ITU Rules That WiMax, LTE Don't Qualify As 4G 137
GMGruman writes "It's official: All those ads and vendor claims about 4G services being offered today or being right around the corner are fiction. The international standards body ITU has ruled that Clearwire's WiMax network and the LTE systems that Verizon and others are just starting to roll out are not in fact 4G services. Oops."
HOLY SHIT! HOLY HOLY SHIT! NO! NO NO NO! (Score:1, Funny)
HOLY SHIT! I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS! Some marketing drones who don't understand the technologies they're pushing have made a mistake and mislabeled them while attempting to make them sound better than they are. THIS CANNOT BE!
More than 3 and not as much as 4? (Score:3, Funny)
Some marketing drones who don't understand the technologies they're pushing have made a mistake and mislabeled them while attempting to make them sound better than they are.
I'm sure they could come up with some new advertising slogan... Lessee there was the old standard, 3G, and we're so much better than THAT. But, we cannot say we meet the new standard, 4G. What we need is something that's better than 3... I've got it!
Get your piece of the Pi! 3.14159G
<grin>
Ya, it'll never work; just Pi in the sky.
Re: (Score:2)
3.999... G
Re: (Score:2)
Wireless service especially for the police?
Already been done. [cisco.com]
Who cares ? (Score:1, Insightful)
The last mile problem isn't the bottleneck , limited data plans , limited data rates , and limited bandwidth due to over-congested areas are the main problem.
Mobile service providers want to sell you expensive "minutes" , offering good data plans would turn them into ordinary Internet providers and everybody would be swinging sip phones and talking they're mouth off for 20$ a month.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You know, new generation of tech is specifically meant to address the "limited data rates , and limited bandwidth due to over-congested areas" stuff; at least in theory.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I was using limited as in artificially limited. Most providers won't give you what the current technology provides. They will QOS it on the backbone like it's nobody's business .
As for the over-congested areas , they could de-congest those by adding more base stations with narrower angle antennas.But they won't. The only reason they'd rather shovel money into this tech rather than more of the old is because this way they can get more profit from either phone sales or the usual 2 year contract they come with
Re: (Score:2)
That new phone starting to feel a bit like a Trabant in your pocket?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4xZgxDffac [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
While distance wise, 5 miles or so isn't too bad, trying to cram that many phones onto the same towers definitely isn't the way to decent reliability.
Re: (Score:2)
"and limited bandwidth due to over-congested areas are the main problem"
Wait, how is that not a last mile problem, and how is that not a bottleneck?
Insert more coins to continue (Score:1, Troll)
They'll just pour more money into marketing/lobbying whatever the ITU is until they change their mind. When does a multibillion-dollar corporation not get what they want?
Re:Insert more coins to continue (Score:4, Informative)
. . . whatever the ITU is . . .
The ITU http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Telecommunication_Union [wikipedia.org] is pretty damn important. They define all sorts of worldwide standards for the telecommunication industry.
If you visit Geneva, take a walk by their headquarters.
Re:Insert more coins to continue (Score:5, Interesting)
Not sure that it matters. When oil companies started marketing Type II Natural oil as "synthetic" the trade/standards committee called foul. So the oil companies went to court, found a judge to declare "if the oil acts like synthetic, even though it's natural, it can be marketed as 'synthetic' on the bottle." Now you can't be sure if your oil is a True Type IV synthetic built in a lab, or natural oil from the ground.
So the cellular companies will just find some compliant US judge to declare their service is "as fast as G4" and can be marketed as 'G4' on the label, without violating false advertising laws. Done deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except the 4G standard doesn't necessarily define what speed you'll get. It defines a latency and target speeds. Even worse, there is absolutely no guarantee of interoperability between 4G products. The reality is that the consumers probably won't a difference between 3G and 4G. At least not in the current implementations of WiMax or LTE. What they will notice is better bandwidth, which being 4G compliant doesn't guarantee anymore than using Ca6 cable guarantees better bandwidth over a Cat5 cable*.
