Reply With QuoteI wonder how much work will need to be done on the hardware, and software side of things to get serious speeds. People buying phones now, won't get this until 2013.
|
|
|
|
|
I have a blue tooth
Source: http://www.tmonews.com/2011/02/qualc...ime-next-year/
Today, at Mobile World Congress (MWC), Qualcomm announced a new mobile chipset, the MDM8225. The MDM8225 brings full support for HSPA+ Release 9 aka HSPA+ 84Mbps. If you may recall, T-Mobile had plans for HSPA+ 84Mbps and even HSPA+ 168Mbps when they first rolled out their 4G campaign last November. The new chipset will use “dual-carrier” technology, which will utilize multiple frequencies at the same time. Since T-Mobile’s 3G/4G network operates using both 1700MHz or 2100Mhz frequencies, the new MDM8225 chipset will be able to operate on both of these frequencies simultaneously.
In addition to 84Mbps downlink and 23Mbps uplink speeds, the new chipset will also feature Qualcomm’s interference cancellation and equalization (Q-ICE) receiver. This receiver will reduce interference and increase network capacity, reducing the amount of dropped calls and poor cellular reception.
Qualcomm states that samples of the MDM8225 are anticipated to be available in Q4 2011 with the first devices expected to roll out in sometime in 2012.
Post Machine
I wonder how much work will need to be done on the hardware, and software side of things to get serious speeds. People buying phones now, won't get this until 2013.
Phone Collector
At a certain point it really doesn't matter. Each of the towers would have to have a MASSIVE backhaul upgrade to see anywhere this speed in real-world usage. What difference does it make if the phones can communicate with the towers at 21, 42, or 84 Mbps if the tower is serviced by a 100Mbps pipe? Is T-Mobile going to quadruple the bandwidth allocated to the tower as well?Originally Posted by terryjohnson16
HetNet for the win!
Sure, but you have to to understand that would be the equivalent or at least comparable upgrade that Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T would be doing for their LTE/WiMax infrastructure. HSPA+ with massive backhaul is T-Mobile's strategy for competing with LTE.
Certainly, much less expensive than going for LTE, and looking at the magnificent job T-Mobile has been doing for the past year or so, I totally see them meeting and exceeding their goals for this and next year.
Verizon Wireless 4G LTE
Post Machine
To me this is all just publicity. In my area of NYC, many towers don't give off more than ~2Mbps down. I shouldn't have to buy a "4G" phone, just to get speeds of up to 5Mbps on a 7.2Mbps device. I have reached 4.8 on only like 5 towers in NYC. The rest range from ~1Mbps, up to 3Mbps on my Nexus One.
Telling me to get a 4G device, change my SIM card to a post 2009 SIM card, or even to connect my phone to wifi, just to get serious speeds are crazy.
Living the 4G life
Higher "Peaks" just means more speed for everyone.
It says MIMO, and that requires new antennas.
LTE has arrived. The third carrier in Las Vegas with 10x10 LTE coverage
Coverage will expand to 100 million LTE pops for the first half of 2013, with the second half of 2013 expanding to 200 million POPs covered. Release 10 LTE (2×10, 2×20) will be better performing than all other competitors.
T-Mobile USA. “This year, we’re stepping on the gas again. We are making continued coverage improvements and launching an advanced LTE network
Guest
I thought our phones used both aws bands simultaneously one for uplink and one for down?
Why yes, that is a bag phone
Yeah, that's what happens when bloggers try to be technical. Their understanding of 1700 AWS and dual-carrier is a bit lacking.
Post Machine
Yes. 1700 (phone to tower) / 2100 (tower to phone). The 2100 band in the AWS spectrum, is what causes problems with reception. That 2100 band is ~200MHz higher than the PCS, and its why phones can't pick up 3G in many areas.
I've got more phones than fingers
That's the downlink and you can make up for the additional 200MHz by turning up the power at the site. BTW, the difference in propagation at the same power level is approximately .75dbm. On the other hand you get approximately the same difference on the uplink (handset to site) except now its beneficial because of the lower frequency. Look for another reason why phones don't pick up 3G.
Post Machine
Exactly the downlink, which is tower to phone. In many buildings, they fall back to EDGE, since the AWS freq isn't as strong. That's why many times, if an area is covered well with 3G, mainly outside, once you enter the building, it will either fall to EDGE, or have no service at all.
Bookmarks