The Many Faces of 3G 122
An anonymous reader writes "Did you ever notice how each new generation of cell-phone tech gets branded '3G,' and the previous thing is retroactively downgraded to some lesser number of Gs? An MIT engineer explains why in this brilliant essay about '3G' over the last 10 years, showing how the cell carriers have kept offering it and swiping it away to sell more stuff. He cites numerous Cingular/AT&T and Sprint press releases showing how the companies have made '3G' into a brand name ideally suited for amnesiac consumers. Meanwhile, no cell carrier is foolish enough to sell you bottom-line throughput like an ISP in 1996 — you could actually hold them to that (PDF)."
Not really... (Score:1)
No, can't say I noticed that at all.
Next question?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not really... (Score:5, Informative)
No, I've also not seen that. When they introduced GPRS, it was 2.5G. When they introduced UMTS, it was 3G. Then some companies rolled out EDGE because Apple insisted on using ancient crappy standards that everyone else had skipped for compatibility with backwards networks in the USA, and it was 2.75G. Then they deployed various HSPA variations, and they were mostly 3.5G. A few places are deploying LTE or WiMax, and this is 4G, or 3.9G if it doesn't quite meet the requirements of 4G.
2G was well defined, as meaning digital. 4G is also well defined, with features like an all-IP network, 100Mb/s mobile bandwidth (1Gb/s stationary), and so on. 3G is not so well defined, but it's generally understood to mean something in the same category as UMTS.
Maybe the confusion is just a US thing?
Re:Not really... (Score:5, Informative)
A few places are deploying LTE or WiMax, and this is 4G, or 3.9G if it doesn't quite meet the requirements of 4G.
Ah, er, what? TFA explains it this way "You might notice that Sprint is currently selling Mobile WiMAX as “4G.” Mobile WiMAX is part of IMT-2000 — the 3G standard. Verizon Wireless is selling something called “LTE” as “4G” — it ain’t in IMT-Advanced either. Today’s “4G” products are like the “3G” of 2002 and 2003 — they will become “3.75G” as soon as the next hot thing comes out."
So, everything called 4G today is a lie vs the ITU spec in IMT-Advanced. Faster than 3g, possibly, but not 4G in any stretch of the imagination (unless you are in sales). Sounds like you've been sold. Give TFA a try, it's a good read!
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the confusion is just a US thing?
You posted lots of articles about US-based companies introducing confusion. Sounds a lot like you're agreeing with me...
Re: (Score:2)
OK if you want to make it about that:
The world's first publicly available LTE-service was opened in the two Scandinavian capitals Stockholm (Ericsson system) and Oslo (a Huawei system) on the 14 December 2009, and branded 4G.
Pre-4G != 4G... On either side of the pond.
Re:Not really... (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed this confusion seems to be a US thing. On the other side of the pond, probably thanks to a much more uniform standard, there is no doubt about what a 3G phone is, and noone (that I'm aware of) even considered trying to pass a non-3G phone for one.
Anyway it never ceases to amaze me how much you guys let your telcos rob you blind (not claiming it doesn't happen here - far from it - but your average bill is like 3 times ours, and the dollar is weaker atm), lie to you, tie you into years of awful contracts with hefty termination fees, pull all sorts of crap (aided by mutually incompatible standards which also make your handset useless if you want to change carrier), delay upgrades by years, remove functions like tethering or data connections from phones which are created with them, etc.
AT&T is posting record revenues [yahoo.com] in times of recession and yet skimping on needed upgrades to its insufficient network, I wonder how come there isn't an angry mob at their door.
Re: (Score:2)
and noone
Who the hell is Noone, and why didn't you capitalize his name?
Re: (Score:2)
I can add that back in 1999 or so, before GPRS was rolled out,I did some work for Ericsson with regards to GPRS here in Sweden. We never did talk about any 2.5G at that time. I think that 2.5G is sort of like a backronym, despite not being an acrynom. No one called GPRS 2.5G before the services called 3G were introduced.
As I remember it, we considered GPRS to be somewhat akin to wireless ISDN. This is all hazy recollection though, all the documentation I used to have would be under NDA even if I could find
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to my world. I'm an IP admin in a wireless telecom company. I thought everyone had abandoned telnet years ago, but it's alive and kicking in telecom.
