HTC EVO 3D LTE/WIMAX capabilities

[lordofthereef]

I see. Well, now that that is cleared up, I guess I was part of a discussion I wasn't aware I was part of.

I don't follow how LTE will cost users more though. is that not ultimately up to the provider which, in this case, is Sprint? As I understand it, based on the prior explanations, LTE technology allows the provider to impose these limits. That doesn't imply the provider WILL impose said limits, right?

 

[dan330]

what i was saying.. based on what i have heard...

1. carriers are in business .. to make money.
2. it cost x10 more to do a lte tower than to do wimax
3. lte uses more spectrum per x users... so more users and data on wimax.. therefore cost more on lte.
4. wimax is opensource.. so low low license cost. lte cost much more.

this all adds up to cost the carriers $$$ to use LTE over wimax.

so.. will carriers eat this cost???? really???? will the government supplement this cost????? will stockholders accept lower profit margins and lower ROI????

this cost must come from some place!!! right???

 

[lordofthereef]

I understand what you are saying now. Simply put, you are saying adopting LTE will most likely increase our monthly rates. Am I following now?

Here is what I have to say. I have had the chance to use WiMax in two different cities now (Chicago and LA). It was barely faster than the 3g in the same area. The only thing that was better was thing latencty (ok upload was about 3-4x as fast, but who cares). So... we can have a cheap and crappy 4G network, or a working but more expensive one (I make a ton of assumptions here regarding LTE, I admit, but let's assume it is better for argument's sake). Which one would you rather have?

I can tell you this, I feel burned twofold with Sprint (although I am still happy with my SERVICE). They took away 12 month upgrades. This was a huge reason why I signed with them in the first place. They stopped adding to their Wimax map. I knew what I was getting into as far as how big the map is, but didn't dream it would virtually cease expansion. In the mean time ATT (came from iPhone) has added $20/mo for unlimited texts and any mobile anytime onto their family plans. Granted this isn't something Sprint did, but it dropped the value of Sprint just a little in my book (since we are on a 3 phone family plan).

So, bottom line, Sprint was the value package with the launch of the EVO. They were going to give us everything that the other providers offered AND MORE for a whole lot less. I am seriously reconsidering now. It seems I am getitng just about the same as I would anywhere else if this sort of BS continues.

 

[dan330]

yeah.... i feel ya on the speed thing... and the low slow implementation. it suxs

but i am hoping sprint has plans to make it better with wimax...namely wimax2

i dont have any issues with my service... it works.. not the fastest.. but it works.. any place I go.. from Fl to Ca and all over Tx.

i want faster speeds.. and have my fingers crossed that sprint has something in the works to fix speed.. and not LTE.

 

[BlackDynamite]

If you are not going to read your own links I cant help you. Once again, like the fcc read you are not actually reading what you post.
Here is a hint, your article is almost as old as mine, lol.


As for the two year old artcile ok, fine, you provide a 3 year old article that says,
"ASN-GW data plane may provide deep packet inspection "

May, doesnt not mean in 2011 it does. If you bother to read the article, it is not real time deep packet inspection, the kind you would use for limiting access, but to prioritize a network for traffic flow.

For those following at home, it allows the network to see if you are streaming video, playing games, peer to peer, or browsing the web, once it knows what you are doing, it can managed an overwhelmed network. For example, voice and video chats are given higher access to resources over browsing.

But that can not and will not be able to report real time usage which is kind of the point to our conversation because you cant use it for limiting access. It is only for network shaping.

So clear's modems are not using sprints network, lol. Comcast modems are not using clear's or sprint network? Really, lol, GOOGLE IT!!!!

As for network access, yes it does. If there is an open wimax network available, your device will roam on it 100%, I do it every time I go into work, anyone wimax device can.

You can roam on clear, sprint, comcast, time warner, and the 93 other wimax networks currently available in the united states. If there is a signal, it will connect. Most hospitals have included wimax for inter hospital communications, and yep you can connect to that network with out any setup, if there is a signal you are good to go.

If you want to keep this up I can play all day long.

