Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Wireless Networking Cellphones Communications

Sprint Details Shift To LTE 183

Posted by Soulskill
from the anticipating-iphone-data-hogs dept.
New submitter jmeboi writes "Engadget reports that Sprint has announced a rollover from WiMAX to LTE for its 4G needs. The company is 'converting its 1900MHz holdings and LightSquared's 1600MHz spectrum ("pending FCC approval") to LTE,' and also re-purposing the section of 800MHz spectrum that was set aside for the defunct iDEN push-to-talk network. 'The company plans for a rapid deployment of this new 4G, with the first LTE markets and handsets to hit in mid-2012 with the full rollout mostly completed by 2013. Current subscribers signed up for WiMAX plans won't have to worry, as their devices will continue to be supported throughout 2012.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sprint Details Shift To LTE

Comments Filter:
  • uhh... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by metalgamer84 (1916754) on Friday October 07, 2011 @12:25PM (#37640240)
    So my new Evo Shift 4G will no longer have WiMAX/4G capability after 2012? Unlike some people, I don't buy new phones every 2 years...
  • by Erich (151) on Friday October 07, 2011 @12:30PM (#37640312) Homepage Journal
    The WiMAX network is pretty bad. Coverage is virtually nonexistant, even in cities "with WiMAX coverage" In Austin, there are very few places where WiMAX works ... and seemingly never in places like the airport where you actually want it. If you ever happen to get it working, speeds are marginally better than EVDO.

    LTE should work much better, and it will align with the rest of the industry.

  • Re:uhh... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheRaven64 (641858) on Friday October 07, 2011 @12:35PM (#37640382) Journal
    This is what happens when you let the free market decide on standards with geographical monopolies. This is why a particular protocol is mandated with spectrum sales in most of the world. Irrespective of the relative technical merits of GSM versus CDMA, it's pretty clear that GSM is superior to CDMA and GSM with incompatible client devices for the two networks and customers locked in to one or the other depending on what phone they bought. It appears that the USA didn't learn from this mistake the first time around...
  • Re:uhh... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gad_zuki! (70830) on Friday October 07, 2011 @01:41PM (#37641328)

    None of that matters if you like to travel. Or if you like to actually own a phone and can swap out SIM cards to change phone numbers and carriers quickly.

    Or if you like fast 3G (EVDO vs UMTS/HSPDA).

    So CDMA is technically better, in theory but in practice its a lot of lock-in and slow ass 3G. There's more to deciding which is better than just tech specs on a piece of paper, but this being slashdot, we have the "TECHNICALLY CORRECT IS THE BEST KIND OF CORRECT" crowd.

  • Re:uhh... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Registered Coward v2 (447531) on Friday October 07, 2011 @01:45PM (#37641388)

    This is what happens when you let the free market decide on standards with geographical monopolies. This is why a particular protocol is mandated with spectrum sales in most of the world. Irrespective of the relative technical merits of GSM versus CDMA, it's pretty clear that GSM is superior to CDMA and GSM with incompatible client devices for the two networks and customers locked in to one or the other depending on what phone they bought. It appears that the USA didn't learn from this mistake the first time around...

    That's so right. I really like the ability to pay 20Euros a month and roam anywhere within the EU without paying any roaming charges since all my calls/texts are included in the flat fee no matter where I am in the EU. Add in a data plan and I don't have to worry about data charges while I roam either.

    Different markets evolve differently - for 90% of the US phone use the incompatibility is a non-issue - they have a phone that works wherever they go. They get a flat price no matter where they roam in an area roughly as big as the EU. With the advent of "free" mobile to mobile and nights and weekends even the minute caps are largely a non-issue. Nor do I have to worry if I call a cell phone form a land line - no extra charge their either.

    While what we have is different than what you have, it's not inherently better or worse - just different and an adaptation to our market characteristics.

  • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Friday October 07, 2011 @01:49PM (#37641420)

    Saying GSM is "better" than CDMA implies a technical benefit, that the standard itself is superior. That is not the case. GSM is much more widely adopted than CDMA. Now that is a very legit reason to use it. But let's not confuse "widely adopted" with "better".

    As to what is best for you to use, well that is up to the individual.

  • by jpstanle (1604059) on Friday October 07, 2011 @02:22PM (#37641842)

    CDMA is a multiplexing/multiple access technique. GSM is a standard (and a rather old one at that). UMTS/HSPA, though they use SIM cards and were developed by the same standards body as, and somewhat backwards compatible with, GSM, they are not GSM. GSM is a 2G standard like cdmaOne. UMTS is a 3G standard like CDMA2000 (the actual standard that Sprint and Verizon use).

    Good thing someone actually recognized the technical merit of CDMA though, because UMTS/HSPA ditched the TDMA scheme used in GSM for a CDMA-based scheme.

UNIX is many things to many people, but it's never been everything to anybody.

Working...