T-Mobile = America's largest 4G network?

[josh05]

I found this article on the NY Post as well as other supporting articles online. It seems that tmo has been pouring their funds into developing their own network these past years. They claim their HSPA speeds are on par or superior to Sprint's wimax 4G speeds and covers a larger area. Here is the link:http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/11/03/5398000-t-mobile-claims-largest-4g-network-title-sticks-it-to-sprint

[mark_rivers19]

well, it's about time that T-mobile finally get their showtime with the Big Boys..
Competition always benefit the consumer.

[syb0rg]

It's not "4G"

I guess it is their fourth generation of technology so it would be "4G" in a sense of the phrase.

Anyway i am a proud t-mobile supporter but if they start locking down their phones, VZW here i come.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[pbflash]

No carriers have true 4G yet in terms of the speed specs for 4G. The 4G they keep advertising is just their 4th gen of tech as mjneid posted.

[The_Engine]

Phandroid.com had a great post from technology aficionado, guru, and madman David C Bauman on "What's in a G".

link is here:
[Guest Post] What’s in a G? Why You Might Not Be on 4G (or even 3G) | Android Phone Fans

Read on for his insightful commentary.

What’s in a G? In today’s modern world, many people’s lifestyles depend on 3 of them, but few understand what makes one up. Around 2001, the first true 3G standard surfaced: UMTS, by the 3GPP. This was followed quickly by CDMA2000, in 2002, by the 3GPP2, and both are considered part of the International Mobile Telecommunications-2000 (IMT-2000) standards for mobile phones and data services, under the International Telecommunication Union chartered by the United Nations. 3G is a world-wide standard, similar to how a kilogram is the same in England as it is in Japan. Standards are important, and guarantee specific services from products claiming to be compatible with them.
Taylor over at androidandme.com recently blew the whistle on T-Mobile’s Project Emerald, which will bring up the marketing hype behind their nation-wide HSPA+ rollout behind the 4G moniker. Why are they making this obviously false claim? HSPA+ is still a 3G technology, after all. Sometimes, the only way to fight misinformation is with misinformation.
T-Mobile is obviously responding in kind to Sprint and Verizon, who are touting their new 4G networks. Sprint has turned up its WiMAX solution to cover over 40 million users already, while Verizon has not been shy about announcing their plans to blanket the nation with their LTE solution starting at the end of 2010. T-Mobile’s planned HSPA+ network is capable of matching or exceeding the speeds of both Sprint’s planned WiMAX network and Verizon’s planned LTE network. How can 3G and 4G be equal, though? Somebody’s obviously playing dirty pool. T-Mobile’s network isn’t 4G as defined by ITU-R’s IMT-Advanced specification, which requires 1 Gbps of throughput between stationary objects, and 100 Mbps to objects in motion, with tower to tower handoffs. Technically, HSPA+ isn’t capable of even half those speeds, and certainly doesn’t meet the rest of the IMT Advanced specification, which is why HSPA+ isn’t a 4G technology. Sprint’s WiMAX deployment, however, isn’t a 4G technology either, nor is Verizon’s LTE. They’re 3G Transitional, or, 3.9G. HSPA+ is a 3.75G – both are above the straight 3G specification, but all of them fall way short of the 4G standard.
Looking even deeper into the IMT-2000 specification, it’s worth noting that while CDMA2000 is a 3G technology, for a network to be classified as 3G-capable, it must support simultaneous voice and data service usage, something that neither Sprint nor Verizon can claim across their CDMA deployment. Even though they’re touting a 4G network, they don’t even have a 3G one that spans 100 feet, let alone coast to coast. Sprint’s WiMAX solution meets all the criteria for a 3G network, allowing simultaneous voice and data, and Verizon is in the testing stages of a new CDMA standard called SVDO, which will allow for simultaneous voice + data over their existing network (which is currently EVDO Rev A), but until that goes live in 2011, they may be the largest national carrier but they’re a G short of everybody else, anywhere.
With every provider lying about standards, network types, and coverage offered, the entire American mobile industry seems to be misrepresenting something or other, and the consumers are left out in the cold. Marketing has confused many, and any semblance of standards has been pushed aside. Maybe I’m splitting hairs, here, but it feels like I’m paying for a kilogram, being told I’m getting a kilogram, and when I get home, I’m a pound short.

There was also a great chart somewhere showing the Speeds and Latency and stuff between the technologies. That is really where VZW's LTE shined. Only slightly faster than HSPA+ but the Latency was much, much better. I will see if I can find that.

[avt123]

HSPA+ is NOT 4G. This is just marketing lies. Someone can probably sue T-Mobile for this and actually win if they present a good case. HSPA+ is not 4G technology.

Also, that article is interesting. It says you must have simultaneous voice and data to be considered 3G, yet they ITU considers EDGE 3G technology.