*An in
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I thought the ITU had become increasingly irrelevant over the past couple of decades. With ETSI controlling mobile standards, and IETF regulating Internet standards (with W3C specifically for web), what exactly to the ITU do any more? I read the Wikipedia page and it sounds as toothless as the UN itself.
Phillip.
Re: (Score:2)
On the plus side it might mean that the "more money into marketing/lobbying" of grandparent is even more irrelevant, thanks to E part of ETSI? (and even more thanks to F...)
ITU is a big so what on this. (Score:2)
The ITU is an INTERnational standards organization promulgating standards for interconnection of telephone equipment. Telephone equipment manufacturers pay attention to their regulations because the carriers want equipment that works together and often puts ITU standards in their requirements when they ask vendors to bid on supplying them with equipment.
That does not give it any standing at all in the US domestic advertising market, or in trademark law. (If ANSI had done it they MIGHT have had more clout.
Re: (Score:2)
When does a multibillion-dollar corporation not get what they want?
When the standards body is headquartered in Europe?
What's in a name ? (Score:5, Funny)
I just saw an ad on Hulu advertising Sprint 4G (Score:1, Interesting)
So given that the ad aired after the announcement, does that mean that I can sue for false advertising or something? I figure, hey, if I'm in the US and have to deal with all of the crazy lawsuits out there, I might as well get my own piece of the action, eh? :-)
-- Qubit
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The idiot who poured coffee in her lap did not and should not have anticipated that the coffee would be served at temperatures that would be dangerous for anyone to handle, and well above what anyone in the food industry should have been serving. In fact, it was even above what the manufacturer of the machines that prepared the coffee intended for use.
The coffee was so hot that when it soaked into the material of her clothing, it stuck to her skin and caused third degree burns over 6% of her body.
Source: ht [caoc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
No. The ITU doesn't hold any legal standing to set advertising standards in the US, except by direct contract with member companies. It is possible the ITU could sue for breach of contract, but no one has standing for a false advertising claim.
Re: (Score:2)
And as a side note: One thing that differentiates Clearwire/Sprint WiMax is that it is a 100% IPv4 network. From the user device to the net. The whole network from the tower to data center is Layer 2 Ethernet. Clearwire is not a telco, it is truly an ISP.
Re: (Score:2)
LTE-Advanced standards qualify for 4G (Score:3, Informative)
LTE-Advanced did qualify for 4G,
http://www.3gpp.org/ITU-R-Confers-IMT-Advanced-4G [3gpp.org]
but it's just a set of standards for now afaik, that still need to be implemented.
4G = 100Mbps (Score:1, Informative)
Clearwire's WiMax and Verizon's LTE networks operate between 3-12Mbps.
Boys better stop advertising 4G...
Re: (Score:2)
Clearwire's WiMax and Verizon's LTE networks operate between 3-12Mbps.
Boys better stop advertising 4G...
4G 100 Mbps.
Read the standard, or even read the article which mentions this. 100 Mbps is a target speed. That's like claiming its not ADSL because your wiring distance holds you to 1meg negotiated rates.
HSPA+ (Score:1, Interesting)
Poor T-Mobiles HSPA+ network is even less qualified than the others. Oh well, T-Mo is cheap!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Lawsuit? (Score:2)
How long until a class action lawsuit is filed on behalf of the Sprint customers that bought Evo and Epic phones?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And? I don't see why so many people complain about that. DSL/Cable users pay higher fees for faster data than dialup. Fiber users pay higher fees for faster data than DSL/Cable. Why shouldn't 4G users pay higher fees for faster data than 3G?
Because the 4G service they provide isn't actually any faster?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are required to pay for the 4G service on top of the 3G service in order to activate the phone.
And? I don't see why so many people complain about that.
