HSPA+ is true, official, bona-fide 4G

[kre62]

Remember the blue vs red 3G coverage maps. At least with Verizon you'll be able to fall back to 3G outside of LTE. With ATT, there might not be any 3G to fall back on.

The thing most people dont realize about these coverage maps is that you won't get VZ's full speed 3G in most of that area. And when you do get full speed 3G, you are maxed at a theoretical 1.2mbps, with ream world of 700-800kbps. Outside major areas, you are going to get like 20-30kbps.

Vs. AT&T, whos 3G delivers 3-5mbps right now.

From what I understand it has to do with the wavelengths of CDMA vs GSM. You can think of CDMA as similar to AM radio, penetrates walls and goes long distances, but has limited capability/bandwidth. GSM is kinda like FM radio. Doesn't go through walls as well, or travel long distances, but the quality is much better when you have it.

 

[Vegastouch]

i am alittle disappointed by the new labelling systems of using HSPA+ as 4G, HSPA+ was NEVER NEVER supposed to be labelled as 4G. It was always 3.5G.
This is kinda sleezy of att and t-mobile to try and pass this off as 4G just because they don't have their LTE ***** together!

And T-Mobile's 42 HSPA+ getting 30mbps that laughable, you better believe they had the signal tuned and turned up just for the CES Show is Las Vegas! you will never see the speed in real everyday life from HSPA+

Dont know why it is laughable. Maybe because you dont have T-Mobile? They are working on it and its supposed to be happening this year and most will have it by the end of the year. Whats to question? If you arent a developer or a tech who has inside info or works on it, or have a phone that supports it(which im sure you dont) then you have no idea if it will reach those speeds or not. Im sure some places will get better speeds than others just like AT&T works in places better than others.

And BTW..HSPA+ is faster than LTE. At least T-Mobiles is faster than Verizons so dont know why you are knocking HSPA+ so much and complaining that they are calling it 4G.

 

[Alisstar]

Dont know why it is laughable. Maybe because you dont have T-Mobile? They are working on it and its supposed to be happening this year and most will have it by the end of the year. Whats to question? If you arent a developer or a tech who has inside info or works on it, or have a phone that supports it(which im sure you dont) then you have no idea if it will reach those speeds or not. Im sure some places will get better speeds than others just like AT&T works in places better than others.

And BTW..HSPA+ is faster than LTE. At least T-Mobiles is faster than Verizons so dont know why you are knocking HSPA+ so much and complaining that they are calling it 4G.

Right now that may be the case, but I believe that LTE has higher theoretical peak download and upload speeds than what HSPA+ can ever offer.

 

[DeathChill]

Hooray for Rogers having HSPA+ rolled out for over a year now.

 

[Vegastouch]

Right now that may be the case, but I believe that LTE has higher theoretical peak download and upload speeds than what HSPA+ can ever offer.

Maybe , maybe not. Both will be fast and ill tell ya what? If i can get even 30 mbps, that is faster than my cable internet at home so ill be happy. I get anywhere from 21 to 26 mbps at home. On wifi ive gotton as high as 15 mbps on my Vibrant. Usually between 7 and 13 and thats pretty quick so if i can get 30 mbps on my phones network....oh happy day

 

[Alisstar]

Maybe , maybe not. Both will be fast and ill tell ya what? If i can get even 30 mbps, that is faster than my cable internet at home so ill be happy. I get anywhere from 21 to 26 mbps at home. On wifi ive gotton as high as 15 mbps on my Vibrant. Usually between 7 and 13 and thats pretty quick so if i can get 30 mbps on my phones network....oh happy day

Oh, I know! I can't wait to get a phone that can support these speeds. At home I get about 8 mbps on average, and that seems to be sufficient for me. So having speeds higher than that on mobile devices will make my home internet connection feel jealous.

 

[zephxiii]

Right now that may be the case, but I believe that LTE has higher theoretical peak download and upload speeds than what HSPA+ can ever offer.

ever offer? like the HSPA+ 650mbps T-mobile stated they wanted to deploy with 40mhz of downlink spectrum?

HSPA+ is pretty close to LTE in terms of potential performance.

 

[kdarling]

They've already corrected the 14.4 statement, it will be 21mbps HSPA+.

As ATT themselves say, their HSPA+ can get up to 6 Mbps if the tower has enhanced backhaul.

OH. So YOU are saying they are completely halting 3G/HSPA+ coverage expansion? That's funny since they released a map showing additional coverage expansion to be completed by the end of March. And you'd be a fool if you think it stops there....

There is no guarantee that an ATT coverage area without LTE will have 3G at all, just as happens now. ATT has traditionally fixated on serving high population areas. Are you saying that ATT will have total 3G coverage of its entire service area?

The thing most people dont realize about these coverage maps is that you won't get VZ's full speed 3G in most of that area.

Sure, you do, unless the tower hasn't had its backhaul upgraded. Even ATT didn't deny that the maps were correct.

And when you do get full speed 3G, you are maxed at a theoretical 1.2mbps, with ream world of 700-800kbps. Outside major areas, you are going to get like 20-30kbps .

Totally incorrect. EVDO Rev A theoretical max is over 3Mbps, and real world averages around .8 to 1.5 MBps.

(I'm in the mountains and just ran a speedtest.net app on a Droid Incredible and got 1512 Kbps down, 518 Kbps up. Tried again a while later and got 2070KBps down, 838KBps up. I've seen lower, though, like 680KBps down and up.)

