Sprint/Clear calls tmobiles 4g bluff
Clear said: about t-mobile
First they called it 3G.
Then it was 4G-like.
Now it’s 4G. Confused yet?
http://www.clear.com/clear4gcompare?intcmp=home:t2:c ... »
They even compared verizons 4g vs there 4g
Clear said:
Verizon Wireless is a telephone company that is just getting into the 4G game.
http://www.clear.com/verizon4gvsclear4g »
Notice how Sprint/Clear has 3xtimes the amount of Spectrum as the other 3 major players. 😎
DiamondPro said:
Where did you get that info? 🤨
Every speed test ever done by anyone in a market that has both WiMax and HSPA+.
Amarantamin said:
Every speed test ever done by anyone in a market that has both WiMax and HSPA+.
Including this one?
https://www.phonescoop.com/articles/article.php?a=7145 »
I thought phonescoop would have saved me the trouble of having to do this with the article they just posted. But I guess thats not enouch for u. You may need to do more research. If not I have tons more proof that Wimax is way faster then hspa+ by a longshot, but they just released this article and its pretty good one to I think you should check it out 😉
If after you read that article and you stil...
(continues)
That Article You Posted said:...
In 80% of my network tests, Clear's WiMAX network beat AT&T and T-Mobile in terms of download speeds. Also, in terms of raw performance, the fastest speeds I saw on any network after Verizon were on Clear. In the historic Fort Worth stockyard district, a popular tourist spot, Clear often registered download speeds in excess of 11 Mbps. Though T-Mobile's HSPA+ network often came close, I never saw HSPA+ break the 10 Mbps mark.
That said, Clear's WiMAX service could be unreliable. Sprint's WiMAX network was far reaching, and I never found a spot that lacked a 4G signal. But even on the so-called 4G network, I often saw data slow to a crawl that was less than 1 Mbps. Or, I might have three c
(continues)
But we're mostly wireless employees one way or another here, and there's no reason not to be honest. I like PS because I can find facts here without going through my employer's propaganda of "WE ARE THE BEST!!!1!1!" and you have to understand that not everything that they say is exactly accurate.
dj89 said:
So, DiamondPro, I appreciate the effort you're doing for our company, and I agree, Sprint's not a bad option at all.
But we're mostly wireless employees one way or another here, and there's no reason not to be honest. I like PS because I can find facts here without going through my employer's propaganda of "WE ARE THE BEST!!!1!1!" and you have to understand that not everything that they say is exactly accurate.
I don't work for Sprint. And I definitely don't read there internal propaganda on how there number one. 🤣
I make a lot more money then Sprint can afford to pay me.
But by all means if something I stated has been false please correct me I am here to learn just like everyone els...
(continues)
It doesn't matter how much you make. No one cares and there is NO way you can prove that what you say is true. So by mentioning it you only make people assume you're lying about it.
If you made more money than sprint could afford to pay you, you would know this. (wealthy people tend to know the value of not flaunting it without evidence)
And if you're that effective at your job, you could make a lot as a retail rep.. a lot more than anyone outside of the industry would most likely guess.
But that doesn't change the fact that saying "I make more than x could pay me" or something along those lines ALWAYS makes people assume that you're lying, even if you're not, and even if they assume you're not lying, it doesn't aide your position in any way.
It would be like me arguing about coffee knowledge when discussing android programming.
Wow I guess you skimmed over that article
Especially parts like this
Sprint's WiMAX network was leaps and bounds ahead of both T-Mobile and AT&T
Overall, across all of my download tests on Clear's WiMAX network, I recorded an average speed of 3.8 Mbps.
In 80% of my network tests, Clear's WiMAX network beat AT&T and T-Mobile in terms of download speeds. Also, in terms of raw performance, the fastest speeds I saw on any network after Verizon were on Clear
Amarantamin said:...
I guess you were going for 'highest possible speed'. Personally, I consider 'consistantly faster' to be mor
(continues)
Which, when you're talking NATIONAL Consistancy tech, is kinda moot
btw pop quiz...
What carrier covers the most pops in the US?
But you're going off of 4g, in which case the answer is T-mobile (200million) with HSPA+.
But you want me to say wimax right? with 120 (projected.. you still haven't posted anything to prove this, and all i've found is press releases saying they INTEND to cover that many, not that all those markets are live) which is more than the 100 million LTE covers. Which again, I already answered this. yes, I got the numbers off by a bit at first. But numbers aren't the end all here. The fact remains that in ~6months, verizon went from 2 test markets (trials) to 100 million pops....
