I found an interesting article about radios and LTE connections. The Radio Performance Disparity of the Galaxy Nexus on GSM and CDMA - Mobile Central - Binary Outcast
I have the oppurtunity to either go with ATT or Verizon. The article makes it seems that GSM is a better bet for LTE phones especially in areas with poor reception. I am hoping people can provide insight/comments on LTE phones for GSM and CDMA carriers and the article.
The Radio Performance Disparity of the Galaxy Nexus on GSM and CDMA
The Samsung Galaxy Nexus. It's Google's flagship phone that is designed to complement the Android 4.0 “Ice Cream Sandwich” operating system software. With high end specifications (for 2011) and highly optimized software, the Galaxy Nexus is supposed to show off what Android can really do without any interference from carriers and OEMs. However, that wound up not truly being the case in the United States with the CDMA/LTE variant for Verizon Wireless and Sprint.
By and large, the CDMA/LTE variant sold by Verizon Wireless and Sprint is the same as the original HSPA+ model that is now sold by Google on the Play Store (at least in terms of hardware). It has the same CPU, RAM, NFC chip, screen, cameras, etc. The only hardware difference is the cellular radio structure.
The original UMTS HSPA+ model uses an Intel XG626 baseband modem that is connected to an antenna structure that supports quad-band GSM and penta-band WCDMA for global usage. For Americans, it means that it works on the HSPA+ networks for both AT&T and T-Mobile USA.
The CDMA/LTE variant uses a VIA Telecom CBP7.1 CDMA2000 baseband modem, connected to an antenna structure that supports dual-band CDMA2000. The Sprint model adds another CDMA2000 band that is exclusive to Sprint. Both CDMA/LTE variants use a Samsung CMC221 LTE baseband modem, but the Verizon Wireless variant is set up for LTE band class 13 (Upper 700MHz C block), while the Sprint variant is set up for LTE band class 25 (U.S. Extended PCS, also known as PCS+G). The Verizon Galaxy Nexus has a user-accessible SIM card slot while the Sprint one does not.
While the Intel (formerly Infineon) baseband used to be troublesome on AT&T's network (as many iPhone users that didn't own an iPhone 4S can attest to), the latest generation of basebands work fine on both AT&T and T-Mobile. With 3GPP Release 7 support, it has a maximum downlink throughput of 21Mbps while it has a maximum uplink throughput of 5.76Mbps. In general, the Galaxy Nexus works very well on AT&T and T-Mobile.
However, it isn't the same for the CDMA variants of the Galaxy Nexus. The VIA Telecom CDMA chip is notorious for weak performance. Other notable devices that use the chip are the Samsung DROID Charge and the Samsung Stratosphere. Searching on the web about these devices turns up a lot of complaints about CDMA service quality with these devices.
Jason Perlow of ZDNet experienced more than his fair share of issues while trying to live off of the 4G LTE connection his Galaxy Nexus provided. But he was trying to live off of 4G LTE, not CDMA2000. So why was he affected? Well, the truth is, CDMA/LTE devices require both radios to be active and connected. Not to mention, network authentication and feature provisioning actually goes through the CDMA system, not the LTE one.
The bridge between CDMA2000 and LTE is rather brittle and is prone to failure, because LTE wasn't designed to be bridged with CDMA2000 like that. It was intended to be installed alongside GSM and WCDMA networks, and it handles it a lot better with those networks. So when something goes wrong in the rather terribly buggy CDMA system, the whole phone can and usually does fail. If Verizon Wireless had upgraded the CDMA2000 system to UMTS HSPA+ like most other CDMA2000 carriers across the globe, it would have avoided dealing with this problem.
Also, the CDMA/LTE Galaxy Nexus lies to you (at least, it does now). Originally, the “bars” that indicate signal strength would actually indicate the signal strength of LTE if it was connected to an LTE network. When everyone started complaining about how weak the signal was compared to the Motorola DROID RAZR and Motorola DROID Bionic, Anandtech investigated. It turned out that the signal strength was actually accurate, and that LTE signals are incredibly weak. Previous devices used the CDMA signal strength to determine how many “bars” of signal you have. The Galaxy Nexus did not. It used the LTE signal strength when it was connected to LTE, and the CDMA signal strength when it wasn't. Verizon Wireless issued an update shortly afterward that changed the behavior to match older LTE devices. Newer LTE devices do the same as well.