Article 4 DAYS OLD!!! 4 days old.



4G Broadband a Guide to WiMAX, LTE and the Future of Broadband - Gadget Feel

Are you just into fabricating a bunch of crap when you realize you have been proven wrong? The link I posted CLEARLY is talking about Deep Packet Inspection on a Wimax network. It is not saying it MAY do it. It is saying it DOES it, and you MAY want to do it for this or that reason. And it IS Deep Packet Inspection. They are demonstrating how to manage network optimization and QoS by using, wait for it.... Deep Packet Inspection!

Fine though, I'll play your game, here's another link:
Telecom Cloud Net neutrality and 4G Networks

Here's another:
http://www.airspan.com/products/network-products/asn-gateway/

Like I said, there are literally hundreds of links. Here's the best of the bunch:
www.wimaxsolutions.com/deeppacketinspection

So please, stop with your blatant misinformation. Some newb might see this thread and think you actually know what you're talking about. The fact is Deep Packet Inspection can be implemented on ANY ISP, and Wimax is no different. If Sprint wants to start charging for accessing certain sites, or restricting certain sites, or whatever the heck you guys are saying is imminent with an LTE rollout, switching to LTE is absolutely not a requirement. Whatever they can do to your bill on LTE, they can absolutely do on Wimax.

And please, stop with the BS about it being open source. Yeah, it has an API or whatever that anyone can get. But I dare you to call Sprint and tell them you have a Russian Wimax phone that works on Sprint's 2.5 Wimax band and you want to sign up for a month of service. See if they'll activate it for you. Then come back and tell me how open their Wimax network is after they refuse to activate your fully compatible phone.

In the mean time, I'll try the same thing with a SIM card popped into a fully compatible LTE phone. We'll see which network is more open then.

Stop the charade. You like Wimax, that's fine. No need to spread misinformation though. Wimax can very easily be restricted, locked down, throttled, and whatever else. So can LTE. It doesn't mean any particular carrier will or won't act any certain way just because they deploy one or the other.

 

[crabjoe]

what i was saying.. based on what i have heard...

1. carriers are in business .. to make money.
2. it cost x10 more to do a lte tower than to do wimax
3. lte uses more spectrum per x users... so more users and data on wimax.. therefore cost more on lte.
4. wimax is opensource.. so low low license cost. lte cost much more.

this all adds up to cost the carriers $$$ to use LTE over wimax.

so.. will carriers eat this cost???? really???? will the government supplement this cost????? will stockholders accept lower profit margins and lower ROI????

this cost must come from some place!!! right???

I can agree with you on #1, but the rest, I have problems with.

Where do you get the x10 more to put up an LTE tower? One of the reasons Sprint and Clearwire are looking at LTE because they expect the the equipment to cost less. The reason they gave was economies of scale.

More users per spectrum on WiMax? Never heard that one either ... A given frequency can carry so much data. If the amount of data is what we're looking at, yes Wimax frequencies can carry more data because they're in the 2+ ghz range. But as we've come to find, this causes issues with building penetration. Also at higher frequencies, you need more towers to cover the same area compared to something at a lower frequency. So if looking at tower costs, and using a simple example, you only need 1 LTE tower at 800mhz, to what 3 towers of WiMax can cover at 2.4ghz. If the assumption is that basestation/tower is the same, to get Clearwire's WiMax to cover the same area as Verizon's LTE, you'd need 3+ towers for every LTE tower Verizon installs.

Licensing costs? Are you telling me no one pays anyone for WiMax? Give me some numbers here, because I have no idea what licensing costs are for WiMax or LTE. Someone has to pay in someway, because I've never heard of Intel giving away anything for free. In fact, Clearwire recently was able to amend their contract with Intel, so with 30 days notice they could drop WiMax with out penalties.