(continues)
Att covers the most pops in the US then Verizon, tmobile, and Sprint. The catch is Verizon and Sprint have the most 3g coverage by a very large margin. Att n tmobile are working hard to cover this gap but still have not done so at the moment.
The reason why I brought that up is because you were braggin about how many pops verizon covers when in fact att covers more pops than verizon. Yet verizon puts up comercials dissing att about coverage. So I think att works in more places then verizon does. Point is most people think verizon has the most voice coverage, even there own employees luckily your not one of them but you still drink there kool-aid daily in other ways. So for the record att ...
(continues)
And if you talk to a verizon rep, when they talk coverage they talk Data coverage. Voice coverage is only brought up if the customer mentions dropped calls (offering coverage and offering consistant coverage, especially from location to location is different than claiming pops, especially in rural areas)
People think verizon has the most voice coverage because of creative marketing and because tests consistantly rate them as having the best voice coverage.
As for 4g pops. Check the numbers again in 6 months.
So as of right now Sprint covers more pops and verizon needs 6mths to ketchup. 🤣
Im sorry but we are talking about right now! Not sometime in the future... Sprint is the NowNetwork verizon is the maybe someday. 🤣
What about the test ranking Sprint constantly more reliable than Verizon 3g network? That doesn't stop verizon from making the claim.
What are the pops for all 4 major carriers?
Verizon
Att
Sprint
Tmobile
I can only assume you misunderstood or didn't see the "how many pops does Sprint 4G cover today" part of my question, but seeing as how it was a fairly straightforward question, I'm not sure.
So I asked you for a link stating that Sprint 4G covered 260 million pops, and you pull one of your hat tricks out instead.
Sorry, it doesn't work like that. This isn't tit for tat or quid pro quo. You made a point, substantiated with "evidence," and I asked for a verifiable (i.e. not someone's...
(continues)
I can only assume that Sprint has met the goal, too, but until they state actual numbers, it's going to be difficult for anyone - on either side of the argument - to make any tangible points.
You demand that everyone else fact checks their posts, but when anyone asks you to do the same, you either ignore the question, link to marketing material (see first post of this thread) or link to an article you clearly didn't read, or at least understand.
They very well MIGHT have 120 million pops. But they haven't said they have. Let me repeat that CLear, the company, hasn't stated that they had more than 120 million pops.
Most likely they do, but we have NO way of verifying that, so in reality we have no idea HOW many people they cover.
I've always tried to take the higher road on here, and hope that others do as well, but CamelTowing can cause anyone to lose control of their sensibility.
Bathroom buddy, though? Seems like a cheap jab, to me.
I also will stand by my guard and fight fire with fire should menno or cosmicspiderman or any other name calling trash talker arise. I believe sometimes to combat evil you have to fight it with an even greater evil otherwise the good end up suffering at the hand of the bad and everyone loses. 😈
Fighting nearly everyone on phone scoop with a "greater evil" has left most everyone annoyed with you.
These are forums where people come to learn and discuss. You can learn far more and maybe even contribute with the knowledge gained from here if you would just take your own advice 😎
Take the high road Diamond 😎
So I appreciate you, in the end, taking the high road. And I hope the 4g coverage in it doesn't have an outage, like in so many places at any given time.
In real-world terms this meant videos might stutter and stall. Downloads might stop unexpectedly, or Web pages might require a refresh to finish loading a page properly.
THIS SEEMS FAIRLY IMPORTANT!!!!! BUT WHO AM I TO SAY?!?!?!
Here's one phonescoop did in philadelphia a few months back.
https://www.phonescoop.com/articles/article.php?a=37 ... »
Most speed tests i've seen have HSPA+ on top. The one you posted is actually the first one i've seen where wimax was faster.
These are the most important questions that you should already know the answers to because like you say markets vary so the speeds in you area are most important to you. Not Dallas or New York! In my market area and from all the research I have done Sprint wipes the floor with tmobile and it not even close. 😎
I can tell you after reading this reply I went and looked for articles saying Wimax is faster and I found exactly what I found before, most of them say HSPA+ is faster in the speed tests. The only one i found where wimax won is the new one from dallas/fort worth and a whole bunch of articles using it as their source.
