So When Do You Think Google Will Activate LTE On The Nexus 4?

[bobjohnson201]

This was the only part that mattered. Whether you meant for your original question to be rhetorical or not, I answered it anyway.

I can see the value in going with an MVNO or prepaid carrier. If I didn't have unlimited data on Verizon, I'd probably be picking up a Nexus 4 and using it on T-Mobile's $30 monthly4G plan. Either that or a value plan with truly unlimited data for $25/month more.

the purpose of that lengthy post was to show that google didn't really do anything wrong with not including LTE on their phone, and that this LTE issue for this phone has undoubtedly been blown out of proportion. especially when i see reviews like "new nexus amazing, but with one huge flaw".

 

[FreakyLocz14]

It's difficult to have LTE on an unlocked device in the United States, since each carrier uses their own frequencies.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Android Central Forums

 

[icebike]

Software programmable radios have been the norm in cellular phones since the Pleistocene.

Same radio. Different program for each carrier. Its how GSM unlocked devices can service many different carriers.

All you need is radio that handle all the available bands. These will arrive on the market in due course.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

[The Hustleman]

now lets assume that carriers didnt get in the way with the nexus experience as i said earlier. it would be a completely different story. i think the best way to handle that would be to have:
a cdma/lte version just for verizon.
an lte version (subsidized) for att
an hspa+42 (subsidized) for t-mobile (which there already is, but just saying)
possibly an unlocked version (similar to tmobile's version)
forget about sprint.

Why would you forget about Sprint when they are even bigger than t mobile, the only carrier offering unlimited lte, a lot fewer dropped calls than t mobile, great call quality, fastest updates out of all the carriers (who pushes out android updates first?).

If you're on 4g, Sprint is great, problem is if you're stuck on 3g....

sent from the best smart phone (not phablet) on the worst network- the galaxy S III unfortunately on T-Mobile

 

[bobjohnson201]

Why would you forget about Sprint when they are even bigger than t mobile, the only carrier offering unlimited lte, a lot fewer dropped calls than t mobile, great call quality, fastest updates out of all the carriers (who pushes out android updates first?).

If you're on 4g, Sprint is great, problem is if you're stuck on 3g....

sent from the best smart phone (not phablet) on the worst network- the Galaxy S3 unfortunately on T-Mobile

because sprint 4G LTE <<< T-mobile hspa+42, but if we were going on the scenario that carrier's wouldn't get in the way than they might as well give one to sprint since they would be giving one to verizon. my bad.

 

[peejay1977]

Just read this, thought it might be of interest :

http://m.techcrunch.com/2012/11/26/...-nexus-4-proves-a-very-strong-lte-smartphone/

 

[natehoy]

It's difficult to have LTE on an unlocked device in the United States, since each carrier uses their own frequencies.

It's more difficult than you think, because frequencies aren't the real problem - protocols are.

LTE is a data-only protocol. No carrier that I know of has implemented Voice-over-LTE (VoLTE), though that is the obvious next step and carriers are looking into it soon. So in order to have a meaningful LTE device, you need to be able to support the voice/SMS/MMS protocol of the carrier you want to do business with. This would also be very helpful in places where LTE is unavailable, obviously, which for everyone but Verizon is most of the USA.

So putting LTE in a US GSM phone is not all that useful for two reasons:

1. AT&T's HSPA+ is already pretty fast, and my wife's non-LTE AT&T Galaxy S2 can hold its own against my Verizon HTC Thunderbolt even when I have LTE locked and loaded. There's a difference between HSPA+ and LTE, but non-HD-video-streaming day-to-day operations it's not noticeable. If you have an unlimited plan and like to stream HD video, LTE will benefit you. Other than that, not so much.

2. The LTE footprint offered by GSM carriers is practically nonexistent at this point.


For Verizon, LTE is a big hairy deal. The difference in speed between Verizon 3G and LTE is HUGE. For GSM carriers that already offer HSPA+21 or 42, it's a significant difference but even HSPA+21 is pretty darned fast. So it's not as monumental an improvement.

 

[nmyeti]

It's more difficult than you think, because frequencies aren't the real problem - protocols are.
For Verizon, LTE is a big hairy deal. The difference in speed between Verizon 3G and LTE is HUGE. For GSM carriers that already offer HSPA+21 or 42, it's a significant difference but even HSPA+21 is pretty darned fast. So it's not as monumental an improvement.

I don't think this part gets talked about enough. The reason we all love our LTE so much on Verizon is partly because their 3G is really, really, slow. When my Verizon phones slip back to 3g in my area, the data speeds are so poor as to make basic streaming impossible.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

It's more difficult than you think, because frequencies aren't the real problem - protocols are.

LTE is a data-only protocol. No carrier that I know of has implemented Voice-over-LTE (VoLTE), though that is the obvious next step and carriers are looking into it soon. So in order to have a meaningful LTE device, you need to be able to support the voice/SMS/MMS protocol of the carrier you want to do business with. This would also be very helpful in places where LTE is unavailable, obviously, which for everyone but Verizon is most of the USA.

So putting LTE in a US GSM phone is not all that useful for two reasons:

1. AT&T's HSPA+ is already pretty fast, and my wife's non-LTE AT&T Galaxy S2 can hold its own against my Verizon HTC Thunderbolt even when I have LTE locked and loaded. There's a difference between HSPA+ and LTE, but non-HD-video-streaming day-to-day operations it's not noticeable. If you have an unlimited plan and like to stream HD video, LTE will benefit you. Other than that, not so much.

2. The LTE footprint offered by GSM carriers is practically nonexistent at this point.


For Verizon, LTE is a big hairy deal. The difference in speed between Verizon 3G and LTE is HUGE. For GSM carriers that already offer HSPA+21 or 42, it's a significant difference but even HSPA+21 is pretty darned fast. So it's not as monumental an improvement.

Right, HSDPA+42 is more than sufficient for my needs. Let's not forget that LTE is a battery killer.

Doesn't AT&T have LTE? Their whole marketing sell is that they have two layers of 4G.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Android Central Forums

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

Right, HSDPA+42 is more than sufficient for my needs. Let's not forget that LTE is a battery killer.

Doesn't AT&T have LTE? Their whole marketing sell is that they have two layers of 4G.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Android Central Forums

LTE isn't a battery killer with the newer chipsets.

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

Software programmable radios have been the norm in cellular phones since the Pleistocene.

Same radio. Different program for each carrier. Its how GSM unlocked devices can service many different carriers.

All you need is radio that handle all the available bands. These will arrive on the market in due course.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

I think you're confusing software programmable radios with hard coded frequency reception. GSM is interoperable because the frequencies required are ubiquitous and the same across carriers. All that's different is the particular programming for the carrier...but software isn't going to magically make a phone receive signal on a band that's not supported by the hardware.

 

[icebike]

I think you're confusing software programmable radios with hard coded frequency reception. GSM is interoperable because the frequencies required are ubiquitous and the same across carriers. All that's different is the particular programming for the carrier...but software isn't going to magically make a phone receive signal on a band that's not supported by the hardware.

Exactly right Kevin.

The radios are hardware restricted to certain bands, as are the antennas. But within those bands there are many frequency pairs that you can select via software. Different carriers license different frequencies in different areas. So AT&T can operate in the AWS band (believe it or not they do have licenses in that band), in the same areas as T-Mo, but on different frequency pairs.
The antenna and amps can handle the entire band, (with minor degradation in those frequencies near the extreme edges of the band).

But phones not equipped with that band can't be programmed to have it. Penta-band vs quad-band still matters.




Sent from my A700 using Tapatalk 2