UK's Everything Everywhere (T-Mobile + Orange) 20 MHz x 20 MHz LTE 1800 network

[Paynefanbro]

http://m.androidcentral.com/ee-double-speed-lte-officially-launches-july-4

 

EE just launched a 2x20 LTE network in the UK and claim that it has peaks above 100Mbps. They are only advertising average speeds of 40Mbps though. Do you guys think that Sprint/Clearwire will be able to offer average speeds similar although that maximum throughput will be lower? Do you think that Verizon and T-Mobile will follow suit and under promise to over achieve? Not that the speed of the network matters much to me, I'd just like to see how you guys think Verizon or T-Mobile woukd market such a network.

[WiWavelength]

Wow, 20 MHz downlink but only 2 MHz uplink?

 

 

AJ

[tybo31316]

http://m.androidcentral.com/ee-double-speed-lte-officially-launches-july-4

 

 

EE just launched a 2x20 LTE network in the UK and claim that it has peaks above 100Mbps. They are only advertising average speeds of 40Mbps though. Do you guys think that Sprint/Clearwire will be able to offer average speeds similar although that maximum throughput will be lower? Do you think that Verizon and T-Mobile will follow suit and under promise to over achieve? Not that the speed of the network matters much to me, I'd just like to see how you guys think Verizon or T-Mobile woukd market such a network.

I believe in one of the other threads someone it may have been aj that said clearwire TDD at 20mhz would only peak at about 90 ish.

[WiWavelength]

Or has Everything Everywhere deployed two 20 MHz carriers?  Man, that could require 80 MHz of spectrum!

 

 

AJ

[mrknowitall526]

http://m.androidcentral.com/ee-double-speed-lte-officially-launches-july-4

 

EE just launched a 2x20 LTE network in the UK and claim that it has peaks above 100Mbps. They are only advertising average speeds of 40Mbps though. Do you guys think that Sprint/Clearwire will be able to offer average speeds similar although that maximum throughput will be lower? Do you think that Verizon and T-Mobile will follow suit and under promise to over achieve? Not that the speed of the network matters much to me, I'd just like to see how you guys think Verizon or T-Mobile woukd market such a network.

 

Even though I can't wait for LTE, I really don't see the need to get 100 Mbps from my cell phone.  I am waiting for LTE to rely on it for my home internet connection, since we have no DSL or cable available, BUT, anyone who feels the that THAT much speed is necessary probably has access to wireline service.  And, if you are out and about, I can't possibly see how 20, 30, 40, 100+ Mbps is even remotely necessary.  5-6, yes I can see that.  But, I'm still skeptical on the other.

 

I feel like people get so obsessed with needing the fastest speed possible and put that ahead of network quality.  Sure, other carriers might be able to be a bit faster than Sprint's LTE, but I'd be happy with a reliable signal that is useable just about everywhere.  Getting 3-4 Mbps in a rural area fairly far from a tower on LTE makes me happier than 50 Mbps in a specific intersection of a large city.  I'm probably the exception, but still.

[WiWavelength]

I feel like people get so obsessed with needing the fastest speed possible and put that ahead of network quality.

 

For a lot of guys, those 50+ Mbps speed test results are basically e-penis enhancement pills.

 

 

AJ

[koiulpoi]

Even though I can't wait for LTE, I really don't see the need to get 100 Mbps from my cell phone.  I am waiting for LTE to rely on it for my home internet connection, since we have no DSL or cable available, BUT, anyone who feels the that THAT much speed is necessary probably has access to wireline service.  And, if you are out and about, I can't possibly see how 20, 30, 40, 100+ Mbps is even remotely necessary.  5-6, yes I can see that.  But, I'm still skeptical on the other.

 

I feel like people get so obsessed with needing the fastest speed possible and put that ahead of network quality.  Sure, other carriers might be able to be a bit faster than Sprint's LTE, but I'd be happy with a reliable signal that is useable just about everywhere.  Getting 3-4 Mbps in a rural area fairly far from a tower on LTE makes me happier than 50 Mbps in a specific intersection of a large city.  I'm probably the exception, but still.