Really these are recently deployed technologies though, we have to wait for one of the big national studies. Like PC magazines annual fastest network study. But again, none of this proves a better standard, it only proves a better deployment.
As for less users being on HSPA+, the standard is fully backward compatable with with the UMTS that T-mobile was using before.
So when T-mobile upgrades their sites to HSPA+ all UMTS users are using HSPA+ they just can't connect at full speed.
Wimax uses a seperate base station from EV-DO so having less users would skew sprint's speeds more than t-mobile's.
HSPA+ a just a revision of UMTS. Revisions sometimes require only minor hardware updates, sometimes none at all. Going UMTS to HSPA 7.2 only required a firmware update to deploy.
Backward compatable means that they don't have to maitain the origional technology for legacy users. All UMTS, HSAP 7.2 and HSPA+ users connect to HSPA+ when it is deployed.
Wimax is not that way. 3G users using Sprint's EV-DO are using a seperate band and base station, they only share backhaul. So only users that buy compatable equipment connect to sprints 4G.
I low score in 1 city does not equate to your network slowing down. We have to wait for a ...
(continues)
In every one of my replies to you I point out inaccuracies in your posts. They are full of them.
It seemed that the theme of your post that I replied to prior to this was that the reason that HSPA+ beat wimax in early tests is because no one was on HSPA+. I explained to you why the opposite of what you posted is actually true. No one was on wimax except people who purchased wimax devices. Everyone with any 3G device on T-mobile connects to HSPA+.
Rather than taking ownership of the factual error that you posted, it seems your strategy is misdirection. Your reply is that I don't understand the inferiority of HSPA+ to wimax.
I'm calling BS on that one. You're the one who doesn't seems to ...
(continues)
And as deepskyblue said, since HSPA+ is built out over HSPA, EVERY tmobile phone who is 3g is technically straining the network, even if they don't get those faster speeds.
Sprint posts that average expected download speeds with wimax are 3-6mbs. HSPA+ is a lot faster than 1mbps
Wimax < IMT-Advanded
HSPA+ < IMT-Advanced
Wimax 2 > IMT-Advanced
LTE-Advanced > IMT-Advanced
Wimax /=/ IMT-Advanced
Wimax = Fake 4G
Diamondpro = Uninformed >>
let me fix that for u
Wimax 2 = IMT-advanced
Lte advanced= IMT-advanced
Wimax = 4g
lte = 4g
hspa+ = 3g that tmobile lies and calls 4g
deepbluesky = misinformed cat emoticon
As for my emoticon...
This is an emoticon = 😲
Sebastian, my cat, is my avatar.
Yet another factual inaccuracy.
He's actually a very nice cat, not at all evil.
He's only hissed once in his lifetime. For the longest time we thought he didn't know how.
Im guessing you didnt click on the link or read this
How does CLEAR 4G compare?
We built the nation’s first 4G mobile wireless broadband network, so we’ve got the proven technology to deliver a great internet experience. CLEAR 4G is next generation. It’s a big leap over 3G, offering speed and capacity that is several times greater. And if that isn’t enough, CLEAR’s technology has the most spectrum in the industry. For you that means more speed, more value and more capacity. What more is there?
Proven technology 1
Capacity 2
Spectrum 3
Speed 4
Value 5
So by my count thats 5 big reasons in one paragraph. 😉
if diamondpro DOESN'T work for sprint, they should pay him just to stop posting.
(continues)
You had me through most of this, until you called me a Sprint hater. That seems to be your only consistent argument, but like the rest or your points, are based on nothing substantial. I might rib someone in the side about Sprint once in a while, but I'm just as apt to do that about my own employer and the other two carriers. If anything, I'm more likely to poke fun at Verizon than I am Sprint, AT&T, and T-Mobile, because I deal with corporate lunacy every day.
But fine, keep calling me that.
Oh, and my business has been mostly recession-proof, too. And you might be surprised what I make. Do I make less than when I started in this business, certainly, but not because of the reces...
(continues)
I dont talk about my career every 3 post you are indeed misinformed as usual this does not surprise me. At least 3 times people assumed I worked for Sprint until it became insulting. So I let him know I am not employed by Spr...
(continues)
No, I'd have to say once again that you and those like you have ruined PhoneScoop. I'm still here for the occasional consumer in need. What are YOU here for?
