I've noticed there's multiple threads being taken over with this interesting debate, so i figured i would create a thread for it...
Metro currently has 1xrtt and LTE. There are talks of EVDO coming as well...
I do enjoy the debates in the threads as they are definitely informative, but I myself think it's getting a little out of hand. No need to risk the possible lock of a good thread with other crucial information. Move the debate here and have a field day
i hear ya there. i did several speedtests with a charge on verizon in a building that is known to get terrible signal on all carriers. the fricken thing consistently was in the 20'smbps for download and around 16mbps upload. it was wild... made me think about paying more than double per month, ha ha...
Sure. My whole point has been that while Metro technically has elements of 3G technology, they do NOT have a full 3G network. Full 3G network nowadays is 1,000kbps give or take. Peak is closer to 3,000kbps (3mbps). Metro's CDMA network is 100k, period.
So, anyone INSISTING that Metro has a "3G" network to us or to customers makes you look stupid. Because we certainly are not. We know a 3G network shouldn't be as SLOW as a 2G network.
Same as if Metro gets EVDO. So, freaking what? If Metro caps it at 100k, I don't care if it's EVDO. It's still as SLOW as a 2G network. DATA SPEED is what defines a "3G" network.
That's why I call LTE just LTE. I don't try to say it's a "4G" network. Because two years from now -- when Verizon and AT&T are hitting 50mbps with their LTE network -- and someone on here tries to claim Metro also has "4G" network with 2mbps, we are going to laugh at them. Just as we snicker now when someone claims that 100kbps is a "3G" network.
Metro has 100kbps? They are as SLOW as a 2G network, and this is why Metro MANAGEMENT admits they have a "2G" network. Metro management which runs the company, remember? They aren't caught up on anal "technical" definitions. They KNOW the truth and admit it readily. This is why they say they are skipping 3G and going to LTE. Metro management knows that 100kbps is NOT a 3G network in today's smartphone era. "Technically" is not always "reality."
See the broader picture, guys. Because your customers sure do! If you keep insisting Metro has a 3G CDMA network, what good does it do? Do you think you can really fool your customers into believing it's as fast as Verizon or Sprint? Are you ashamed to be selling 2G speed? Then, don't sell 2G speed. Sell the LTE phones.
Last edited by ChazzMatt; 07-26-2011 at 03:47 PM.
Your creed may be interesting, but your deeds are much more convincing.
i hear ya there. i did several speedtests with a charge on verizon in a building that is known to get terrible signal on all carriers. the fricken thing consistently was in the 20'smbps for download and around 16mbps upload. it was wild... made me think about paying more than double per month, ha ha...
sorry, had a technical problem with the post so I deleted and reposted. you were replying to this.
Sure. My whole point has been that while Metro technically has elements of 3G technology, they do NOT have a full 3G network. Full 3G network nowadays is 1,000kbps give or take. Peak is closer to 3,000kbps (3mbps). Metro's CDMA network is 100k, period.
A Full EVDO network no, but not a 1xrtt network which we, which is still considered to be a 3g network, have YES
Originally Posted by ChazzMatt
Same as if Metro gets EVDO. So, freaking what? If Metro caps it at 100k, I don't care if it's EVDO. It's still as SLOW as a 2G network. DATA SPEED is what defines a "3G" network.
Who knows if metro is going to cap the EVDO network. They didnt before, what makes you so certain they will?
Originally Posted by ChazzMatt
They are as SLOW as a 2G network, and this is why Metro MANAGEMENT admits they have a "2G" network. Metro management which runs the company, remember? They aren't caught up on ANAL definitions. They KNOW the truth and admit it readily. This is why they are skipping 3G and going to LTE.
I love contridictions don't you? I want to see where it says on a 3G network, the speeds must have a minimum. there isn't a minimum.
All I was trying to convey, was who ever said that is wrong. You admit we have a 3G networ, yet you keep boasting this same tidbit of information from an uneducated executive. Just because they are an executive or upper management doesnt mean their word is golden.
