• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

HTC EVO 3D LTE/WIMAX capabilities

Status
Not open for further replies.
viber said:
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.
Click to expand...
I live right between the airport and downtown metro, about a mile or two from each :)
 
RiverOfIce said:
You will NOT beable to roam with LTE. Let me try that again, you WILL NOT be able to roam with LTE
Click to expand...

BlackDynamite said:
And yes, you absolutely will be able to roam on LTE after everyone rolls it out and the phones are made for it. In fact, the federal government is discussing that very issue right now. Look for the FCC to announce roaming rules within the next few weeks.
Click to expand...

Follow up:
FCC proposing data roaming rules, not interested in commonizing carriers -- Engadget
 
viber said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're problem with comparing # of cities might make Clearwire's WiMax look like it covers a larger area, but it's not totally true. Clearwire's markets tend to be smaller cities, so the cover less peeps. Verizon, even with just over half the number of cities Clearwire has, still covers almost the same number of people. Also Verizon is actively increasing coverage, where Clearwire has pretty much stalled. I'd say Verizon's LTE coverage will surpass WiMax within a couple months.

BTW, why do you think a LTE 4G coverage map would look pathetic? Verizon's LTE coverage (based on # of people covered) is already at more then 90% of Clearwire's WiMax coverage. Plus you don't have the Swiss cheese effect on Verizon's LTE. What I mean by this is that on WiMax is that I pretty much have to be stationary to use Sprint's 4G. If I move, especially go into a building, I lose coverage. This is in area that Sprint says they have strong 4G coverage.

Now, I haven't tried Verizon's 4G, but a friend got it and she's not having any problems with it. No problems with driving around town or in building or even in her home. Hand offs between tower to tower or even with 3G are seamless too.

So now, please tell me how Clearwire/Sprint's WiMax is going to compete against Verizon's LTE by the end of the year. WiMax already has problems and now it's not even being expanded....
 
crabjoe said:
Now, I haven't tried Verizon's 4G, but a friend got it and she's not having any problems with it. No problems with driving around town or in building or even in her home. Hand offs between tower to tower or even with 3G are seamless too.

So now, please tell me how Clearwire/Sprint's WiMax is going to compete against Verizon's LTE by the end of the year. WiMax already has problems and now it's not even being expanded....
Click to expand...
This is why I was/am very tempted by the Thunderbolt.
 
BlackDynamite said:
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.
Click to expand...

Once again, just because you're the majority stakeholder doesn't mean it is your responsibility to run a company. Like I said, they may not want a management shake up. Just to be clear one more time, just because you are a majority stakeholder in a company does not mean you are responsible for its' performance.
 
jdsingle said:
Once again, just because you're the majority stakeholder doesn't mean it is your responsibility to run a company. Like I said, they may not want a management shake up. Just to be clear one more time, just because you are a majority stakeholder in a company does not mean you are responsible for its' performance.
Click to expand...
Yes, it absolutely does make you responsible for the performance of the company if you are the majority owner, lol.

If they don't want a management shakeup, then it means you must be happy with the job they are doing. If you are not happy with the job they are doing, you either set them straight or replace them.

I have never in my life heard someone try to explain why the owner of a company wasn't responsible for said company.
 
BlackDynamite said:
Yes, it absolutely does make you responsible for the performance of the company if you are the majority owner, lol.

If they don't want a management shakeup, then it means you must be happy with the job they are doing. If you are not happy with the job they are doing, you either set them straight or replace them.

I have never in my life heard someone try to explain why the owner of a company wasn't responsible for said company.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of corporate subsidiaries that operate independently of their parent companies. The parent companies only tend to step in if the subsidiary starts costing the parent company money.
 
BlackDynamite said:
Yes, it absolutely does make you responsible for the performance of the company if you are the majority owner, lol.

If they don't want a management shakeup, then it means you must be happy with the job they are doing. If you are not happy with the job they are doing, you either set them straight or replace them.

I have never in my life heard someone try to explain why the owner of a company wasn't responsible for said company.
Click to expand...