I don't spread lies about Sprint. I don't spread lies about any company. If anyone here is spreading lies about Sprint, it's more likely to be you with your unmoving devotion to Sprint. Do you think Sprint cares about you as much as you care about it?
Seeing as how it's rare of me to put down any company, you'd be hard pressed to find examples of me putting down Sprint, AT&T, T-Mobile OR Verizon. But still, you'd have to look, and since you're too busy trying to find links that justify your devot...
(continues)
I have research your recent post you have not posted anything that slanders Sprint directly as other have but your missing the point. Right now consumer wise Sprint is the best overall at the end of the day if you look at network quality, what u get, and how much u can do, Sprint pushes that past any of the other 3. If you disagree Id be more that happy to hear why. 😎
I'm missing the point?
YOU said:
it because Sprint haters like U and menno spreading false information about them and swaying potential customers away
https://www.phonescoop.com/carriers/forum.php?fm=m&f ... »
The point is, you refer to me specifically as a Sprint hater, and then admit that you can't find me expressly slandering them? Do you see why people are constantly disagreeing with you? You're inconsistent, your points and supporting material are flawed, you pride yourself on your employment, and then you come back with "yeah, but" style remarks. And on top of all that, your sentence structure and grammar are difficult to read ...
(continues)
You mention sprint beating everyone else on reliability... where's the link?
You mention Wimax is faster than HSPA+, where's the link?
If I were to claim that Verizon covers more pops you'd DEMAND a link.. and yet you give yourself a pass?
Have you really not seen the test that shows sprint to have the most reliable 3g network?
And guess what, Clear's partner / part-owner, Sprint, was the same exact thing.
Didn't Sprint "just get into the game" in the last year? Haven't they all been working on 4G deployment for years now? I know Sprint has. I know Verizon has.
And all to state that Verizon isn't set up to handle high-bandwidth use? I'm not sure that semantics are going to win this argument. Verizon Wireless has been running their own high-capacity fiber to their towers for several years. Verizon Communications has not.
In all, a pretty weird piece of marketing.
epik said:
Verizon is a telephone company. Verizon Wireless is a wireless communications company, and has been one for more than a decade.And guess what, Clear's partner / part-owner, Sprint, was the same exact thing.
Didn't Sprint "just get into the game" in the last year? Haven't they all been working on 4G deployment for years now? I know Sprint has. I know Verizon has.
Part owner but not full owner like verizon.
Sprint has been in the game since 2008 not last year.
Yes they both have but Sprint has made it available to customers a lot sooner while verizon was working behind the scenes creating hype for lte.
epik said:...
And all to state that Verizon isn't set up to h
(continues)
Verizon has the best spectrum holdings of any company for their 4G deployment.
https://www.phonescoop.com/articles/article.php?a=18 ... »
They've got the entire country plus double or triple the megahertz of a normal liscense in a lot of urban areas.
And it's in a band that's nearly 3 times more efficient that sprints 2500 mhz band.
deepskyblue said:
All sprint's specturm holdings seem to cause a strange intoxication in their employees.
Verizon has the best spectrum holdings of any company for their 4G deployment.
https://www.phonescoop.com/articles/article.php?a=18 ... »
They've got the entire country plus double or triple the megahertz of a normal liscense in a lot of urban areas.
And it's in a band that's nearly 3 times more efficient that sprints 2500 mhz band.
I don't work for Sprint!
No verizon spectrum is not the best. That statement is an opinion an extremely open one at that. Lets try to see if we can narrow down that opinion. Best can be one of many things. In regard to Spectrum for example Speed or range.
...
(continues)
If you're going off of what Deepskyblue said about 700mhz range because you don't know yourself, you really haven't read into it.. at all.
I've seen cellstudent give you a ton of reading material about why lower frequencies are better for data. Sources that are a heck of a lot more reliable than you hand out in return.
So obviously you're not reading the material.
What is says about sprint's spectrum is that you're comparing Cannonballs (700mhz) to Buckshot (2500mhz)
I don't go by what cellstudent or you say because you dont back them up with facts or articles like I do. Most of the time you just rant on about how verizon is better then everyone else or belittle other carriers who try to improve.
Please show me some of these sources you claim cellstudent dished out to me... btw please discredit the information in the source I gave u. That was the first thing I found 1min after reading you post. I cant tell you how many times you have been ask for proof to back up your statements and did not find any. 🤣
Maybe you should READ an article before posting it, hmm?
