3 ms·

> I also consider the lack of LTE to be a feature. LTE chipsets are still immature Not to mention the speeds with LTE are not actually that much faster than T-

> I also consider the lack of LTE to be a feature. LTE chipsets are still immature Not to mention the speeds with LTE are not actually that much faster than T-Mo's HSPA+, especially now that there are lots of iPhone 5s in the wild using up LTE bandwidth: http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/31/3582684/the-nexus-4-the-verge-and-lte http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/31/3582684/the-nexus-4-the-v... (the data in the post is pre-iPhone 5, so the LTE speeds will be much slower than even that now)

BenoitEssiambre 14y ago
IMO at this point, new wireless networking technology is mostly a feature for carriers not for users. It allows them to sell more devices. Sure it's nice for users when they are first in an empty network but you have to be aware that carriers are working as hard as they can to sell their bandwidth and take it away from you. It always puzzles me that they advertise their new network as a feature to users when it's at best a temporary one. If they were to give guarantees that they wouldn't oversaturate their network with too many users THAT would be worth something and would be a feature to advertise. If all they sell is LTE phones this year, the other networks will actually become the fast ones as devices are retired from them and the bandwidth is freed.
danudey 14y ago
When at full bars in my local area (in my brick-and-wood office in Vancouver, BC) on 3G, I can get 13.83 megabits down, 1.68 megabits up. On three bars of LTE, I get 20.92 megabits down, 15.60 megabits up. This is roughly equivalent to the fibre connection I have to my home. Typically, when I'm outside on full bars of LTE, I get closer to 30 megabits down, 30 megabits up. This is significantly better than my fibre connection at home. So I would say the LTE speed difference is pretty impressive. Whether networks have sufficient coverage is another question entirely, and LTE on different frequencies can have severe penetration issues which can negatively impact your signal strength and download/upload speeds. Still, the numbers reported in that Verge article are pretty depressing and speak less to LTE as a technology and more to the poor situation that US mobile networks are in. Thus: If you are targeting a purely US audience, then LTE might not make sense, but if you're selling to people outside of the US's broken mobile situation, LTE is a huge boost.
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  Quoting from my link: > You would think that Verizon LTE is ubiquitous the way some talk about how important it is and that its speeds are absolutely crushing the competition, and you would be correct on the speeds if you counted upload speeds as equally important as download speeds. For the most part though, when people talk about speeds, they are concerned with download speeds, and that is when facts get seperated by perception quite a bit. The difference is much less perceptible for downloads, which is what most people want. More importantly, your one piece of anecdotal data is not particularly relevant when compared to the extensive data collected in a statistically significant manner by PC Mag. Edit: and like bryanlarsen said below, 3G ≠ HSPA+. HSPA+ has a maximum speed of 42 Mbps.
- bryanlarsen 14y ago
  Why is a comparison of 3G vs LTE even relevant? HSPA+ vs LTE is the relevant comparison to this conversation.
  - danudey 14y ago
    Because outside of the US, '3G' typically includes HSPA+ (and usually means anything shy of LTE). It's only in the US that carriers have started making the '4G' claim about HSPA+.

BenoitEssiambre 14y ago

IMO at this point, new wireless networking technology is mostly a feature for carriers not for users. It allows them to sell more devices. Sure it's nice for users when they are first in an empty network but you have to be aware that carriers are working as hard as they can to sell their bandwidth and take it away from you. It always puzzles me that they advertise their new network as a feature to users when it's at best a temporary one. If they were to give guarantees that they wouldn't oversaturate their network with too many users THAT would be worth something and would be a feature to advertise. If all they sell is LTE phones this year, the other networks will actually become the fast ones as devices are retired from them and the bandwidth is freed.

danudey 14y ago

When at full bars in my local area (in my brick-and-wood office in Vancouver, BC) on 3G, I can get 13.83 megabits down, 1.68 megabits up. On three bars of LTE, I get 20.92 megabits down, 15.60 megabits up. This is roughly equivalent to the fibre connection I have to my home. Typically, when I'm outside on full bars of LTE, I get closer to 30 megabits down, 30 megabits up. This is significantly better than my fibre connection at home. So I would say the LTE speed difference is pretty impressive. Whether networks have sufficient coverage is another question entirely, and LTE on different frequencies can have severe penetration issues which can negatively impact your signal strength and download/upload speeds. Still, the numbers reported in that Verge article are pretty depressing and speak less to LTE as a technology and more to the poor situation that US mobile networks are in. Thus: If you are targeting a purely US audience, then LTE might not make sense, but if you're selling to people outside of the US's broken mobile situation, LTE is a huge boost.

w1ntermute 14y ago
Quoting from my link: > You would think that Verizon LTE is ubiquitous the way some talk about how important it is and that its speeds are absolutely crushing the competition, and you would be correct on the speeds if you counted upload speeds as equally important as download speeds. For the most part though, when people talk about speeds, they are concerned with download speeds, and that is when facts get seperated by perception quite a bit. The difference is much less perceptible for downloads, which is what most people want. More importantly, your one piece of anecdotal data is not particularly relevant when compared to the extensive data collected in a statistically significant manner by PC Mag. Edit: and like bryanlarsen said below, 3G ≠ HSPA+. HSPA+ has a maximum speed of 42 Mbps.
bryanlarsen 14y ago
Why is a comparison of 3G vs LTE even relevant? HSPA+ vs LTE is the relevant comparison to this conversation.
- danudey 14y ago
  Because outside of the US, '3G' typically includes HSPA+ (and usually means anything shy of LTE). It's only in the US that carriers have started making the '4G' claim about HSPA+.