Print 39 comment(s) - last by jharper12.. on Jan 13 at 8:49 PM

AT&T has become the latest to (mis)brand HSPA+ as "4G".  (Source: Physorg) NOT a 4G phone.  (Source: Android and Me)
LTE and WiMax are far from perfect in their current forms, but HSPA+ is worse

Those who can use LTE/WiMAX, and those that can't use HSPA+.

That's increasingly the reality of at least two major American carriers' scheme to rebrand an extension to 3G wireless transmission technology to 4G, while failing to meet the standards originally set for 4G.

I.  The Origins of 4G

The origins of the mess began in late 2009, when T-Mobile began upgrading its network to support HSPA+.  That was a noble enough objective, but then in September 2010, T-Mobile announced a new Android handset, the T-Mobile G2 (HTC Desire Z), which supports HSPA+, an advanced 3G technology.  T-Mobile began to make a quiet claim, stating that the 3G phone offered "4G-like" speeds.  Those claims were followed by T-Mobile's much noisier release of the T-Mobile MyTouch 4G (HTC Glacier).  All of a sudden T-Mobile was claiming in ads that it had a 4G network.

Meanwhile Sprint and Verizon -- who were deploying true 4G networks by the original definition of the term -- sat by scratching their heads.  And AT&T, whom hadn't gotten around to 4G yet, but had perhaps America's best 3G data network (their voice network wasn't so hot), reacted in a much more critical manner blasting T-Mobile for making its claims.

A company spokesperson 
rebuked T-Mobile, stating, "I think that companies need to be careful that they're not misleading customers by labeling HSPA+ as a 4G technology.  We aren't labeling those technologies as 4G."

At the 2011 Consumer Electronics Show, expectations for AT&T's keynote were high.  The company was rumored to be launching 4G Android smartphones.

But in a cruel twist it abandoned its previous stand and released three models with "4G" in their title, which in fact could only support HSPA+.  The company added it would also be deploying LTE products shortly.

Why should customers care?

II.  "4G" vs. "3G" -- By the Numbers

Well, LTE (which Verizon is using) in its current form supports 100 Mbit/s downloads and WiMAX offers even more impressive 128 Mbit/s downloads.  HSPA+ offers only about half that, with 56 Mbit/s.  And the gap grows, when you consider that fixed versions of LTE and WiMAX are expected to deliver speeds of up to 1 Gbit/s.  

The story is similar when it comes to upload speeds.  LTE offers 50 Mbit/s, WiMAX offers 56 Mbit/s.  HSPA+ only offers 22 Mbit/s.

Now the proponents of HSPA+ may point out that the technology offers an order of magnitude (at least) increase in speed over traditional 3G.  Thus it's closer to 4G than 3G in a way.  But it's still not what was originally promised with 4G.

And the story is even more complex than that.  LTE and WiMAX were designed with core objectives of improving power efficiency and wireless spectrum usage efficiency.  By contrast HSPA+ operates much more like traditional HSPA/CDMA/etc. 3G technology.  This is showcased by the fact that HSPA+ can be implemented via a firmware update; whereas LTE and WiMAX require physical modification to antennas and towers.  

Despite all of this, AT&T and T-Mobile are in the right, according to a major industry council.  The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in December announced that it was defining 4G as, "It is recognized that [4G], while undefined, may also be applied to the forerunners of these technologies, LTE and WiMAX, and to other evolved 3G technologies providing a substantial level of improvement in performance and capabilities with respect to the initial third generation systems now deployed."

Unlike past definitions, this one opened the door for HSPA+ a slower iterative advance, to be relabeled "4G".

III.  But Aren't LTE/WiMAX Failing to Deliver Promised Speeds?

A final thing worth noting is that LTE and WiMAX networks still have a long ways to go to live up to their promised speed numbers.  Sprint's WiMAX reportedly is putting up 3-6 Mbps up and 10 Mbps down.  Testing of Verizon's LTE network showed it to be pulling a similar 12 Mbps down and 6 Mbps up.  Outside the U.S., Norway, Sweden, Ireland, and South Korea are all trying to deploy 4G networks as well with varying results.  Norway and Sweden's TeliaSonera 4G LTE network, for example, was shown pulling 43 Mbps down, but can only push 6 Mbps up, similar to Sprint and Verizon.