Just because you are majority stakeholder does not, let me repeat, does not mean you are responsible for the performance of the company. It consumes resources to run another company, let alone a company with a mkt cap of 1.3 billion. Sprint needs to focus on their own problems right now and yes, Clearwire may be a big part of that. If Sprint wanted to control Clearwire, they wouldn't have said,
Sprint may, at any time, unilaterally surrender voting securities to reduce its voting security percentage below 50 percent.
Click to expand...
Peripheral investments even when you have a controlling stake are not at the base of operations for a company. Yes, Clearwire is an important aspect of Sprint's network. I won't deny that, but stop saying that it is Sprint's fault that Clearwire is a bad company just because they have the controlling stake. I highly recommend you read over Sprint's 10-K report for 2010, particularly page 13.
 
ekt8750 said:
There are plenty of corporate subsidiaries that operate independently of their parent companies. The parent companies only tend to step in if the subsidiary starts costing the parent company money.
Click to expand...
I understand that subsidiaries can operate independently of the parent company. I also understand that can only operate independently if the parent company allows it. At any time, that parent company can put a stop to whatever actions it doesn't like if the subsidiary is doing something wrong. So, again, my point is Sprint allowed and continues to allow Clearwire's problems.

jdsingle said:
Just because you are majority stakeholder does not, let me repeat, does not mean you are responsible for the performance of the company. It consumes resources to run another company, let alone a company with a mkt cap of 1.3 billion. Sprint needs to focus on their own problems right now and yes, Clearwire may be a big part of that. If Sprint wanted to control Clearwire, they wouldn't have said,Peripheral investments even when you have a controlling stake are not at the base of operations for a company. Yes, Clearwire is an important aspect of Sprint's network. I won't deny that, but stop saying that it is Sprint's fault that Clearwire is a bad company just because they have the controlling stake. I highly recommend you read over Sprint's 10-K report for 2010, particularly page 13.
Click to expand...
I am well aware that Sprint may decide to sell Clearwire. It doesn't change anything. Sprint allowed and continues to allow Clearwire to do whatever it is that Clearwire did and does. Sprint could have, and still can, put the brakes on whatever it is Clearwire is doing, and make them do whatever it is Sprint wants done. There is just no other way to say it, Sprint absolutely IS responsible for Clearwire's actions while they are the majority owner.

And again, just so you don't have to say it again, I understand that Sprint could sell their stake in Clearwire tomorrow if they want. It doesn't change the fact that Sprint was the majority owner yesterday and today.
 
I see we have a kickstand.
HTC-EVO-3D-Case-2.jpg


I was on a European site and they are advertising LTE on EVO 3D (2:36).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgpY8ZlsUzM&feature=player_detailpage#t=153s

This guy on HTC site. Shows EVO 3D with out a Sprint logo. If you pause the video and look at HTC product description it shows it as having LTE capabilities.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYVpUoGEurU&feature=player_detailpage

The current Qualcomm cpu have this built in or what is the deal? I can't see having a device just announced and then being posted on HTC site in Europe and both not having the same capabilities. I was wondering if someone might know if this is built in or what? I don't want to get caught with a phone and needing to upgrade for LTE.
 
dan330 said:
there is a small rumor that it might be a combo : wimax and lte
Click to expand...

I keep hearing that about Sprint's version also, but I think it's just speculation.

Based on what I've read on it, it won't have LTE. The reason is MSM8660 nor the Sequans SQN1210 support LTE. Now if Sprint/HTC makes a change to either MSM8960 or go with something like the Beceem's BSC500 or some Sequan's 4Sight chipset, it would have support for both WiMax and LTE.

Here's to hoping!!
 
lordofthereef said:
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).
Click to expand...

Yep, I have 5 evos on my plan, 3 of them are in no 4g areas, but its still 30$ extra for those phones. I didnt mind it when 4g was expanding, now that expansion may be stopped, I dont want to pay it if theres no chance of them getting it. Silver status sucks to, I buy 2-3 phones outright a year so my upgrade was really important for me. I live in houston, work at various plants all over the country, my 4g hardly ever works in the plants and the 3g alot of times is worse then dialup there. BUT, tmobile att is always balzing fast still for the other guys at work. I was gonna switch to tmob but att bought them.