I Want ... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
3G/4G (Score:1)
Re:3G/4G (Score:4, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3G [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
>>>What the heck does it mean?
Whatever the companies want, apparently. RTFA and you'll see: "In 2002, I got my first cell phone. "You want this one," said the salesman at the RadioShack, pointing to a sleek model then on sale. "It's a 3G phone. It'll work with Sprint's new 3G network they're rolling out later this summer." (image shows phone has 3G on it) "A few months later -- I called Sprint and tried to subscribe. "Sir, you need a 3G phone to sign up," they told me. "I have one!" I said pr
Re: (Score:2)
[correction]
Nobody ever bothered to sue [Radio Shack] in 2002, and they should have. I know I wouldn't have stood for it. I would have found some way to get my money back, or a free 3G phone that worked with Sprint, since that's what I was told I was getting. But no. Instead people just allow themselves to get screwed and never fight back against the megacorps.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably because justice in the U.S. costs way more than $30.
Re: (Score:2)
True but a credit card dispute costs nothing. "Hello? Yes I would like to dispute a charge. I was sold this phone with the explicit warranty that it was 3G and would work with Sprint's network. But it never has worked with Sprint's 3G network."
"Thank you sir, and did you contact the store?"
"Yes. They refused to help me."
"Okay. Return the phone and make sure you get tracking to prove it was returned. We will investigate this and then refund the money back to your credit card, after the tracking shows
Re: (Score:2)
Probably true, but you didn't ask why didn't they have the credit card charge it back, you asked why they didn't sue.
Re: (Score:2)
"Nobody ever bothered to sue Sprint in 2002, and they should have. I honestly don't understand people who allow themselves to be ripped off like that..."
I do. Many people are simply too lazy to sue.
Most of the people that I talk to on this subject think you need to wait for class-action suits to hop on the bandwagon. You do not.
Instead, file a personal damages suit in small claims in the same jurisdiction the object/service was purchased. It usually cost $5-$25 to file, and get this...the lawyers from these
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a very loose set of standards. When the standards are loose, things get fudged a long, long way.
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Catholic. Thanks for asking.
Bottom line throughput (Score:2)
...no cell carrier is foolish enough to sell you bottom-line throughput like an ISP in 1996
Metro PCS? It's cheap, but I dropped every single call I ever made on their antique phones before I switched.
I have often wondered about this. (Score:3, Insightful)
From the article:
>What we really ought to care about is the same as with any Internet service provider -- the throughput
>and latency and reliability you get to the endpoints you want to reach. That's what matters, not the
>sophistication of one piece of the puzzle.
I have often wondered about all the marketing jargon floating about cell phones, and about people who go ga-ga about how their cell phone browses the internet.
Every phone I've tried browsing the web on makes me just about cry with frustration - I feel like I'm back in college with a 2400 baud modem again.
When you shop for an ISP you shop based on best-effort advertised upload and download rates.
Cell phones should be the same way.
Re: (Score:2)
Word, dude... watching mobile phones discover the internet seems like watching the whole industry go back to where it was 10 years ago. They're even re-making all of the same mistakes, like proprietary lock-in, little to no cross-platform compatibility, lame security models... what fun it is to play the prophet for the next generation :-P
Re: (Score:2)
>>Every phone I've tried browsing the web on makes me just about cry with frustration - I feel like I'm back in college with a 2400 baud modem
Exaggerate much? The 2400 baud* modem you're talking about is a 2k connection. That's slow enough you can see the text scroll across the screen. I doubt your cell is anywhere near that slow. Voice calling alone requires at least 8k data rate to produce intelligible speech, and most phones will provide greater than dialup speeds (>50k). They are several order
Re: (Score:2)
So our cell phones will be advertised as:
Up to 100MB/s for data
and
Up to 3 active voice connections at a time!
and what we'll REALLY get is 200-300k speeds for data on a good day, and one active voice connection that works ... sometimes.
No thanks.
Just like home internet. (Score:2)
>and what we'll REALLY get is 200-300k speeds for data on a good day, and one active voice connection that works ... sometimes.
But this is exactly how it works with home internet.
You can't hold an ISP to download/upload speeds because in the end we are all on a shared pipe. But we should at least have a ballpark to work with. It's generally understood when you buy home ISP service that the advertised rates are _maximums_.
I would like to see phones advertised similarly.
Re: (Score:2)
The US Congress should require them to advertise a minimum.
