Jump to content

Why no phones that support both Wimax and LTE?


Recommended Posts

There are chipsets that support all three wimax,Lte and TD-lte, why not release phones that support atleast wimax and LTE? That way sprint could have leveraged the existing 70 markets with Wimax ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which chipsets support both WiMAX and LTE?

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would you want battery draining WiMax on your nice new phone?

 

Sent from my LG Viper 4G LTE using Forum Runner

 

There is option to switch off wimax in current phones isnt there? I use it on my evo all the time...when i am in city with wimax i switch it on like NYC,Cleveland,Syracuse etc otherwise i keep it off. There are lot of uses for example tethering which is lot better than being on 3G.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.tgdaily.c...-wimax-lte-chip

 

there are more as well.

 

Beceem? Do you really want a device based on a Beceem LTE/WiMAX modem? Like Qualcomm or not, the top devices use Qualcomm chipsets. And Qualcomm, to my knowledge, does not produce any LTE/WiMAX chipsets.

 

Furthermore, even with a Beceem (or something else of that ilk), a device would also require a CDMA2000 modem and an application processor. Thus, that would necessitate at least two, maybe even three total chipsets. Nope, no sale.

 

Now, compare that to the just released EVO LTE. Just one chipset, the Qualcomm MSM8960, runs the whole show -- CDMA2000, LTE, and the application processor. Not to mention, it is a 28 nm process SoC. All of that adds up to huge power consumption savings.

 

AJ

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beceem? Do you really want a device based on a Beceem LTE/WiMAX modem? Like Qualcomm or not, the top devices use Qualcomm chipsets. And Qualcomm, to my knowledge, does not produce any LTE/WiMAX chipsets.

 

Furthermore, even with a Beceem (or something else of that ilk), a device would also require a CDMA2000 modem and an application processor. Thus, that would necessitate at least two, maybe even three total chipsets. Nope, no sale.

 

Now, compare that to the just released EVO LTE. Just one chipset, the Qualcomm MSM8960, runs the whole show -- CDMA2000, LTE, and the application processor. Not to mention, it is a 28 nm process SoC. All of that adds up to huge power consumption savings.

 

AJ

 

And gives the manufacturer the ability to make the phone thinner than with extra chipsets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sprint couldn't realistically build a LTE/WiMax smartphone that would have specs and performance (especially battery performance) that was going to make their customers happy. The device would seem somewhat regressive.

 

Also, the cost would be quite high and OEM's wouldn't be thrilled to make it. And its shelf life would be limited too. And then there's the issue that WiMax never went full scale with deployment in only 71 cities.

 

As good of a fit as it may seem in the active WiMax markets, the good fit would be short lived and the device would probably not get good press. It just isn't a good idea, all things considered. People who just must have a LTE device now, but want to keep WiMax do have a MiFi option at least.

 

Robert via Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sprint couldn't realistically build a LTE/WiMax smartphone that would have specs and performance (especially battery performance) that was going to make their customers happy. The device would seem somewhat regressive.

 

Also, the cost would be quite high and OEM's wouldn't be thrilled to make it. And its shelf life would be limited too. And then there's the issue that WiMax never went full scale with deployment in only 71 cities.

 

As good of a fit as it may seem in the active WiMax markets, the good fit would be short lived and the device would probably not get good press. It just isn't a good idea, all things considered. People who just must have a LTE device now, but want to keep WiMax do have a MiFi option at least.

 

Robert via Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

 

or maybe freedompop style phone case would be cool too. what i meant was not something permanent but some sort of way to use those 71 markets until LTE is widespread. I hate to give up my EVO 4G Wimax for EVO 4G LTE at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beceem? Do you really want a device based on a Beceem LTE/WiMAX modem? Like Qualcomm or not, the top devices use Qualcomm chipsets. And Qualcomm, to my knowledge, does not produce any LTE/WiMAX chipsets.