Still, these networks are generally regarded as pre-release 4G and should be able to be refined to deliver fully on the promised 4G speeds, unlike HSPA+, which is unlikely to deliver equivalent speeds.  

Furthermore, HSPA+ has yet to live up to its own speed claims as well.  Recent tests showed T-Mobile's HSPA+ network to be pulling down around 3 Mbps on average and pushing up about 1 Mbps on average, slower than current 4G implementations, even.  Like the true 4G networks, the HSPA+ networks will likely eventually work up to their promised speeds, but at the end of the day, they're working towards a final goal that provides less to the consumer.

IV. Conclusions

Public relations and corporate management can call HSPA+ "4G", but AT&T's spokesperson had it right in the first place -- companies labeling HSPA+ as 4G risk "misleading customers".  And the net result is that customers will be getting less than was originally promised.

Fortunately the industry seems divided on this issue.  Even AT&T is straddling the fence, promising to deploy LTE, while reversing its stance on HSPA+ and rebranding it "4G".  At the end of the day its up to customers to guide the market by recognizing true 4G -- LTE and WiMAX -- from the imposters, and using their buying power to leave those who erroneously peddle HSPA+ as "4G" in the dust.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

How is it providing less to consumers...
By quiksilvr on 1/10/2011 10:45:53 AM , Rating: 5
If consumers aren't being charged more for it?

I agree it should not have been called 4G, but at least they aren't duping customers into extra monthly fees.

RE: How is it providing less to consumers...
By quiksilvr on 1/10/2011 10:50:58 AM , Rating: 2
Furthermore, LTE and WiMax aren't 4G either.

According to the International Telecommunications Union global standard for International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT) Advanced (or in other words, 4G):

Enhanced peak data rates to support advanced services and applications (100 Mbit/s for high and 1 Gbit/s for low mobility were established as targets for research)

LTE and WiMAX (as well as HSPA+) are NOT 4G.


RE: How is it providing less to consumers...
By quiksilvr on 1/10/2011 10:56:53 AM , Rating: 2

My fault, this was mentioned in the article, I understand the point you were trying to make.

LTE and WiMax will eventually mature INTO true 4G (100 Mbps), whereas HSPA+ will mature into a pseudo 4G (84 Mbps)

RE: How is it providing less to consumers...
By mcnabney on 1/10/11, Rating: 0
RE: How is it providing less to consumers...
By HrilL on 1/10/2011 3:57:03 PM , Rating: 4
Actually you need more like 20Mhz of spectrum for one user to get close to 100Mbps Check out clearwire's newest LTE test.

T-mobile's network also out speeds Verizon and Sprint's current network implementations.

Clearly there are speed differences between T-Mobile's HSPA+ and Clearwire's LTE and WiMax. T-Mobile was only able to get speeds of just under 30M bps despite the theoretical 43M-bps capability. But T-Mobile was using its operational network that presumably was also being used by all of those other T-Mobile customers out there in Las Vegas at this huge trade show. Clearwire had the network to itself.

If Verizon can call 20Mbps 4G than T-Mobile has just as much right when their network actually goes 28Mbps. Verizon doesn't have the spectrum to offer 100Mbps for more than one user so they're just as much of a farce as T-Mobile is in claiming they have 4G. Just because you're using new network tech doesn't mean your network performs to the standards of 4G.

Also HSPA+ latency is pretty damn good. 50-75ms on average. While LTE is supposed to be better how likely will that be once the network is actually under some real load.