Because people who don't live in a major major city don't have any 4G towers yet. For example, Sprint doesn't have any 4G towers in a city of 200,000 residents in northeast Indiana.
DSL/Cable users pay higher fees for faster data than dialup.
When you buy a smrtphone, it's as if you were buying a bundle of a computer and a modem. You can't buy the computer without a modem; otherwise, you'd have the so-called "Android pod touch", and Google doesn't want that on the market.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>>>class action lawsuit
It didn't work the last time Sprint advertised a "3G" phone, sold it to customers, and then when they rolled-out their network, the phone did not work (incompatible). Doubtful a lawsuit would succeed this time either.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed. Preferably to the actual judgment or at least an article citing it.
Re: (Score:2)
If you sign a contract based on the other party providing false information, then yes, you have potential grounds for a lawsuit.
First large-scale LTE in the world? (Score:4, Informative)
The ITU's current technical definition in no way affects our plans to launch the world's first large-scale LTE network later this year.
Ahem... Stockholm and Oslo already did that while back. I do think they are part of what you call "the world".
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's where the Large-Scale comes in. Compared to the land area of the US (i.e. Verizon's planned roll-out), they're what we would call "test markets."
Re:First large-scale LTE in the world? (Score:4, Insightful)
What Verizon calls "large scale" is just the Houston area initially [vzw.com], with other major metropolitan areas and large airports following. You didn't really thought it will be a rapid rollout throughout most of the land area of the US, right? (BTW, Sweden and Norway have significantly lower population density)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't tell that to VZW marketing - they're claiming "4G" will be "network wide" soon. Though, just at 4G is now a bit of an exaggeration, is suspect soon is also valid only for very large values of soon.
(FWIW, I'm an ATT customer; Verizon coverage sucks everywhere except population centers. It happens to suck slightly less than ATT in those marginal areas, but in my area not enough to make a difference)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you even read the article you linked to? No, it's not most of the land area, but hardly "just the Houston area initially."
Verizon announced today that it is bringing the world’s first large-scale 4G Long Term Evolution (LTE) network to the Houston area. The initial availability of a 4G LTE wireless network in Houston is part of the company’s major network launch in 38 major metropolitan areas by the end of the year. In addition, the company is launching 4G LTE in more than 60 commercial air
Re: (Score:2)
Did you even read the short 3 sentences I wrote? Here, I'll help you out: "...with other major metropolitan areas and large airports following."
Still nothing in comparison to what many people bought.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
>>>"...to launch the world's* first large-scale LTE network later this year."
>>>
>>>Ahem... Stockholm and Oslo already did that while back.
You missed the footnote: * (where "world" is defined as any territory equal or larger than the US). So that would exclude all the EU Member States/Cities. See how dishonest corporations are?
Re: (Score:2)
Note the words "large-scale". Stockholm and Oslo are two cities. Verizon was referring to a continent.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah but they're Socialist havens. Only capitalist countries like Japan and the US count.
Well, AT&T will be happy about this (Score:2)
After the whole "map" debacle, this should make them feel a bit better, regardless of how fast their service really is.
Duh... (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems kind of obvious, reading that Verizon's LTE can give 5 - 12Mbit and WiMax 3 - 6Mbit, doesn't it? How can they advertise that as 4G when my current 3G network (Cosmote in Greece) offers HSPA+ at up to 21Mbit and while I don't have an HSPA+ device to test that, I do get the 3-7Mbit that my HSDPA device promises. Now that I look at the specs, my N900 at 10/2 capability should be even faster than my 7.2Mbit usb modem, perhaps I should benchmark it to make sure and throw away the modem...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Web 2.0 is actually a bad example as it accomplished a completely different goal than Web 1.0. Web 1.0 was human consumable content. Formats like HTML that described what is a heading, and what is a paragraph, but not what was contained within that heading or paragraph.