 

Furthermore, even with a Beceem (or something else of that ilk), a device would also require a CDMA2000 modem and an application processor. Thus, that would necessitate at least two, maybe even three total chipsets. Nope, no sale.

 

Now, compare that to the just released EVO LTE. Just one chipset, the Qualcomm MSM8960, runs the whole show -- CDMA2000, LTE, and the application processor. Not to mention, it is a 28 nm process SoC. All of that adds up to huge power consumption savings.

 

AJ

 

here is another one http://www.sequans.com/ it makes sense what ur saying let say if sprint was launching with top 30-50 markets with first tier of lte phones. but they are giving phones with 0 LTE markets. Sprint has think outside the box if they want to survive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here is another one http://www.sequans.com/ it makes sense what ur saying let say if sprint was launching with top 30-50 markets with first tier of lte phones. but they are giving phones with 0 LTE markets. Sprint has think outside the box if they want to survive.

 

even if we were willing to take second-tier chipsets in order to support WiMax-LTE, how much would it cost? How many carriers use these "combo" chips? Since their would likely be very few (if any, other then Sprint) using such a chip, it would likely be pretty expensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

even if we were willing to take second-tier chipsets in order to support WiMax-LTE, how much would it cost? How many carriers use these "combo" chips? Since their would likely be very few (if any, other then Sprint) using such a chip, it would likely be pretty expensive.

 

I agree. Another thing to consider is that Sprint has said that it will only support Wi-Max through 2015. If it keeps sending out new devices with Wi-Max it just makes it more difficult to turn off the network in the future. Network Vision is about upgrading Sprint's network to be top-tier and about reducing their nightmarish maintenance costs.

 

To make NV successful AND to realize the full cost benefits I think they have to make a clean break with Wi-Max. Of course, I live in an area where there is no Wi-Max service, so I care a lot less about it than others might.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. Another thing to consider is that Sprint has said that it will only support Wi-Max through 2015. If it keeps sending out new devices with Wi-Max it just makes it more difficult to turn off the network in the future. Network Vision is about upgrading Sprint's network to be top-tier and about reducing their nightmarish maintenance costs.

 

To make NV successful AND to realize the full cost benefits I think they have to make a clean break with Wi-Max. Of course, I live in an area where there is no Wi-Max service, so I care a lot less about it than others might.

 

it can always be something like freedompop style phone case with wimax given to customers that are located in wimax coverage zone with expectation coverage will stop in 2015 or when LTE comes to city whichever case comes up first. This way Sprint does not get bad rap of launching LTE phones without any network in place. Like it or not Wimax is 4g tech. Sprint could have also prioritized places without any wimax at the moment for lte deployment with this strategy.

Edited by sprintfans
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People who just must have a LTE device now, but want to keep WiMax do have a MiFi option at least.

Speaking of the Mifi Option (sounds like a nuclear option), lol I ordered it last Friday and suppose to get it today. Although my laptop has 3G and 4G Wimax from Sprint, I figure I'll get the Sierra Wireless 4G Tri-Fi Hotspot and have both my laptop and Galaxy Note from AT&T connected to it. I love the phone but I've been really really close to the usage limits. Damn you Sprint for not having the Note.

Anyway, With the Tri-Fi, at least I'll be covered when NV gets switched on here in NYC by years end.

 

TS

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for the double post but got the 4g lte trifi hotspot and my speed is better than I expected. Granted its midnight and probably less folks on the network.

 

ForumRunner_20120530_002147.png

 

 

 

[ATTACH]28[/ATTACH]

 

Sent from my Samsung-Galaxy Note using Forum Runner

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reasons not to do it are certainly significant ones. But the lack of such devices does put some of us in a bind. Yes, WiMax never went nationwide, but for those that have it, and live in a city with severe 3G problems, giving it up before NV arrives is a really hard pill to swallow. Adding a WiMax chip would have made the transition for people like me seamless. Yes, it'd drain battery when I'm using it, but once LTE goes live, I'd turn the WiMax off and never use it again. Of course, I recognize it might make the phone more expensive and maybe thicker, and maybe there's even some battery drain that would still be there with the chip off. But it'd keep me from being in the dilemma of having to either give up on Sprint if I want to upgrade before the end of the year, or basically have a device that only works on WiFi in a lot of the areas I spend time.