And if someone is making a rational request, they get links.
Even if I posted links, you wouldn't read them (you don't read your OWN links, why should you read others?) and a lot of the stuff YOU PERSONALLY have asked for information on is readily available and was news posted on THIS SITE or others like it.
I'm not skirting the truth by telling you to google it, I'm telling you it's common knowledge so the fact that you DON'T know where to find what I'm talking about is troubling.
I'm wa...
(continues)
That is my response.
Also consider: The site you linked is a wordpressblog running a stock theme (so thrown together) and is posting without giving ANY idea who the authors are.
And again, you posted a PRO-VERIZON link to back up your claims.
Some idiot bitching about a data cap in a comment doesn't support your claim. Period. That's about as useful as someone saying the SAME thing here. For all we know, that comment COULD be yours.
Secondly, the article does not mention ANYTHING about spectrum limits, clear, sprint, wimax, or how anything about LTE is negative. At all.
The ONLY thing they said is that it will allow speeds that it might not be profitable (at first) to offer high cap or unlimited plans since Verizon's first responsibility as a business is to make money (which is true of all businesses).
YOU need to read the article period.
I'll give you a head start:
1: It's written by an anonymous contributor with n...
(continues)
Now, the other post he linked to (a broadband networks blog) IS opinion.
The bottle neck so far has always been the standard they are using and the backhaul.
Look at how the market values the different bands. Clear has market average of about 150 Mhz of spectrum that they paid about 3.5 billion for. The FCC has not even auctioned the full 100 mhz of the 700 band has sold nearly 40 billion dollars in licenses.
Clears spectrum has traditionally been used for shortwave radio broadcasting, it works for cell phones but it doesn't penetrate buildings and you need 2 to 3 times as many towers to cover a market.
If the 700 band became a limiting factor you would have to deploy more towers so t...
(continues)
It's true verizon's been improving Fiber backhaul in their towers for a couple of years now, but if sprint wasn't doing that there was something wrong. heck, Att should be doing it now too, even though they are a year out from deployment.
But they didn't have LTE networks up and running all over the place and just kept them from the public. they had two test markets, and the rest of the sites started lighting up maybe a few months back for larger user trials.
This is very different from launching the network in 2008. They didn't even start test markets until late last year.
So yes...
(continues)
http://www.highspeedexperts.com/vz-4g-too-fast/ »
btw you got both of those easy question I asked you about lte and wimax wrong! So your knowledge on about 4g could use some work. 😎
And unless you can LINK to a direct source (not marketing) you saying I got the questions wrong is about as useful as tits on a boar
A basic wordpress blog using a stock theme that doesn't list WHO the authors are or why we should care about them..
Do you know ANYTHING about research? Linking to that is like linking to a xanga page
"Verizon's network is SO good, and their service SO popular that unlimited bandwidth will not be profitable at launch."
You know it was basically defending verizon's move to going to tiered data as the ONLY rational option, right? And that it NEVER mentioned wimax, bandwidth caps (profit cap is not the same as bandwidth cap)
In fact, that article mentions NOTHING about the spectrum crunch whatsoever.
So in essence, you just posted an article entirely unrelated to the topic at hand, that doesn't support your point AT ALL and is in fact very PRO-VERIZON.
So what did you do? See the title, giddily copy/paste the link and post here without actually reading it?
I can use a article meant to make verizon look good also look very bad and Smart customers will pick up on this very quickly as you did not that tells me you need to read it again. The comment at the bottom of the page maybe an easier start for you and point u in the right direction. As it clearly points out one of the 3 major flaws with verizon lte network. The article points out the other 2 if you cant see them Ill copy and paste them for u later. Im done debating with u for now! 😉
There are so many variables to consider, but a few things are clear. Firstly, Verizon’s 4G looks like it will be incredibly fast, and that is a very good thing. Second, Verizon’s existing bandwidth caps are very generous, and are hard to reach with most mobile devices unless one is using a broadband modem and a laptop 24/7. Lastly, Verizon is likely to deploy 4G services in stages, with major markets receiving the upgrades first and secondary markets receiving the eventual 4G roll-out over time. This should give Verizon plenty of time to fine-tune their offerings to meet the needs of consumers, and that is ultimately the goal of any company.
