Slashdot Mirror
Nexus 4 Includes Support For LTE
slashchuck writes "One of the drawbacks of Google's Nexus 4 was its lack of support for 4G LTE. Now comes a report from AnandTech that it's possible to enable partial LTE support on the device. It seems that a simple software update can allow the Nexus 4 smartphone to run on LTE Band 4. All users have to do is dial *#*#4636#*#* (INFO) or launch the Phone Info app. After that, choosing to connect to AWS networks should allow the Nexus 4 to run on LTE networks on Band 4. The AnandTech report states explicitly that the LG Nexus 4 only works on LTE Band 4, on 1700/2100MHz frequencies, and supports bandwidths of 5,10, and 20MHz."
Because maybe when Sprint gets it's 12th LTE tower up and running everyone else will be doing quantum teleportation.
It does, here's a quote from the article regarding T-Mobile and AT&T:
"For example, in the USA, AT&T previously discussed plans for LTE on Band 4 but has only rolled out LTE on Band 17 to date, and is rumored to be turning to refarming its PCS (1900 Band 2) and Cellular (850 Band 5) holdings for additional LTE capacity, perhaps in the stead of AWS. T-Mobile US however will use AWS for LTE."
I'm surprised the shift to LTE is still under discussion. I (and millions of others) have had Verizon LTE for nearly two years now using a Samsung phone. That is a dog's age in the tech world.
The context is the price of the phone. I have a Galaxy Nexus and a Nexus 4. The 4 is a moderate (though certainly noticeable) improvement over the latter, but costs less than half what my Galaxy Nexus cost. In less than a year, the price dropping more than 50% for a BETTER product is pretty ridiculous. This "hack" gets around one of the bigger drawbacks that people were complaining about, albeit for a small segment of phone owners.
This didn't work for me. Still no LTE - but 30 phones appeared out of nowhere.
#DeleteChrome
I understand why the plebs are so anxious for LTE, but I don't understand why nerds are. For a moderate speed boost in most cases (+/-5Mbps in real world) there's such a drastic (6+ hour) cut in battery life.
Does anyone really need to prove they're right about who did the original voice for Boba Fett that quickly?
Keep on knockin'
https://robbiecrash.me
T-Mobile is deploying LTE, but in all honesty, the distinction between them is moot for probably 70-80% of their customers.
HSPA+, when it works properly, is basically as fast as LTE. The catch is, HSPA+ only gets its fastest rates if the user has solid connections to two or more towers, because it works the same way a dialup shotgun modem worked -- the phone independently connects to two or more towers, then splits the bitstream and sends part to each tower. Upstream, the bits are recombined into a single bitstream by T-Mobile's network.
Where LTE makes a difference is suburbia. Specifically, suburban locations where the user can only see one tower well, but has a rock-solid signal from that one tower. THEN, the user might get 16-20mbps from LTE, but only 4-6mbps from HSPA.
Here's the catch: if the user has a mediocre signal from two towers, but a strong signal from NONE, he might discover that T-Mobile's 1700MHz LTE doesn't work at all, and he's still limited to 10-12mbps HSPA+. If the user has a mediocre signal from ONE tower, he'll probably be lucky to see 1-2mbps, just like he does now, and LTE won't work either.
Why? LTE's throughput is kind of like 8-VSB TV transmissions. When it's strong enough, it's flawless and full-speed, even when other radio modes are degrading badly. But the moment your signal gets even a tiny bit weaker than the minimum (roughly 10dBm stronger than the minimum for viable HSPA), you fall off the cliff and lose it entirely. You don't get slower LTE... you have no LTE *whatsoever*.
So... one strong tower == LTE faster than HSPA(+)
Two mediocre towers == HSPA+ mostly works, LTE doesn't work reliably.
One mediocre tower == HSPA limps along, LTE doesn't work at all.
Two or more strong towers == LTE slightly faster than HSPA+ in theory, and might use less power, but looking at speed alone, you'd be hard-pressed to tell with any real certainty whether the user was using LTE or HSPA+. LTE has better latency (no need to demux, split, buffer, and recombine bitstreams, and the symbol rate itself is faster), but the difference isn't all that huge.
Apple's cheapest phone is $650. Google's is $299. You'd have to be a fool to expect that they would be treated the same with that price delta. Also just how much is Apple paying for their goddamn radio that a 32GB iPod Touch is $299, but it's $650 for 16GB iPod Touch + Phone capabilities (iPhone)?
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum
Mobile data plans in the UK have always been a running joke with me (too little data for far too much), but Everything Everywhere in the UK have taken this to a new art form recently. They have a monopoly on 4G/LTE for a while and have decided to *start* their data plans at 36 pounds ($57) for 500 MB (yes, that's megabytes folks) per month. Yep, that's lower data and a much higher price than most 3G data plans.
So let me see, if say I get a 10Mbits/sec connection on 4G (and that's pretty conservative) and use it for a large download or a continuous stream at that rate, I will exhaust my expensive monthly 4G plan in under 7 minutes. Way to go, EE - let's make 4G utterly useless in the UK by underquotaing and overpricing it. Geniuses!