Combining the fact that the Galaxy Nexus has to work incredibly hard to maintain an LTE signal with the fact that the CDMA2000 radio is horrible and has a difficult time holding onto the connection will lead anyone to the conclusion that it is a recipe for disaster. Is it any wonder why Jason Perlow and many others have so many problems with the CDMA/LTE version of the Galaxy Nexus? Not really.
Of course, this is excluding all the issues with timely updates that Verizon Wireless has caused for Galaxy Nexus owners. Including this issue just makes the problem worse. There are ways to work around some of the issues, though some workarounds will result in permanent degradation of performance. However, it doesn't mean anything if it takes forever for anyone to get any updates that implement them.
In the end, I really can't solidly recommend the CDMA/LTE version of the Galaxy Nexus to anyone. Nor can I recommend any CDMA2000 device that uses a VIA Telecom CDMA baseband modem. The pitfalls just make it a bad experience for everyone.[
Will the snapdragon S4 chip from Qualcomm help with this issue?
Techno Buffalo has an article about T-Mobiles transition to LTE and a T Mobile person stated that their enhanced backload will help T Mobile's LTE. will this help AT&T's LTE Too? http://www.technobuffalo.com/news/w...backhaul-is-the-key-to-a-users-4g-experience/
Here is another article talking about the challenge CDMA has with LTE when the LTE signal is weak
http://www.phonearena.com/news/How-...-you-dont-need-it-and-save-on-battery_id32990
small error?
Hey didn't have time to read what you wrote but gsm is 2g and wcmda is 3g and 4g and LTE is also 4g so what you wrote did not make much sense GSM WCMDA and LTE are 3 different types of radios and here is a tip lo let people help you faster dont add more to what you wrote edit it instead because now it looks like 3 people already helped you
thanks if it helped :good:
For me this is highly theoretical. I recently moved from Dayton, Ohio to Kingsland, Georgia with a Verizon Galaxy Nexus (CDMA). In both places, if I allowed the LTE radio, the phone would get too hot to handle comfortably, and 3G isn't that great either. But in my neighborhood, there is no AT&T or T-Mobile data signal at all. That severely limits practical choices.
One more http://www.extremetech.com/mobile/110711-what-is-lte/7
Related
As the title indicates I am curious if there exists any phones outside of those offered by Tmobile that are capable of using its 3G network (1700 & 2100 MHz). None of their 3G phones catch my eye and am curious if anyone can point me in the direction of some other possibilities.
Thanks for your time...
Jay
Att and tmobile use different bands for 3g.... so i know none of att's will work. (alltel i really doubt, but would have to look it up) Cell providers do it on purpose to lock there services to there own phones for good.... So you'll probably have to switch providers or settle for 2g speeds
I have not seen any devices outside of Tmob usa that have their strange 3g 1700/2100 combined bands...unfortunately!
http://phandroid.com/2011/01/05/att...s-androids-applications-network-improvements/
The Froyo update for us might give us HSPA+
With all these Android 2.2 phones coming out, it may be even longer before we see the Froyo update. Just my opinion.
Do our phones even have the ability to use HSPA+?
I already get an "h" on my phone where it previously said "3g". No even in a major metro -- Des Moines IA. I use this ROM: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=856561
yes att disabled this.
that is why we flash to i9000
In this article they say that are devices are not compatible
"Unfortunately, just like with HSPA+ on T-Mobile, existing HSPA-compatible devices will not be able to utilize HSPA+, but AT&T is set to remedy that with a whole lineup of HSPA+ ready flagship Android devices – Motorola ATRIX 4G, Samsung Infuse 4G, HTC Inspire 4G, a Motorola tablet, and others. Overall, AT&T is set to release 12 Android phones in 2011, between 5 and 7 of them being HSPA+."
http://www.androidpolice.com/2011/0...hspa-4g-expansion-12-android-devices-in-2011/
So what you are saying is that ATT is the culprit and our phones are hardware compatible but ATT has forced limitations to neuter our bandwith usage?
