The great 4G debate

Typical, 3G hasn't even caught on yet (we like to lie, and that's why we don't want other people seeing what we are really up to) and now they are talking about 4G...

What ticks me off is that there isn't even a proper definition yet...

Why in the hell would you want internet on your mobile?

Some reasons it's not a good idea:

1. It won't work
2. It won't work
3. It's hard enough connecting through adsl , not even mentioning wireless..
4. There are devices that support mobile internet technology.

Rather put something in a cell-phone that we all will use!
 
What a stupid article. Take out all the feel-good psuedo-visionary dramatic fluff and it could've been condensed to about one paragraph of actual content. What "debate" is the title referring to, and what is so "great" about it? The tone of the content-less first half of the article suggests they're about to mention something grandiose and dramatic (to a presumably naive reader, as if I'm supposed to be hanging on their sage words, nodding in amazement), then it suddenly tapers off into a kind of poorly done mini-roundup of a couple of the next potential small evolutionary steps in mobile Internet, with no meat (e.g. technical or even commercial details) whatsoever, just a few acronyms.

Honestly, what is a sentence like "Historically, telecommunications has been defined by the type of services delivered as well as by the technology that enables economic and social development" supposed to mean? It 'feels' like something insightful has been said, but you could tack on a phrase like "... the technology that enables economic and social development" to a discussion about just about ANYTHING, from airplanes to cars to water pistols - it therefore means nothing at all.

Is this guy paid by the word? Adopting the style and format typically used to deliver intelligent commentary doesn't make any old commentary intelligent. The only saving grace would be if it happens to stimulate a genuinely insightful discussion.

What is the main difference between '3G' and '4G' anyway, from an end-user perspective, given we already obviously have mobile Internet? Would that be getting tower-to-tower pass-off working well?
 
Last edited:
and what might that be? Don't you just hate it when the words "next gen" are thrown around ever so lightly? Mobile internet is not next gen....give me a cellphone that talks back to me and then we can call it next gen..
 
A cellphone that talks back to me??!?! Oh hell no.

That would be 1 cellphone that would land up in the nearest large body of water in the shortest possible time.
I am a geek and love my technology, but when it starts talking back to me, then I get irritated.
 
.....errr....ok what about a cellphone with hologram image technology???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X