So if they want to say, "Upto 1000 kbps," that's fine but they also have to add, "Guaranteed throughput of 500 kbps, or you'll receive a one day credit on your bill for each occurrence."
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with that is that the ISP can't control anything outside of their network. Sure, if you can show that the bottleneck is within the area they control then the minimum works great—but what if it's the other end that's slowing things down, or congestion outside of the ISP's network? How is the ISP supposed to guarantee that you will always be able to receive 500 kbps from any given server?
they wouldn't need to (Score:2)
Obviously the ISP can't guarantee 500kbps to arbitrary websites.
However, they should be able to guarantee 500kbps to arbitrary high-bandwidth sites. (kernel.org, or microsoft.com, or various university sites)
Of course they don't *want* to do this because that would require them to advertise real speeds, which would force them to actually spend money to upgrade their infrastructure.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter which site you pick; they still can't guarantee a minimum end-to-end bandwidth when part of the route is outside their network. The site could be experiencing a DDoS or unusually high load, or undergoing maintenance; the ISP's upstream provider could be having technical difficulties; there could even be a problem with the client's equipment, such as a bad network cable or poor internal wiring. None of that is the ISP's responsibility. The only parts they can reasonably guarantee are their
Re: (Score:2)
>>>The problem with that is that the ISP can't control anything outside of their network.
Neither can they guarantee your computer will be fast enough to accept the data, but they can guarantee the speed from their Central Office to your home will be at least 500k. It's just the same way the phone company guarantees a working line from their CO to your home, but makes no promises about the line inside your home, or whoever you're trying to call.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Every phone I've tried browsing the web on makes me just about cry with frustration - I feel like I'm back in college with a 2400 baud modem again.
That means it would take nearly an Hour to download a single webpage, like slashdot. (800,000 bytes == 6,400,000 bits / 2000 bps (actual throughput of 2400 baud modem) == 3200 seconds == 0.9 hours.)
That's hella slow! No wonder you're bitchin' about your lousy cellphone service. I would be too.
Re: (Score:2)
Every phone I've tried browsing the web on makes me just about cry with frustration
Have you tried an iPhone? How about a Nexus One? There are a ton of phones that do a great job of browsing the web.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, I'm supposed to have EVDO available (about 1mbps), and I do often see my phone switch to "EV" mode, but I don't think I've been able to transfer a single bit of data in EVDO mode. It always hangs and switches back to 1x mode (56k'ish).
It sucks.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
"I doubt your cell is anywhere near that slow."
don't assume what other people do or do not know. exactly because voice data requires a certain specific minimum throughput, it is given a higher priority. cell phone data and cell phone voice go over different channels, as well. and cell phone data in the US is absolute garbage. if cell phone voice performed as badly as data, then people WOULD have something to complain about, and have grounds for lawsuits. this is why cell phone voice works fine.
data, on
Re: (Score:2)
>>>don't assume what other people do or do not know.
Okay. Let's assume the guy is correct, and the speed is the same as a 2400 bps modem. At that rate the typical 700 kilobyte webpage (like slashdot) would take nearly an HOUR to view. Do you think the guy's connection was really the slow?
Neither do I. I think he was exaggerating. A lot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He said that he feels like he's back in college with a 2400 baud modem, not that the data rate of his phone is 2400 baud. That is an important distinction to make.
When he was in college, there were very few 700k webpages that he'd want to look at, they were much smaller because everyone had slow connections. They weren't small enough that they would load in the same time as a modern page on a modern connection, they still took a significant time to load.
There's the connection, loading a (modern) page on a p
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
>>>He said that he feels
Oh well that makes it okay then. :-) If I say I "feel" that government taxation is too high, I don't have to actually prove it, or back it up with numbers do I? Maybe I am being anal but I simply thought the poster should be corrected when he said his cellphone was as slow as a 2 kbit/s line.
His comment was as "off" as if I were to say the national debt is $13 billion. (Hint: It's actually trillion.) Or if I said the EU lies about 3 miles away from the US. Or it on
Re: (Score:2)
No, you don't have to prove that you feel government taxation is too high. Your opinions may differ from others, but that may or may not affect how you feel.