I want You, and only You chazzmatt to answer this question, with out posting your little diagram there or re posting the same quote of mis-information. if 1xrtt is a 3g technology, and a 3G network (which it is, as you cant have a CDMA phone running on 2g, its almost the same as why you cant get a 4g signal on Charge or Thunderbolt while using metroPCS), then how can we skip it? how we can go from a non existent 2g network, to an LTE network? You can't, its like dividing by zero. or in this case multiplying by zero, the answer is always 0, It just doesnt happen.
Couldn't have said it better myself, very great analogy:
Originally Posted by ChazzMatt
But if the question is "Will my non-LTE phone magically increase in speed while on the MetroPCS network, since MetroPCS has turned on their faster LTE network?" -- the answer is no. Just like back in the 60's, the old black and white CRT TV's could not magically receive color broadcasts just because the networks started broadcasting in color. You had to have a new color TV to receive the wondrous color TV shows.
Just like to point out 1x is not elements of 3g. As I have said before 3g stands for 3rd Generation which started with 1st gen with the old old mobile phones in the early 80's. 2g or 2nd gen started in the 90's and the phones and tech got better, then in 2000 they started the 3rd gen Which we are still running on today, though in 2010 the 4th gen=4g got rolled out as we are very aware metro was the first to do so.
Now the early 3g tech. 1x was slower and as they researched and built up the tech the speed increased and the same thing is happening with 4g and will happen continuously. metro 4g isnt much or any faster then 3g tech yet. give them time and it could be potentially much faster. Verizon has put more money and bandwidth into it and have significantly faster speeds.
i just want to point out that actually sprint had the first "4g" with their wimax... metro was first with lte...
but it wasn't really 4G, it wasn't till the almost end of last year, when Sprint proved they achieve the necessary speeds, so the ITU changed its format. At the time WiMaX was released, the only standardized 4g network available was LTE/+ (which over in Europe they are getting close to 1Gbps). so before they had changed it, metro already had the craft out, and LTE in DFW.
Just like to point out 1x is not elements of 3g. As I have said before 3g stands for 3rd Generation which started with 1st gen with the old old mobile phones in the early 80's. 2g or 2nd gen started in the 90's and the phones and tech got better, then in 2000 they started the 3rd gen Which we are still running on today, though in 2010 the 4th gen=4g got rolled out as we are very aware metro was the first to do so.
Now the early 3g tech. 1x was slower and as they researched and built up the tech the speed increased and the same thing is happening with 4g and will happen continuously. metro 4g isnt much or any faster then 3g tech yet. give them time and it could be potentially much faster. Verizon has put more money and bandwidth into it and have significantly faster speeds.
right. It wasn't until last year that the ITU determined speed as value for Generation. That doesn't mean that all previous generations had to follow suit.
Sprint was the first company to use "4g" as a selling point, even though at the time it wasn't really 4G, then t-mobile and AT&t complained, and finally decided to join in on the confusion, thats when ITU said if your network standard (hspa+, LTE/+, WiMaX) is capable of producing speeds at around 100 mbps then it can truely be classified as 4G. the only 2 companies in the US to offer a TRUE 4G network are Verizon, and metroPCS. LTE stands for Long Term Evolution. and as it was explained in the classes I took, it will only get faster over time (hence the LONG TERM)
and Thank you Black69camaro, at least someone here understands what I have been trying to say!!!
By June 2007, the 200 millionth 3G subscriber had been connected. Out of 3 billion mobile phone subscriptions worldwide this is only 6.7%. In the countries where 3G was launched first – Japan and South Korea – 3G penetration is over 70%.[11] In Europe the leading country is Italy with a third of its subscribers migrated to 3G. Other leading countries by 3G migration include UK, Austria, Australia and Singapore at the 20% migration level. A confusing statistic is counting CDMA2000 1x RTT customers as if they were 3G customers. If using this definition, then the total 3G subscriber base would be 475 million at June 2007 and 15.8% of all subscribers worldwide.
Obviously 1X RTT is the not-accepted member of 3G technology. Which is how we all feel about it.
I know you have a link that shows that TECHNICALLY it's 3G. But you see there's lots of ambivalence about it. Like the crazy old uncle locked in the basement. Is he really part of our family? Do we have to admit that?
Originally Posted by QuestKev
Who knows if metro is going to cap the EVDO network. They didnt before, what makes you so certain they will?