RE: How is it providing less to consumers...
By JasonMick (blog) on 1/10/2011 7:55:52 PM , Rating: 2
T-Mobile has just as much right when their network actually goes 28Mbps

You're referring to T-Mobile's supposed test: el

I call BS on that. The majority of independent testing has shown actual HSPA+ "4G" to be WAY lower than 28 Mbps.

Examples: -3g-gets-pumped-up-to-21mbps

Date: Mar 16, 2010
UP, avg: 1.15 Mbps
DOWN, avg: 3.65 Mbps hspa-network-and-webconnect-rocket/

Date: June 22, 2010
UP, avg: "1.2" Mbps
DOWN, avg: "4-6" Mbps d-test-results-please/m-p/485063

Date(s): Sept. - Oct. 2010
UP: 0.5-1.2 Mbps
DOWN: 3-8 Mbps

Those were just the first few I found. I'm sure there's many more that would be in relative agreement with these results (and not with your claim).

If you have any comprehensive independent third party sources (other than T-Mobile's stacked "test") please feel free to post...

So by your own accounting T-Mobile would have the right to bill HSPA+ as 4G if their network was capable of 28 Mbps (down), but their right to make such claims without fear of criticism is somewhat waived by their MUCH poorer performance than this mark.... Almost a factor of 5x poorer, in many tests, in fact...

By HrilL on 1/11/2011 4:26:04 PM , Rating: 2
Those are all older tests. The newest one being from September. that was about the time they announced starting to upgrade from 14Mbps to 21Mbps. The newest tests were done on a 43Mbps network.

Even firmware upgrades don't happen over night everywhere. Give T-mobile a few more months and for Verizon to actually get some load on their network and then you can rightfully compare speeds. Until then you're comparing a hardly loaded network with one that has millions of users currently using it. Lets not compare apples with oranges...

By Lazarus Dark on 1/10/2011 7:56:50 PM , Rating: 3
Thank you. I try to tell people that we can never go fully wireless, there's just not enough room. But no one understands it. Wired and fiber optic will always be needed for the heavy lifting. Wireless should be for mobile access only unless your one of those last mile people who can't practically get wired to the house

(who needs 4k video on-the-go?? or even 1080p on-the-go for that matter?? No, we will still use wired for this)

RE: How is it providing less to consumers...
By JasonMick (blog) on 1/10/2011 1:28:30 PM , Rating: 1
How is it providing less to consumers...If consumers aren't being charged more for it?

I agree with you that the situation is a little different as Verizon and Sprint are charging for their true 4G precursors, whereas T-Mobile isn't charging extra for its 3.5G precursor.

The networks may not be duping people into paying extra fees, but they are duping people into subscribing to services with less fees, thinking they will get the same service. To the uninformed customer T-Mobile and AT&T are offering customers for free what Verizon and Sprint are charging for ("4G").

Of course this isn't the case, and it's up to the customer to inform themselves (buyer beware). That's why I've written this article, and why I hope others further inform on this distinction, so customers can make an informed decision and understand what they're actually getting.

As you pointed out, and as I wrote in the first draft of this article, WiMax and LTE still aren't delivering on their promised speeds. But testing shows they are still, in most cases, delivering faster speeds than HSPA+ (which is also falling short of promised speeds). The gap is especially noticable for uploads, which is definitely something of interest if you're ever trying to add a largish attachment to an email and send it from your smartphone.

Some people below have raised discussion regarding Sprint or others possibly throttling their 4G speeds. I finally got to use 4G for the first time in Las Vegas, with my EVO's tethering, and I didn't experience this, so I can't speak to that. But my end point is that one road (LTE/WiMax early implementations) leads to the "4G" promised land in the form it was originally described, where as the other road (HSPA+ in its early form) leads to much less. Either way, it may take several years to get there, but customers need to decide -- which road sounds better?

RE: How is it providing less to consumers...
By quiksilvr on 1/10/2011 2:43:07 PM , Rating: 4
As it stands now, I'll stick with HSPA+. Costs the same and get comparable speeds (plus you get a very decent selection of phones to choose from).

