4G Wireless Causing A Buzz

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.3g.co.uk/PR/Feb2004/6509.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.3g.co.uk/PR/Feb2004/6509.htm</a><br /><br /></div>"It may be about five or more years into our future, but the prospect of next-generation, fast-as-lightening 4G services is already causing buzz and commercial interest among industry experts and operators. Typically, wireless standards take roughly 10 years to move from developer drawing boards to commercial application, so it’s far from early to be thinking about the options made possible by 4G. In keeping with its global leader-ship position, Samsung has taken a visionary stance on establishing 4G mobile communications initiatives. Samsung is interested in building relationships across industry and academia to further the efforts toward 4G standardization and development."<br /><br />Quite frankly, I don't even want to hear about 4G. The promise of 3G still hasn't been fulfilled, at least where I live. I use GPRS through <a href="http://www.fido.ca">Fido</a>, and it's "OK", but certainly not what I'd call high speed. I'm not sure what the EDGE roll-out plans are for Fido, but that will require new hardware to take advantage of the speed, which means it will be another cycle or two away for most of us. Wireless "high speed" is a lot of hype, and very little jump. I hope that starts to change over the next few years, and I think it will as application and consumers grow into the bandwidth that will become available, but for now, don't talk to me about 4G. :wink:

[freitasm]

I agree that 3G is not even close to be in the vicinity of being something to thing as usable. But remember that GPRS is not 3G! It's 2.5G, as EDGE. 3G is 3GSM (formerly known as WCDMA, a GSM path) and CDMA2000 EVDO (CDMA path).

EDGE is something that should really be considered 2.75G - between GPRS and 3GSM. Same for CDMA2000 EVDO.

These 2.75G technologies are not close to minimum 2mbps througput while stationary, and 384kbps while in movement.

GPRS is more like a maximum of 42kbps while standing still, while CDMA2000 1xRTT can give you at best 56kbps. EDGE will give you around 284kbps, with a max (in theory) of 384kbps.

So, yes, 3G is a *looooong* way. Mind you, the only worldwide 3G operator, Three (Hutchison Whampoa), does not offer data services, only voice calls and video calls.

So, don't worry about 4G. It'll be a few years away.

[ShivShanks]

I agree that 3G is not even close to be in the vicinity of being something to thing as usable. But remember that GPRS is not 3G! It's 2.5G, as EDGE. 3G is 3GSM (formerly known as WCDMA, a GSM path) and CDMA2000 EVDO (CDMA path).

EDGE is something that should really be considered 2.75G - between GPRS and 3GSM. Same for CDMA2000 EVDO. These 2.75G technologies are not close to minimum 2mbps througput while stationary, and 384kbps while in movement.


What are you talking about? CDMA 2000 EV-DO is 3G. You don't call 2Mbps peak as 3G? EV-DO is 2Mbps while stationary and has been deployed in the US by Verizon in San Diego and Washington D.C. for quite some time now.


GPRS is more like a maximum of 42kbps while standing still, while CDMA2000 1xRTT can give you at best 56kbps. EDGE will give you around 284kbps, with a max (in theory) of 384kbps.


CDMA 2000 1xRTT has an average data rate of 70-80 kbps. Yes I have been using it and I do get that data rate. Quite often I get better than that. EDGE never gives around 284 kbps average. At least not as per extensive tests conducted on AT&T's network here in the US. Besides CDMA has much better spectral efficiency than EDGE.


So, yes, 3G is a *looooong* way.


Well as I said Verizon has been running 3G in 2 US cities for some time now. And this year they are expanding it to nationwide. And if we want to really nitpick then as per ITU-T definitions even CDMA 2000 1xRTT is 3G for mobile scenarios (not for pedestrian and stationary though). I'll any day take the level of 3G or 2.75G support available in the US over the mess that Europe is in over 3G. I today get 70-80 kbps average data speeds with unlimited data access for only $15 a month. Can you get that anywhere else in the world other than Japan/Korea?

[ShivShanks]

"Wireless "high speed" is a lot of hype, and very little jump.

Well I have been using CDMA 2000 1xRTT at 70-80 kbps for quite some time and I'm quite happy with it. Thats much better than dialup speeds on my i500 phone and with the browser that I have on it which reformats content on the server side for small screen rendering its pretty fast enough. In fact whenever I show it to my friends they are quite surprised by how well it loads up. Usage experience is about 2-3 times better than a good dialup connection. And I get this all over the US on Sprint's network. It may not be "high speed" but neither is it slow speed. For my device its plenty good enough.