.
Because Metro's business plan changed. Before they were going to match Cricket and roll out EVDO full speed. Go 3G. Now they have decided to skip 3G and go LTE. Any EVDO implemented will be temporary and capped. They can't make it too good or people won't transition to LTE and VoLTE, which is the plan.
They will then turn off their slow-pokey "2G"-speed 1x RTT. And then we will no longer have this discussion. Instead we'll be arguing about whether Metro's 2mbps LTE belongs in the same category as Verizon's 4G LTE.
While these technologies are defined by IMT-2000, they are sometimes called "2.5G" because they did not offer multi-megabit data rates.
1xRTT became available in 2002, followed by commercial EV-DO Rev. 0 in 2004. Here again, 1xRTT is referred to as "2.5G" because it served as a transitional step to EV-DO.
1xRTT is a data transmission system used on CDMA networks that allows for connetion speeds of up to a theoretical limit of 144kbps in most implementations. Real world usage is typically much slower, though, coming in at somewhere around 80kbps.
1xRTT is often referred to as a 2.5G technology like GPRS, though it is officially a 3G technology according to the ITU's IMT-2000 spec.
Exactly. "2.5"G to all of us who live in the real world. Even to Metro management, and it's THEIR network.
Or, another way of putting it -- 1xRTT rides the "short bus" to 3G school.
1X RTT going to 3G school
When LTE LG Bryce/Esteem comes out I'm getting it, and getting my wife the LTE Samsung Indulge (or the next LTE phone with a hardware keyboard). And by then I hope Metro has full LTE signal everywhere in Atlanta. Then I will only have to deal with "2.5" G 80 - 100 kbps on the drive to my parents in another state... Unless Metro signs a full 3G roaming agreement with Sprint. Then I won't have to deal with crappy 1X RTT at all.
1x is and will always be 3g. Since 1999 CDMA 1x as been defined as a 3g network from Qualcomm to the 3gpp2 standards group. If your of the opinion that 1x is not 3g that is fine but its not based on fact.
You shouldnt tie 3g to speeds, thats where people get confused. 3g just means third generation technology, which I believe metro is using if im not mistaken. Same thing with 4g, its fourth generation technology but theres three different types now, WiMax, HSPA+, and LTE. Anyone who does there research understands that LTE is the supperior, and HSPA+ is just 3g.5 but, legally they can market it how they seem fit.
1x is and will always be 3g. Since 1999 CDMA 1x as been defined as a 3g network from Qualcomm to the 3gpp2 standards group. If your of the opinion that 1x is not 3g that is fine but its not based on fact.
It is based on fact, JACK. And I can prove it.
Even telecom people refer to it as 2.5G.
Why? Because while "technically" it's part of 3G technology, but is no longer accepted as suitable in today's smartphone world.
The ITU even defines 3G as 384kbps or GREATER, so there's a contradiction as 1x RTT can't get it up.
IMT-2000 offers the capability of providing value-added services and applications on the basis of a single standard. The system envisages a platform for distributing converged fixed, mobile, voice, data, Internet and multimedia services. One of its key visions is to provide seamless global roaming, enabling users to move across borders while using the same number and handset. IMT-2000 also aims to provide seamless delivery of services, over a number of media (satellite, fixed, etc…). It is expected that IMT-2000 will provide higher transmission rates: a minimum speed of 2Mbit/s for stationary or walking users, and 348 kbit/s in a moving vehicle. Second-generation systems only provide speeds ranging from 9.6 kbit/s to 28.8 kbit/
THAT is why there's so much controversy over 1x RTT and why it's not fully accepted. THAT is why it's 2.5G to me and everyone else. Of course, even 384kbps is slow now but that's the MINIMUM SPEED OF 3g.
You don't have that, you don't have 3G. That's a fact, Jack.
And everytime this is brought up I will quote the ITU! ha!
Reply With Quote
Just as we snicker now when someone claims that 100kbps is a "3G" network. 
Do you think you can really fool your customers into believing it's as fast as Verizon or Sprint? Are you ashamed to be selling 2G speed? Then, don't sell 2G speed. Sell the LTE phones.
Originally Posted by allmanallpimp
Bookmarks