Johosophat said:
In this article they say that are devices are not compatible
"Unfortunately, just like with HSPA+ on T-Mobile, existing HSPA-compatible devices will not be able to utilize HSPA+, but AT&T is set to remedy that with a whole lineup of HSPA+ ready flagship Android devices – Motorola ATRIX 4G, Samsung Infuse 4G, HTC Inspire 4G, a Motorola tablet, and others. Overall, AT&T is set to release 12 Android phones in 2011, between 5 and 7 of them being HSPA+."
http://www.androidpolice.com/2011/0...hspa-4g-expansion-12-android-devices-in-2011/
So what you are saying is that ATT is the culprit and our phones are hardware compatible but ATT has forced limitations to neuter our bandwith usage?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you got it.
I think you guys are confusing existing HSPA (currently supported) with the new HSPA+ (just starting to see support).
Miami_Son said:
I think you guys are confusing existing HSPA (currently supported) with the new HSPA+ (just starting to see support).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
^We have a Winner.
Idk about offical att fw. I care about the network improvements
Sent from my SGH-I897 using Tapatalk
That's what I thought, because I was pretty sure our devices weren't HSPA+ capable, just HSPA capable and that it would require the use of different bandwidths and or antennas to work.
What at&t has done is enabled HSDPA and disabled HSUPA which is part of the HSPA specification. The radio in the phone is capable of HSPA speeds up to 14Mbps but not higher AFAIK.
at&t just doesn't release radio firmware that have the faster uplink speeds enabled.
EDIT: Excuse me, the Captivate can't even do 14Mbps. It is locked at 7.2Mbps down and 5.76Mbps up.
EtherealRemnant said:
What at&t has done is enabled HSDPA and disabled HSUPA which is part of the HSPA specification. The radio in the phone is capable of HSPA speeds up to 14Mbps but not higher AFAIK.
at&t just doesn't release radio firmware that have the faster uplink speeds enabled.
EDIT: Excuse me, the Captivate can't even do 14Mbps. It is locked at 7.2Mbps down and 5.76Mbps up.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just so you know, HSDPA is the downstream bandwidth and HSUPA is the upstream bandwidth.
benson12 said:
Just so you know, HSDPA is the downstream bandwidth and HSUPA is the upstream bandwidth.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm well aware of the differences between the two. Although due to the increased upstream speed and thus reduced latency, HSPA tends to have faster downstream speeds than HSDPA alone as well.
Was reading in another thread (which was closed while I was writing a reply) that some people here might be confused around what 4G is and whether or not their Cappy can be upgraded to it.
First, the simple answer:
Your Cappy cannot be upgraded to 4G. Now or ever. It is possible that it could be upgraded to HSPA+ with the right software. But that is not 4G. 4G is a different radio access protocol running at different frequencies.
The longer answer:
The source of all this confusion is T-Mobile's marketing department who claim their HSPA+ network is 4G. 4G is not HSPA+ or anything like it. It is 3.5G. Much like GPRS and EDGE were 2.5G. LTE (the real 4G) is far superior to HSPA+ for several reasons regardless of the bandwidth claims. Mainly 4G will not suffer nearly as much from congestion like 3G HSPA / HSPA+. It is that same 3G congestion that motivated AT&T to turn off HSUPA on our phones. It's because AT&T's 3G network (UMTS, HSPA, and HSPA+) is already heavily congested in many markets.
Only posting this so people don't think they can get true 4G on their Cappy. It won't happen.
AT&T is also marketing their 4G service as HSPA+, with LTE technology entering their network late 2011.
bptba93 said:
AT&T is also marketing their 4G service as HSPA+, with LTE technology entering their network late 2011.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, they've started down that path as well. Just don't expect 4G speeds on any of these "4G" devices unless you're the only smartphone user for miles. I truly wonder what AT&T and eventually T-Mobile will call their LTE networks. 4G 2.0?
