Slashdot Mirror
EDGE Can Out-Perform 3G; Here's Why
goombah99 writes "Blackfriars's communications has an interesting discourse on why the practical difference between 3G and EDGE cellphone data networks is less than it appears to be based on a naive bandwidth metric. Their argument is that the user experience of TCP/HTML is much more impacted by latency, error rates, and processor speed than by bandwidth — and Edge had the edge on all three. Additionally, EDGE may consume considerably less power."
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Don't 3G phones fall back to 2G (GPRS) when they can't get a 3G signal? Would it not be possible offer EDGE (sometimes refered to as EGPRS) and 3G, and let the user decide on a case-by-case basis (if they want to; don't force them to) which one they want to use.
I mean, if I want to view a simple webpage, I could use EDGE. If I want to download a song or a video, then 3G would be the better option.
Both while and whilst are ancient, though while is older. Theres no difference in meaning between them
(The good thing about 200 km/h is that the tunnels around here don't last long enough for connections to time out...)
Usage: km/h for speed (kilometers per hour); kph for very slow impulses (kilopond hours).
Well, i guess it keeps people buying new stuff each year to avoid the fear of having an obsolete brick. Since we all know they cant get us wth genuinely better products.
If they could build in a 'obsolescence' function where consumer electronics would just self destrcut after so many hours of use they would. The manufacturers are a victim of their own success in cost cutting and reliability.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Wrong. Translating into "layman's terms", the author of the article claims that EDGE on one device (iPhone) is more responsive than UMTS on an older device (Nokia E61i).
He did not even mention HSDPA or HSPA, which would have blown EDGE away. And contrary to what the author of the article claims, real-world measurements of network latency (not even mentioning bandwidth) show that HSDPA is faster (more responsive) than EDGE.
The whole article is based on a flawed comparison between only two devices, and one of them (the Nokia phone) is known to be inefficient for 3G. If he would have used other phone models from Nokia or other manufacturers like SonyEricsson, he would have got different results. But then, the article would not have been so interesting for someone who owns Apple stock.
Full disclosure: I don't own Apple stock.
I have used both EGPRS (2.75G 236kbps) and HSDPA (3.5G 3.6mbps and 1.8mbps), as well as plain GPRS (2.5G 53kbps) and UMTS (3G 384kbps), and according to my personal subjective observations: GPRS sucks big time even for browsing, EGPRS is not very different than UMTS in terms of speed but appears to have lower latency, UMTS really sucks because of too much latency, and HSDPA is heaven, as it has much lower latency than UMTS and much higher bandwidth.
In plain user's terms, according to my experience: With GPRS I can read some pages specially made for mobile devices (eg WAP) and I actually do use it sometimes to quickly read some BBC or other news on my phone while I'm standing in a bus, etc. But when I get only GPRS signal on my laptop then I cannot really do anything except some SSH. I have used EGPRS only briefly, but I can say it's satisfactory both for browsing and for SSH, but not for downloading or uploading. UMTS is not very satisfactory for SSH (high latency), but downloading is so-so (uploading still not good), and Web browsing is usually ok. HSDPA is perfect, as it is very good at SSH (lower latency than UMTS) and Web browsing, and also very good at downloading and uploading as well: You can actually be in the middle of the sea on a ship and transfer all your server backups or download a GNU/Linux distro and burn it while you are on an island or a mountain - provided there is coverage and you have enough batteries with you in your backpack or trolley. You can even use a 3G router to connect your LAN to the mobile network as a backup in case your DSL fails.
I actually many times work out of my home office thanks to mobile networks. I pack a laptop and lots of batteries in a backpack or convertible trolley bag, get a ship, and go to explore various islands while working over the 3G connection. I have even mapped the most significant network blackspots in my usual destinations so that I can avoid them. This mobile lifestyle wouldn't be possible without 3G.
I'm saying or implying that:
1.) This guy has an obvious bias
2.) His method (or lack thereof) of proving his argument is worthless.
3.) Fanboy blog articles of sub par quality should not be on the frontpage of Slashdot.
When I read Slashdot and I see a headline saying "EDGE Can Out-Perform 3G", I expect a serious analysis or experiment (no, I'm not new here)
Generally correct.
However, the resolution of cellphone screens removes the need for high bandwidth networks in the first place. Most videos will be QCIF/CIF, heavily compressed with H.261/263/264..hardly bandwidth intensive. The only time bandwidth is going to matter on a phone is when you do large file transfers.
Of course, you just misrepresented what the guy actually notes in his article, but one other thing about EDGE vs 3G: a lot of the time, I get solid EDGE connections with good throughput, where the 3G guys are waving their phones around trying to get ANY connection whatsoever.