In article om,
says...

On 9/22/2012 10:18 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G



Break it down in your own words.

4G is faster than 3G.

On Sep 22, 11:35*am, iBoaterer wrote:
In article om,
says...



On 9/22/2012 10:18 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G

Break it down in your own words.

4G is faster than 3G.

But who cares?

On Saturday, September 22, 2012 11:35:00 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article om,

says...



On 9/22/2012 10:18 AM, iBoaterer wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G







Break it down in your own words.



4G is faster than 3G.

You almost got it right.

4G peak speeds are much faster than 3G peak speeds.

But 4G in fringe, "barely get a signal" areas is slower than 3G in good signal areas. Like in Scot's case.

That's all he, and I, have been saying. For a huge segment of the population, 4G isn't an option. Reference the coverage map I linked.

You are far too dense to understand. A dog watching TV.

On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 21:22:24 -0400, wrote:

If you ARE in 4G, though, it is BLAZING. Much faster than WIFI.

===

When 4G is working well, it is very, very fast.

The speed of WiFi varies a great deal however depending on a lot of
different things. With the right equipment, a good connection and a
good back feed to the internet, WiFi can be every bit as fast as 4G.

On 9/22/2012 11:09 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 21:22:24 -0400, wrote:

If you ARE in 4G, though, it is BLAZING. Much faster than WIFI.

===

When 4G is working well, it is very, very fast.

The speed of WiFi varies a great deal however depending on a lot of
different things. With the right equipment, a good connection and a
good back feed to the internet, WiFi can be every bit as fast as 4G.


What is it with these guys? They just seem to spout whatever their local
phone/cable company tells them.

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 15:14:41 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Saturday, September 22, 2012 11:35:00 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article om,

says...



On 9/22/2012 10:18 AM, iBoaterer wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G







Break it down in your own words.



4G is faster than 3G.

You almost got it right.

4G peak speeds are much faster than 3G peak speeds.

But 4G in fringe, "barely get a signal" areas is slower than 3G in good signal areas. Like in Scot's case.

That's all he, and I, have been saying. For a huge segment of the population, 4G isn't an option. Reference the coverage map I linked.

You are far too dense to understand. A dog watching TV.

If you ARE in 4G, though, it is BLAZING. Much faster than WIFI.

No, no you haven't been listening to the experts here!!!

On 9/23/2012 7:46 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 15:14:41 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Saturday, September 22, 2012 11:35:00 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article om,

says...



On 9/22/2012 10:18 AM, iBoaterer wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G







Break it down in your own words.



4G is faster than 3G.

You almost got it right.

4G peak speeds are much faster than 3G peak speeds.

But 4G in fringe, "barely get a signal" areas is slower than 3G in good signal areas. Like in Scot's case.

That's all he, and I, have been saying. For a huge segment of the population, 4G isn't an option. Reference the coverage map I linked.

You are far too dense to understand. A dog watching TV.

If you ARE in 4G, though, it is BLAZING. Much faster than WIFI.

No, no you haven't been listening to the experts here!!!

Everyone's experience with 2g 3g and 4g is different depending on many
factors.

On 9/23/2012 9:25 AM, Meyer wrote:
On 9/23/2012 7:46 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 15:14:41 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Saturday, September 22, 2012 11:35:00 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article om,

says...



On 9/22/2012 10:18 AM, iBoaterer wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G







Break it down in your own words.



4G is faster than 3G.

You almost got it right.

4G peak speeds are much faster than 3G peak speeds.

But 4G in fringe, "barely get a signal" areas is slower than 3G in
good signal areas. Like in Scot's case.

That's all he, and I, have been saying. For a huge segment of the
population, 4G isn't an option. Reference the coverage map I linked.

You are far too dense to understand. A dog watching TV.

If you ARE in 4G, though, it is BLAZING. Much faster than WIFI.

No, no you haven't been listening to the experts here!!!

Everyone's experience with 2g 3g and 4g is different depending on many
factors.

Everyone here knows that... You are just being "plummed"...

On 9/22/2012 11:27 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 15:14:41 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

4G peak speeds are much faster than 3G peak speeds.

But 4G in fringe, "barely get a signal" areas is slower than 3G in good signal areas

That was the paradox of our vacation in far southwest North Carolina.
If you were down in what passes for civilization (where they have
electricity) cell service was spotty and broadband was unobtanium but
if you were hiking in the mountains, miles from the nearest living
soul, you had 4G.


Sounds like either you were in line of sight of a 4G tower, or maybe
there was a "market" somewhere nearby that got a lone tower...

In article , says...

On 9/22/2012 11:27 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 15:14:41 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

4G peak speeds are much faster than 3G peak speeds.

But 4G in fringe, "barely get a signal" areas is slower than 3G in good signal areas

That was the paradox of our vacation in far southwest North Carolina.
If you were down in what passes for civilization (where they have
electricity) cell service was spotty and broadband was unobtanium but
if you were hiking in the mountains, miles from the nearest living
soul, you had 4G.


Sounds like either you were in line of sight of a 4G tower, or maybe
there was a "market" somewhere nearby that got a lone tower...

You don't have to be in line of sight, dumb ass.