Battle over 4G marketing term usage drags on

In the United States, Anna Eshoo, a Democrat from Palo Alto, introduced a Next Generation Wireless Disclosure Act which will force wireless operators to guarantee minimum speeds that their networks will deliver when they market their services as “4G”.
Click to expand...

I wish we had politicians like that! :D
 
I find it interesting that the guys in the US don’t fight the fact that companies market their services as 4G, but actually want to attach service levels to that marketing term. This is an interesting way to handle it – you are welcome to say it is 4G (whatever technology you use), as long as it is accompanied by certain minimum speeds etc.
 
They should leave the ambiguous technology terms out of it.
Just put your fancy product name ("super duper hippy hip") and the speed it runs at on average (3.7 mbps., etc.)
 
drukkie said:
Just call it 3.7G and move on....
Click to expand...
I would accept 3.8G for HSPA+
And I would accept 3.9G for MTN for their LTE roll-out.

It just sounds really stupid for CellC to quote a single sentence from a single statement from a single entity with regards to justify 4G claims. And that statement, by the country in which the organisation exists already pulled so much fire and was shot down by so many other entities...

Bottom line is that 4G is used as a specification, and the specification has not been met by any of the existing networks.

I agree with Palo Alto's approach... get legislation through to prevent telcos to incorrectly market products, and to force them to give the consumer a clear idea of what they are getting
 
rpm said:
This is an interesting way to handle it – you are welcome to say it is 4G (whatever technology you use), as long as it is accompanied by certain minimum speeds etc.
Click to expand...

I agree, and have suggested it to the ITU.

Reality is IMT-Advanced ('proper 4G') is still a long way off and some of the technologies are approaching 4G minimum speeds.

My suggestion is to relax the '4G' definition to include any wireless technology that provides >100Mb/s bit-rate on the air interface. It basically just removes the 1Gb/s requirement which is a very ambitious spec for 4G in the first place.

Thus LTE (at 150Mb/s) and the next gen of HSPA+ (at 168Mb/s) would qualify.

HSPA+ up to 84Mb/s would still be 3G (which it is)
 
Last edited:
jmak said:
I would accept 3.8G for HSPA+
And I would accept 3.9G for MTN for their LTE roll-out.
Click to expand...
HSPA+ is already well known as 3.75G - yes, I also think it's stupid but that's what it's called.

Ditto for LTE as 3.9G.
 
To me anything more than 10mbs is 4G (ie. beats telkom ADSL speeds).
 
neetz108 said:
*YAWN*
Click to expand...
Am I the only one that think so, but is this forum, and MyBB to a much lesser extent, becoming somewhat 'boring'? I read the article (a history lesson) and I feel exactly the same *YAWN*. Maybe there is not much excitement or many exciting things happening, but even Lars' departure didn't raise a lot of comment?

I've never really been an active 'participant' here, but find that I spend a lot less time here than before?

Anyway, have a great weekend!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X