LTE and 4G in SA

jes

jes

MyBroadband Alumnus
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Messages
11,992
Reaction score
123
LTE and 4G in SA

LTE is strictly speaking not 4G, but it is nearly impossible to avoid the term with most vendors branding their products as 4G
 
So they're going with the "other people are doing it so it's okay if we do it too" defense? lol
 
Vodacom and CellC created this problem... they can fix it!

All VC has to do is compensate CellC for monies lost during and after the ASA case... simple ne'... I'm sure AKC will oblige... hehe!
 
My view on this is that the average person does not know the technical differences between LTE and 4G, so if he gets a shiny new phone that has "4G" on it he would obviously need to see a network that supports this "4G" but Vodacom have already shot themselves in the foot in regards to the use of the term 4G.
 
vodacom must take their own advice and not call those things that are not 4G. Easy peasy, they dont need to approach anyone else, like spend money on ASA and the like, because it is free to talk to themselves quietly
 
BGE said:
Vodacom and CellC created this problem... they can fix it!

All VC has to do is compensate CellC for monies lost during and after the ASA case... simple ne'... I'm sure AKC will oblige... hehe!
Click to expand...

No Cell C needs to realise that they do not have a special network, MTN and VC both have 900mhz, HSPA+ sites in certain areas.

Cell C also needs to accept that HSPA+ is in no way equal to LTE or LTE Advanced and that LTE Advanced is based on LTE.

VC was right to take Cell C to ASA, but they should have pointed out that HSPA+ was 3.75/3.8G and not bring LTE into the picture.
 
SteveO said:
VC was right to take Cell C to ASA, but they should have pointed out that HSPA+ was 3.75/3.8G and not bring LTE into the picture.
Click to expand...
I did and LTE was never discussed at the ASA. Only HSPA and the ruling was on that.
 
This is not Vodacom's fault... this is the fault of all of those companies (like CellC) that insisted on using the incorrect terminology.
Now the incorrect term has become accepted by customers and increasingly by the industry.
Vodacom tried to enforce the correct usage, but is now being forced to adapt despite their wishes.
 
This is actually the US' fault. AT&T and T-mobile started calling HSPA+ networks 4G, although 4G had already been associated with LTE at that point.

This was due to the fact that T-Mobile couldn't afford a full LTE network (and still can't) but realized that HSPA+ gave them the same speeds as LTE (at that point) in more markets. So they changed their own branding.

At some point, even Apple buckled to the pressure from the carriers and if you were on AT&T's HSPA+ network your iPhone would show "4G".
 
If the devices are capable of 4G, then there is no problem in labelling them as such. And if they are not, then a bit of legislation forbidding the incorrect use of the terminology will quickly sort that out - a sentiment which, unless I misunderstood him, Jannie appeared to agree with. So I'd like to see VC lobbying for this kind of legislation.

The networks, however, we know are not 4G capable, so claiming this would lead to an immediate ASA complaint.
 
ebendl said:
This is actually the US' fault. AT&T and T-mobile started calling HSPA+ networks 4G, although 4G had already been associated with LTE at that point.

This was due to the fact that T-Mobile couldn't afford a full LTE network (and still can't) but realized that HSPA+ gave them the same speeds as LTE (at that point) in more markets. So they changed their own branding.

At some point, even Apple buckled to the pressure from the carriers and if you were on AT&T's HSPA+ network your iPhone would show "4G".
Click to expand...

Fully agree. America, the bastion of fair and honest marketing, created this mess.
 
I understand that at least part of the definition of 4G means that while stationary I should at minimum get 1 Gbps download speeds. So if I get a Vodacom (or any other provider for that matter) 4G branded modem that does not provide me with that speed, it is basically false advertising.
The fact that LTE was left out of the Cell C 4Gs discussion is a side note, Vodacom argued ITU definitions, which can still be argued in a case like this.
 
SteveO said:
No Cell C needs to realise that they do not have a special network, MTN and VC both have 900mhz, HSPA+ sites in certain areas.

Cell C also needs to accept that HSPA+ is in no way equal to LTE or LTE Advanced and that LTE Advanced is based on LTE.

VC was right to take Cell C to ASA, but they should have pointed out that HSPA+ was 3.75/3.8G and not bring LTE into the picture.
Click to expand...

It also seems to me that everyone, especially Cell C, is forgetting that Vodacom (and MTN for that matter) took them on because they called their network 4GS -- supposedly for 4 Great Serrvice or 4 Great Speed-- and VC took them on because the person on the street didn't see that "S", assuming that they had a 4th generation network, which is basically false advertising.

In fact CellC admitted that they are not claiming to have a 4G network as can be seen on their own website -- http://www.cellc.co.za/explore/newsroom/cell-c-to-appeal-asa-ruling-on-use-of-4gs-logo
 
And for Vodacom to claim "90% of the rest of the world is doing it, so it's OK for us" is really rich. I'm sure 90% of the rest of the world have reasonable data packages. Let's take the US for example (as some forum members like to do); pretty much all the operators has some kind of contract-less <$40 pm deal for unlimited. When my wife was in the UK, she bought a prepaid sim with unlimited data for something like 15 GBP. And she used it a lot without any apparent throttling.
Start copying them on that, then maybe you will woo enough people to oversee your apparent hypocritical 4G stance.
 
SteveO said:
No Cell C needs to realise that they do not have a special network, MTN and VC both have 900mhz, HSPA+ sites in certain areas.

Cell C also needs to accept that HSPA+ is in no way equal to LTE or LTE Advanced and that LTE Advanced is based on LTE.

VC was right to take Cell C to ASA, but they should have pointed out that HSPA+ was 3.75/3.8G and not bring LTE into the picture.
Click to expand...

In Dec 2010 the ITU made it known that they would change the official definition of 4G to include LTE, Wimax and HSDPA+.
This article, dated 18 Dec 2010, reflects such. Yes, the decision was only ratified at the start of 2012, but Vodacom knew very well that the change was imminent. They decided to continue with the case. Therefore the blame lies jointly with CellC for pushing the boundaries of the 4G definition, and Vodacom for continuing the ASA after the ITU said they would include HSDPA+ and LTE in the 4G definition. So LTE and HSPA+ are now officially classed as 4G networks by the ITU!

The official ITU press release of 6 Dec 2010 again... here

I know Jannie will argue that they consulted the ITU, fine, but it was a poor decision in my humble opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X