Don’t get conned – The difference between LTE and LTE-Advanced

one network asked Samsung to reduce the combined bandwidth requirement for the 4G+ icon to display to 15MHz, which Samsung approved.
Click to expand...

I suppose the email/request to Apple landed in the Junkmail folder.
Kiddos to Samsung for approving.
 
The article alludes to, but doesn't mention LTE-Advanced Pro. Countries like Australia are deploying gigabit-LTE which is truly astounding technology.

Note that MTN trialed LTE-LAA (https://mybroadband.co.za/news/cell...laa-network-in-south-africa-gets-400mbps.html)
This uses license-exempt spectrum (normally used for Wi-Fi) as the second carrier, so technically MTN can do LTE-A but would need to deploy license-exempt antenna (or use a company like VAST to do it for them)

Vodacom has also tested in their head office: https://mybroadband.co.za/news/cellular/229155-vodacom-achieves-650mbps-on-laa-site.html
Relating to the article, they used 3 additional carries in license exempt spectrum. As with MTN they would need to deploy license-exempt antenna to offer this commercially.
 
Maybe send this to geniuses at Rain and Cell C who smack LTE-A on everything, would not be surprised if their toilet paper also has an LTE-A label on it.

Rain is particularly guilty for locking their network to a device which specifically does not support carrier aggregation on their bands. There is a lengthy technical explanation on here somewhere which has managed to make it to the front page...

Cell C just doesn't seem to support CA on their network: i have a tower <100m which I can connect to on both 1800Mhz and 2100Mhz but not both at the same time. Tested using B618 with the band tool.
 
Chris.Geerdts said:
The article alludes to, but doesn't mention LTE-Advanced Pro. Countries like Australia are deploying gigabit-LTE which is truly astounding technology.

Note that MTN trialed LTE-LAA (https://mybroadband.co.za/news/cell...laa-network-in-south-africa-gets-400mbps.html)
This uses license-exempt spectrum (normally used for Wi-Fi) as the second carrier, so technically MTN can do LTE-A but would need to deploy license-exempt antenna (or use a company like VAST to do it for them)

Vodacom has also tested in their head office: https://mybroadband.co.za/news/cellular/229155-vodacom-achieves-650mbps-on-laa-site.html
Relating to the article, they used 3 additional carries in license exempt spectrum. As with MTN they would need to deploy license-exempt antenna to offer this commercially.
Click to expand...

I am still against LTE-LAA except for cases such as stadiums. I'd rather they did not interfere with e.g. home networks, there's already enough noise.
 
Johnatan56 said:
I am still against LTE-LAA except for cases such as stadiums. I'd rather they did not interfere with e.g. home networks, there's already enough noise.
Click to expand...
I agree. We will bar them from using unlicenced spectrum.
 
That's so true
SA-UK said:
Hardly makes a diff for much of the SA public.
Many of us are lucky if we can get 1-10Mbps consistently, so the spec of the device one is using is theoretical.
Click to expand...
 
So when are we getting an article about how Vodacom and Rain supplies B618 routers to customers that can even aggregate the two main bands of Rain band 3 and 38....

How Rain have not noticed that not a single router on their network is actually not connecting via LTE-A is just shocking and explains pretty much why iBurst well burst...
 
cavedog said:
So when are we getting an article about how Vodacom and Rain supplies B618 routers to customers that can even aggregate the two main bands of Rain band 3 and 38....

How Rain have not noticed that not a single router on their network is actually not connecting via LTE-A is just shocking and explains pretty much why iBurst well burst...
Click to expand...
Agreed 100%
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X