+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Tips and Deals (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Thread: A Primer on Cell Phone Network Lingo (/showthread.php?tid=110511)
Pages:
1
2
A Primer on Cell Phone Network Lingo - sekker - 01-20-2011
http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/17/2g-3g-4g-and-everything-in-between-an-engadget-wireless-prim/
Re: A Primer on Cell Phone Network Lingo - Black - 01-20-2011
Good stuff, thanks.
Re: A Primer on Cell Phone Network Lingo - Jimmypoo - 01-20-2011
God, that was boring.
Re: A Primer on Cell Phone Network Lingo - Manlove - 01-20-2011
I had a cell phone once...I lost it around 2001.
Don't seem to miss it.
Re: A Primer on Cell Phone Network Lingo - Black - 01-20-2011
Manlove wrote:
I had a cell phone once...I lost it around 2001.
Don't seem to miss it.
Most people seem to rely heavily on them these days.
I'd be interested to hear what's unique about your lifestyle that makes having one not seem beneficial.
Re: A Primer on Cell Phone Network Lingo - sekker - 01-20-2011
Jimmypoo wrote:
God, that was boring.
Perhaps, but educational. Helped explain what to expect in terms of future iPhones and iPad connectivity via '4G' technologies.
Re: A Primer on Cell Phone Network Lingo - MGS_forgot_password - 01-20-2011
I am impressed-most of the stuff there was correct. Engadget writers are usual pretty stupid when it comes to the technical details of mobile networks.
/former mobile engineer
Re: A Primer on Cell Phone Network Lingo - Filliam H. Muffman - 01-20-2011
engadget wrote:
Lies, damn lies, and 4G
Hey, silvarios said it was okay that the ITU caved on calling WiMax and LTE with pitiful bandwidth 4G. That article must be a couple of months old... oh wait, it is only dated 2 days ago.
Re: A Primer on Cell Phone Network Lingo - Manlove - 01-20-2011
Black wrote:
Most people seem to rely heavily on them these days.
I'd be interested to hear what's unique about your lifestyle that makes having one not seem beneficial.
Not a lot. I got one when our baby was in utero, about 9 years ago and once she was born I never needed one again.
We have Vonage at home and when I am out it's because I'm either seeing someone I arranged to meet before, or I'm working and do not want to be disturbed.
The only conceivable reason I can see for having one is to be informed that a family member is in dire need and only then if I can actually do something to help.
For instance, I live in the USA and most of my family is in the UK. If my Mum suddenly died, as she presumably will one day, I will not need to be instantly notified. I can handle there being information in the world that I am not instantly privy to, particularly when I am unable to change things and somehow improve the situation. News took a while to travel in days gone by, and to some extent that improved the quality (not quantity) of it. Sort of whittled down the excess.
If something terrible happens to my little girl or wife then I can be rounded up within half an hour or so, if need be.
I still send e-mails as well!
Re: A Primer on Cell Phone Network Lingo - silvarios - 01-20-2011
Filliam H. Muffman wrote:
[quote=engadget]
Lies, damn lies, and 4G
Hey, silvarios said it was okay that the ITU caved on calling WiMax and LTE with pitiful bandwidth 4G. That article must be a couple of months old... oh wait, it is only dated 2 days ago.
I was content to let sleeping dogs lie. I came here with the simple intention to post something pleasant. To thank the OP for posting this thread and to comment that I thought the Engadget piece was well written and easy enough for the average tech slanted person to understand.
You could have PMed me or responded in the original thread, but nooooooo…you wanted to start a cross thread argument via sneak attack. That's low. I didn't go out of my way to mention you by name or reference your obvious reading comprehension errors, but since you insisted, I'll do my best to assist.
My original posts were meant to point out the fact that this 4G nomenclature being shoehorned on faster than 3G technologies is not a USA only designation. I also mentioned that the current "4G" technologies being marketed are much faster than 3G and if ITU wanted to head off the debate originally, they should have designated an official intermediate standard, just as they did with GRPS (not Enhanced GRPS which technically qualifies as 3G as well, but many people refer to it a 2.75G).
Engadget wrote: Unfortunately, those specs are so aggressive that no commercialized standard in the
world currently meets them.
That said, you could still easily argue that the original WiMAX and LTE standards are authentically different enough from the classically-defined 3G standards to call them a true generational upgrade -- and indeed, most (if not all) of the carriers around the world that have deployed them have referred to them as "4G." It's an obvious marketing advantage for them, and the ITU -- for all the good it's trying to do -- has no jurisdiction to stop it. Both technologies (LTE in particular) will be deployed to many, many more carriers around the globe over the next several years, and the use of the "4G" moniker is only going to grow. It can't be stopped.
Let's recap. The ITU backtracked a bit and said they would not complain if carriers wanted to call these newer much faster data standards 4G even if they fell short of the original 4G standard. Even WiMAX in the USA is twice as fast as real world EVDO and much faster than UMTS or any slower 3G CDMA. HSDPA+ (that's the download side of HSPA) is much faster than older 3G standards. LTE blows older 3G standards out of the water. All three can scale, although the jury is still out on WiMAX as long term solution.
Alright. Seems Engadget and I are on the same page. Perhaps the rebuttal comes later…
Here's another of my tidbits from the last thread:
me wrote: Why does 4G need a 100 fold increase over 3G? There were incremental steps in the last generation transition, why not now?
Engadget's response
Engadget wrote: Can't very well lump an upgrade that big in with 3G, can you? 3.5G it is, then! Ditto for UMTS: HSDPA would add significantly faster downlink speeds, and HSUPA would do the same for the uplink.
Further refinements to UMTS would produce HSPA+, dual-carrier HSPA+, and HSPA+ Evolution, ranging in theoretical speeds from 14Mbps all the way past a mind-boggling 600Mbps. So, what's the deal? Is it safe to say we've hit a new generation yet, or is this just 3.75G the same way that EDGE was 2.75G?
and
Engadget wrote: Just as it did with the 3G standard -- IMT-2000 -- the ITU has taken ownership of 4G, bundling it into a specification known as IMT-Advanced. It's no slouch, either: the document calls for 4G technologies to deliver downlink speeds of 1Gbps when stationary and 100Mbps when mobile, roughly 500-fold and 250-fold improvements over IMT-2000, respectively.
Still waiting for that "Aha! I really got this wrong" moment…
Wait, I did find a rebuttal to my statement, but it came from a fellow forum poster in the earlier thread
rebuttal from early thread wrote: Tenfold. The increase over 3G is tenfold. You're confused because U.S. companies have falsely advertised "2G" and "2.5G" as "3G" and that's throwing off your math.
Hmmm. Guess my math was off. Turns out that my 100 fold remark was an optimistic guess. I thought 3G had to be 1Mbps. Oops, only 384Kbps. [sarcasm]I feel so ashamed now.[/sarcasm]
Seriously, I've had enough 2.5, 2.75, 3G, 3.5G, and 3.75G (4G?) devices to understand that the speeds people were quoting in the past thread were quite frankly utter nonsense. Early CDMA and GSM 3G standards were quite slow, barely faster than GPRS and about on par with EGPRS, aka EDGE, aka Enhance GPRS, which again, is technically a 3G standard, but really not, hmmm seems familiar.
Filliam H. Muffman,
If you are going to reference an earlier post of mine before I've even had a chance to respond to the actual thread, please don't bring that weak sauce taking quotes out of context drivel. This isn't a 24 hour news channel chatterbox here, I expected better.