4g coming to Verizon, when?

[Integraoligist]

Hey all,
I've been waiting to upgrade to an Android phone since June... i've been waiting on the new 4g phones that VZ will be coming out with... but because they JUST NOW announed that they are rolling out the 4g is test cities...
WHEN will we see a VZ 4g phone hit the market? and WHEN will it be usefull in an area say 60 miles from a city like Chicago?

Am i better off just going with the 2-year term and a new Droid X now? or will we be seeing some new items in the next couple of months?

Thanks all!

 

[IOWA]

Hey all,
I've been waiting to upgrade to an Android phone since June... i've been waiting on the new 4g phones that VZ will be coming out with... but because they JUST NOW announed that they are rolling out the 4g is test cities...
WHEN will we see a VZ 4g phone hit the market? and WHEN will it be usefull in an area say 60 miles from a city like Chicago?

Am i better off just going with the 2-year term and a new Droid X now? or will we be seeing some new items in the next couple of months?

Thanks all!

60 Miles from Chicago? You've got about a 2 year wait (most likely more) buddy. Get the X.

 

[Integraoligist]

ahh ok... i was looking at ATT's 4g coverage which has been out for a few months, and i see it dosent cover crap either...
Thanks!

 

[IOWA]

ahh ok... i was looking at ATT's 4g coverage which has been out for a few months, and i see it dosent cover crap either...
Thanks!

Neither ATT nor Tmobile (or Sprint technically) have any sort of 4G coverage. HSPA+ will never be 4G. WiMAX (and LTE) will.

 

[3devious]

What's the deal with that article that says that no one really has true 4g implemented and even the LTE won't really be 4g? Did anyone else see that?

 

[gruss]

In a nutshell? 4G is supposed to provide 100 mbps download speeds which LTE, wimax etc can provide at this point. So they aren't "4G" faster than current tech but not up to the specs they are supposed to provide.

 

[IOWA]

In a nutshell? 4G is supposed to provide 100 mbps download speeds which LTE, wimax etc can provide at this point. So they aren't "4G" faster than current tech but not up to the specs they are supposed to provide.

I think 100mbps wirelessly is asking for a bit much to up it from 3g to 4g. The ITU is off thier rocker.

 

[kyler13]

What's the deal with that article that says that no one really has true 4g implemented and even the LTE won't really be 4g? Did anyone else see that?

I have a big problem with the huge "4G isn't 4G" movement. It really is no different than how we define broadband. DSL can push nearly 10Mbps or more at its max, but infrastructure issues can limit you to as little as 128kbps. That doesn't make DSL "not broadband". LTE has the capability to push 100Mbps, even if it won't do so in its initial implementation. It's more than likely a software upgrade, but the hardware already supports it. Furthermore, it's a bit shortsighted IMO to require a minimum of 100Mbps, when the practical need for such data rates on a handset are virtually non-existent. The real benefit to LTE, and to me what makes it the "next gen" is the ability to dramatically decrease latency while pushing higher data rates at greater distance. For example, if your wireless connection can consistently provide <50ms latency, even at EVDO speeds, you can sustain real time video or audio transmissions such as video chatting or VoIP calls. That's 4G to me. The T-Mobile push for HSPA+ (coincidentally, AT&T's fallback network upgrade) seems silly, because they too are tossing around bandwidth as if it's the end-all, be-all. What you won't see in the ads is that the 21Mbps that HSPA+ is capable of is only achieved with a fixed location within 500-1000ft of a cell site. When you factor in greater distances and mobility, HSPA+ drastically falls to HSPA speeds, around 6Mbps max. It's nowhere near as robust as the true 4G technologies like LTE and WiMax.