Also, if you read more than the first 4 words of my previous comment, you'll find out a little more about why people may feel that way.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>if you read more than the first 4 words of my previous comment
Hello :-)
I did read the whole comment, but what you said doesn't excuse intellectual laziness (i.e. being flat wrong). The original poster's comment that his connection was as slow as a 2k modem was an *idiotic* statement. It was equivalent of saying 1000 + 1000 = 2 instead of 2000. Or that he has a Dual Core PC that feels as slow as a 1 megahertz CPU.
It was not just an error..... it was off by several orders of magnitude. If t
Re: (Score:2)
The original poster's comment that his connection was as slow as a 2k modem was an *idiotic* statement.
Again, OP never said that. You're completely ignoring the actual things people are saying in the posts you're responding to (which I've come to find is something you do quite well).
You're also still making assumptions about...
-When maillemaker went to college.
-What they were doing with that 2400 baud modem.
It was equivalent of saying [...] that he has a Dual Core PC that feels as slow as a 1 megahertz CPU.
A Dual Core PC running an OS of today feeling as responsive as a 1MHz machine running a piece of software from its day? Because that is the kind of comparison that everyone here has been trying to t
Re: (Score:2)
>>>and compression? really? that's your solution? please stop talking, now
If you have a limited bandwidth line, like dialup or cellphone, compression is a perfectly viable solution to the problem. It's why Opera added it to their version 10 of their browser. It's why it's used for HD Radio, and HDTV, or on youtube, or on DVD/Bluray movies.
For you to imply that compression should not be considered a solution is silly.
Re: (Score:2)
Nowadays, you get 100K in just javascript tracking beacons.
Re: (Score:2)
I was staying in a hotel in Michigan where I literally had a 19.2k connection.
Yes it was still possible to browse the web at that speed, but only with text/image compression turned on (increases effective speed to 190). Without that it would have been horrible. The best connection I was able to get was 26k, and it was at that speed I downloaded the latest episodes of Stargate and Galactica. Sloooow.
Fortunately I only had to stay there one month, and then I moved to a new hotel with cable internet (~100
Re: (Score:2)
And porn was like a 1920s strip show.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>And porn [over 14k modem] was like a 1920s strip show.
Now c'mon it wasn't that bad. I downloaded several SI Swimsuit Issues over a 2k modem to my Commodore Amiga (80s). Granted it was only 704x480x 4000 colors and DVD resolution, but that's still enough to enjoy the boobies. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't about the images or the quality but the speed of download.
The background, then the head and slowly going futher down. Just a slow process, what was the most interesting are the laying down where you get the leg, the head some breast then the whole body
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
...
You saw a picture on the Internet from some Android dev phone that said WCDMA on it ... and so you inferred from that ... that AT&T doesn't use GSM, it uses CDMA ...
You are, without a doubt, an idiot.
Considering the number of times I've carried my phone between AT&Ts network and Europe ... and simply swapped sim cards ... or that the frequencies the AT&T phones all use are GSM freqs ... or ... you know what, why bother ... you saw some image on the Internet, it must be true, everyone else mus
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W-CDMA_(UMTS) [wikipedia.org]
dumbass, W-CDMA is used around the world and is commonly called UMTS which the iPhone and Nexus One support. GSM was coined back in TDMA days and it's just the name of a worldwide governing body, not a technical standard. Verizon's version of CDMA is an upgraded version of CDMA2000
Re:3G and 4G is consumer friendly (Score:5, Informative)
It is common to refer to phones that us SIM cards as "GSM" phones, because they work on networks that are GSM. And it is common to refer to phones that use no SIM cards as "CDMA", because they work on networks that are CDMA. So you're still an idiot, you may be right, but you're still an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
...forgetting iDen, of course, which is trying to die. But the heavy users don't seem to want it to, and useful PTT is still very important to them, and PTT sucks on all other technologies.
What iDen does, it does very well, and nothing else compares. Oh,and you get Nascar! Weee!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm fully aware of that, I'm also fully aware that CDMA is not WCDMA and vice versus. If there were the same thing they'd not have different names and different pages would they?
You and the original poster seem to think WCDMA and CDMA are the same thing. They aren't, thats why we call them different names.
Re: (Score:2)
[E]ven a lot of the tech enthusiasts who think ATT is on GSM don't know that AT&T is using a form of CDMA. i saw it in the Nexus One settings on the internet where the network says WCDMA.
Waaaaah, I saw it on dem dere innernets so it must be true...
W-CDMA is the most common form of UMTS [wikipedia.org], what is typically sold as "3G". The 2G part of AT&T's wireless network is indeed firmly rooted in GSM [gsmworld.com].
"3G" has always been meaningless (Score:3, Insightful)
They didn't "make 3G into a brand"; it has always BEEN a marketing label. There is no such thing as a "3G" wireless signal, rather there are various (existing and emerging) modulation techniques which collectively exist under the 3G label. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3G#Overview [wikipedia.org]
Moreover, the signal is the phy layer. The fact that you have a 3G signal doesn't guarantee any minimum performance, any more than having a gigabit NIC guarantees a fast internet connection. It only defines the upper boundary of performance.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that you have a 3G signal doesn't guarantee any minimum performance...
Well it provides for a sort of minimum performance. The wikipedia article to which you linked claims it does anyway.
From the first paragraph;
a 3G system must allow simultaneous use of speech and data services, and provide peak data rates of at least 200 kbit/s according to the IMT-2000 specification.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
From the first paragraph;
a 3G system must allow simultaneous use of speech and data services, and provide peak data rates of at least 200 kbit/s according to the IMT-2000 specification.
Except on Sprint.
And Verizon. Where is the class action suit considering that more than half of the "3G" phones in the US (those held by Verizon and Sprint subscribers) are not really 3G despite being labeled as such?
Re: (Score:2)
Read it again: peak data rates of at least 200 kbit/s. Peak.
It's a the minimum height of the ceiling, not the floor.
Re: (Score:2)
"They didn't "make 3G into a brand"; it has always BEEN a marketing label. There is no such thing as a "3G" wireless signal, rather there are various (existing and emerging) modulation techniques which collectively exist under the 3G label. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3G#Overview [wikipedia.org]"
That may be the case with your weird CDMA carriers, but over here in Europe 3G has always been UMTS. Just as 2.5G is EDGE, and 3.5G is HSPDA/HSUPA and all that crap.
I am, however, wondering what HSPA+ will be classified as (Looks
What about Sprint? (Score:5, Informative)
Sprint, at least is calling its LTE [wikipedia.org] network "4G", as it rolls it out.
As I understand it:
As I see it, the xG shorthand is a way to track the evolution of the network, link level, and physical layers. Every time one of those changes, you get a new "generation" of cell phones.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(Sprint is WiMax)
Re: (Score:2)
I stand corrected.
Re: (Score:2)
Sprints been calling Clear's wimax network 4G too.
Thank god consumers have short memories.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sprint is working on 4G WiMax, which is a completely different thing than LTE. Everyone else (Verizon, AT&T) are going to be moving to LTE, and Sprint [1] has made random mentions of supporting LTE eventually as well. T-Mobile is going to be moving to LTE, but as of now, they are getting their "3.5G" stuff[2] out there in the interim.
My hope: The cell companies get a ton of tower sharing agreements and get LTE deployed widely. Not just metro areas, but in the sticks where I get almost no coverage, o
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What about GSM? (Score:3, Informative)
Meh, the business bullshitters in charge also use the G, mostly to stand for "Generation". So the parent is mostly correct in that context.
Verizon / Sprint started as CDMA (code division multiple access, GPS satellite signals also use this) networks, vs. everyone else who started as GSM use TDMA (time division multiple access).
In CDMA, all units basically transmit on the same wide frequency, but have a unique code to distinguish their signal from others. In TDMA, all the units get timeslices (~120 per sec
Re: (Score:2)
>>>POTS (Plain old telephone service) : 64kbps line that carries uncompressed 8kHz 8-bit mono audio (that's why phone calls sound like crap when they're on TV / Radio talk shows). Also sort of explains why the fastest dialup modems were around 56k (after data protocol and error correction overhead).
>>>
POTS is actually only 7 bits, because the 8th bit is used for control signals. Hence 56k. Also the sample rate is 8000 times but the actual frequency width is only 4 kilohertz.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh cool... I always thought there was a good reason for POTS to sound worse than 8-bit / 8kHzsamples from my old ISA Sound Blaster card.
I thought there might already be some 8b/10b encoding going on too like in ethernet that brought you down from 64kbps, but I guess not... maybe that's why the best you could practically expect from a 56kbps modem was 40+kbps with any error correction overhead.
I did enjoy learning about the Viterbi decoder and other forms of forward error correction used in wireless mobile n
Re: (Score:2)
I get 53 k out of my phoneline modem - that's the maximum limit allowed in the US, due to FCC speed limits. Otherwise it would be a solid 56k as advertised and per the V.90 spec.
The up speed is 48k.
Re: (Score:2)
POTS is actually only 7 bits, because the 8th bit is used for control signals. Hence 56k. Also the sample rate is 8000 times but the actual frequency width is only 4 kilohertz.
That applies to the robbed bit T1 interfaces, which can be debatably called POTS vs pure analog that was the original standard. More modern PRI-based T1s are a full 64 kbps since you lose a channel for signaling (23 vs 24 in old robbed bit land.) We use modern PRIs for that get broken down into POTS lines where I work, so no robbed bits. Of course, modems can't do any better than 53 kbps or something lame due to the telcos' petitioning the FCC so they don't have to explain why their network is stuck in the
Re: (Score:2)
>>>telcos' petitioning the FCC so they don't have to explain why their network is stuck in the 70s.
Nope. They discovered that modems operating at peak speed (7 bits and 56k) caused crosstalk on neighboring lines. So the FCC limited the *power output* of the modem to prevent that.
Negative Externality (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that the overuse of 3G (and subsequent use of 3G as an advertised speed) is a result of locked phones being tied to carriers. When Joe Average Consumer goes out to buy landline internet, there really isn't a whole lot to choose from that differentiates comcast, att, and whoever else. The main thing he decides on is speed; the hardware that comes with is usually irrelevant. What we have in the cell phone market is 3G being used as a sort of loose guarantee that internet will be somewhat fast. The whole using a protocol as a speed definition is stupid, but the reason Joe doesn't notice is that he is too busy choosing which phone to use, which determines the carrier. It seems all carriers have realized that it is significantly easier to advertise "3G enabled" and not put a speed on it, and let the phone pull in sales, rather than the network. If we lived in a world (or nearly any foreign country) where unlocked phones are the norm, you'd pick your phone, then comparison shop for either the fastest or cheapest (or balance of the 2) network.
tl;dr version: Overuse of 3G is caused by locked phones
Re: (Score:1)
yep... I lived in Hong Kong for most my life. Unlocked phones = wayyy better than most of the crap they sell here. Now that US finally has smart phones its gotten better but I still cant believe how bad it is here. Worse reception, higher costs (if you get a by minutes plan its typically 1/10th of the price.. theres international and local thats it. no roaming or whatever else.) I feel the mobile phone market in the US gets away with it simply cause the consumers let them. That and the ignorance of the typi
Do we really need to point out that 3G (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Fuck Everything, We're Doing Five Blades....
Re: (Score:1)
No problem, I'll just crank it up to 11!!!
Opera mini (Score:2)
The answer to slow cellular data rates is Opera mini. Browsing raw interweb on cellular is just horrid.
I have a 4g phone. (Score:1)
Peer to Peer and Open (Score:1)
the PDF makes me think.
there is allot of talk about the Debian Freedom box where the apps and data live on peoples little sheeva plug at home.
SO, why not use the same idea for mireless data ? .
I know for example that the FON system in Spain is quite popular. But they screwed it up by charging for it
But considering what a huge waste of money is spent on paying these mobile operates, which are simply paying off the HUGE license fees that the government charged them.
When you just think about it logically its C
I rolled out 2.5G and 3G on CDMA, let me explain (Score:3, Informative)
First off, there's no technical article that's going to be worse than a person who has no idea what he's talking about, and who's basing his observations on technical details as given by a salesperson. From what I RTFA, it's the basis of this discussion, but it can't be. Using the typical car anaology, you've built a race car with no tires.
First off, 3G is a generic term. If I say 3G for wireless telecomm, I'm referring to CDMA2000, which is a 3rd generation of wireless data protocol. 2.5 G was never really accepted as 3G because it didn't implement all the standards, such as real time allocation, and it was circuit switched packet data (laymans terms: wireless modem). Getting back to "3G", a third generation of iPhone can be called 3G, but still work on the 4th generation of wireless standards, right next to a 4th generation iPhone (4G) running on an older 3G data network (Sprint, whoever). In an attempt to keep this discussion simple, we'll just stick to the wireless, 3rd generation data format when saying, "3G."
Before 3G data was sent over the air on dedicated channels. If you wanted to have more data, you set asside more time, or codes (TDMA or CDMA). However if network modeling was bad, you either banged on the headroom for data (surfing Google took longer), or voice (calls didn't go out or come in). Carriers in the US from my observation are always giving priority to voice. So the common configuration was to give them more "pipe" and higher priority.
Enter 3G CDMA, aka CDMA 2000. Initially there was only one way to implement 3G, later developers came up with newer formats that were backwards compatible in most cases, such as EV, EV-D, and EV-DO. These all have meanings, feel free to Google. In a nutshell though, they're all different implementations of 3G. 3G, or CDMA2000, allows the cell site to allocate pipes by usage and type. So, if you're data surfing at 1am, when no one is around making voice calls, you get the full pipe and your data screams. Use the same phone, on the same cell site at 12 noon, and you get the minimum pipe, and if everyone's on voice calls, you may not get out at all until a slot opens up. This is not to be confused with "breathing" (where cell sites expand and contract RF coverage according to usage). That's at the RF, or Layer 1 if you will.
When you start mingling WiMax and other technologies, you're now blurring the usage of the term. WiFi is not typical CDMA (I'm only hedging with "typical" because I don't know what modulation method wifi uses). Back to car analogies, it's like buying a 2009 car, putting a 2010 engine in it, and calling it a 2010. Yes part of it is a new generation, but it's still a 2009. Adding Wifi to a CDMA phone didn't take it from 3G to 4G, so from a logical techology standpoint, going WiMax isn't either. It's a different format, frequency, and usage.
Eventually, all these technologies will blur and the author will be correct in being confused. The telecom manufacturers (lucent, nortel, etc) have been moving the "ip up the train." In the beginning, they went out a specific trunk to a rack mounted shelf of modems (2.5 G, circuit switched packet data) which either went into another backend, or out a plain old telephone line (POTS). With the original implementation,, data shared RF with voice, came in the tower, went through the switch, which then split out data out a PRI interface (T1) to a server which converted over to TCP/IP and then used Home/Foreign Agents to manage real-time changing points of connection within a network. In laymans terms, you could jump in your car in San Diego, fire up your laptop, and drive from SD to New York without changing the IP address your laptop was assigned. When I left telecom (early 2000s), they were rolling out IP from the Site Controllers back. Meaning, the Mobile Switch back at the main office didn't break it out. The eventual plan back then was IP from the cell site. Everything coming out was TCP/IP, regardless of data or voice. 3G still all applies, because
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Did you ever notice how each new generation of cell-phone tech gets branded '3G,'
No. Especially since this iPhone 4G thing came out. It was in the news, you might have heard about it.
I've got some news for you... ...and make sure you've got a black turtleneck to wipe your manboy fanboi tears with...
You might want to sit down...
Re:4G? (Score:5, Informative)
Uhhh, wasn't that the iPhone 4, not the iPhone 4G?
Re: (Score:2)
Yup.
But the iPhone 2 was "iPhone 3G", and iPhone 3 was "iPhone 3GS".
I imagine the only reason Apple didn't call it "iPhone 4G" is because almost nobody has AT&T "4G" service available. Few enough have 3G service available with AT&T as it is.
Re:4G? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The Sprint HTC EVO is 4G...
Except it isn't. You should read the article, it's good.
Re: (Score:2)
Except it isn't. You should read the article, it's good.
You mean. Except, it isn't yet. The Wimax Forum has applied for the 4G label from the International Telecommunications Union - Radiocommunication Sector (ITU-R). That application/proposal hasn't been accepted yet, but there is really no reason it shouldn't. 4G may be a so-called standard, but the International Telecommunication Union and its working group does treat it more like it's a brand than a real standard.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not one to procrastinate. I'll be a sarcastic douche about it now!
Re:4G? (Score:5, Informative)
No. Especially since this iPhone 4G thing came out. It was in the news, you might have heard about it.
The iPhone 4 supports 3.5G (HSPA+)
http://www.google.com/search?q=3.5g+iphone+4 [google.com]
4G is the new 3G
It's all just marketing talk and the details are buried in the fine print
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, did you mean the HTC EVO 4G?
Or the Iphone 4, which in spite of its shininess and hype, is still 3G?
Re: (Score:2)
Hahaa! You're all absolutely right! I stand corrected and I'll get my coat!
Re: (Score:2)
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out!