Now here's a few other things/questions... If it's so much cheaper to install a WiMax tower, how come Sprint has come out and stated that they could convert their WiMax basestations to LTE with just a card swap and some software? How can LTE be so much more expensive the WiMax when, in the past year, everyone has stated that WiMax technology and LTE are almost the same? If everything to install LTE is so much more expensive, why would anyone even want to install LTE? ROI would take much longer is LTE has to compete against an existing WiMax network. Can one be limited on LTE but not on WiMax? Personally, from what I've seen, Wimax can be just as restrictive as anything else, even if you couldn't block specific data/websites at the Wimax basestation, the data still has to pass though routers and what not in the backhauls. You can simply just block access there.

There's others things I could say to but my post is already long winded...

I think WiMax for an end user is on it's way out. From what I'm seeing Carriers will switch to LTE. LTE looks to be faster and just works better. Look at the hand offs from tower to tower. With Verizon's LTE, it's seamless (based on tests I've read online). WiMax ... I keep dropping connections and it takes a while to come back up... WiMax in it's current iteration, just doesn't work well for real mobile use...

 

[djdisturbed]

I understand what you are saying now. Simply put, you are saying adopting LTE will most likely increase our monthly rates. Am I following now?

Here is what I have to say. I have had the chance to use WiMax in two different cities now (Chicago and LA). It was barely faster than the 3g in the same area. The only thing that was better was thing latencty (ok upload was about 3-4x as fast, but who cares). So... we can have a cheap and crappy 4G network, or a working but more expensive one (I make a ton of assumptions here regarding LTE, I admit, but let's assume it is better for argument's sake). Which one would you rather have?

I know In my area 4g its WAY faster then 3g... but then again we have had a clearwire 4g network around this area for longer then most anywhere else (close to 5-6 years now). From what i think i remember reading about lte, the way it works in a shared bandwidth thing, the more users on at one time the slower it gets, where wimax stays the same no matter how many people are connected to the wimax network (this is from tech docs that people posted up last year when the evo 4g came out discusing why sprint went with wimax over lte for 4g, but i could be wrong). I know the people in my area who are on other networks are always amazed at how fast the 4g is on my evo compared to their phones on other carriers. The only place around here that does not get 4g is my apt (its a dead spot for all most all phones, not just sprint or 4g) but i have my wifi for that, lol

 

[BlackDynamite]

Let me try to make it simple here, for those that don't want to research all the boring facts about Wimax being able to be restricted.

Basically, even the Wimax supporters claim it is almost exactly like WiFi, only covering a large area. And this is true.

So think of your home WiFi network. It is basically a broadband internet connection (the carriers call this backhaul) connected to your WiFi router (which would be a Wimax tower).

It is utterly ridiculous to say your home ISP can't implement deep packet inspection if you are using a WiFi router.

Now, since we know LTE and Wimax are so similar, we'll say LTE is wireless G, and Wimax is wireless N. They are basically 2 different flavors of the same technology.

It is downright irresponsible to claim to be an expert on the subject, and then claim that your home cable or DSL ISP could not implement deep packet inspection if you are using a wireless N WiFi router, but they not only can, but likely WILL implement deep packet inspection if you are using a wireless G WiFi router.

It is total bull. Any ISP can implement deep packet inspection. They can then block access to certain sites/apps/services/etc. And they could also allow you to use any or all of those sites/apps/services/etc if you decide to pay extra.

Now, whether the federal government allows them to do this is another story entirely. But just be aware that the technology is there and it doesn't matter if you are using LTE or Wimax.

 

[falconey]

I know In my area 4g its WAY faster then 3g... but then again we have had a clearwire 4g network around this area for longer then most anywhere else (close to 5-6 years now). From what i think i remember reading about lte, the way it works in a shared bandwidth thing, the more users on at one time the slower it gets, where wimax stays the same no matter how many people are connected to the wimax network (this is from tech docs that people posted up last year when the evo 4g came out discusing why sprint went with wimax over lte for 4g, but i could be wrong). I know the people in my area who are on other networks are always amazed at how fast the 4g is on my evo compared to their phones on other carriers. The only place around here that does not get 4g is my apt (its a dead spot for all most all phones, not just sprint or 4g) but i have my wifi for that, lol

I have to agree with you. Although I wish the speeds were faster the slowest 4g speed I've tested was 1.5 mbps d/l, but I consistently get 2.5-4 mbps. That is way faster than 3g. I've seen peaks of 5 mbps d/l. I've tested here in Atlanta and in DC. I will be doing more traveling and will continue to test, but I can't see 4g being less than 1 mbps d/l in any city which is 3g territory IMO.

