4G on speedtest.net
- Thread starter lexvdub1
- Start date
I'm getting 5.3mbps down in flroida.
Hey what's up Mike, those are great number for metro.
Did you read my post, I got my money back from LG and they let me keep the phone.
I've checked in stores and I've yet to see the phone on sale, did you buy it online or at your local store.
yeah I got a full refund for my LG as well, but they didnt let me keep it, How did you manage that?
Got Indulge at a local store, put a $100 deposit and they held it for me when they got their shipment on Thursday (only 6 phones for that store, some got none).
you can order online with free 2 day shipping.
Got Indulge at a local store, put a $100 deposit and they held it for me when they got their shipment on Thursday (only 6 phones for that store, some got none).
you can order online with free 2 day shipping.
nickrussel
Well-Known Member
I'm getting around 1.3M up and down on it
i have tried it out in different areas and depending on the place it can be anywhere from 1MB up to 5.4MB.
and it strange because doing the same test in the same location always give a different result.
and it strange because doing the same test in the same location always give a different result.
but the 4G is GSM(LTE) not CDMA. dunno if it does the same
No LTE is not just GSM its UMTS/4GSM. Which is wierd considering metro is cdma. Again here's a straight definition:
"Code division multiple access (CDMA) is a channel access method used by various radio communication technologies. Soft handoffs allow the mobile telephone to communicate simultaneously with two or more cells. The best signal quality is selected until the handoff is complete. This is different from hard handoffs utilized in other cellular systems. In a hard handoff situation, as the mobile telephone approaches a handoff, signal strength may vary abruptly. In contrast, CDMA systems use the soft handoff, which is undetectable and provides a more reliable and higher quality signal."
AKA cells meaning cell towers. So i'm not really sure how the heck metro is using both, i just know they installed LTE servers on the same area as there cell sites, and process the data with those racks. So back to what I was saying about using multiple towers. Even though LTE is GSM style, the phone I think still transmits in CDMA from the cell phone point of view. I think the LTE part is when it hits the tower side, which then relays back to the phone with LTE, thus needing an LTE chip to receive and decrypt it.
"Code division multiple access (CDMA) is a channel access method used by various radio communication technologies. Soft handoffs allow the mobile telephone to communicate simultaneously with two or more cells. The best signal quality is selected until the handoff is complete. This is different from hard handoffs utilized in other cellular systems. In a hard handoff situation, as the mobile telephone approaches a handoff, signal strength may vary abruptly. In contrast, CDMA systems use the soft handoff, which is undetectable and provides a more reliable and higher quality signal."
AKA cells meaning cell towers. So i'm not really sure how the heck metro is using both, i just know they installed LTE servers on the same area as there cell sites, and process the data with those racks. So back to what I was saying about using multiple towers. Even though LTE is GSM style, the phone I think still transmits in CDMA from the cell phone point of view. I think the LTE part is when it hits the tower side, which then relays back to the phone with LTE, thus needing an LTE chip to receive and decrypt it.
4G speeds are casified 100MB to 1GB.
what the current carriers are calling 4G is not really 4G, they call it 4G because its faster than 3G speeds.
The Galaxy indulge is capable of 21MB but speeds will all depend on the cell tower your connected to and speed limits that Metro puts in place.
When you see them start saying they have "LTE Advanced" then that will be true 4G. And at that time the speeds ill be faster than your homes cable internet. I can see people dropping DSL/Cable service and just picking up a wireless internet service.
"LTE Advanced" is said to have a peak speed of 3.3Gbit.
supposedly the move from LTE to LTE-Advanced is not supposed to be a big move and is most likely just software upgrades on the LTE cell towers.