From AT&T:
Not all 4G networks are created equal. AT&T is the only carrier that will offer two layers of network technology delivering 4G speeds – HSPA+ and LTE.*
Why does that matter?
When combined with enhanced backhaul, our HSPA+ software upgrade is expected to deliver speeds up to 4x faster than ordinary mobile broadband. And we'll be evolving to even higher speeds with the planned initial launch of our LTE network in mid-2011. When you're traveling on our networks, you'll enjoy faster speeds and a smoother, more consistent mobile broadband experience overall.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So is HSPA+ just a software upgrade with no hardware enhancements in the cellphones or towers?
I do understand the reasoning behind AT&T doing HSPA+ before LTE as it offers reasonably fast speeds in areas where LTE has not matured. If it is indeed only software based, I wouldn't mind seeing an increase from HSPA 7.2Mbps to pseudo "4G" HSPA+ 21Mbps (although these speeds are "up to") on the captivate. Will HSPA+ be up to 21Mbps right out of the gate?
My brother uses epic 4G on Sprint, and in areas of no 4G wimax, his 3G speeds are abysmal... Has sprint stopped upgrading their 3G and is only concentrating on the expansion of 4G?
According to that, AT&T's HSPA+ will end up faster than Sprint's 4G (3-6Mbps on average and up to 10Mbps) unless they pick up the pace.
For LTE (5-12Mbps) according to Verizon.
So is 4G labeling the technology once fully matured (Up to 100Mbps for both LTE and Wimax) or current speed being delivered? Because Sprint and Verizon do advertise their current technologies as being "4G speeds" which AT&T can defeat if their HSPA+ (56Mbps matured) is 21Mbps out of the gate.
The way I see it is that 4G speeds have never existed and should never have been advertised (started by Sprint), but the technology to get there is currently in the building phase.
First post, so I can't back up the speed claims with links directly to Sprint and Verizon 4G speed pages lol
And please correct me if I'm wrong on anything... I'm here to learn.
4G isn't that far away I think AT&T is playing it safe with the 4G in the future thing. I have a couple friends that install att towers and phone lines they have been crazy busy establishing the 4G network in the major cities in know for a fact that most of Dallas and Ft. Worth will be 4G ready this spring as for outlying areas that will take some time. But if you live in a big city area expect your LTE right off the bat
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using XDA App
LTE is not 4G it still falls under the 3G umbrella along with WIMAX. 4G technologies can do 100M down.
Hydro360 said:
4G isn't that far away I think AT&T is playing it safe with the 4G in the future thing. I have a couple friends that install att towers and phone lines they have been crazy busy establishing the 4G network in the major cities in know for a fact that most of Dallas and Ft. Worth will be 4G ready this spring as for outlying areas that will take some time. But if you live in a big city area expect your LTE right off the bat
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It better be here, it's their home
Does anybody else remember this?
http://www.nokiasiemensnetworks.com...works-provides-teliasonera-with-advanced-radi
Just thought this could help a bit.
I just need to clarify one more point in addition to OP's post:
Even though HSPA+ is merely a software upgrade in the carrier side (towers), so far it is not the case with phones. So far there is no phone out there that can be software upgraded to take advantage of HSPA+'s higher speed. T-Mo has to release Galaxy S 4G phone to get 4G support. HSPA+ towers offer backward compatibility with current 3G phones but it doesn't mean you will get higher speed by default (much like 11n routers supports 11G and 11B clients but only 11n client can reach the max bandwidth).
And no, HSDPA + HSUPA does not equal to HSPA+.
groves226 said:
LTE is not 4G it still falls under the 3G umbrella along with WIMAX. 4G technologies can do 100M down.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Only according to a few people within the ITU. 4G is LTE (and for a few sorry sorry suckers, it is WiMAX). Or at least that is how everyone in the industry sees it (outside of T-Mobile USA and now AT&T and a bunch of confused customers).
