Anyone else notice AT&T's ability to "amplify" the facts?

[UNC]

Unfortunately on the 4G Part everyone else is correct. Verizon's current LTE network does not meet the standards. Now, in three years when verizon rolls out LTE+ it will meet the standards.

To be 4G per the international telecomm group (don't remember the name just reading about this) no carriers current or near future meets the 4G requirement of supporting speeds in excess of 100mbps.

Now, the huge difference is Verizon is using true 4th Generation technology, which no other US provider is doing yet. Sprints current 4G isn't cellular technology and besides that it is widely reported sprint is going to move to lte.

Just to add I average 1.5 to 2mbps in a good coverage area.

As for AT&Ts HSPA+ someone on there own forums stated that they found it thag is basically wasn't rolled out yet. Not only was it not discounted by AT&T others backed him up. So whether HSPA+ is out on AT&T or not is still a question.


Sent from my DROID2 GLOBAL using Tapatalk

Verizon LTE is 4g..... The International Body that decides these things has declared it as such....

"As the most advanced technologies currently defined for global wireless mobile broadband communications, IMT-Advanced is considered as '4G,'" the press release said, "although it is recognized that this term, while undefined, may also be applied to the forerunners of these technologies, LTE and WiMax, and to other evolved 3G technologies providing a substantial level of improvement in performance and capabilities with respect to the initial third generation systems now deployed."

LINK

Reread it. It says "the term". It does not say they meet the standards, only that they can use the 4G label.

Sent from my DROID2 GLOBAL using Tapatalk

You are really parsing things. It also says that they "recognize" the use of the term. Which means they accept it as 4g...

 

[gsdreams]

You are really parsing things. It also says that they "recognize" the use of the term. Which means they accept it as 4g...

Wow, so if Intel used the term "HyperTransport" for there Bus, which does not meet the specifications for the HyperTransport Bus. Then AMD said "we recognize there use of the term" Intel would suddenly have a HyperTransport Bus?

It doesn't work that way sorry.

It doesn't say they "accept" it as 4G. It is simply saying that they are willing to allow carriers to call it 4G, even though it doesn't meet the specs.

The article also went onto say what "True 4G" requirements are and what the ITU-R is considering "True 4G", which is the next generation of WiMax and LTE.

 

[UNC]

You are really parsing things. It also says that they "recognize" the use of the term. Which means they accept it as 4g...

Wow, so if Intel used the term "HyperTransport" for there Bus, which does not meet the specifications for the HyperTransport Bus. Then AMD said "we recognize there use of the term" Intel would suddenly have a HyperTransport Bus?

It doesn't work that way sorry.

It doesn't say they "accept" it as 4G. It is simply saying that they are willing to allow carriers to call it 4G, even though it doesn't meet the specs.

The article also went onto say what "True 4G" requirements are and what the ITU-R is considering "True 4G", which is the next generation of WiMax and LTE.

It does work that way.... They are the arbiters of what is CALLED 4g. If they recognize LTE as being called 4g that is the end all. If LTE was not 4g then the ITU would not recognize that moniker as being correct... They could easily just say 'we DO NOT recognize any of the technologies currently in use as 4g', but they didn't.... You're argument is basically 'the people who decide what can be called 4g are allowing things which they don't consider 4g to be called 4g'.....

Your hypertransport bus thing was off base.... If there was an international body that declared things such as hypertransport busses, and THEY recognized it.nvm.. Your analogy would maybe work if Sprint okayed Verizon calling LTE '4g'.

 

[Xplorer4x4]

Just curious if anyone else has noticed things like this:

""We’ve invested $75 billion in our wireless and wired networks over the last four years — more capital invested in the U.S. than any company in any industry. "

They quote both "Wired" and wireless. Where as all other carriers show seperately how much they spend on there networks for "Wireless" alone.

And I am curious, I don't remember AT&T ever doing anything in the time frame they give. Could this be a first with there new LTE network?

Just looking for opinions.

Of course ATT has to skew facts to cover there horrible customer service.

How about...

"AT&T: getting faster with 4G"

What a crock of shiz that is. Cleary they are avoiding any wording that implies that they currently have 4G. And even despite the fact that no current carrier's 4G network technically meets the definition of "4G", AT&T literally did NOTHING but slap a 4G sticker on their 3G technology. They literally changed nothing. My buddy and i compaired speeds a few weeks ago. His Atrix in AT&T 4G vs. my D2 on VZW 3G...i smoked his atrix. My DL was 4-5 times faster, and my UL was 10 times faster. AT&T's 3G is even supposed to be faster than VZWs, but clearly thats not the case.

Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk

I think Afterdawn.com had an article up awhile back, in most regions across the country, ATT one hands down in terms of speed. I went from a Moto Backflip with a 512Mhz stock cpu(Iwas overclocked to 750Mhz though) and always got 2 mbps from ATT all day every day. Verizon I get about 700 kbps max during prime time and about 1.5Mbps during off peak hours. ATT had far better speeds for me, but this phone obviously runs Android like android should run!

 

[czerdrill]

You are really parsing things. It also says that they "recognize" the use of the term. Which means they accept it as 4g...

Wow, so if Intel used the term "HyperTransport" for there Bus, which does not meet the specifications for the HyperTransport Bus. Then AMD said "we recognize there use of the term" Intel would suddenly have a HyperTransport Bus?

It doesn't work that way sorry.

It doesn't say they "accept" it as 4G. It is simply saying that they are willing to allow carriers to call it 4G, even though it doesn't meet the specs.

The article also went onto say what "True 4G" requirements are and what the ITU-R is considering "True 4G", which is the next generation of WiMax and LTE.

sure it works that way. you're saying they just decided "oh what the heck let's just call it 4G even though it's not 4G"? do we really need an international body to do that, then?

Heck, I think LTE meets the standards of 10G, and I recognize that even though I don't really believe it. It doesn't work that way....

and your Intel/AMD example was a horrible analogy....

 

[gsdreams]

Not going to sit here and argue, but I will say that it would have been hard for the ITU-R to not allow the use of the term 4G for the "forerunner" technologies to the 4G Specified by them considering all the Cellular carriers were already calling it 4G.

The way I read it, and I'm not arguing, is that the ITU-R acknowledge the use of the term "4G" for the forerunner technologies due to the fact that they are already being called "4G", but also stated that these are "Forerunner" technologies to what they have listed and documented as 4G. Reading it over and over again it still says the same thing to "ME" which is that although current technology is "NOT" the 4G specified by the ITU-R the current "advanced" technology that has gone up a level in speeds and service can use the term 4G for a way to differentiate it from 3G.

To me that press release was more like a way to stem off problems from providers already using the term "4G", which when T-Mobile, Spring, and Verizon all launched what they called "4G" they didn't match ITU-R spec at all. By putting out a press release allowing the term "4G" to be applied to the "forerunner" technologies to the "4G Standard" that has been released by the ITU-R it allowed the avoidance of anyone actually reading the actual specs and calling carriers on the fact that it doesn't follow the standards for "4G" listed by the ITU-R.

Essentially to me it seems more like carriers putting pressure on the ITU-R to somehow allow them to continue to use the term "4G" to their current technologies, even though they don't meat the standards set forth by the ITU-R, in order to avoid any complications caused by not yet having the technology to meet those standards in place.

 

[UNC]

Not going to sit here and argue, but I will say that it would have been hard for the ITU-R to not allow the use of the term 4G for the "forerunner" technologies to the 4G Specified by them considering all the Cellular carriers were already calling it 4G.

The way I read it, and I'm not arguing, is that the ITU-R acknowledge the use of the term "4G" for the forerunner technologies due to the fact that they are already being called "4G", but also stated that these are "Forerunner" technologies to what they have listed and documented as 4G. Reading it over and over again it still says the same thing to "ME" which is that although current technology is "NOT" the 4G specified by the ITU-R the current "advanced" technology that has gone up a level in speeds and service can use the term 4G for a way to differentiate it from 3G.

To me that press release was more like a way to stem off problems from providers already using the term "4G", which when T-Mobile, Spring, and Verizon all launched what they called "4G" they didn't match ITU-R spec at all. By putting out a press release allowing the term "4G" to be applied to the "forerunner" technologies to the "4G Standard" that has been released by the ITU-R it allowed the avoidance of anyone actually reading the actual specs and calling carriers on the fact that it doesn't follow the standards for "4G" listed by the ITU-R.

Essentially to me it seems more like carriers putting pressure on the ITU-R to somehow allow them to continue to use the term "4G" to their current technologies, even though they don't meat the standards set forth by the ITU-R, in order to avoid any complications caused by not yet having the technology to meet those standards in place.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion. But the arbiters have spoken and there is nothing wrong with labeling LTE or WiMax as "4g"....