Once the gap in speed is evident, (intelligent) consumers will make the switch as necessary, but HSPA+ has some pretty incredible goals as well. I've seen numbers as high as 672 Mbp/s.

I find this actually quite an interesting read.

RE: How is it providing less to consumers...
By HrilL on 1/10/2011 4:02:56 PM , Rating: 2
I completely agree. They basically get the same speeds when comparing the two. All of them have to use more channels in order to achieve higher speeds. LTE needs 20Mhz to do 100Mbps HSPA+ needs 15Mhz to do 126Mbps. Clearly both can perform pretty close to each other.

RE: How is it providing less to consumers...
By omnicronx on 1/10/2011 6:50:03 PM , Rating: 2
Well one thing is latency.. i could care less but it does matter to some people it may matter. For example if you for whatever reason want to use it as a home connection. Perhaps if you live in rural area.

I guess you could also theoretically play games as LTE should provide playable latencies..

By HrilL on 1/10/2011 6:52:44 PM , Rating: 2
HSPA+ also has a lot lower latencies than older 3G tech. T-mobiles HSPA+ network has lower latencies than Sprints WiMax currently. Its about 75ms which isn't too bad and faster speeds and less congestion should also help. LTE with 30-50ms would be nicers if that is really what is gets in the real world.

By nolisi on 1/10/2011 2:58:10 PM , Rating: 2
but they are duping people into subscribing to services with less fees, thinking they will get the same service.

The problem with this assertion is the variable nature wireless communications to begin with. This is why when it comes to actual numbers, they are always prefaced with the phrase "up to".

On a practical basis, I think it serves the customer better to give them a "free" upgrade (service fees wise) to a higher speed service even if it doesn't deliver the same "4G" speeds. The likelihood is, even when all these technologies mature:

a) the theoretical maximums won't be reached on any kind of consistent basis given the delivery medium (wireless)
b) companies are instituting throttling- what good does it do me to pay for a higher speed of service if there is an beaurocratic limit to how much I can use these speeds?

So while we techies can argue numbers- I think it serves the customers better to ask the practical questions:

a)Will phones be produced that can actually handle these theoretical peak speeds with reasonable battery life?
b)Will users be able to take advantage of these higher speeds given the form factor of the devices (cell phones can only do so much given their size and interface options)?
c)Will most users notice/use a difference between these technologies theoretical maximums?
d)What will the consistency of the service delivery (coverage, deployment, throttling etc) look like?

Given these questions and the realities of wireless service delivery, I think duping people by having them pay the same amount for a higher (but not as high) level of service isn't that serious an issue.

By tallguywithglasseson on 1/11/2011 1:06:15 PM , Rating: 3
HPSA+ can be called 4G according to the ITU,2817,2374564,

Along with WiMax and LTE. Of course none of them meet the performance specifications of 4G.

And 4G was not a standard about a specific technology, so it matters little *how* the speeds are achieved, just that they are achieved.

In at least one real-world test I can find, T-Mobiles HSPA+ beats Sprint's WiMax.

So if 4G is a performance standard, and Sprint's WiMax can be called "4G" even though it doesn't meet that standard, I don't blame T-Mobile for calling their network "4G" since it's comparable to the performance Sprint is getting with WiMax. Especially since the ITU included HSPA+ in their redefinition.

Personally I don't think the ITU should allow ANY of them to be called 4G since they fall short of the standard, and the FTC shouldn't let any of them advertise as 4G. But since Sprint went down that path and everyone just let them, I don't blame their competitors for following suit.

By jharper12 on 1/13/2011 8:35:05 PM , Rating: 2
What's your deal man? Of course this is an issue. Carriers lock people into plans for at least two years. It's only a non-issue if said company doesn't even offer contract plans. Things may be equal at the moment, but within two years there will be a huge difference in QOS. Consumers are locking themselves into two year contracts now, thinking that everyone is now offering the same 4G service. In reality, they'll experience slower speeds in the future with HSPA+ and likely lower data caps. Spectrum efficiency matters.