"LTE Advanced" is said to have a peak speed of 3.3Gbit.
supposedly the move from LTE to LTE-Advanced is not supposed to be a big move and is most likely just software upgrades on the LTE cell towers.
nickrussel
Well-Known Member
yeah. that's why some call HSPA+ "3.5G" (as oposed to "3G" for HSPA and "4G" for LTE)
GMChaos121
Lurker
I'm doing two tests in the same place. Saugus, Mass. For some reason it says Dallas, TX is closest server to me but thats a lie.
Test one - DL 1216 kbps, UL 1378kbps
Test 2 (3 minutes later) - DL 531 kbps, UL 1270 kbps
It was pretty awkward how much it jumped. I literally turned on the LTE then downloaded speed test and ran it for the first number. I came here to write it and ran the second test and it was slow as hell after.
Test one - DL 1216 kbps, UL 1378kbps
Test 2 (3 minutes later) - DL 531 kbps, UL 1270 kbps
It was pretty awkward how much it jumped. I literally turned on the LTE then downloaded speed test and ran it for the first number. I came here to write it and ran the second test and it was slow as hell after.
the download speeds seem to fluctuate a lot depending on where you are.
You're wrong. What the carriers used today are actually 4G.
ITU redefines 4G to include LTE, WiMAX and HSPA+
"Despite this decision, marketing departments for wireless carriers, especially here in the U.S., continued to use this networking term in ways not allowed by the International Telecommunications Union."
From here: ITU redefines 4G to include LTE, WiMAX and HSPA+
Great, so now were not only ******ed in the US, but were not even trying to follow wordly standards.
Not to mention what a guy said in response to all this on the same site:
Brandon-
"i completely disagree. im not sure if there was a misunderstanding between what you meant and what im thinking you wrote, but if you were implying that the ITU expanded the term '4G' to include advamced 3G technology just because it was false advertisement to claim we had something that hadnt been defined (therefore didnt exist) and to get phone companies more money then i am appalled. if the ITU really did change this to make phone companies happy, then im disappointed at them. if youre implying this, im disappointed at you.
ANYWAYS, since we have not yet agreed on what we will define as the next generation of cellular technology, i think that anyone claiming to have 4G technology is basically lying. no matter what technicalities may be present, we have reached a bit of a ceiling, and we need to have a break through in order to celebrate it. 1G was calling, 2G was texting, 3G was multimedia messaging, 4G has to be something a littler more than a little faster, or a little bit more support.
its just my opinion that since we needed to invent new technology to fit a new name, that we shouldnt just shine up some old crap and call it the next generation. its like apple adding 3 or 4 'new' feature that they 'invent' and calling it the next generation of iphone. no offence to any apple fan boys or 4G-like lovers."
Halarious.
From here: ITU redefines 4G to include LTE, WiMAX and HSPA+
Great, so now were not only ******ed in the US, but were not even trying to follow wordly standards.
Not to mention what a guy said in response to all this on the same site:
Brandon-
"i completely disagree. im not sure if there was a misunderstanding between what you meant and what im thinking you wrote, but if you were implying that the ITU expanded the term '4G' to include advamced 3G technology just because it was false advertisement to claim we had something that hadnt been defined (therefore didnt exist) and to get phone companies more money then i am appalled. if the ITU really did change this to make phone companies happy, then im disappointed at them. if youre implying this, im disappointed at you.
ANYWAYS, since we have not yet agreed on what we will define as the next generation of cellular technology, i think that anyone claiming to have 4G technology is basically lying. no matter what technicalities may be present, we have reached a bit of a ceiling, and we need to have a break through in order to celebrate it. 1G was calling, 2G was texting, 3G was multimedia messaging, 4G has to be something a littler more than a little faster, or a little bit more support.
its just my opinion that since we needed to invent new technology to fit a new name, that we shouldnt just shine up some old crap and call it the next generation. its like apple adding 3 or 4 'new' feature that they 'invent' and calling it the next generation of iphone. no offence to any apple fan boys or 4G-like lovers."
Halarious.
nickrussel
Well-Known Member
they go by your IP. dallas is metro headquarters. hence your IP origination...
Similar threads
