Slashdot Mirror
ITU Rules That WiMax, LTE Don't Qualify As 4G
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! 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!
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.
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?
rooooar
Personnally, I'll wait for mobiles that go to 11G
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
LTE-Advanced did qualify for 4G,
http://www.3gpp.org/ITU-R-Confers-IMT-Advanced-4G
but it's just a set of standards for now afaik, that still need to be implemented.
Clearwire's WiMax and Verizon's LTE networks operate between 3-12Mbps.
Boys better stop advertising 4G...
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.
One that hath name thou can not otter
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.
Poor T-Mobiles HSPA+ network is even less qualified than the others. Oh well, T-Mo is cheap!
How long until a class action lawsuit is filed on behalf of the Sprint customers that bought Evo and Epic phones?
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
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".
After the whole "map" debacle, this should make them feel a bit better, regardless of how fast their service really is.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Maybe the ITU does not know what 4G means? I assumed to mean 4th generation tech.
1 was Analog
2 was GSM
2.5 was GPRS/EGPRS
3 was UMTS
3.5 was HSUPA+
4 is LTE
Certainly seems to be a 4th generation tech to me.
Fuck this, we're going to 5G.
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...
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
Great news!
Vivid Wireless have a WiMax network in Perth, Western Australia. The ad campaign has been proclaiming^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H shoving it in everyones face "4G this and 4G that." 'bout time the ITU has come out with statement. Standards exist for a reason, and we can't have just anybody (whether they own a shonky commercial TV network or not) claim they support something to lure in consumers....and lets face it, consumers are dumb shits anyways
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 social media and user generated content) so we haven't started calling any such technologies/services/concepts as Web 3.0... Even if they have been new.
Based on that group's decision, to really be selling 4G, carriers will have to get going with one of two future technologies, called LTE-Advanced and WirelessMAN-Advanced. The latter, also known as IEEE 802.16m, will form the basis of WiMax Release 2.
(emphasis mine)
Wait, so is there also a WirelessMANN, or is there just an Advanced Wireless Man? Oops, sorry, MANN.
What do they call the next generation of the networking? WirelessIronMANN?
-- Qubit
Marketing claims to have a number. Engineers say otherwise.
Scott Adams finds more material to write about.
Why would I care what the ITU thinks 4G is. 4G is whatever the market says it is and the ITU is spectacularly disconnected from the marker.
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 so I really dont have much to complain about.
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.
. . . is there are so many to choose from. If I were running on of these money machines, I would call my data service 100G. I would say "we are so many Gs above the rest that your messages will get there BEFORE you send them." That is called puffing and is perfectly legal. I would advertise hot babes and sexy guys 100Ging all over the place, telling the world that 100Ging is like sexting but feels like real sex. I would leave the ITU, IETF, and IEEE to my standards body representatives, who like to travel all over the world, stay at nice hotels, eat at fine restaurants, sightsee, and get our latest patents turned into the next set of standards.
... and the marketeers are going to have a field day.
It's Linux, damnit! Pay no attention to renaming attempts by self-aggrandizing blowhards.
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.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
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?
... we will take any generation, except 5G
*** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
No news here. LTE was never meant to be a 4G service. LTE-advanced was, as well as the next generation of WiMAX, now called WirelessMAN-Advanced, both of which did make it into IMT-advanced and will be official 4G networks.
I am nothing like my sister. Yet, we both belong to the same generation.
It is not about whether it is different or similar. It is about how advanced it is. ITU obviously doesn't consider LTE to be big enough step that it could be called a whole new generation. It has advantages over UMTS, but the advantages aren't that revolutionary. It is nothing like the jump from analog to GSM (I don't think I need to explain why this was a massive leap), it is nothing like the jump from GMS to GPRS (bringing internet access to mobile devices), it is nothing like the jump from GPRS to UMTS or EDGE (Broadband on mobile devices)... It is slightly improved version of what we've already seen in 3G.