 

[crabjoe]

I know In my area 4g its WAY faster then 3g... but then again we have had a clearwire 4g network around this area for longer then most anywhere else (close to 5-6 years now). From what i think i remember reading about lte, the way it works in a shared bandwidth thing, the more users on at one time the slower it gets, where wimax stays the same no matter how many people are connected to the wimax network (this is from tech docs that people posted up last year when the evo 4g came out discusing why sprint went with wimax over lte for 4g, but i could be wrong). I know the people in my area who are on other networks are always amazed at how fast the 4g is on my evo compared to their phones on other carriers. The only place around here that does not get 4g is my apt (its a dead spot for all most all phones, not just sprint or 4g) but i have my wifi for that, lol

There's no way to say the number of users on WiMax won't make a difference in speed. If that were true, companies wouldn't be looking for more spectrum. And even if it were true, just like everything else, it's only as strong as it's weakest link. And these days, the weakest link seems to be the back haul from the basestation. It seems, based on what I've read, most of Sprint's back hauls were done using t1's and there's just not enough capacity, even on 3G, to carry all the data that's being used now.

 

[RiverOfIce]

I think I am done here.

But for the record, wimax can not do REAL TIME deep packet inspection, the kind of inspection needed for limiting access. It can pull an sample, but it can not do it real time.

Next never said your isp didn't

As for the rest you will not read your own articles, I am done.

Everything in this thread is miss leading.

Crabjoe, the cost of one wimax basestation is about 10,000 dollars, installed. The cost for a lte basestation is about 100,000 dollars installed. So yes, it takes 3-4 stations to build, but at half the cost.

Once again, you guys will not do the research to back up what you are saying, it is just pointless to have a conversation. You guys really have no clue besided marketing what lte and wimax are.

 

[BlackDynamite]

I think I am done here.

But for the record, wimax can not do REAL TIME deep packet inspection, the kind of inspection needed for limiting access. It can pull an sample, but it can not do it real time.

Next never said your isp didn't

As for the rest you will not read your own articles, I am done.

Everything in this thread is miss leading.

Crabjoe, the cost of one wimax basestation is about 10,000 dollars, installed. The cost for a lte basestation is about 100,000 dollars installed. So yes, it takes 3-4 stations to build, but at half the cost.

Once again, you guys will not do the research to back up what you are saying, it is just pointless to have a conversation. You guys really have no clue besided marketing what lte and wimax are.

You say all this stuff about doing research and reading links, and it is clear you have done neither.

Yes, Wimax networks can do deep packet inspection in real time (there is no other way to do deep packet inspection). And yes, a Wimax network is almost always used to provide internet access (aka, your ISP).

Crabjoe's point also remains valid. If Sprint can change from Wimax to LTE with just a card swap and software upgrade in about a minute per tower, I highly doubt it would cost $90000.00 per tower to do that.

 

[crabjoe]

Crabjoe, the cost of one wimax basestation is about 10,000 dollars, installed. The cost for a lte basestation is about 100,000 dollars installed. So yes, it takes 3-4 stations to build, but at half the cost.

Where are you getting these figures? It's hard for me to believe there's such a huge price difference when Sprint and Clearwire have stated, that can change to LTE by just replacing a card and firmware.

Based on what you're saying, it would be cheaper for a company to just install WiMax towers, then just replace the card and patch the firmware for LTE, but I doubt that's what companies like Verizon are doing.

Again, where did you get the cost of installing a tower/basestation for WiMax and LTE?


---- On Edit I've found this ----

Typical cost of a WiMax Base station is $100,000 - $120,000, based on Nortel and Alcatel Lucent price. There's also a company called Alvarion, that will sell a micro-WiMax station for 10,000 Euros.