Wimax is nice when it works, but if you move bend sneeze cough fart whatever its jumping back to 3g.
 
crabjoe said:
So now, please tell me how Clearwire/Sprint's WiMax is going to compete against Verizon's LTE by the end of the year. WiMax already has problems and now it's not even being expanded....
Click to expand...
Sprint has pretty much always competed by offering better value. Up until they were the first 4G network (that ended up being slower than some 3G offerings), they never did claim they were the fasest at anything. What they did claim is a nice break on your monthly bill. This is still true, although not as glaringly different as it has been in the past, whatwith their $10 BS fee on all smartphones now. Unless they are ready to dump billions down on upgrading their network/footprint, they are going to have to compete in terms of value, as they always have. With price cuts/drops already seen with ATT, it's going to take some work from Sprint to keep the customers they rounded up with the EVO IMO.
 
redninja said:
Yep, I have 5 evos on my plan, 3 of them are in no 4g areas, but its still 30$ extra for those phones.
Click to expand...

It is worth noting that Sprint never claimed that the $10 fee was for 4G, though they really made it seem that way with only their 4G enabled devices having the "premium data charge" at launch. Their answer to this was to slap that $10 fee onto all small phones (although not retroactively, so it was only on smartphones purchased/activated after a certain date). I still do see where you are coming from., compeltely.
 
RiverOfIce said:
LOl, the evo 3d does not have gsm, peroid. It does not have lte. If you want lte go to verizon and get the thunderbolt. The HTC evo 3d is a cdma wimax phone. Period.
Click to expand...

How on earth can you make this claim with such absolution? Is there a hardware teardown of the product? There is already confirmation of a GSM version of the phone as well. Certainly that will be different from the Sprint version, but I still don't see how you can be so absolutely sure of yourself.
 
WifiMaxed said:
The current Qualcomm cpu have this built in or what is the deal? I can't see having a device just announced and then being posted on HTC site in Europe and both not having the same capabilities. I was wondering if someone might know if this is built in or what? I don't want to get caught with a phone and needing to upgrade for LTE.
Click to expand...

I am not sure what you are questioning being built in, but what you are seeing is a GSM version of the actual phone. Look back the the HTC hero. Same name, same phone, different network technology. I do suspect a name change from EVO though, being that EVO seems to be SPrint's baby.
 
Original EVO 3D prototype "Shooter" had MSM8960 SoC and the reason for being confident that EVO 3D would support WLTE. I have inspected MSM8660 and like MSM8690 it supports same .28nm technology. I don't know if this was a last minute change to lithography during manufacturing process of silicon. Battery stress test show the same improvement ~75%. The die on this EVO 3D is the same size as the original "Shooter". I can't tell by simply looking at the die if this MSM8660 supports LTE/TD-LTE or not. I know the move to MSM8660 was to focus on cost and optimization by dev community in the future. MSM8660 is also meant to help keep cost inline to compare with EVO 4G at launch. The one thing that is killing Atrix 4G at the moment is cost. You not only have to purchase hd multi-media dock, faux laptop dock, and the litany of cables required. EVO 3D goes beyond the need for such things. HTC media link and DNLA will provide the same HD multi media experience with out cables. Laptop docking features will be the same through MHL using a laptop or desktop you already own.
Wimax/LTE support for current 4G Wimax devices and EVO 3D is completed. This is up to cooperate politics and we the consumers are going to see this in the future. I think Sprints Leap Frog program is a step in the right direction to achieve this. I will be posting links in the future as how this will be achieved. The research is outside cooperate channels, but open to everyone interested by looking up "Harmonization of Wimax/LTE" be prepared for every acronym under the sun and extremly dry read.
BSOD
 
Lot's of info but excellent article nonetheless.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- LTE stands for Long Term Evolution, but it isn't a long-term solution to the nation's wireless problems.


As a fourth generation, or 4G, wireless technology, LTE promises speeds of between five and 12 megabits per second. That's 10 times the speed of most 3G connections, and probably faster than your home broadband service. It can even be made, theoretically, to go 10 times faster than that.



Some early customers on Verizon's recently launched LTE network say they've clocked speeds of double the 12 Mbps maximum target that the carrier advertised. Verizon (VZ, Fortune 500) and HTC named the first LTE smartphone "Thunderbolt" for a reason.


LTE's blazing-fast speeds are made possible by the technology's much more efficient use of wireless spectrum than 3G. With LTE, wireless companies try to cram the maximum possible amount of data into radio waves. That lets them save on spectrum and, ultimately, costs.


Among the many different flavors of 4G, LTE has received the strongest support from wireless carriers. After an early "Betamax vs. VHS"-like debate between LTE and another 4G technology known as WiMAX, LTE won out. It could become the world's first universal wireless standard by the end of this decade. That means mobile devices like smartphones and tablets could eventually be used interchangeably on any network and around the world.