 

I realize it's academic...it won't happen at this point, as only the first round of Sprint LTE phones would have any need for it, and they're already designed and in some cases released. Sprint will lose some customers for not having such devices. Whether it's a significant number and whether it would have justified the downsides of such devices, I can't say, but there will be customers who leave Sprint when told they have to go back to only having Sprint's 3G network available.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Sprint had any money they could have bribed Qualcomm to include WiMax functionality on one of their Gobi chips. As it is, Sprint couldn't afford it. HTC could include a separate Wimax chip, nothing stopping them.

Edited by bigsnake49
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who's to say they didn't try to bribe the chip makers, but didn't have enough money or the chip makers told them its not possible in such a small package.

 

Regardless, its true, its too late now. But one day, one manufacturer will create a future proof phone. One that can utilize the phones bottom connector and have different radio modules that can attach to the device so that you can plug and play sort of with any carrier, any where. The phone will still be a high power, top of the line device except no radios only wifi. You want to use it on Sprint, attached the Sprint radio module, want to use it on Verizon, get the Verizon Radio module, etc etc.

 

TS out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless, its true, its too late now. But one day, one manufacturer will create a future proof phone.

 

TS out

 

I don't think it's in any manufacturer's interest to create a "future-proof" anything. New technologies create new consumer desire. New devices meet that new demand. If I was a shareholder of any device manufacturer, the last thing I want the company to do is create something that will create less demand for future products. Planned obsolescence is the order of the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reasons not to do it are certainly significant ones. But the lack of such devices does put some of us in a bind. Yes, WiMax never went nationwide, but for those that have it, and live in a city with severe 3G problems, giving it up before NV arrives is a really hard pill to swallow. Adding a WiMax chip would have made the transition for people like me seamless. Yes, it'd drain battery when I'm using it, but once LTE goes live, I'd turn the WiMax off and never use it again. Of course, I recognize it might make the phone more expensive and maybe thicker, and maybe there's even some battery drain that would still be there with the chip off. But it'd keep me from being in the dilemma of having to either give up on Sprint if I want to upgrade before the end of the year, or basically have a device that only works on WiFi in a lot of the areas I spend time.

 

I realize it's academic...it won't happen at this point, as only the first round of Sprint LTE phones would have any need for it, and they're already designed and in some cases released. Sprint will lose some customers for not having such devices. Whether it's a significant number and whether it would have justified the downsides of such devices, I can't say, but there will be customers who leave Sprint when told they have to go back to only having Sprint's 3G network available.

 

Good to know there is someone else who shares my view. I say why even bother with making phone big..how about giving customer option to buy Wimax case(similar to Freedompop case for iphone) in areas where there is coverage. Why take so much bad publicty for releasing 4G phone without having network from media when they have invested so much money in WIMAX and having working 4G network in 71 cities??????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wish Sprint would stop playing games and put an Iridium chipset (in addition to WiMax, LTE and HSPA+) in these Android phones so I can talk, text, and surf while I'm 3000 miles out at sea. And, if they dont give me unlimited data for 3.29/month (or less) to go along with it while I'm out at sea, I'm gonna jump shit to VZW!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wish Sprint would stop playing games and put an Iridium chipset (in addition to WiMax, LTE and HSPA+) in these Android phones so I can talk, text, and surf while I'm 3000 miles out at sea. And, if they dont give me unlimited data for 3.29/month (or less) to go along with it while I'm out at sea, I'm gonna jump shit to VZW!