You're taking an article and then making OPTINIONS about it and claiming...
(continues)
Newflash: you cannot send pics larger than 300kb on tmobile's junk network
That equals a 3sec video recorded on a nexus one 🤣
The g2 is not a 4g phone but it is now all of a sudden that the my touch 4 got released... smh
I could go over the list of flaws with that brick u call the g2 but Im sure u already know that since u have one. 🤣
It obvious tmobile will lie right to your face but u still remain a customer. Why? 🙄
The funny part is, DP posted the link because he thought it was anti-Verizon. I'll never get over that one.
You said:
Sprint has been in the game since 2008 not last year.
Sorry. My bad. I should have said this:
Didn't Sprint "just get into the game" a year and a half ago?
You said:
Tmobiles has even stated there competitors do not have enough spectrum to properly deploy 4g.
First, what sense does it make to have T-Mobile as your source for information about the other carriers. T-Mobile has little idea what's going on any the other big three carriers, and can only speculate as to anything their competition is doing. Sure, they have the logic of how much spectrum THEY need to deploy 4G, but they have little clue as to what's going on with anyone else.
(continues)
...you're blind, and trying to look like Ray Charles.
So sprint has been in the pretending to have 4G game the longest, verizon is just getting into the pretending to have 4G game and T-mobile is pretending a little harder than everyone else. AT&T too will begin pretending in Q2 or Q3 2011.
Notice how Sprint/Clear has 3xtimes the amount of Spectrum as the other 3 major players.
Are you going by the bubbles? Are they peer reviewed?
deepskyblue said:
LTE-Advanced is the only 4G standard currently in existance and no one will be deploying it for quite a while.
So sprint has been in the pretending to have 4G game the longest, verizon is just getting into the pretending to have 4G game and T-mobile is pretending a little harder than everyone else. AT&T too will begin pretending in Q2 or Q3 2011.
Are you going by the bubbles? Are they peer reviewed?
Are you serious? Allow me to share some facts with you.
Wimax 2 and lte-advanced both meet and exceed the requirements by the ITU for 4g speedwise and are both candidates but have not passed the ITU trials yet neither has Lte advanced.
More importantly Wimax 2 is much farther alon...
(continues)
http://www.phonearena.com/news/LTE-Advanced-certifie ... »
On top of that, so was your beloved Wimax2
and a demo station at a tech show is not Real world speeds.
Don't tell people to do their research when you don't even know what you're talking about with your OWN pet technologies.
And if LTE-advanced isn't standardized yet as you claim, the speeds wimax2 get's in comparison to it are MEANINGLESS since LTE-Advanced definition is constantly changing.
And deepbluesky doesn't use verizon. They don't even particularly LIKE verizon as far as those things go. They just are calling a spade a spade, or in this case, pointless basless advertising... pointles...
(continues)
So I guess the demo booth verizon has on there website isn't real either. 🤣
You definitely don't know what your talking about as recall you were the one corrected by wiwavelink not me. 🤣 isn't he one of those tower techs u said correct me all the time?
Obviously I did know what I was talking about deepbluesky is the one who said Lte advanced was the only 4g standard. When in fact Wimax 2 is 4g and was at one point the only 4g standard and ratified first so thank u for further proving my point. My question is why didn't you bother correcting him when he posted that response? 🤨
I know why because u only troll my post and happen to become educated in the process by me and eve...
(continues)
YOU said this:
Wimax 2 and lte-advanced both meet and exceed the requirements by the ITU for 4g speedwise and are both candidates but have not passed the ITU trials yet neither has Lte advanced.
Which is what I was responding to. YOU Were the one who claimed that NEITHER tech was certified, just that they met the requirements. FREAKING READ YOUR OWN POSTS. I didn't prove your point, I pointed out that you didn't even know that Wimax2 was officially listed as 4g.
A demo station is a white box proof of concept. It's a demonstration in a tighly controlled environment without minimal chance of interruption. It was a...
(continues)
So yes it looks like wimax 2 got approved as well.
In any case, none of these technolgies will be deployed by any mobile network operater any time soon.
You can champion the benifits of wimax all you want, it's niche move at best by sprint. They may never release wimax 2, they may opt for LTE instead. I'm not saying Wimax is useless, it may be handy for isps not having to run wires to people homes or it may fade away into oblivion.
