>>29056573 (OP)
lel I like this meme

>scholastic

I guess it's de truf

In the United States, is there really a better/faster/more reliable network?

File: 1352854278753.gif-(148 KB, 425x417, 1334360392730.gif)

>>29056607
Go die.

HSPA+:
>Battery efficient
>Still faster than anyone needs on a smartphone
LTE:
>moar cores

>>29056665
Yes

>>29056665
>Muh LTE

>>29056716
LTE isn't any less battery efficient now. This isn't like before where phones couldn't just load up everything into ram and then render at their own pace and needed to keep the radio on all the time.

Now let's say you have an HSPA+ modem and an LTE modem in your phone. The HSPA+ modem may be half as fast or less, so it'll need to stay on twice as long or more to download your shit. The LTE modem gets done that much faster and shuts down that much faster.

Hence why back in the G1 and iPhone 3G days disabling "3G" had a huge impact while these days there's no real benchmarked difference between the same phone using LTE or HSPA+.

Having said that, it's entirely reasonable to think that HSPA+ is "fast enough". As long as you're getting about 5Mbps, what more could you possibly need on a smartphone? There are two carriers in the US that offer an uncapped, throttled connection for new customers. One is Sprint, which does not offer HSPA. The other is T-Mobile, which does not offer LTE. Thus, the only point where you'd see a solid advantage for having LTE would be on a carrier that does not offer HSPA anyway.