Looks like you're figures on what a WiMax base station costs is way off!

 

[lordofthereef]

I know In my area 4g its WAY faster then 3g... but then again we have had a clearwire 4g network around this area for longer then most anywhere else (close to 5-6 years now). From what i think i remember reading about lte, the way it works in a shared bandwidth thing, the more users on at one time the slower it gets, where wimax stays the same no matter how many people are connected to the wimax network (this is from tech docs that people posted up last year when the evo 4g came out discusing why sprint went with wimax over lte for 4g, but i could be wrong). I know the people in my area who are on other networks are always amazed at how fast the 4g is on my evo compared to their phones on other carriers. The only place around here that does not get 4g is my apt (its a dead spot for all most all phones, not just sprint or 4g) but i have my wifi for that, lol

In LA I was getting about 1.1mbps down on wimax and about 900kbps on 3g. In chicago I was getting 1mbps wimax and 1 mbps 3g. Latency on 3g was always around 320. Latency on wimax was always under 100. Upload, wimax kicked butt with 1mbps versus 200kbps average. I should also mention that 4G wouldn't stay connected in any of my hotels, while the 3G was perfectly fine.

Again, I truly have no idea how LTE will be impacted once more people start swarming it. Right now it isn't all that congested (speaking of verison now of course). I can say that Sprint's implementation is incredibly slow. They had over a 12 month lead on Verizon's launch, yet Verizon has practically caught up and will quickly surpass them.

 

[djdisturbed]

There's no way to say the number of users on WiMax won't make a difference in speed. If that were true, companies wouldn't be looking for more spectrum. And even if it were true, just like everything else, it's only as strong as it's weakest link. And these days, the weakest link seems to be the back haul from the basestation. It seems, based on what I've read, most of Sprint's back hauls were done using t1's and there's just not enough capacity, even on 3G, to carry all the data that's being used now.

Well, all the Wimax stuff around here is owned and run by clearwire is a HEAVILY used system w/ lots of people around here using clearwire for their internet so that might make the diff in the speed around here b/c the system is well built out around here. BUT IMHO if sprint could get support for both it would be even better!

 

[JunBringer]

They had over a 12 month lead on Verizon's launch, yet Verizon has practically caught up and will quickly surpass them.

This is certainly an understatement. Verizon tempts me with their very much rolled out Lte network. It's also nice that they don't have problems with building penetration.

 

[lordofthereef]

Crabjoe's point also remains valid. If Sprint can change from Wimax to LTE with just a card swap and software upgrade in about a minute per tower, I highly doubt it would cost $90000.00 per tower to do that.

Another thing to consider is licensing costs. I'd be shocked if the licensing per tower reached those numbers, but I thought it was still worth mentioning.

 

[crabjoe]

Another thing to consider is licensing costs. I'd be shocked if the licensing per tower reached those numbers, but I thought it was still worth mentioning.

Licensing isn't usually done by equipment, but based on users. Also, LTE is a 3GPP standard, which says to me that there might not be any licensing costs. Remember, 3GPP is a collaboration between groups of telecommunications associations.

 

[lordofthereef]

Licensing isn't usually done by equipment, but based on users. Also, LTE is a 3GPP standard, which says to me that there might not be any licensing costs. Remember, 3GPP is a collaboration between groups of telecommunications associations.

I'll take your word on that LOL. I don't know too much about it, I just thought I read someplace that there was more licensing involved which is what hiked the costs of LTE is all.

 

[crabjoe]

I'll take your word on that LOL. I don't know too much about it, I just thought I read someplace that there was more licensing involved which is what hiked the costs of LTE is all.

To be honest, I cant find anything online about what licensing costs for WiMax or LTE. But knowing who sets the standards can give one an idea what the costs might be. And knowing that LTE standard is set by 3GPP, it's hard for me to imagine there's any license fee, since it's basically the phone companies and manufactures that set the standard.

BTW, I don't understand all this "this is cheaper then that" when it comes to WiMax and LTE. And why people think it should cost more then what's being charged for 3G. I say this because both are cheaper to operate then any 3G technology.