[pdaisdead]

I don't care what it's called, but I need speeds as fast and reliable as my vanilla flavored DSL line at home.

[freitasm]

EDGE is something that should really be considered 2.75G - between GPRS and 3GSM. Same for CDMA2000 EVDO. These 2.75G technologies are not close to minimum 2mbps througput while stationary, and 384kbps while in movement.


What are you talking about? CDMA 2000 EV-DO is 3G. You don't call 2Mbps peak as 3G? EV-DO is 2Mbps while stationary and has been deployed in the US by Verizon in San Diego and Washington D.C. for quite some time now.


Ooops. Sorry. Should make it distinct that EV-DO is the destination, not the mid-term. BTW, I know about the deployments (http://www.geekzone.co.nz/content.asp?contentid=1530)



GPRS is more like a maximum of 42kbps while standing still, while CDMA2000 1xRTT can give you at best 56kbps. EDGE will give you around 284kbps, with a max (in theory) of 384kbps.


CDMA 2000 1xRTT has an average data rate of 70-80 kbps. Yes I have been using it and I do get that data rate. Quite often I get better than that. EDGE never gives around 284 kbps average. At least not as per extensive tests conducted on AT&T's network here in the US. Besides CDMA has much better spectral efficiency than EDGE.


I've used CDMA 2000 1xRTT with rates lower than this, but not more than 60kbps. In any case, 1xRTT and EDGE are really good for streaming or e-mail, since there's one or few connections required. When you start doing web browsing, with multiple simultaneous connections happening, because current web browsers are not "wireless" aware, and do not adapt to environmental conditions it turns to be a slow track to hell. Blame on high-latency, high-number of users, narrow bandwidth allocated by operators, whatever...



So, yes, 3G is a *looooong* way.


Well as I said Verizon has been running 3G in 2 US cities for some time now. And this year they are expanding it to nationwide. And if we want to really nitpick then as per ITU-T definitions even CDMA 2000 1xRTT is 3G for mobile scenarios (not for pedestrian and stationary though). I'll any day take the level of 3G or 2.75G support available in the US over the mess that Europe is in over 3G. I today get 70-80 kbps average data speeds with unlimited data access for only $15 a month. Can you get that anywhere else in the world other than Japan/Korea?

Two cities? In europe Three has been deploying sites in a lot of countries, plus Australia, plus Hong Kong since last week. And I still think it's a long way until the masses will have any good use to this technology.

[ShivShanks]

Two cities? In europe Three has been deploying sites in a lot of countries, plus Australia, plus Hong Kong since last week. And I still think it's a long way until the masses will have any good use to this technology.

Well if you count 1xRTT its the whole country. At least you can get 70-80 kbps all over the US. The only thing you can get all over Europe is GPRS which is definetly worse than 1xRTT. Plus Verizon is going to take EV-DO nationwide soon. On top of that how many European 3G operators allow unlimited data access? And how real are these European 3G deployments as opposed to being limited trials? The operators have sunk billions of dollars on spectrum licenses and very few of them can afford to make a nationwide rollout. I'd prefer the 2.75G availability nationwide all over the US over patchy 3G in Europe. Its a well known fact that European operators don't have the money for a full scale 3G deployment. The US will overtake the EU much before the EU reaches even halfway deployed status. Mark my words.

[ShivShanks]

I don't care what it's called, but I need speeds as fast and reliable as my vanilla flavored DSL line at home.

Honestly, why do you need DSL level speeds on a small device like a Smartphone? At one time 56k was good enough for normal browsing on a much bigger screen. I find that with an optimised browser a stable 70-80 kbps is pretty good. As for reliability, you will not believe it but my Sprint PCS 1xRTT connection is more reliable than my Cable modem connection! In fact I use my phone to catch up on the net whenever my cable connecton is down :) The best thing is that with my browser I can go to any site I want (and at anyplace I want due to the phone). The other day I was checking the India vs. Australia cricket score in a movie theater :D

[ClayMJohnson]

Yep … 4G is at best a few years out. Most carriers are having a hard time getting 3G out for various reasons … to expensive to upgrade to, how do you get subscribers to buy into high speed wireless, technical difficulties and so on.

Clay Johnson-