You're posting on DT, surely you must read at least two articles a month about the lack of usable spectrum available for the big four right? Doesn't that tell you something? Maybe that those providers using technologies with lower spectrum efficiencies might suffer in the future? Spectrum has a price tag, and it's quite high these days. Providers that can do more with their spectrum will be able to offer a higher QOS for less (or the same) money.

Yes, that's a BIG deal!

By nafhan on 1/10/2011 12:35:24 PM , Rating: 5
4G is a definition supplied by the ITU.
The old definition had certain technical and bandwidth related characteristics (such as the 100mbit thing the article mentions and the requirement for the network to be IP based). No network in the US meets all the conditions in the real world.
The ITU recently changed the definition, though. The new definition of 4G is basically anything that's notably faster than 3G regardless of the underlying technology. This means that every network operator in the US that claims to have 4G, does, by this new, loose definition.
The biggest scam (IMO) is a standards body (the ITU) bowing to wireless operator pressure and redefining what constitutes a 4G network.

RE: Technically...
By SPOOFE on 1/11/2011 12:34:48 AM , Rating: 2
The biggest scam (IMO) is a standards body (the ITU) bowing to wireless operator pressure and redefining what constitutes a 4G network.

But is it really wireless operator pressure, or is it real world pressure? Many comments above are pointing out the technical reasons behind the huge gulf between "theoretical maximums" and actual attained speeds; maybe the ITU figured their original definition was essentially worthless. What good is a standard for technology that is nowhere near practical implementation?

RE: Technically...
By nafhan on 1/11/2011 8:53:19 AM , Rating: 2
I'd say it's wireless operator pressure. For LTE and WiMax networks to meet the old spec the only thing they need to do is bump up the speed, and they have demonstrated the capability to reach those speeds in the real world. In other words, "real" 4G is here - they're just not deploying it due to cost and customer demand expectations.

By Yofa on 1/10/2011 11:51:26 AM , Rating: 2
at the end of the day, fortunately, this is a terribly written post.

RE: terrible...
By Devilpapaya on 1/10/2011 12:33:11 PM , Rating: 2
at the end of the day
at the end of the day
at the end of the day

RE: terrible...
By GuinnessKMF on 1/10/2011 1:34:02 PM , Rating: 4
As awful as that was (and it was), this is also ridiculous. Who talks like this? Just because you call it a "blog" doesn't mean it should be written like some rag:

Sprint's WiMAX reportedly is putting up 3-6 Mbps up and 10 Mbps down. Testing of Verizon's LTE network showed it to be pulling a similar 12 Mbps down and 6 Mbps up.

CONSISTENCY. It's really easy to list figures consistently, up speed, then down speed.

RE: terrible...
By SPOOFE on 1/11/11, Rating: 0
Technology Life Cycle
By blckgrffn on 1/10/2011 10:53:40 AM , Rating: 2
Are we supposed to be surprised when a non-technically superior but cheaper and easier to implement technology starts gaining traction.

Again and again we are shown that the victor is not the best tech but the path of least resistance. In this case, HSPA+. 20 Mb to my phone sounds fine - its faster than the copper line to my house.

Or the winner is likely something sold by Apple :P

RE: Technology Life Cycle
By Pneumothorax on 1/10/2011 12:11:22 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with wireless speeds is that they require ideal theoretical conditions to get those speeds. While your DSL line mostly runs at it's guaranteed rate, these Cellular standards are rated like wifi. I've never come close to the purported 54mbs speeds of wireless-g, let alone the outrageous speeds promised by wireless-n. UNLESS, my laptop is 3 feet away from the router. So your 20 Mb HSPA+ speeds are going to be slower than advertised.

RE: Technology Life Cycle
By sxr7171 on 1/11/2011 1:20:46 AM , Rating: 2
Blu-Ray killed HD-DVD and I'm glad it did.

