

The UK will test 5G beginning next year









Sources: Giga OM, TechWeek Europe

Comments     Threshold


RE: So where's the real 4G?
By othercents on 10/9/2012 9:15:52 AM , Rating: 2
4G defined by the International Telecommunications Union-Radio (ITU-R) is 1Gbit/s for low mobility communication. Both WiMAX and LTE support much less than 1Gbit/s peak bit rate and are not fully IMT-Advanced compliant. They shouldn't be labeled 4G, but Beyond-3G.

WiMAX 2 and LTE-A should be available in 2013 and promise to have speeds over 1Gbit/s. They are also backward compatible, so even if you phone doesn't get 1Gbit/s speed you shouldn't be affected by a network that upgrades their technology.

RE: So where's the real 4G?
By theapparition on 10/9/2012 11:24:33 AM , Rating: 3
When are people going to let it go.

The ITU changed their official definition of 4G to any network that provides substantial improvement over 3G.

People can argue all they want over what it's called. But the fact is that the ITU themselves changed the definition. Arguing over a name is pointless at best.

RE: So where's the real 4G?
By augiem on 10/9/2012 2:16:22 PM , Rating: 2
No it isn't when you have companies like Metro POS (PCS) peddling "4G" when their service gets roughly the same speed as 3G from any of the other carriers. I don't even want to think about their 3G service... ugh.

Consumers are dumb. If these terms are regulated somehow, they're meaningless except to snare the uninformed.

RE: So where's the real 4G?
By augiem on 10/9/2012 2:17:06 PM , Rating: 2
If these terms aren't regulated somehow...

RE: So where's the real 4G?
By BugblatterIII on 10/9/2012 8:30:11 PM , Rating: 2
It's about the order in which things happened. The ITU changed the definition after a lot of confusing marketing had already come out calling 3.9G 4G.

The ITU were trying to avoid further confusion because the confusion those marketing arses had already caused was plenty.

The name itself wouldn't matter, except that consumers now seem to think they're getting the 4G they were promised and they're not, and that could slow adoption of 'true' 4G.

RE: So where's the real 4G?
By theapparition on 10/10/2012 11:29:56 AM , Rating: 2

Hogwash. 99.9% of consumers don't even know what the ITU is, let alone know what they were promised or what the actual definition of 4G is.

And you view of the situation is quite different from the truth. The truth is that the ITU was forced to change the definition because their existing definition was untenable. There wasn't enough bandwidth to support true 4G on the current and upcoming technologies. So an agreement was made, the definition changed, and then carriers started to call HSPA+, Wimax and LTE as 4G, while not a single one of those technologies actually supported the old definition.

In the end, you can argue this all you want. It's about as fruitful as arguing whether toilet paper should be hung over or under. While us .1% debate the situation, 99.9% of the world will continue on calling it 4G.

Personally, I didn't agree with the redefinition either, but at a point you have to give in and accept that it's just the way it is. No point fighting a battle that's already over.