Eh, even without access to other internet, 4G LTE isn't a perfect replacement for wired internet. You get 12 GB for $80 a month at most from a hotspot device, and overages are ~$50/gig. I'm expecting that pricing to change soon, but still.

 

The real reason to go with something like that is capacity. Wireless services like LTE are shared. When you have 100 simultaneous connections, on 100 Mbps LTE, that's 1 Mbps each. On 37 Mbps LTE, that's 0.37 Mbps, a large difference in usability. Now, of course, that's a gross oversimplification, but the point stands: more capacity, generally more better.

[maximus1987/lou99]

Even though I can't wait for LTE, I really don't see the need to get 100 Mbps from my cell phone. 

 

That speed is for an unloaded sector i.e. with very few people using it. The more people use it, the slower it gets because the capacity - in megabits per second per sector - gets divided by the number of people using it.

That's like saying "HSPA+21 is fast enough because even if the real-world speed is 8 mbps, that's fast enough for me". 

[maximus1987/lou99]

I feel like people get so obsessed with needing the fastest speed possible and put that ahead of network quality.  

 

There's no objective measure of "quality" that Sprint can use to say "our quality is 9.1 on the Merchersmitt scale".

[koiulpoi]

There's no objective measure of "quality" that Sprint can use to say "our quality is 9.1 on the Merchersmitt scale".

They should make such a scale.

 

For calls, you can objectively measure QoS through the rate of blocked and dropped calls, as well as other metrics like average signal quality of particular subs. For data, average data rate.

[ab30494]

I have no need for that. I get 120mb/s with my cable internet. Don't really need fast for my phone

[WiWavelength]

Wow, 20 MHz downlink but only 2 MHz uplink?

 

Or has Everything Everywhere deployed two 20 MHz carriers?  Man, that could require 80 MHz of spectrum!

 

 

Paynefanbro, I was teasing you a little bit with those previous posts, but I am trying to make a serious point.

 

We need to be consistent with, for example, 20 MHz x 20 MHz or 20 MHz FDD terminology.  Those two are acceptable.  But "2x20" just leads to potential ambiguity and confusion.

 

So, I am going to edit the title accordingly, also spelling out that "EE" refers to the Everything Everywhere partnership in the UK, as not everyone here is familiar with it.

 

AJ

[koiulpoi]

Paynefanbro, I was teasing you a little bit with those previous posts, but I am trying to make a serious point.

 

We need to be consistent with, for example, 20 MHz x 20 MHz or 20 MHz FDD terminology.  Those two are acceptable.  But "2x20" just leads to potential ambiguity and confusion.

 

So, I am going to edit the title accordingly, also spelling out that "EE" refers to the Everything Everywhere partnership in the UK, as not everyone here is familiar with it.

 

AJ

Actually, this is good, as in my quick glancing (while at work  ) I read that as 2 MHz Up 20 MHz Down TD-LTE. Or something similar.

[Paynefanbro]

Paynefanbro, I was teasing you a little bit with those previous posts, but I am trying to make a serious point.

 

We need to be consistent with, for example, 20 MHz x 20 MHz or 20 MHz FDD terminology.  Those two are acceptable.  But "2x20" just leads to potential ambiguity and confusion.

 

So, I am going to edit the title accordingly, also spelling out that "EE" refers to the Everything Everywhere partnership in the UK, as not everyone here is familiar with it.

 

AJ

 

Oh sorry, I knew that it was 20 x 20, but I just referenced it as they did in the many articles I read. 

 

And you can call me Bryce 

[mrknowitall526]

Eh, even without access to other internet, 4G LTE isn't a perfect replacement for wired internet. You get 12 GB for $80 a month at most from a hotspot device, and overages are ~$50/gig. I'm expecting that pricing to change soon, but still.

 

The real reason to go with something like that is capacity. Wireless services like LTE are shared. When you have 100 simultaneous connections, on 100 Mbps LTE, that's 1 Mbps each. On 37 Mbps LTE, that's 0.37 Mbps, a large difference in usability. Now, of course, that's a gross oversimplification, but the point stands: more capacity, generally more better.

Good point!  No, LTE isn't a good replacement, but it's still better than satellite.