Web 2.0 brought formats based on XML, JSON, etc. which describe what the content is. What is a title, what is a price, etc. This allows computers to use the content in new ways that was only previously accomplishable using ugly scraping metho
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Web 2.0 is all about taking protocols never designed for rigorous persistence and bending, twisting and warping them to make them work in a fashion that they were never designed for, rather than developing a protocol more appropriate for the client-server model.
HTTP is less firewalled (Score:2)
Web 2.0 is all about [bending HTTP] rather than developing a protocol more appropriate for the client-server model.
A proper client-server protocol is also far less likely to pass through a sophisticated organizational firewall than HTTP. AJAX allows client-server to go wherever HTTP goes.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Web 2.0 is all about ...
Wasn't "Web 2.0" just invented by O'Reilly in order to create another conference and sell another line of books?
Re: (Score:1)
Even 12Mbps doesn't sound super fast to me. In Canada we've had real world speeds higher than this from most carriers since the start of 2010. Even on our newest budget network (WIND Mobile) I've gotten real world speeds of 7Mbps on my N900.
T-Mobile has even recently been started calling HSPA+ (21Mbps) as 4G. Well why not, if you think "up to 12Mbps" is 4G.
Our major carriers will be rolling out 42Mbps+ (not sure what real world speeds will be) HSPA soon, and they are still calling it 3G. It's only marketing
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
CDMA is in fairly widespread use throughout much of Asia. Some of the carriers are planning moves to other technologies, but the same thing is happening in the US as the CDMA carriers are moving to LTE.
Re: (Score:2)
CDMA is in fairly widespread use throughout much of Asia.
Of course! Charging roaming fees to tourists from the US is very lucrative.
Re: (Score:2)
The US cellphone network sucks in case you did not notice. One reason is that they have historically preferred longer range over high peak bandwidth. The less communication towers you have the cheaper your network is. They also have rather weak coverage.
Exactly. The US is more spreadout and longer range is the only way to cheaply get good coverage. Other countries with higher average population densities don't have this issue.
There is no government mandate for carriers to provide decent coverage. They usually are the first to hop on a new standard, which may get quickly obsoleted, become a niche which only exists in the US (Hello CDMA!). But hey, they have "4G".
You're correct the US govt doesn't mandate wireless connectivity like they do analog phone service. The broadband initiative may provide some driving force for wireless internet access though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't speak to the coverage in Sweden, but I can say my several US states (the ones where people complain about coverage) have lower population densities. These states don't have major metropolis cities, and don't have coverage issues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen, with my own eyes and testing, 28Mb/s on Clearwire. Granted that was an uncapped testing account on an empty system, but still, it did it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Still, 21Mbit which is deployed in many countries and called 3G is close. In fact, at least a couple of countries have deployed HSPA+ at 28Mbit and the technology has a theoretical max of 56Mbit. And it is always called 3G or at most 3.5G. You can't go calling something 4G unless it is much faster as 3G was to 2G.
Marketing ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Marketing claims to have a number. Engineers say otherwise.
Scott Adams finds more material to write about.
Damn my clear router seems slower now (Score:2)
Well not really...but I can say that its still much faster than the AT&T 3g dataplan I had. The average consumer doesn't know what 3g or 4g means anyway...they would be better off calling it something else but for joe average the only thing they really know is 3g has been a term pushed down their throats and its slow...anything else just sounds faster. While i'd love to have 100Mbps truthfully I get better speeds from my wimax connection now than I do from my cable connection at home much of the time
Bits per second vs. bits per month (Score:2)
truthfully I get better speeds from my wimax connection now than I do from my cable connection at home
But how long can you sustain those speeds? Even if wireless has the advantage in bits per second, the pricing model is such that wired has a substantial advantage in bits per month. You don't want to have to take two months to download a high-definition movie, the first 5 GB in one month and the second 5 GB in the other.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldnt know...mine is unlimited and actually cheaper than my cable connection by around $15.