From what I understand it has to do with the wavelengths of CDMA vs GSM. You can think of CDMA as similar to AM radio, penetrates walls and goes long distances, but has limited capability/bandwidth. GSM is kinda like FM radio. Doesn't go through walls as well, or travel long distances, but the quality is much better when you have it.

You don't seem to realize that GSM 3G uses a CDMA protocol.

Frequency penetration is a different topic, and each has good and bad bands.

 

[Geckotek]

Vs. AT&T, whos 3G delivers 3-5mbps right now.

I've never seen those speeds.

From what I understand it has to do with the wavelengths of CDMA vs GSM. You can think of CDMA as similar to AM radio, penetrates walls and goes long distances, but has limited capability/bandwidth. GSM is kinda like FM radio. Doesn't go through walls as well, or travel long distances, but the quality is much better when you have it.

You are confusing the air interface technology with the radio frequency.

 

[zephxiii]

As ATT themselves say, their HSPA+ can get up to 6 Mbps if the tower has enhanced backhaul.

That just tells me they are speed limiting to around 6mbps, not that their HSPA+ doesn't support 64QAM.

There is no guarantee that an ATT coverage area without LTE will have 3G at all, just as happens now. ATT has traditionally fixated on serving high population areas. Are you saying that ATT will have total 3G coverage of its entire service area?

High population areas like Eastern Nevada? Or up and coming places like The Dakotas, Kansas, Colorado, Utah. Hell the small town of Auburn, IN with 12k people has 3g.

What makes you think they aren't going to deploy?

 

[Geckotek]

That just tells me they are speed limiting to around 6mbps, not that their HSPA+ doesn't support 64QAM.

How does it matter if you never see that speed in real life? I don't care what the reason for the limitation is...

 

[zephxiii]

How does it matter if you never see that speed in real life? I don't care what the reason for the limitation is...

Why does it matter? Because 64QAM capable devices are more efficient over the network, that's why it matters. Just like going from 1.8 to 3.6 was important due to higher efficiency. 7.2 not so much because all it did was grab more HS-DSCH codes, but on the plus side of that it could help average speeds in lesser signal quality areas.

And when it comes to phones, HSPA+ matters as higher data rates aren't the only improvements to the interface.

 

[Geckotek]

Why does it matter? Because 64QAM capable devices are more efficient over the network, that's why it matters.

And when it comes to phones, HSPA+ matters as higher data rates aren't the only improvements to the interface.

So besides faster data speeds that aren't truly faster....what am I gaining?

 

[zephxiii]

So besides faster data speeds that aren't truly faster....what am I gaining?

Research it. There are a couple of PDFs out there about HSPA+ you can look at, one of them by qualcomm.

BTW being more efficient on the air interface, can improve average speeds. With shared wireless internet, it's more about boosting average speeds, not what the theoretical max is that you'll never reach for obvious reasons.

 

[kdarling]

That just tells me they are speed limiting to around 6mbps, not that their HSPA+ doesn't support 64QAM.

Now that you bring it up, AT&T has said that they only have HSPA+ 14.4 running right now. They've said they're deploying HSPA+ 21 this coming year.

They confuse things by saying stuff like "We have HSPA+, and HSPA+ can theoretically hit 21Mbps."

The first half is true (they have HSPA+ 14.4). The second half is also true about HSPA+, but has nothing to do with AT&T yet.

They know listeners will mentally combine them and think they have 21aleady deployed everywhere.

 

[zephxiii]

Now that you bring it up, AT&T has said that they only have HSPA+ 14.4 running right now. They've said they're deploying HSPA+ 21 this coming year.

They confuse things by saying stuff like "We have HSPA+, and HSPA+ can theoretically hit 21Mbps."

The first half is true (they have HSPA+ 14.4). The second half is also true about HSPA+, but has nothing to do with AT&T yet.

They know listeners will mentally combine them and think they have 21aleady deployed everywhere.

http://www.indiatelecomtracker.com/archives/3260

14.4 isn't HSPA+, HSPA+ starts at 17.6mbps.

The whole 14.4 speak was an error basically.

 

[Applejuiced]

How does it matter if you never see that speed in real life? I don't care what the reason for the limitation is...

Hey I see those speeds all the time with AT&T

 

[Geckotek]

Hey I see those speeds all the time with AT&T

Shut up!

 

[Applejuiced]

Shut up!

Hey you can always hope Dallas AT&T will improve too
Dont tell me you're switching?

 

[jav6454]

Shut up!

You mad?

 

[Applejuiced]

You mad?

He's just playing bro

 

[jav6454]

He's just playing bro

That sucks....

>mfw

 

[Mliii]

How does it matter if you never see that speed in real life? I don't care what the reason for the limitation is...

The way I look at it is the same way I look at EPA estimates for automobile gas mileage. Even with the revised calculations required by the EPA, no on ever gets the stated mileage numbers. It's simply another tool for a consumer to use for comparison purposes.
And since I think this applies in many places in life, I'll go ahead and say it...
YMMV!

 

[Geckotek]

Hey you can always hope Dallas AT&T will improve too
Dont tell me you're switching?

I'm on the fence. Fact is, when I visit family I'm stuck on Edge. Those same areas have Verizon 3G coverage. BUT, getting an LTE phone will probably be the holy grail for me. So I'll most likely hold off jumping until they have LTE.

I'm just watching the situation closely.

 

[FearNo1]

Please answer the following questions:
1. Which company has the fastest most, consistent "4G" service today?
2. Which company is expected to have the fastest, most consistent "4G" service by the end of the year?
3. And next year?

I think thats all that matters, no matter what term is used.

One of my friends has the mytouch 4g with tmobile. Next time I see him I will run some tests to see what he gets.