[Ascertion]

Well honestly sprint advertises 6-8mbps for LTE now and I've seen countless tests of over 20mbps. I think companies intentionally under advertise their network in order to avoid people becoming angry over false advertising.

[maximus1987/lou99]

Well honestly sprint advertises 6-8mbps for LTE now and I've seen countless tests of over 20mbps. I think companies intentionally under advertise their network in order to avoid people becoming angry over false advertising.

That's their "guaranteed average" speeds, though with Verizon their "5 to 12" is turning into "upper limit" lol.

 

In theory, if speeds go below the 6-8mbps, Sprint would add a new site or small cell.

[z250kid]

For a lot of guys, those 50+ Mbps speed test results are basically e-penis enhancement pills.

 

 

AJ

Other day with my Verizon work phone I hit 65 down and 18 up.  I was like holy crap!!!!!  Why do you need so fast speeds sprint is average 20x5 that is GREAT!!!

[z250kid]

Wow, 20 MHz downlink but only 2 MHz uplink?

 

 

AJ

Talk about Asynchronous

[Conan Kudo]

Paynefanbro, I was teasing you a little bit with those previous posts, but I am trying to make a serious point.

 

We need to be consistent with, for example, 20 MHz x 20 MHz or 20 MHz FDD terminology.  Those two are acceptable.  But "2x20" just leads to potential ambiguity and confusion.

 

So, I am going to edit the title accordingly, also spelling out that "EE" refers to the Everything Everywhere partnership in the UK, as not everyone here is familiar with it.

 

AJ

20x20 is even worse, since 20x20 could mean you have 400 MHz of spectrum being used. And spectrum allocations are not multi-dimensional, anyway.

 

20+20 is more accurate. 2x20 is just another way to refer to the same thing.

 

n MHz FDD == n+n MHz == 2xn MHz

 

nxn MHz != n+n MHz

nxn MHz != n MHz FDD

[WiWavelength]

Talk about Asynchronous

 

You mean "asymmetric."

 

AJ

[WiWavelength]

20x20 is even worse, since 20x20 could mean you have 400 MHz of spectrum being used. And spectrum is not multi-dimensional, anyway.

 

20+20 is more accurate. 2x20 is just another way to refer to the same thing.

 

No way.  I strongly disagree.  I have had many years to think this through and come up with logical, systematic designations.  There is no standardization, but my methodology is among the best that I have encountered.

 

As for the + operator, it needs to be reserved for carrier aggregation.

 

AJ

[Conan Kudo]

No way.  I strongly disagree.  I have had many years to think this through and come up with logical, systematic designations.  There is no standardization, but my methodology is among the best that I have encountered.

 

As for the + operator, it needs to be reserved for carrier aggregation.

 

AJ

Except everyone already uses it to refer to FDD allocations. n+n MHz is used all over the world by regulators to indicate FDD allocations, as well as standardization organizations and operators. Though lately, the 3GPP has switched to using 1xn MHz or 2xn MHz to indicate TDD/FDD allocations.

 

Functionally, there's no real reason to refer to carrier aggregation differently unless you have a particularly good reason to do so. In the end, the aggregation is still going to give you merged pipelines of a particular size.

[WiWavelength]

Except everyone already uses it to refer to FDD allocations. n+n MHz is used all over the world by regulators to indicate FDD allocations, as well as standardization organizations and operators.

Not everyone does. And those that do have made a poor choice now. My system is more logical. Anyone should be able to see that.

 

Functionally, there's no real reason to refer to carrier aggregation differently unless you have a particularly good reason to do so. In the end, the aggregation is still going to give you merged pipelines of a particular size.

Well, it matters to me because the aggregated spectrum may not be contiguous or even in the same band. I care about noting those details.

 

AJ

[Conan Kudo]

Not everyone does. And those that do have made a poor choice now. My system is more logical. Anyone should be able to see that.

 

 

Well, it matters to me because the aggregated spectrum may not be contiguous or even in the same band. I care about noting those details.

 

AJ

Well, you could try parenthetical referencing.

 

(2x5MHz-B25)+(2x3MHz-B26)+(1x20MHz-B41)

 

And yes, I realize I'm using the + operator for carrier aggregation, but it's easier when I'm already using the other form to refer to individual bands.