Sprints WiMax is not giving 4G speeds
By cknobman on 1/10/2011 12:17:20 PM , Rating: 2
at least any more that is.

I got my EVO first week of release and the speeds for about a month averaged 3-6 down and 1-2 up.

Then for about 3 months I was getting 8-10 down and 2-4 up.

Then in October Sprint started throttling us (unofficially) and we were getting less than 1 down and about 56k up. Sprint claimed there was nothing wrong but research showed the the Clearwire network was getting overloaded and there was some trouble with firmware Sprint sent out to throttle the devices.

In December Sprint fixed the issue but has permanently (and unofficially) handicapped us. Now I can get 3-6 down again but I never get more than 1 up and often only get 14-56k up.

Of course I have confirmed this with the other EVO users in my area (DFW) and the same holds true for them too.

Biggest problem for any of these networks is the inability to handle the loads put upon them by subscribers.

So I can officially say the "4G" is just a marketing gimmick because in reality your not going to get those kind of speeds.

RE: Sprints WiMax is not giving 4G speeds
By DanNeely on 1/10/2011 1:39:45 PM , Rating: 2
Biggest problem for any of these networks is the inability to handle the loads put upon them by subscribers.

This is the kicker. 1 4g tower has a similar total amount of end user bandwidth as a Docsis 3 cable node. The cable node only serves a few suburban blocks, in suburbia the cell towers coverage zone is typically measured in square miles.

Short of the wireless companies partnering with the cable companies and installing mini base stations at every cable node you're never going to see wireless networking that can match the speed and bandwidth caps of wired networking.

By HrilL on 1/10/2011 4:19:01 PM , Rating: 2
It always comes down to back haul capacity. While yes some towers only have 1-3 T3 (T3 = 45Mbps) lines going to them and in some cases 1 T1 (T1 = 1.54Mbps) but more likely bonded T1s up to about 10 T1s (15.4Mbps) after that point its cheaper to just do a T3. Now you also need to keep in mind that voice traffic also needs part of that bandwidth. Each voice call is about 8Kbps so you can see why when towers were originally installed that 1 T1 line would handle about 190 concurrent calls.

Carriers are starting to install 1-10Gb/s fiber to new towers and to older ones that are supporting their newer networks once the back haul problem is fixed we might actually get better speeds.

Oh Mick, more BS
By bill4 on 1/10/2011 10:37:41 PM , Rating: 2
First of all, we know Mick never misses a chance to attack AT&T and is a Verizon fanboy. Somehow I doubt if it was Verizon passing off HSPA+ as 4G, he would be writing it up.

Second, ironically, according to the ITU originally, neither Sprint nor Verizon's LTE/Wimax was 4g! So it just goes to show that depending how strict you are, "4G" is a nebulous concept. One could just as easily accuse Verizon of lying by saying LTE was 4G back when it didn't meet the ITU's original definition, not long ago. Yet I didn't see any Mick or media articles about that...

Third, who cares what it's called if it's fast? Mick lists a bunch of theoretical max speeds that paint LTE in a good light, but those have nothing to do with real speeds, and are temporary specs that can be raised. I know people in Houston right now getting over 20 mb/s on HSPA+. And I believe TMob will be upgrading that to over 40 Mb soon! As far as I can tell, LTE cant even keep up with HSPA! Not only that but I read Tmob has plans to extend HSPA+ out to 600mb/s! If that's the case who the hell needs LTE?

The bottom line is speed, and from what I know HSPA+ is killing LTE in speed and rolling out faster, so who cares what the name of the technology is.

Also, HSPA+ is much easier and faster to roll out. Verizon boasts of it's LTE, but it's in only a few markets. Guess what, it's not in my market. My brother has a Evo and pays $10 extra for "4G" yet, 4G is not available where we live. Not everybody lives in or near a major metroplex. If AT&T can get me HSPA+ faster than LTE, then I hope they do.

BTW Mick, why didn't you write up Verizon's latest assault on it's customers? Verizon is shortening it's return policy to 14 days, after ending early upgrades just days ago.

