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."
Or some other iPhone lover? ;-)
When performance testing web applications, I typically find that latency does indeed have a very significant impact. Obviously some types of application are more susceptible than others. Bandwidth is critical in data intensive applications. Latency is much more important in highly interactive applications. Rich Web 2 applications, making lots of (Ajax) calls to the server for small amounts of supplementary data are badly hit by latency problems.
So one guy who owns an iPhone (and Apple stock) writes an argument, based on his own limited experiences with an iPhone and a Nokia, without any precise measurements, concluding that EDGE is better for mobile web browsing than 3G.
Submissions to "articles" like these are making Slashdot look more and more like Digg. I don't know about the rest of you but in my opinion, that's a Bad Thing.
To me, it seems the author is concerned about one thing: Web browsing. Problem is, off course, that most of the advantage from 3G comes from other services such as wathing video or video chat on the phone. In Norway, we can watch football (soccer) games over the phone, something the 3G phones handle a lot better than Edge ones. 3G network is put out there to give us these kinds of services. This article, on the other hand, only talks about TCP connections and HTTP. This isn't a case of Edge outperforming 3G in all aspects, just that it appears (he doesn't mention how he measures this) faster browsing regular HTML web pages.
My personal experience in Japan over the past 5 years has shown that 3G does little or nothing to address latency issues, but 3.5G (aka HSDPA/HSUPA or together just HSPA) has made a huge breakthrough in cellular latency.
I have used data services via 2G (9600bps), PHS (32-128kbps), 3G (384kbps), and now 3.5G (3.6-12mbps). While the bandwidth has gone way up and monthly charges have gone way down, everything before 3.5G had horrible latency (400-900ms), not to mention ridiculous fees (think $20/MB or more).
Now I use a 3.5G (HSDPA) cellular data service called eMobile which sprung up just over the past few months. I get about 300KB/s (bytes not bits) down and 100ms latency, unlimited use for about $50/month. Not quite as fast as the gigabit fiber I have at home for $40/month, but it certainly works well enough for a snappy browsing experience, and WoW and FPS games are perfectly playable.
EDGE smedge. Try using HSDPA.. it royally kicks the arse out of EDGE or UMTS. Downloading at 3mbps whilst in a train at 80km/h.. I don't think that comes anywhere close to the "user experience" of EDGE.
/any/ real-world statistics to back up the arguments.. sounds like a load of iHype to me.
The article doesn't cite
UMTS/HSDPA can easily hit 700kbps, as can CDMA2000 1x EV-DO. EDGE hits 180kbps on a good day. On a REALLY good day.
The "error" argument is bullshit. All digital cellular technologies have extensive error correction.
Streaming media (Verizon/Sprint/AT&T all have services), downloads, and pretty much everything else benefits from more bandwidth. There is absolutely ZERO way that your browser is going to get slower because you have a faster network link, unless your browser is a piece of crap. Your browser may not get much faster if it's CPU constrained (pages don't load any faster on my 770 using the 15Mbps campus network instead of 1.5Mbps DSL), but it's certainly not going to trip the browser up or any garbage like that.
As for battery life, yes, UMTS/HSDPA takes more power. You also spend less time downloading, because it's faster.
T-Mobile doesn't have UMTS/HSDPA in the US right now, so I use EDGE every day - on my phone or on my laptop. EDGE is slow and has horrible latency. There's simply no other way to slice it.
The iPhone is superior. The iPhone uses EDGE. Therefore, EDGE is superior.
Which is a load of crap. UMTS does need more power than 2G GSM (don't know about EDGE), and latency isn't wonderful -- but no worse than EDGE.
Radio protocols designed to run IP (even WiFi) have forward error correction (i.e. ability to cope with noise) to reduce dropped packets and thus keep TCP happy.
Why are blog posts of people who don't know what they're talking about ending up on the slashdot front page?
Pretend that something especially witty is here. Thanks.
Because here in the Netherlands I recently got a 3G phone (Sony Ericsson W880i) and included with my subscription is ~9 channels of televsion. My TV is streamed over the 3G connection, and only buffers for about 3 seconds when I switch channels, with stereo sound too. No artifacts or funny business even with low signal strength, nor switching between cell towers (I only use the TV when travelling to and from work on the train)
Also in my subscription is a couple of free songs that I can download using the 3G. I have any downloaded song within a minute. Web browsing (on Opera Mini, with HTML and NOT mobile pages) feels nearly as fast as my computer at home. Can EDGE, at only 0.2 Mb do that????
Of course, maybe it does, as I have never used EDGE, but at least would try BOTH technologies before I claim one is better than the other.
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 ----
I like the "High bandwidth radio networks are more error-prone" part. It's so full of evidence, data, and accurate reasoning that you just can't help but agree with it.
FTFA: "Power consumption of any chip increases according to the frequency squared."
Wrong. The power consumption is proportional to the square of the voltage, not the frequency. If you double the frequency, you only double the current, not quadruple it.
Other points in TFA may be correct. I don't know.
IAAEE. (I am an Electrical Engineer.)
The whores get mad when the sluts give it away for free.
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.
11 seconds on my BB 8300. RIM's magic beads involves recompressing images in transit. But your speculation that BB doesn't get served up the graphical tabs isn't quite the right perspective. What's really happening is that the tabs are rendered using certain CSS properties that BB doesn't fully support. So BB receives the same page and css, it just processes it differently due to its incomplete CSS support, so it doesn't end up requesting the background images used to build the tabs.
I'm the author of the original article on Blackfriars Marketing, and the title of this thread is misrepresenting that article. The original title is "Why EDGE versus 3G matters less than you think.", not why EDGE is getter than 3G. I've posted a followup to the article today here. It's not nearly as inflammatory as implied here.
Like many engineering issues, this is one of balance.
It's not that Edge has any advantages when it comes to processing efficiency, it's that to take advantage of 3G's greater bandwidth you need more processor bandwidth than you can get today in a reasonable mobile package.
If you take a Dodge Neon on the autobahn, you don't enjoy the unlimited speed offered by the highway very much. If you are making frequent side trips, you might do better with a slower road with more frequent exits.
In the end, there is no single thing as "speed" when it comes to networking. There are several, such as bandwidth, response time, and latency. If I had my choice, 3G would be my choice for applications that have to deliver large volumes of bits at a consistent rate. That doesn't describe most web use by a long shot. It does describe streaming high quality video to a device that can display it, but has limited buffering capacity. If you think about that, in mobile applications that's a rather narrow niche in which to have a killer advantage.
It comes down to balance. Does 3G widen the narrowest bottleneck in my mobile network use? If not, then it's advantages don't mean much to me. It may be that other bottlenecks have to be widened before anybody needs 3G's peculiar advantages.
Coming back to TFA, it may be that the iPhone would be better suited to exploit 3G's advantages than other phones. But you can't get an iPhone on 3G, so it's an academic question. The practical question is whether the less powerful devices on a 3G network can exploit that network well enough to outweigh the iPhone's attractions?
Personally, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other, because nobody has good enough coverage to render that issue irrelevant. I don't care how "fast" a network is unless I can reach it every place I have to go. If I lived and worked in Manhattan, this might not be an issue, but then I'd have better things to do with my time than watch videos on my phone.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.