Knott-Craig’s LTE 4G warning to Vodacom

Do you think LTE should be called 4G?

  • Yes

    Votes: 28 28.6%
  • No

    Votes: 70 71.4%

  • Total voters
    98
“We will not stand for Vodacom having it both ways.” said Knott-Craig.

AKC is quite entertaining, it's about time that Vodacom got "screwed" in kind.
 
Cell C has HSPA+ not 4G, 3G wasn't called WCDMA, LTE should be called 4G.

When Cell C tried to call 3G-HSPA 4G, the issue was as much about what customers would understand with the new term and it was clear non-tech-savvy peeps would automatically assume 4G is better than the 3G networks available at the time. Basically consumers would be misled. They'd get exactly what they were getting as '3G' but would believe it's '4G'.

This was a strong view the ASA took on the matter.

There are no LTE or 4G networks active in SA today, so as long as all operators call LTE 4G, consumers will not be misled by any of the operators.

So the short answer is that everyone should call it it LTE and if one wants to call it 4G, everybody should, i.e. a level playing field for all.

The real problem is the device manufacturers though. I saw a number of LTE devices branded as 4G, so how do we manage this? Won't help much if we say it should not be 4G but every second modem is labelled 4G.

Before we get into the mess the US got into, I believe there should be consensus in the industry.

Call it 4000G, for all I care, but keep in uniform.
 
When Cell C tried to call 3G-HSPA 4G, the issue was as much about what customers would understand with the new term and it was clear non-tech-savvy peeps would automatically assume 4G is better than the 3G networks available at the time. Basically consumers would be misled. They'd get exactly what they were getting as '3G' but would believe it's '4G'.

This was a strong view the ASA took on the matter.

There are no LTE or 4G networks active in SA today, so as long as all operators call LTE 4G, consumers will not be misled by any of the operators.

So the short answer is that everyone should call it it LTE and if one wants to call it 4G, everybody should, i.e. a level playing field for all.

The real problem is the device manufacturers though. I saw a number of LTE devices branded as 4G, so how do we manage this? Won't help much if we say it should not be 4G but every second modem is labelled 4G.

Before we get into the mess the US got into, I believe there should be consensus in the industry.

Call it 4000G, for all I care, but keep in uniform.

If all jetta owners put a BMW sticker on there cars will that make it a BMW then...... Lol
 
When Cell C tried to call 3G-HSPA 4G, the issue was as much about what customers would understand with the new term and it was clear non-tech-savvy peeps would automatically assume 4G is better than the 3G networks available at the time. Basically consumers would be misled. They'd get exactly what they were getting as '3G' but would believe it's '4G'.

This was a strong view the ASA took on the matter.

There are no LTE or 4G networks active in SA today, so as long as all operators call LTE 4G, consumers will not be misled by any of the operators.

So the short answer is that everyone should call it it LTE and if one wants to call it 4G, everybody should, i.e. a level playing field for all.

The real problem is the device manufacturers though. I saw a number of LTE devices branded as 4G, so how do we manage this? Won't help much if we say it should not be 4G but every second modem is labelled 4G.

Before we get into the mess the US got into, I believe there should be consensus in the industry.

Call it 4000G, for all I care, but keep in uniform.

If all jetta owners put a BMW sticker on there cars will that make it a BMW then...... Lol:whistle:
 
Illogical argument.

In this case Jannie is correct; level the playing fields and everyone calls it the same thing from day 1.

Is it? 4G has a definition, labelling it 4G when it is not does not make it 4G.

Your argument is about what it is called, not what it is. What is wrong with calling it LTE?
 
Is it? 4G has a definition, labelling it 4G when it is not does not make it 4G.

Your argument is about what it is called, not what it is. What is wrong with calling it LTE?
The issue is that most of the LTE customer equipment as supplied by the manufacturers (modems, routers, etc) are branded with a 4G logo/emblem. If we in SA (a very, very small globally comparative market) demand that they remove the 4G logo/emblem, then it could make it much more expensive for us (the customer). Hence Jannie's suggestion that all the operators get on the same page from day 1.
 
I'm a cellc fanboi, but I agree with Jannie.

Had CellC rolled out LTE instead of 3G, then things could have been different.
 
But... in defence of AKC this time, he is correct about the 4G definition. LTE-Advanced is 4G while LTE is not 4G.

All the operators will have to agree on this... interesting times ahead! :D
 
The real problem is the device manufacturers though. I saw a number of LTE devices branded as 4G, so how do we manage this? Won't help much if we say it should not be 4G but every second modem is labelled 4G.

Good to see you on forum again, noticed the title change though (I expected it would happen when Joosub took over).

The modem manufacturer "4G" branding could be solved with a "-0.1G" sticker added just after the "4G" (that is if everyone locally agrees that LTE is 3.9G).
 
I think Vodacom is in trouble here. Either use the ITU definition, or do not use it. The ASA ruled that HSPA+ is not 4G, based on the ITY’s definition. That clearly means that LTE and WiMax are also not 4G.

If there is another ASA complaint it will be very hard to now backtrack and say they must forget the ITU definition, and look at what international players do. That is exactly what Cell C argued, and they lost.
 
Hope this bites VC in the ass, they deserve it!
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X