 

Jump shit? Is that a Freudian slip? :lol:

 

Robert

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • On Reddit, someone asked (skeptically) if the US Cellular buyout would result in better service.  I'd been pondering this very issue, and decided to cross-post my response here: I've been pondering the question in the title and I've come to the conclusion that the answer is that it's possible. Hear me out. Unlike some of the small carriers that work exclusively with one larger carrier, all three major carriers roam on US Cellular today in at least some areas, so far as I know. If that network ceases to exist, then the carriers would presumably want to recover those areas of lost service by building out natively. Thus, people in those areas who may only have service from US Cellular or from US Cellular and one other may gain competition from other carriers backfilling that loss. How likely is it? I'm not sure. But it's definitely feasible. Most notably, AT&T did their big roaming deal with US Cellular in support of FirstNet in places where they lacked native coverage. They can't just lose a huge chunk of coverage whole still making FirstNet happy; I suspect they'll have to build out and recover at least some of that area, if not most of it. So it'd be indirect, but I could imagine it. - Trip
    • Historically, T-Mobile has been the only carrier contracting with Crown Castle Solutions, at least in Brooklyn. I did a quick count of the ~35 nodes currently marked as "installed" and everything mapped appears to be T-Mobile. However, they have a macro sector pointed directly at this site and seem to continue relying on the older-style DAS nodes. Additionally, there's another Crown Castle Solutions node approved for construction just around the corner, well within range of their macro. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Verizon using a new vendor for their mmWave build, especially since the macro site directly behind this node lacks mmWave/CBRS deployment (limited to LTE plus C-Band). However, opting for a multi-carrier solution here seems unlikely unless another carrier has actually joined the build. This node is equidistant (about five blocks) between two AT&T macro sites, and there are no oDAS nodes deployed nearby. Although I'm not currently mapping AT&T, based on CellMapper, it appears to be right on cell edge for both sites. Regardless, it appears that whoever is deploying is planning for a significant build. There are eight Crown Castle Solutions nodes approved for construction in a 12-block by 2-block area.
    • Starlink (1900mhz) for T-Mobile, AST SpaceMobile (700mhz and 850mhz) for AT&T, GlobalStar (unknown frequency) for Apple, Iridium (unknown frequency) for Samsung, and AST SpaceMobile (850mhz) for Verizon only work on frequency bands the carrier has licensed nationwide.  These systems broadcast and listen on multiple frequencies at the same time in areas much wider than normal cellular market license areas.  They would struggle with only broadcasting certain frequencies only in certain markets so instead they require a nationwide license.  With the antennas that are included on the satellites, they have range of cellular band frequencies they support and can have different frequencies with different providers in each supported country.  The cellular bands in use are typically 5mhz x 5mhz bands (37.5mbps total for the entire cell) or smaller so they do not have a lot of data bandwidth for the satellite band covering a very large plot of land with potentially millions of customers in a single large cellular satellite cell.  I have heard that each of Starlink's cells sharing that bandwidth will cover 75 or more miles. Satellite cellular connectivity will be set to the lowest priority connection just before SOS service on supported mobile devices and is made available nationwide in supported countries.  The mobile device rules pushed by the provider decide when and where the device is allowed to connect to the satellite service and what services can be provided over that connection.  The satellite has a weak receiving antenna and is moving very quickly so any significant obstructions above your mobile device antenna could cause it not to work.  All the cellular satellite services are starting with texting only and some of them like Apple's solution only support a predefined set of text messages.  Eventually it is expected that a limited number of simultaneous voice calls (VoLTE) will run on these per satellite cell.  Any spare data will then be available as an extremely slow LTE data connection as it could potentially be shared by millions of people.  Satellite data from the way these are currently configured will likely never work well enough to use unless you are in a very remote location.
    • T-Mobile owns the PCS G-block across the contiguous U.S. so they can just use that spectrum to broadcast direct to cell. Ideally your phone would only connect to it in areas where there isn't any terrestrial service available.
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...