Luckily I'm on At&t, who still has a 30 day return policy.

RE: Oh Mick, more BS
By SPOOFE on 1/11/2011 12:42:18 AM , Rating: 2
You read much more like an AT&T fanboy than Mick does a Verizon fanboy. Just thought you'd like to know.

30 day return policy? Ooooooooh.....

Easy to be confused
By dagamer34 on 1/10/2011 11:41:53 AM , Rating: 3
Don't be confused with theoretical speeds and network management. Today on Verizon's network where there are very few 4G LTE modems running around, you can easily get 24Mbps down and 8Mbps up. In the future, Verizon won't be giving people those speeds because of network management and the backhaul going into the tower (nothing to do with the actual wireless technology used).

The real problem I see is not 3G vs. 4G, but backhaul bandwidth. And while T-Mobile and AT&T are both using HSPA+, only T-Mobile designed it's network in 2008 to really focus on mobile broadband. Even if AT&T upgraded to the 42Mbps revision, there isn't bandwidth at the towers to reach anything CLOSE to that speed.

Simply put, bandwidth to tower matters much more than tower -> cell phone speed.

All about image
By CZroe on 1/10/2011 2:13:40 PM , Rating: 3
It's all about image. When T-Mobile started batting aroung the "4G" bit,. AT&T had prioritied LTE roll out but it was going to take longer. T-Mobile calling it 4G so soon unfairly made AT&T appear to be the one that was "behind" in the roll-out of next-gen wireless services. Of course they balked.

When those in charge (not AT&T) allowed HSPA+ to be called "4G," AT&T pretty much had to adopt the practice or risk "falling behind" in public opinion. They no longer had any objection to it because it was now official. I just hope they aren't shifting resources from the LTE roll-out for HSPA+.

Their back-end bandwidth has been bottle-necking their 3G networks all along.

Let's be fair
By ScotterQX6700 on 1/10/2011 10:55:30 AM , Rating: 2
"LTE and WiMAX networks still have a long ways to go to live up to their promised speed numbers. Sprint's WiMAX reportedly is putting up 3-6 Mbps up and 10 Mbps down. Testing of Verizon's LTE network showed it to be pulling a similar 12 Mbps down and 6 Mbps up. Outside the U.S., Norway, Sweden, Ireland, and South Korea are all trying to deploy 4G networks as well with varying results. Norway and Sweden's TeliaSonera 4G LTE network, for example, was shown pulling 43 Mbps down, but can only push 6 Mbps up, similar to Sprint and Verizon." and then you go on to say HSPA+ is shooting for 56 Mbit/s down, 22 Mbit/s up.

When we look at the [huge] gap between what LTE and WiMAX *promised* and what you say they are so far able to deliver and then we compare that to what HSPA+ is *delivering right now*, I'm seeing HSPA+ be faster.

You were [a little bit] clever in the way you presented information in this article with the goal of convincing us what is the superior technology and who is trying to take advantage of customers but I'm not buying it.

Aren't transfer speeds....
By Aloonatic on 1/10/2011 11:11:34 AM , Rating: 2
.... throttled anyway?

By cscpianoman on 1/10/2011 11:29:34 AM , Rating: 2
Well, first off marketing is marketing and honesty is thrown out the window in favor of a positive image. They promise the stars and usually don't get much past the moon. Take AMD, for example, and their APU last week. It's great and the GPU on the CPU is an incredible feat, but man, does it really make movies and the internet "faster/better!?" I have no doubt that given enough time LTE and WiMax will exceed expectations, but the 100 and 128mb are probably not achievable considering overhead and what not, but the current problem with wireless carriers is not the front end, but the backend of their systems.

Having said all that, do we really need 100mb/s to a phone?! I can understand tethering and all, but I can't type that fast and mine has a physical keyboard, nor is the phone itself that capable! I would be uber-excited if we can just get the current stuff to actually connect/stay connected and do it at a reasonable speed. I would be thrilled with 10mb/s either way and also have a back end that would support the so called "unlimited" option. It would be even better if it was a viable option vs the land ISPs, because I would love for them to get a swift kick!