Who is backing LTE? The GSM association, that means virtually all of Europe. About 80% - 90% or Asia, Africa and South America use the GSM association standards because they are considered the "global sta...
(continues)
You're absolutely crazy if you think wimax is the global standard.
Here's a little reading for you to do. You should really read before you post somthing that is completely wrong, not after.
http://www.gsacom.com/gsm_3g/market_update.php4 »
Quote:
"The GSM family of systems (which embraces GPRS/EDGE, WCDMA-HSPA, HSPA+ and LTE) increased its global subscriptions market share to 89.7% by 31.12.09."
Nearly a 90% market share as of december 2009, and that's increasing because, most worldwide CDMA operators are going with LTE. CDMA was a niche standard but it's peak market share blows away anything Wimax could ever...
(continues)
It will be used by some ISPs as an alternative to having to run internet lines to homes.
I asked him the following:
Please give me any evidence, that's not from a clear or sprint site, that says that Verizon's going to have some sort of Crisis and not be able to deploy their network because of a lack of bandwidth.
Source: https://www.phonescoop.com/carriers/forum.php ?fm=m&ff=1&fi=2612106
He gave me this:
This is the first thing I found and I'm pretty sure there a lot more big red doesn't want u to know about its 4g lte network.
http://www.highspeedexperts.com/vz-4g-too-fast/ »
I won't say anything about the source. You should read it though and then think for yourself about what the article is saying and...
(continues)
Menno said:
I won't say anything about the source. You should read it though and then think for yourself about what the article is saying and if it supports his position.
I don't think anything else has to be said.
The article that Diamond gave supports what Verizon has hinted to for a while now about the days of unlimited use plans possibly coming to an end.
I don't care what carrier anyone supports or hates here, it's an easy to understand article. I would call it a must read to give everyone better insight into what is happening in the industry.
It does not however support Diamonds position regarding lack of bandwidth. It makes him look foolish among even die hard Sprint fans 😳
Menno said:
Please give me any evidence, that's not from a clear or sprint site, that says that Verizon's going to have some sort of Crisis and not be able to deploy their network because of a lack of bandwidth.
This was your original question. Then u said this:
Menno said:
Secondly, the article does not mention ANYTHING about spectrum limits, clear, sprint, wimax, or how anything about LTE is negative. At all.
Your question had nothing to do with anything about spectrum limits, clear, sprint, wimax, or negative facts about lte. Your question was about lack of bandwidth. But in your own response you became very off topic with everything else u mentioned.
Now l...
(continues)
Also, it is the same issue clears havingright now and will have. The issue of keeping money to expand.
You read it again.
Unless you're going to tell me that Clear's fiber network is better than Verizon's FiOS and Nationwide backhaul network.
Consider this, they have 120million pops (assuming that number is accurate)
Last quarter's statement pegged them at having 3 million subscribers. Let's double that to work in Sprint users. So 6 million.
so basically they currently serve 5% of their pop market, and that % is hopefully growing. Now even at that 5%, they're still throttling speeds, and some cities have capacity issues. This isn't knocking their network. more than likely, that 5% includes a lot of "heavy users" aka, people who consume dat...
(continues)
Jack said:5 GiG is ridiculous to begin with. This year i was fortunate to get rid of Starband which has caps of 5 gig per month as well. 5 Gigs is not enough to do anything but open News articles. You can;t even consider d/ling a movie or Music. You can’t play games which is one reason to have a faster speed. My Fiber is 75 gig a month which allows me plenty of room to surf, but more important i do NOT have to keep a constant watch on my limits.Paying some $50 or so a month is not cheap and people deserve better than 5 gigs for that.
Menno said:...
No, you need to read the article again.
Some idiot bitching about a data cap
(continues)
What you don't seem to understand is that the "problems" that article is listing are entirely backhaul/financial related. They have NOTHING to do with network availability or Spectrum.
In fact, the article is quick to point out that the issue ISN'T Spectrum, but that Verizon sacrificed that heavy bandwidth capability initially so that they can build out a NATIONWIDE network faster.
This initial launch is targeted almost exclusively at businesses. And no, 5gb isn't a drop in the bucket when it comes to home usage which is why verizon isn't ADVERTISING this as a home replacement package, at least initially.
You're comparing two networks that are...
(continues)
It would be like me quoting someone from another site's comment section to back up my claim. there is no reason you should believe what they say, and they're not talking from a position of authority.