So... ITU says that it shouldn't be marketed as a whole new generation of technology, because that would fool the people to consider it somehow more revolutionary when all they will see will be slightly improved speeds... You apparently disagree there. Fine: That's your opinion, no reason to argue it more. But I'm with ITU here.
LTE-advanced sounds great - now we'll be able to hit our data plan caps in SECONDS!
So... you're saying the ITU are used car salesmen? Please explain. If the telcos are lying about having 4G currently deployed, which you so obviously pointed out just like the article, how is that not lying to the customer like used car salesmen?
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.
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.
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.
Well this will hose Apple's announcement of the LTE iPhone 4G next year
Having been a software engineer in telecom for 4 years, I can say this post is not a troll.
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.
Heh its funny, the original mod who marked me a troll replied to my post saying something about how LTE is 3G and not 4G, and I replied to him saying so how are you saying something different than what I am (And not trolling yourself)? I also mentioned when telcos first started advertising "3G" back in like 2003, most of their networks weren't technically "3G" at the time, either. Ironically, a few days later his reply was gone as well as my retort. Gotta love the mods on slashdot...
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...)
Because one US company telecom has used the term in its advertising (to ITS customers) BEFORE ITU promulgated a definition (for the purposes of labeling equipment in situations where the TELECOMS are the customers) it will be easy for their competitors to argue that the term means what the first user meant by it and that any comparable offering is properly labeled with the same term so that consumers can compare them.
IMHO this won't come up anywhere unless/until some competitor of BOTH Clearwire/Sprint and Verizon rolls out a network that DOES meet the ITU definition. Then they'll put out an ad campaign claiming they have REAL 4G and their competitors only have fake, accept no substitutes ...
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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 to standardization by the ITU - or ANSI, or ISO, or Bellcore, or IEEE, or IETF, or CEN, or ETSI, or (I could go on for pages).
If the ITU standard ever becomes sufficiently adopted in US telecom that ITU-4G is the generally recognized common form of what is sold in the US as "4G service", a competitor that conforms might sue one that does not, or a customer might claim he was defrauded when he was sold something that didn't conform. But with a service that has been advertised as "4G" being the only one sold that way, and being sold that way before the ITU standard was promulgated, it will be hard to claim fraud or false advertising against either that vendor or any other with a comparable product.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
So what. Apparently T-Mobile is releasing a faster network than the previous 3G network, a process which I guess takes at least a year (I don't know how long it really takes). Sprint also released a network upgrade before this that was an improvement over 3G. Last month some guys in Switzerland just decided what 4G means... LAST MONTH. There's already been new generations of technology since 3G. I mean, wtf, if the technology won't be around for FIVE more years, what are all the upgrades to the networks that will happen in those 5 years be called? By the time the technologies that the guys in Switzerland call 4G comes to fruition, there will likely be many "generations" of upgraded technology and speeds since 3G. I don't see why everyone on the planet needs to change what they call things because of those guys. Not that I'm against standards, I'm just against the way and why this "standard" was decided... it's an artificial marketing term that means nothing, which doesn't actually help standardize communications between any entities, and in my opinion, just isn't correct because there are many "generations" between what they call 3G and 4G.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
Have been in the industry for a while, we usually went by these definitions (which IMHO is fair and unambiguous). primarily based on the underlying transmission technology, which ofcourse dictates the kind of services that can be offered. 1G - Analog tranmission (AMPS etc) 2G - Digital transmission and narrow-band CDMA (GSM, IS-136, IS-95 etc) 3G - W-CDMA (3G and qualcomm's equivalne offering) 4G - OFDM (LTE and WiMax) Ofcourse then there are intermediate versions, GPRS, EDGE were called 2.5, HSPA was called 3.x (higher the speed, higher the x). Going by those I would have expected .16m and LTE-advanced would have been 4.x ... Hope that gives some clarity.