Anyway, my two cents, which at the current value of a dollar... :)

Some background
By Dwayne Bozworth on 1/10/2011 6:20:14 PM , Rating: 2
Hey Dude. Nice story, too bad there's a few things wrong.

You report that "The origins of the mess began in late 2009, when T-Mobile began upgrading its network to support HSPA+."

This is incorrect. The origins of 4G started in 2002 when T-Mobile US acquired a Texas-based wireless ISP called MobileStar to offer wireless service at major locations such as Starbucks and airports. Within a few months, the service re-launched under the name of "T-Mobile HotSpot" with several thousand additional locations, and a national network, it provided T-1 speeds at local coffee shops and areas with high traffic.

As the WiFi technology evolved, T-Mobile became interested in a technology called MIMO, which was a part of the 802.11n standard. With 802.11n (specifically pre-n) WiFi wireless was able to increase throughput using a technology called spacial coding. They also worked with Siemens who was working on a royalty-free interface called TD-SCDMA.

True LTE is much more than speed. It also uses spacial coding to increase throughput and 4G spells out defined capacity requirements per square mile. It seems this is quickly forgotten. We learned years ago with cable modems that it's of no use if you advertise "up to" speeds. If cell towers are further apart, and won't meet the vanilla December 1, 2010 version of 4G.

Additionally, 4G at 700MHz/800/850MHz can't effectively use MIMO. MIMO requires directionality. Running 4G at lower frequencies is like having a home audio subwoofer- the lower frequencies are not directional and you can stash the subwoofer in a corner or under a table. MIMO works by reflection of signals, similar to a home audio satellite speaker placement.

802.11n took so long because the FCC had to clear spectrum in the higher 5.6GHz range because it required more reflectivity and an unused band.

Developing a network that's loud enough to blast through neighbors walls and uses sub-woofer technology is easy. You just need to have one big subwoofer, and lots of spectrum.

To compare, a 20MHz slice at Clearwire's 2.5GHz can provide 90MB/s Meanwhile, LTE using spectrum at 700MHz seems to tap out at 20-30MB/s.

The bandwidth efficiency means one of two things- The FCC will have to clear up to 300MHz for 800/850MHz to provide the efficiency a 20MHz 2.5GHz can provide, or your established Cellular carriers will have to come clean, start using the idle AWS spectrum they acquired and start a major network build-out, quit primarily depending on the lower frequencies because they are a crutch in 2011. All this will be necessary to match PCS providers spectrum capabilities. Sprint, MetroPCS, Cricket, T-Mobile, will surpass the Cellular providers on 4G.

I imagine 4G has been in the works since 2002, when 802.11n was just a glimmer in the wifi user's eye.

The Point
By jharper12 on 1/13/2011 8:49:03 PM , Rating: 2
Since everyone seems to only care about real world and theoretical speed, I'll go ahead and post about the actual issue. Let me sum it up for you.

spectral efficiency
spectral efficiency
spectral efficiency
spectral efficiency
spectral efficiency
spectral efficiency
spectral efficiency
spectral efficiency
spectral efficiency
spectral efficiency
spectral efficiency
spectral efficiency
spectral efficiency
spectral efficiency
spectral efficiency
spectral efficiency
spectral efficiency
spectral efficiency
spectral efficiency
spectral efficiency

There, get the point? We're running out of usable spectrum. The point isn't what's best for today, it's what's best for the future. Go ahead, lock yourself into a long term contract with a company offering a less efficient technology.

Foot in mouth for AT&T...
By peebee on 1/10/2011 2:28:37 PM , Rating: 1
AT&T is simply scrambling to get their 4G LTE network out and need an intermediate solution to avoid another business crippling fiasco like they had with their 3G usability.

"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs

Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki