

4G: Bad coverage, crap battery life - but at least it's really expensive (UK) - gmac
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/26/4g_no_thx_no2/

======
jiggy2011
My biggest concern with 4G is that it will move people from using static line
ISP connections to using mobile connections for everything.

The problem with this is that mobile providers seem to be a lot more invasive
when it comes to blocking content, leaking personal data and imposing
restrictions on the use of the data service.

~~~
miahi
This will be limited by the costs. I get 5GB of monthly traffic for 10€/month
on 21Mbps 3G (average speed: 4Mbps), but I get unlimited traffic at 150Mbps
for the same price on a static line (average speed: 80Mbps). Cloud-based
storage and services means I will do a lot of traffic, and this brings great
costs for a mobile connection. Right now I'm backing up 1.8TB of data with
CrashPlan. I couldn't do that on 3G.

~~~
46Bit
Getting over 5GB on one SIM card at decent speeds seems to be almost
impossible. Having rung around a lot on this, most UK networks say they'll
only do it for video advertising boards next to motorways and such.

------
pja
Until the standardised VoLTE software (Voice over IP for LTE) is working
correctly aren't LTE phones all going to suffer from poor battery life thanks
to having to keep both the LTE and the 3G radio on even in LTE capable
locations?

------
teilo
£51 for 5GB of data, and unlimited voice and text. That's currently $82.

Compare:

$110 for 4GB and unlimited voice and text on Verizon & ATT, which includes
tethering.

$90 for T-mobile's cheapest "4G" data plan, which is "unlimited" data, but not
LTE, and has no tethering.

$80 for Sprint's crappy non-LTE coverage, but only 450 minutes of voice, and
capped tethering. Otherwise $110 for unlimited everything, and capped
tethering.

Sorry, but this must be a different definition of "really expensive" than I
was previously aware of (hanging preposition be damned).

~~~
ed209
£51 for 5GB of data is expensive. I'm in the UK and on t-mobile I pay £17 per
month for unlimited data (not 4G though), all calls and all texts (well there
are limits, but for my moderate/heavy usage it's as good as unlimited) and
those calls include some international.

And until this year, it also included a free handset, last one 20 months ago
was a desire HD. So £10/GB does sound expensive.

~~~
teilo
Granted. When I was in the UK on business, I brought an old Google Nexus One,
and was able to get sim-only prepaid 3G voice and data dirt cheap. It was
slow, though (Vodafone).

------
jrmg
I'm growing tired of data caps being measured on 'how long it would take you
to download that amount of data'. Faster speed and lower latency are boons for
less data intensive applications too.

My iPhone's on a 3G plan with a 500MB monthly cap at the moment. I never go
over it, even though the good 3G coverage here is plenty fast enough for video
streaming etc. - I just don't want to use it for that. I'd love a faster,
lower latency connection, but I don't anticipate my habits changing such that
the /quantity/ of data I consume increases.

~~~
aristidb
Are you sure your data coverage is good? I've noticed that with sinking
latencies and rising bandwidth (but probably mostly the latency), data
consumption rises.

For me at least.

~~~
jrmg
I couldn't place it on a scale or give you figures, but it seems good to me in
use. I certainly never feel its stopping me from doing anything.

As well as browsing, maps etc., I also use it to listen to (low bandwidth,
admittedly) radio streams while jogging and iTunes Match occasionally with no
problems.

------
recursive
Bad coverage in the UK? I live in the USA. For the past year, I've tried
enabling 4g on my phone every time I go to a new city. I've never seen it work
once.

Edit: In response to the dead reply "Even in the Bay Area?", since I can't
seem to reply directly.

Yes, in all zero of the times I've been to the bay area, 4g has worked a total
of zero times.

------
jdthomas
Maybe for an individual user "3g" is sufficient, but my understanding is that
it is a poor use of spectrum. One big motivator to move to LTE will be in
congested areas where everyone simply cannot be served sufficient bandwidth
with the legacy technology.

------
msh
Bad article, according to tests for example the iPhone 5 don't appear to have
worse battery with let compared to the 4s.

~~~
greenmountin
Citation? AFAIK this is just Apple's claim, not a real test:
[http://www.macrumors.com/2012/09/26/iphone-battery-life-
grea...](http://www.macrumors.com/2012/09/26/iphone-battery-life-greatly-
impacted-by-cellular-signal-strength/)

I love how Apple locks down apps, but dislike how many taps it takes to toggle
LTE.

~~~
weiran
> The iPhone 5 manages to match Apple's estimates, just breaking the 10 hour
> barrier.

<http://www.anandtech.com/show/6330/the-iphone-5-review/13>