And not only is it cheaper to operate, as more and more users start using it, it gets even cheaper for this mobile providers because economies of scale... I feel, once 4G has true nationwide coverage, prices should start falling since the companies won't need to spend the capital as when the network is 1st being built. And over time, they can start to de-com the current 3G network, just like they did with analog service.

 

[viber]

This is certainly an understatement. Verizon tempts me with their very much rolled out Lte network. It's also nice that they don't have problems with building penetration.

If you want a 4G signal from Verizon, you have to risk getting run over by a 747.

Verizon only has 39 markets lit for 4G, while Sprint has over 70 markets, with far more residential support, so you don't need to live at the airport or downtown metro.

You'll notice Verizon doesn't have a live 4G only coverage map on their site. It is covered with 3G and "coming soon". A straight up 4G map would look pretty pathetic, and prove Sprint has far more coverage.

What is true, is they have the potential to pass up Sprint's coverage, if Sprint doesn't sort things out with Clear ASAP. Their rate dispute is a big part of why new market roll outs have slowed to a crawl.

Then there is LTE, which I don't see really going mainstream for Sprint for another 2 years because they are so entrenched in Wimax. I also debate the real need for an LTE conversion, when Wimax is just as capable.

The problem is not Wimax, the problem is Clear. They are a crappy company.

 

[lordofthereef]

The problem is not Wimax, the problem is Clear. They are a crappy company.

Unfortunately I think that is enough of a problem in and of itself. At the end of the day the consumer feels the pain eithe way, right?

 

[BlackDynamite]

If you want a 4G signal from Verizon, you have to risk getting run over by a 747.

Verizon only has 39 markets lit for 4G, while Sprint has over 70 markets, with far more residential support, so you don't need to live at the airport or downtown metro.

You'll notice Verizon doesn't have a live 4G only coverage map on their site. It is covered with 3G and "coming soon". A straight up 4G map would look pretty pathetic, and prove Sprint has far more coverage.

What is true, is they have the potential to pass up Sprint's coverage, if Sprint doesn't sort things out with Clear ASAP. Their rate dispute is a big part of why new market roll outs have slowed to a crawl.

Then there is LTE, which I don't see really going mainstream for Sprint for another 2 years because they are so entrenched in Wimax. I also debate the real need for an LTE conversion, when Wimax is just as capable.

The problem is not Wimax, the problem is Clear. They are a crappy company.

Sprint is the majority owner of Clear. If Clear is a crappy company, it's because Sprint allows them to be.

 

[jdsingle]

Sprint is the majority owner of Clear. If Clear is a crappy company, it's because Sprint allows them to be.

I'm not sure that is 100% correct. Just because you have a majority doesn't necessarily mean you're allowing a company to not perform well. There are other influences outside their control. Doing a whole shake up of management may not be something they want to do at this time. I went over the AR for Clearwire from '09, '10 isn't out yet it doesn't look like, and it appears that Clearwire carries substantial debt. This is further validated here:

Sprint may, at any time, unilaterally surrender voting securities to reduce its voting security percentage below 50 percent.

Sprint Newsroom | Sprint Statement on Closing of Clearwire Debt Offering

Very important statement considering they already said they currently have no plans to acquire the company.

 

[BlackDynamite]

I'm not sure that is 100% correct. Just because you have a majority doesn't necessarily mean you're allowing a company to not perform well. There are other influences outside their control. Doing a whole shake up of management may not be something they want to do at this time. I went over the AR for Clearwire from '09, '10 isn't out yet it doesn't look like, and it appears that Clearwire carries substantial debt. This is further validated here:



Sprint Newsroom | Sprint Statement on Closing of Clearwire Debt Offering

Very important statement considering they already said they currently have no plans to acquire the company.

Sprint has said they will not contribute any more funding to Clearwire, and they have no plans to acquire the remaining shares int he company that they don't already own. And they may even pull out and surrender their shares that they currently own. But it doesn't change the fact that Sprint is currently the majority owner of Clear and all of their actions/performance/etc is only what Sprint decided/decides to let happen.