Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 21st Aug 2012 15:27 UTC
Apple Vlad Savov at The Verge: "Today's been rather a momentous day in the UK mobile arena, following local regulator Ofcom's approval of Everything Everywhere's plans to use existing spectrum to roll out LTE service early. Vodafone, O2 and Three have complained in unison against the market distortions that would result from one carrier having 4G while everyone else waits for an oft-delayed auction, but their biggest fear may yet remain unspoken: a de facto exclusive on the next iPhone."
Thread beginning with comment 531680
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Tue 21st Aug 2012 18:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510
Member since:
2011-05-12

Any change is always bound to increase prices for us. LTE has a theoretical speed most if not all people will never get anyway.

Rumor has it the new iPhone's battery has only a slightly larger capacity. Unless they have some new generation LTE chips it may cut its operation time shorter than the iPhone 4/4S. I'd prefer it to be a bit longer.

In a way it's a kind of disgrace these cell phones, Apple and others, barely make it to the end of the day on their battery charge. I'd say make it 2 days and even that's crap. You can't use your phone without any power outlets nearby.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510
by Neolander on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 07:24 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

As for battery life, I believe that from a theoretical point of view, 4G chips should be able to eat up less battery than 3G chips when offering equivalent performance. That's because to qualify as "4G" under the requirements of the UIT, tech like LTE Advance is supposed to use an all-IP network, in which even voice and texts go through the data connection of the phone, unlike 3G tech which has to maintain two simultaneous cellular connexions, one for voice and texts and one for data.

Of course, this is again purely theoretical, and I am sure that current 4G phones will manage to waste even more power than 3G ones in spite of this. Besides, low nework coverage has never been a good thing for battery life.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 07:28 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I believe a problem with the early 4G handsets was battery life. This may be a reason of the Android phones with big screens: they're big anyway because of the battery to support 4G so you might as well put a screen on it. Of course in the IT world time flies and things improve fast.

Somewhere I still have a Dell Axim X3i PocketPC. If you turn WiFi on you can almost see the battery run out of the room.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510
by JAlexoid on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 08:48 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

What people forget is that there is still no VoLTE with seamless downgrade available in phones(switching from packet 4G to switched 3G/2G).
Up until then I doubt that VoLTE will be used much. Mobile broadband is a better option, where all practical LTE deployments in EU have been to date.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510
by zima on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 18:39 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

I believe that from a theoretical point of view, 4G chips should be able to eat up less battery than 3G chips when offering equivalent performance. That's because to qualify as "4G" under the requirements of the UIT, tech like LTE Advance is supposed to use an all-IP network, in which even voice and texts go through the data connection of the phone, unlike 3G tech which has to maintain two simultaneous cellular connexions, one for voice and texts and one for data.

I imagine the distinction is mostly logical on the handset level & not making much of a difference for the radio modem (work of which uses most power, I guess); relevant mostly for backbone-level (and there already are networks, among more recently deployed 3G ones, using an all-IP architecture on that level - at least some from Huawei, with the benefit of straightforward upgrade to LTE).

Either way, using a mobile phone with data-only SIM card doesn't seem to make a difference... (OK, so maybe the control/SMS channel is still active; but, it's active all the time, even when idle - and in that state, even the most advanced mobile phones can last quite a while, so I'd guess its share of battery use is marginal)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510
by zima on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 18:05 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Any change is always bound to increase prices for us. LTE has a theoretical speed most if not all people will never get anyway.

It's not so simple ...I mean, the primary change is that people are using mobile data more and more. Hence, we demand for networks to be upgraded anyway - and it would be quite possibly more pricey when sticking to older tech (if there would even be enough spectrum for the required capacity).
You could probably give quite comfortable experience to everybody using just EDGE, but it'd likely take at least an order of magnitude more spectrum allocations than we use for mobile phones now (hence requiring new equipment, anyway; NVM blocking other usages, that could be costly too)

Spectrum is just an inherently scarce resource, new communication standards are our way around that...

Reply Parent Score: 3