Quoted from Engadget

heck, even EDGE and CDMA2000 without EV-DO technically qualify as 3G in the eyes of the ITU

ITU lays down law: WiMAX 2, LTE-Advanced are 4G, everyone else is a buster -- Engadget

[syb0rg]

Originally Posted by avt123

HSPA+ is NOT 4G. This is just marketing lies. Someone can probably sue T-Mobile for this and actually win if they present a good case. HSPA+ is not 4G technology.

Neither is WiMax or LTE, but yet Verzion and Sprint are throwing them around just as T-Mobile is.

By independent standards Sprint, Verzion, and t-Mobile are all "4G". and since the FCC hasn't laid down the by laws of 4G, they can use the terms.

Once the FCC steps in with definitions i wonder how many will revoke the title of "4G"

[avt123]

Originally Posted by mjneid

Neither is WiMax or LTE, but yet Verzion and Sprint are throwing them around just as T-Mobile is.

By independent standards Sprint, Verzion, and t-Mobile are all "4G". and since the FCC hasn't laid down the by laws of 4G, they can use the terms.

Once the FCC steps in with definitions i wonder how many will revoke the title of "4G"

But isn't LTE and WiMAx considered 4G technology? They just do not have 4G speeds? HSPA+ can NEVER be considered 4G.

I know LTE and WiMax are not running at 4G speeds right now, but isn't it the technology itself that is 4G?

And people could sue VZW and Sprint. I just think it would be easier to sue T-Mobile since HSPA+ will never leave the 3G realm.

[CharredPC]

My question is, is it "largest square mile coverage" or "largest population coverage?" I know there's no important difference to some people, but not living in one of the major metropolitan areas, it matters to me. I could say I have the "largest wifi coverage" if I put my router in the middle of Times Square on New Year's eve- just look at the population within range of my signal! Unfortunately, letting the rest of the network (ie, any central / midwest city with a population under 200,000 seems to be T-Mobile's cutoff) sag into patchy 2G-or-less oblivion takes a little shine off their 4G bragging rights, IMHO.

[josh05]

T-Mobile claimed their coverage of 4G to be prevalent in the metopolitan areas more than the rural uninhabited areas according to the article posted. Whether it is 4G or simply 3.5G, if you will, i still find this growth on Tmo's part to be especially impressive.

[NorrisCell]

Originally Posted by avt123

But isn't LTE and WiMAx considered 4G technology? They just do not have 4G speeds? HSPA+ can NEVER be considered 4G.

I know LTE and WiMax are not running at 4G speeds right now, but isn't it the technology itself that is 4G?

And people could sue VZW and Sprint. I just think it would be easier to sue T-Mobile since HSPA+ will never leave the 3G realm.

If it's not running at 4G now, it's not 4G. Dress it up how you will, no one has it. It's the equivalent of an elementary school kid saying I could jump off that bridge, but I don't want to. Until it's actually been done, it's just theory.

Aside from all that, sue someone? Really? Not to say someone wouldn't try it, but if every marketing department who had reworded facts to sound impressive got sued, we'd lose most major companies

[The_Engine]

The problem is that there seems to be no real central agreement on these standards and not 1 recognized measurement. The FCC won't get involved. They only care that the signal fpewnt railroad anyone else and that you aren't biking yourself using the device.

And if the technology isn't delivering 4G results you can't refer to it as 4G.

This will case where marketing influences popular opinion and then that becomes the standard.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[The_Engine]

Its also a case where we all benefit from the competition.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[avt123]

Originally Posted by NorrisCell

If it's not running at 4G now, it's not 4G. Dress it up how you will, no one has it. It's the equivalent of an elementary school kid saying I could jump off that bridge, but I don't want to. Until it's actually been done, it's just theory.

Aside from all that, sue someone? Really? Not to say someone wouldn't try it, but if every marketing department who had reworded facts to sound impressive got sued, we'd lose most major companies

The speeds may not be 4G, but the technology itself being used is 4G technology. The way data/voice is being achieved is different. At least that is what I read in a different article. But since we are just basing it off speed alone, then no it is not. But the fact still remains HSPA+ is not as efficient and cannot achieve the speeds of first releas LTE and WiMax.

And yes, I can see someone suing them. Why not? There are people suing for even more useless things. No one is even rewording fact here, HSPA+ has never been considered 4G.

[syb0rg]

Originally Posted by avt123

The speeds may not be 4G, but the technology itself being used is 4G technology.

Tech'lly T-Mobile is on their 4th generation of wireless data technology, so it is "4G" in their POV.

The problem is the standards that define the qualification of 4G haven't been laid down. So each carrier can use 4G has they want.

cincinnati bell uses the same frequency, and has the same speeds at T-Mobile but they are only broadcasting 3G, because they are on their 3rd generation...

no standards = freedom of wording i guess.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com