As far as speeds are concerned, we should treat Mbps throughput ratings with a grain of salt. Those are ideal world, no contention data rates which when taken out of the lab are purely theoretical. HSPA+ is an upgrade. LTE is a whole new set of radio access, backhaul and core technologies.
My friend has a "4G" LTE phone from Verizon and he got 4 or 5 mbps while I got over 5 on HSPA.
So my two year contract is up and I wanted to see what network was best to go with, my biggest concern is LTE and wich network is better that means T-mo is out, Sprint not ready in my area so that leaves AT&T and Verizon. Now I talked to reps at both AT&T and Verizon and nither one knew what they were talking about making outragous statements about why their LTE network was better than their compettitors. On my way out of the AT&T store the rep said one of their techs just came in and can explain it all to me. The tech seemed to know what he was talking about he showed me they are testing LTE in my area right now and showed me it was working on his phone. He told me if I got a LTE phone right now today I would get the fastest LTE around because no one is the network in the area right now unless they have an LTE phone already and have it turned on for LTE. He also told me once LTE is offically turned on here that I will lose LTE speeds because of all the other devices plugging into it but even with speeds being reduced after testing I would still get LTE speeds faster than Verizons LTE because LTE is a GSM technology and works better with GSM phones and GSM networks. Verizons network is CDMA and has to be reworked to make it compatable with LTE and right now isn't all that stable and it crashes all the time, and since the phones are set for CDMA/LTE the phone has to work harder causing more/faster battery drain. I forget all the technical words he used but the guy really seemed to know his stuff and did say that Verizon is working to make it's LTE stable and believes theyt would have everything fixed by the end of year but because it's CDMA/LTE it can never be as fast as GSM/LTE.
Anyway my question is Is he correct and AT&Ts LTE is faster than Verizons? or is that more BS with alot of technical terms thrown in?
For the most part, the number of devices connected to the network is the biggest factor. The more devices connected, the slower it will go.
There might be some truth to the fact that Verizon's LTE network is newer and therefore unstable (as we've seen in the past) but that doesn't mean it will be necessarily slower while it's working for that reason, and AT&T's LTE network is newer so I don't see how that would be a plus for them. It's true that AT&T phones are GSM, and LTE is based on GSM, but implying that strong UMTS/HSPA+ network coverage is going to magically supplement LTE coverage sounds like BS to me. This might make it easier for AT&T to roll out their LTE network for that reason, but that doesn't mean that they've even come close to meeting Verizon in coverage yet.
So, in a nutshell, there's some truth to it. It's faster for the time being since there's no one on it, but there's nothing technically BETTER about AT&T's LTE as far as I know. LTE is LTE; it just depends on the carrier's infrastructure (internet connections to towers, tower locations and coverage, etc) to determine the the quality and speed of connection.
Besides, if AT&T's abilities to keep up with new subscribers on their 3G network is any indication, it won't be long before their LTE networks is slower than Verizons
Thanks
Thank you for clearing this up for me so your saying there is no difference between Verizon and AT&Ts LTE other than Verizon having a Larger Network right now.
Hey guys i recently unlocked my HOX and tossed a T-Mobile chip in it. Is there a way for me to get a better data speed? I'm only able to use 2G at the moment.
You can't simply enable it, as T-Mobile uses the 1700 AWS spectrum for 3G/4G in most of their areas. The HOX doesn't support 1700. T-Mobile's older 2G network runs on 1900mhz, which the HOX will pick up, but you'll be limited to EDGE speeds.
There is good news though. T-Mobile is currently in the process of upgrading those areas to support 3G/4G on the 1900mhz spectrum they have. Their main goal is to attract iPhone customers (since the iPhone also cannot run on their 1700mhz network). From what I've heard they're doing a pretty good job, but until they get your area upgraded, you'll be stuck on EDGE.
Hope that explanation makes sense. If not, here's a decent writeup:
http://9to5mac.com/2012/05/07/t-mob...rk-in-large-number-of-markets-by-end-of-2012/