Hey Spok, even for the technically illiterate there are publications like Wired that will explain Vz's LTE advantages for you in large letters. Hope it helps you!
"Their findings showed that Verizon's LTE network performed at a 100 percent data-success rate. Its average data speeds were between four and 14.5 times faster than competitors, and average upload speeds were between 4.7 and 49.3 times faster."
Thank you for your effort.
BTW, the term "Pal" referring to the cited Android poster, Riverofice, is not descriptive and may not be fair to the previously mentioned poster.
I find the posts of Riverofice to be insightful, sometimes rude, but I'm not perfect and have no expectations that others are so.
"Yahoo pucks up and won't post links"
I've had the same issue in the past.
One method to circumvent the Yahoo censor is to parse the citation, so to Yahoo, it appears as text. Readers will need to then copy & paste to browser. Less convenient, but a simple procedure to mitigate this Yahoo imposed limitation.
Note: Last I checked, poster will not see this message, so anyone that deems to share with Teamrep, please do, but it may be prudent not to attribute the source, I will not be offended.
Its good that people are digging into this but you will reach the conclusion is what I have stated: WiMAX and LTE have basically similar robust error correction mechanisms because that is what is needed to deliver the range of services reliably.
O have not wanted to go down the path of technical discussions because this can get complex and divisive. Both WiMAX and LTE use similar coding methods: Virterbi is a founder of Qualcomm who led Flarion's team working on FEC-HARQ methods and edge network. Viturbi contributed to Qualcomm's success ad his convolutional coding methods became widely adopted. Like almost every aspect of wireless and advanced communications in general, no single company let alone person holds the key to all knowledge: much work has been done that has expanded on Viterbi coding and help reach higher performance/less data signaling overhead needed to achieve maximum practical performance while consuming lower computational (power) resources. Viterbi coding led to efforts to reduce overheads while achieving higher and more adaptive performance, resulting in the set of coding called Turbo coding. There are many references to Viterbi and Trubo coding because it is used broadly through wired, fiber and wireless communications.
Viterbi's team while at Flarion and after is was constituted under Qualcomm contributed work to Turbo coding that has gone into 3GPP rel 8. rel 9+ standards: this remains among Qualcomm's strongest IPR contributions to LTE and, arguably, WiMAX (as patents build on the shoulders of the previous).
Here is a doc for rel 8 to show some precedent leading up to latter and ongoing work:
The real issue is what gets adopted into commercial systems and out into network deployments. I'll post latter today to explain why this conversation is off the mark.. but a good fact checking exercise.
I didn't find any test data. I just found reference to test equipment that did BER on WiMax and LTE.
I found this link
Forward Error Correction Decoding For WiMAX And 3GPP LTE Modems
The synopsis says the receive control channel for WiMax has viterbi and Turbo decoders and LTE has only viterbi. It may be that when the signal is degraded, that the additional protection offerred by the Turbo Decoder offers more robustness. I did not read the paper cause I did not want to read the NDA.
There is also LTE ARQ and Re-segmentation
Sounds like what your Pal said WiMax was doing but LTE was not.
An attitude ? I wasn't the one calling names, using derogatory terms or misrepresenting citations. Read from when I started the discussion.
Actually I did read your google books extraction your follow-up eventthelix citation, but the question wasn't about if LTE uses error detection & correction. I nor the cited Android poster ever made that claim. The question was about test replication.
You now state you have previously posted this information, you need not re-post but, I was not able to find test replication data, if you wish to narrow down the search area of the citations that would be help not only me, but anyone else interested in the subject.
If a thank you from me to you or to anyone else is important to you, test replication data unseen, well by all means thank you and to anyone you believe should be thanked. I don't know why my approval is important enough to you to "hold hostage" this test data to this board, but if it helps you and others than it is gladly given.
As for your request that I directly thank teamrep, that is beyond my control. The last time teamrep corresponded with me ".. you are an waste of time.
I noticed you never say thank-you and have an attitude toward the person who is responding to you query.
When you replied back about HARQ, the information was in the link I gave you, but I guess you were not motivated to look.
If you thank teamrep for his help, I'll post the link. I'll leave it up to you to decide. Either way is fine with me.
Ruffled feathers, sad, read my previous post again and determine if there was a explicit or implied insult.
What you choose to share or not via this board is solely your prerogative, please don't let your gratefulness to myself have any influence as to what you deem important to share.
As toward your reply, I don't know, to the question "Wonder if there are other lab test to confirm or deny these claims ?" no reply would have supplied the same information, but with better use of your time.