Unlimited won't last forever (Score:2)
I wouldnt know...mine is unlimited
Once your WiMAX carrier takes on more customers, unmetered data plans like yours will become 5 GB/mo plans as soon as the carrier can afford to waive your early termination fee. Look at AT&T, which recently capped monthly transfers on new or renewed smartphone data plans.
The Great Thing About Standards . . . (Score:4, Funny)
0.001G (Score:2)
If I were running on of these money machines, I would call my data service 100G.
Then your competitor will defuse your puffer with "no bull" commercials that use objective measures such as log bps. For example, 100 kbps is 5, 1 Mbps is 6, and 10 Mbps is 7. And there is only one objective G, and that's gigabits per second. For example, if you provide 1 Mbps, you provide 0.001 G.
Another round of "draft N"-type compliance .... (Score:2)
False advertising (Score:2)
Right ... and when I advertise my penis as being 12 inches long on various dating sites, what I really mean is that it is bigger than six inches.
4G services? (Score:3, Insightful)
The international standards body ITU has ruled that Clearwire's WiMax network and the LTE systems that Verizon and others are just starting to roll out are not in fact 4G services.
Are not "in fact" 4G services? Unless the ITU has some sort of trademark on "4G", that is a ridiculous claim. Ultimately the marketplace will decide what is 4G and what isn't, and at this point it looks like the ITU is up for more ridicule than Sprint / Clearwire.
I understand that LTE is significantly different from its predecessors, which gives it as good a reason as any to claim to be "4G". Is "LTE-Advanced" so different from "LTE" to rationally claim that it should be "4G" and "LTE" not be?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, ITU is only the body defining what is 3G, 4G, etc. ...
Re: (Score:2)
I thought they were defining what "IMT-2000" and "IMT-Advanced" are. The ITU doesn't have anything formally to do with what "3G" and "4G" are, nor does anyone else. What is particularly ridiculous about this is that IMT-2000 and IMT-Advanced aren't really standards at all, but rather standards for standards.
No one in this right mind is going to care which technicality keeps a real standard from being classified as IMT-Advanced, because it has absolutely no bearing on anything in the real world. It is just
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, this irrelevant IMT-2000, "only" establishing, in the end, what everybody calls 3G... Similarly with IMT-Advanced, generally; except for few telcos.
In latin america... (Score:2)
... we will take any generation, except 5G
iPhone (Score:2)
Well this will hose Apple's announcement of the LTE iPhone 4G next year
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, no. The other way around.
ITU includes EDGE in "3G" - but no carrier does it AFAIK, despite current revisions of EDGE being close to the speed of first "real" 3G/UMTS; and future revisions surpassing it noticeably.
At least with currently available infrastructure of LTE, there should be decently straightforward upgrade path to LTE Advanced (the "true 4G" apparently...). Maybe they're fed up mainly with WiMax, which does seem more like a quick marketing gimmick.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
2.75 was EDGE, so I guess LTE would be 3.75 or thereabouts. Maybe 3.9 if speeds are close.
And you do? (Score:2, Informative)
I guess that ITU - the organization that defines what constitutes as 4G and what doesn't - does know what 4G means. And apparently, they think that LTE is just not big enough leap that it could be compared to the difference between GSM and UMTS, for example.
It is kinda like Web 3.0. A marketing term we hear every now and then when yet another company tries to claim that they've reinvented the web... But the difference is never comparable to that between 1.0 and 2.0 (the transition from company websites to s
Re: (Score:2)
Have you seen a freakin LTE pulse train??
It's nothing at like UMTS. Fuck, you need a new kind of analyzer just to properly view it.
Who says they get to define it? (Score:2)
I guess that ITU - the organization that defines what constitutes as 4G and what doesn't - does know what 4G means.
The ITU has no more standing to define what 4G means for advertising purposes within the US than you or I do. They can define what it means within their standards regime, but so what? The English language (unlike French) does not have an official standards board.