So what's the problem?


Mobile data traffic has more than doubled in each of the past three years, according to Cisco (CSCO, Fortune 500). With the mass adoption of smartphones, tablets and wireless modems for laptops, the company expects traffic to continue growing by an average of 92% in each of the next five years. The majority of that new traffic will be online video, which requires massive bandwidth.


That hockey-stick like growth has already overwhelmed 3G networks -- as anyone with an AT&T (T, Fortune 500) iPhone in New York or San Francisco can attest. AT&T's data traffic has grown 8,000% since it started selling the iPhone four years ago.



4G-LTE offers up to 20 times the capacity of some 3G networks. But by 2015, when LTE networks are fully built out, Cisco estimates that mobile data traffic will have grown by the same factor of 20.



Without any improvements to the network, 4G's capacity would be maxed out too -- in less than four years.



"By the time 4G-LTE is mass market, all it will have done is allow wireless companies to keep up with the problem," said Paul Lopez, chief marketing officer for Vantrix, a bandwidth optimization company.



The reasons are two-fold: The amount of spectrum made available to U.S. wireless companies is limited, but the carriers have also been sluggish in buying up enough backhaul to support their capacity requirements.



There is only so much data that can be crammed into wireless spectrum -- and only so much spectrum available to wireless networks. Thanks to rising mobile data demands, a current wireless spectrum surplus of 225 MHz will become a deficit of 275 MHz by 2014, according to the FCC.


That's one of the main reasons why AT&T wants to buy T-Mobile: if the two companies are combined into one, the mega-carrier could make better use of redundant spectrum for LTE deployment.


The lack of wireless backhaul --transmission routes between the network's core and its edges -- is mainly a cost issue. Wireless carriers are already spending $200 billion at year to maintain their networks, according to Alcatel-Lucent (ALU), and margins are getting thinner by the quarter.


"Networks tend to be built to carry the traffic that is anticipated in the near-term, so as not to waste precious investments in underutilized capacity," said Dan Hays, telecom consultant at management consulting firm PRTM. "The continued growth in data traffic is keeping pace with network capacity, and 4G is not likely to be any exception."



But even if the backhaul was there, that alone wouldn't solve the problem.
"There is definitely going to come a time when backhaul is capped and wireless companies are gong to have to explore more efficient ways of getting data back to the towers," said Ari Zoldan, CEO of Quantum Networks, a developer of WiMax products and services. "As LTE grows out and subscriber numbers increase, what's going to happen when spectrum limits are reached?"


Ways out of the jam


There are some potential solutions and actions already in progress to help address these problems.


The government has pledged that it would free up 500 MHz of spectrum for mobile broadband use, which would nearly double the amount of available spectrum for wireless companies. Though some experts say even that may be insufficient to keep up with customers' demands, it would at least delay the problem.


Mobile companies have also learned many lessons from 3G. For instance, both Verizon and AT&T bought large chunks of spectrum in the same band. That's a very different approach from the patchwork they had with 3G, which delivered good reception in some locations and poor reception in others.


Network providers are also scrambling for ways to make data more efficient. Companies like Vantrix and Cisco believe that optimized video can help cut mobile traffic by as much as 50%. For instance, by predicting what a user wants to watch, networks could physically place videos closer to the user so that there is no buffering and less usage of the overall network.


Wi-Fi solutions are also being sought out, including the deployment of hotspots and devices that automatically switch to Wi-Fi when a network is detected. Cisco estimates that 16% of mobile data traffic will be offloaded to Wi-Fi by 2015.
Smaller cells like lightRadio are also a potential part of the solution. The Rubik's cube-sized antennas can be deployed almost anywhere to make more efficient use of spectrum and reduce networks' costs.


The problem is that most of the solutions will take years to be fully realized. With LTE deployments already under way, they may not come soon enough to keep up with our growing data deluge
Click to expand...

On a side note, come on CSCO stock!

Source: CNN Money
 
Lol at the CNN article, it is great when they just mindlessly report marketing. But just one question, if we are going to have spectrum problems, then why as lte won again?
But lte will not allow devices to become universal, lte will not allow Verizon phones to work with anything but Verizon. Universal, not even close.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom