name it -- will just connect wirelessly to your computer. Because at the end of the day, as long as you have low latency and good bandwidth, all you need to do is stream audio, video, and user interface inputs back and forth.
Eventually, your computer will go away completely, and all you'll EVER be using is an interface to something in the cloud. Again, as long as you can do high-quality low-latency streaming in both directions, having any processing or storage going on locally won't even matter.
This is clearly the direction things are going. Lots and lots of wireless bandwidth is going to be a KEY part of this evolution of computing. And mark my words, this is going to be the reality by the turn of the decade.
I have no doubt that more bandwidth will bring good things, including pressure on companies to up bandwidth on dedicated landlines. I find it hard to be overly happy at the idea of a single dedicated computing interface, however. I'm curious how the hobbyist/enthusiast community will respond to these tendencies. I want my personal device to be more intuitive and to understand my needs better, but that doesn't mean I don't want the option for dedicated hardware to evaporate.
Average people used to know how to work on their cars, too, but that for the most part went away. I think computing is going to go in the same direction, already is, obviously. When I was getting really into computers originally, maybe 1991/1992 period, anyone who was using a computer, was into the BBS scene, on the Internet, etc. knew how to build a computer from scratch, using components. I'd wager that less than a couple of percent of computer users today can do that. Maybe even less than 1%.
I think there will always be room to muck about when it comes to server-side computing infrastructure, because that's where most of everything will actually be happening. But client-side? How many people hack their phone's hardware? Their computer screen? Speakers? Keyboard? That's all we'll really be sitting in front of.
Now, software? That's a different story. I think way more people should get into coding, and how to get people's APIs to talk to one another. That's where all the real exciting stuff is happening. Hardware is kind of a necessary evil, at the end of the day it's all about software. Put your energies there, I say!
I take issue with the analogy. To me it's more like everyone owns a car and then suddenly they're all forced to take the bus (since computing power is now operator owned and shared). Perhaps I need to break out the cane and keep off lawn sign early.
Way to miss the point.
(a) Carrier aggregation requires more spectrum. I discussed that.
(b) I am not trivializing the difficulty of adding antennas. I AM pointing out that the work to do so, and much of the benefit derived, are INDEPENDENT of LTE-A.
Not explicitly so, no. Carrier aggregation is what makes more spectrum interesting.
You said it was a smarter path. I disputed that citing the difficulties, as did milan03, specifically mentioning the RE/CE headache that many antennas cause in a small form factor in addition to higher power dissipation.
I don't dispute the points you make in the quotes here, I'm just disputing that was the actual intent of what you said originally, more so in the second case. The first was merely an omission.
Last edited:
I forgot about t-mobile. Problem with T-mobile is that the coverage is awful once you step outside of a city. Where I live, T-mobile is still mostly EDGE (Verizon and AT&T both have LTE though). Good luck getting anything near 42mbps on AT&T w/o LTE
T-Mobile works brilliant here in NYC. Remarkable performance on LTE, then fallback to HSPA+42 in AWS and another HSPA+21 in PCS. Beautiful!