"nG" is a set of buzzwords used by executives roadmapping their network equipment offerings and network designs. It is not subject
Re: (Score:2)
1 was Analog
2 was GSM
2.5 was GPRS/EGPRS
3 was UMTS
3.5 was HSUPA+
4 is LTE
Completely arbitrary. See the recent slashdot article about how companies kept redefining what "3G" meant. First it was GPRS. Then it was EGPRS. Then it was UMTS. They change definitions whenever the hell they feel like it.
Aside - I have an old phone called Ericsson DH668 which I think is analog only.
Is this any good, or should I toss it?
Re: (Score:2)
LAN = Local Area Network
Most common technology: IEEE 802.3 A.K.A. Ethernet
MAN=Metropolitan Area Network
A Network that covers a city, or significant portion of a city, or geographical area equivalent in size to a city. (There are also smaller network sizes, including Campus area networks, etc, but they always use either LAN or MAN technologies, so are irrelevant). There was an IEEE 802.6 standard here, but it never caught on. Common technologies here ate ATM, SONET, and increasingly Ethernet and MPLS.
WAN= Wi
Re: (Score:2)
I seem to remember several years back that engineers got on the marketers for selling DSL as "broadband" when truly cable is broadband and DSL is narrowband. This never stopped the marketers and now most people just assume broadband means anything faster than dial-up.
Because Broadband became synonymous with "better than dialup" speeds. Technically DSL is broadband as it uses a wide range of frequencies on the wire. So does a dialup modem. Ethernet and single-wavelength fiber transmission would be narrowband.
Re: (Score:2)
Because if you read abgout what 4G is actually defined to be by the ITU and then buy a device and 2 year contract because it's "4G",. you will be awfully disappointed. Before we became the Corporate States of America, we used to call that fraud.
What do you bet If I go around selling "gold" or buying stuff with "dollars" I get prosecuted?
Re: (Score:2)
Guess what: "4G" is not defined by the ITU. "ITM-Advanced" is.
Re: (Score:2)
According to the ITU, 4G is a synonym for ITM-Advanced. That's why they were able to make a ruling on WiMax and LTE not being 4G.
At LEAST read the title of the article!
Re: (Score:2)
According to the ITU, 4G is a synonym for ITM-Advanced
According to the ITU, they have the authority to decide what is "fourth generation" and what isn't. That is so laughable that it is ridiculous. What is even more ridiculous is that they have busybodies wasting their time coming up with a meaningless meta-standard like ITM-Advanced in the first place, a meta-standard so inconsequential that it will have no real world effect on anyone anywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh-Huh
We don't need no steeeenking standards!
The ITU invented the terminology and defined what it means. Just because for some reason you want corporate weasels to lie to you doesn't negate that. If the various vendors want to, they can invent their own terminology and than make empty claims around their new market speak.
We have WhizzBang 3.0!
Re: (Score:2)
The ITU invented the terminology and defined what it means
Sorry, No. ITU did not invent the term "3G". It invented the term "IMT-2000". "3G" doesn't even appear on any of the relevant documents. Not only that, the work of the ITU is so content free that it could disappear tomorrow, and no one would notice the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
But we're not talk8ing about 3G, we're talking about 4G and if the ITU has nothing to say about it, TFA wouldn't exist.
Have fun with your new whizzbang2000 compliant whatever!
Re: (Score:2)
if the ITU has nothing to say about it, TFA wouldn't exist.
Two problems: (1) The ITU deciding what is "3G" and what is "4G" is a naked power grab. They only have the authority to decide what is "IMT-2000" and "IMT-Advanced". Nobody is advertising their devices as "IMT-Advanced".
(2) "IMT-2000" and "IMT-Advanced" are not technical standards, they are wish lists. The ITU (which is a worthless bureaucratic waste of time and energy) is now into the business of deciding which technologies are wish list compliant