According to ATT Rep Infuse is: "LTE upgradeable"

[Ultra50#WP]

its capable of higher 3G speeds HSPA+ but not true 4G speeds like LTE.

 

[NMherron]

Well, so when is the class action law suit going to be announced? I bought this phone because of the 4G capability primarily. I was familiar with Sprint's 4G and thought that instead of switching providers, I'd just switch OS.

I think a lot of people are in the same boat as you. I would guess upwards of 90% of AT&T's users didn't understand their 4G phones were not going to work on the LTE network.

 

[NMherron]

The main problem is that there is no legal definition of "4G". If it is 1% faster than 3G they can call it 4G and I'm not sure there is much you can hang them for. Its completely misleading on their part... "Faux G" I think is how sprint described it.

They probably have a massive team of lawyers that signed off on it before they did it. That doesn't mean they can't be sued.

I did find this online, may be of interest.

I believe you're right. I don't think a lawsuit will go very far. If AT&T is guilty of false advertising with it's label of 4G, then they all are. None of the carriers have a true 4G system as it's defined by the ITU. Some use 4G-era technologies like LTE and WiMax. But are not true 4G by definition.

The problem AT&T committed, that none of the other carriers have done, is roll out two 4G technolgies so close together where the hardware will not work on both networks. Since it was so close, they should have put LTE chips in all their 4G products. I had a phone with a WiMax chip in it over a year before I finally got service. This would have been much smarter.

In comparison, if you bought a Verizon 4G device, you are good to go for years. Same for T-Mobile (unless the AT&T buyout goes through). Even the TIer 2 Carriers are getting the transition right. Sprint is a different deal, though. They kind of are committing the same atrocity since now they are starting up an LTE network with LightSquared next year. But at least there was a few years in between. Many folks will be out of contract when the LTE begins.

What AT&T needs to do to mitigate this problem is to complete a full buildout of HSPA+ and fast. They also need to allow an upgrade to all HSPA+ device owners at contract price, without extending the contract. Although you would have to shell out another $200-$300 for a new LTE device, with these terms it would be pretty fair.

Sprint also needs to consider something like this with their WiMax customers. In fact, Sprint is more likely to stop building out WiMax than AT&T stop building out HSPA+.

But I imagine neither carrier is going to do anything like this. That would be good customer service! And that'll never happen.

 

[Jalarm]

Verizon said they should call LTE 6G just because everyone was making up 4G, thought it was funny.

 

[NMherron]

Verizon said they should call LTE 6G just because everyone was making up 4G, thought it was funny.

That's quite ironic from Verizon. Because even Verizon's LTE doesn't meet the 4G definition given by the ITU. :-X

 

[Egidio]

I saw this article this morning.

New Bill May Require Carriers To Clarify 4G Speeds

It might interest some of us here.

 

[Jalarm]

I saw this article this morning.

New Bill May Require Carriers To Clarify 4G Speeds

It might interest some of us here.

I think that would be really helpful for consumers.

 

[NMherron]

I think that would be really helpful for consumers.

Even though I am a government bureaucrat, I'm not sure if government is the solution to this problem. The long term solution should be more like the European model.

The real problem here is getting locked in to long term contracts that squelch free market principles. If people purchased their devices outright and could move much more freely between carriers, then carriers would have to adapt to the marketplace. It's because the big 4 carriers know they have a big captive audience for 24 months at a time. It really influences their decisions (for the negative to the consumer).

This problem isn't going away any time soon if consumers are willing to give up their rights to get a subsidized device.

What the government should do is mandate things that make the market free-er (is that a word?) for consumers. Like making sure that all GSM phones can be used on all GSM carriers. And all CDMA phones can be used on all CDMA carriers. Or even mandating a certain percentage of their phone offer both GSM/CDMA chips.

This would allow customers to jump ship to another carrier if their carrier starts doing unfair business practices, implementing harsh caps and penalties, deceptive marketing, etc.

I believe these types of solutions would spur ingenuity, competition, more fairness and give consumers better products and coverage. But that's just my humble opinion.