How Much LTE Spectrum Do Big Carriers Have?

alphadogg writes "The top U.S. carriers over the past year have stepped up their efforts to grab more spectrum for 4G wireless data services needed to accommodate a seemingly insatiable and exploding population of iPhone, iPad and other mobile device users. Here's a look at where Verizon, AT&T and others are at on the spectrum acquisition front and what they'll need in the future to deliver ubiquitous 4G service across the United States as mobile users seek to view and exchange more video and other bandwidth-hogging content."

Comments

Why the Apple reference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why reference the "exploding population of iPhone, iPad and other mobile device users" when the iPhone and iPad don't even have 4G?

Re:Why the Apple reference?

[not already in use]

Because once a 4g enabled iPhone is released, it will be introduced as being "revolutionary, the first to implement such technology." So really, the article is just forward-looking.

Re:Why the Apple reference?

[not already in use]

4g does mean something right now. It means you can advertise a phone as have another "g." Regardless of whether or not you can use that fourth "g," consumers are generally idiots that are easily swayed by such things. It's got 4 g's? Well it must be better than a phone with 3 g's. It's got a 5 megapixel camera instead of a 4 megapixel camera? More megapixels are better!

Re:Why the Apple reference?

[TheMeuge]

In a way, Apple has been wise to wait on 4G to catch up to the point where... well, where it actually means something because it doesn't mean anything right now.

I have been enjoying LTE on my Verizon HTC Thunderbolt for almost a year now, and I categorically disagree with that statement. It certainly means something because it's about 10x faster than the competitors, and is significantly (read - 2-3X) faster in real world use.

Re:Why the Apple reference?

[Anonymous Coward]

"because it's about 10x faster than the competitors, and is significantly (read - 2-3X) faster in real world use."

We're not talking about draining the battery, we're talking about the data transfer speeds.

Posting anonymously due to fanboys that will take a flamethrower to my karma, because they can't take a joke.

Re:Why the Apple reference?

[Dynedain]

I think what the GP meant is that since 4G isn't widespread, and there are differing network technologies that aren't completely settled yet, Apple was smart (in terms of what's better for their sales numbers) in not shipping a 4G unit because:

1) If a substantial portion (if not majority) of their customers can't use the 4G feature, Apple would get backlash for selling it.
2) It's a feature they'll be able to market as differentiating from their older devices once released.
3) They can wait for 4G network types to become more standardized, reducing design and manufacturing costs.
4) 4G is bad for battery time, and smartphones already suffer poorly in this regard.

For consumers, yes a 4G iPhone on the market now would be beneficial, but only for the user savvy enough to know why 4G is a good thing and only if they'll actually be able to use it. For everyone else, it's a meaningless feature on the side of the box.

Re:Why the Apple reference?

[geek]

Have fun using your monthly bandwidth cap in 30 minutes. LTE is worthless for anyone that know's it's limitations with the carriers right now.

Dear Carriers,

[sootman]

Your data networks are fast enough. Now, please stop charging out the ass for them.

Thanks,
Everyone

Stop calling it 4G

[ruiner13]

It isn't 4G, per the standard that was previously established for it. Quote:

In 2009, the ITU-R organization specified the IMT-Advanced (International Mobile Telecommunications Advanced) requirements for 4G standards, setting peak speed requirements for 4G service at 100 Mbit/s for high mobility communication (such as from trains and cars) and 1 Gbit/s for low mobility communication (such as pedestrians and stationary users).

So... who is getting between 100Mbit/sec and 1Gbit/sec? Anyone? Anyone?