2G, 3G, 4G, and everything in between: an Engadget wireless primer --... http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/17/2g-3g-4g-and-everything-in-bet...

Everything iPad on TUAW

MAIL You might also like: Engadget HD, Engadget Mobile and More

Cellphones, Wireless

2G, 3G, 4G, and everything in between: an Engadget

wireless primer
By Chris Ziegler posted Jan 17th 2011 12:30PM

Inhabitat's Week in Green: the

power plant you can ski, and
NASA's orbiting Nanosail-D
It's hard to believe nowadays, but in a simpler time, cellphones really were called "cell phones," not
2 hours ago
dumbphones, smartphones, feature phones, or superphones. They bulged in your pocket -- if they fit in
your pocket at all, that is -- and they made calls. That's it. None of this social networking, messaging, The Engadget Show Live! with
browsing, Instagramming, Flash 10.1 nonsense. They didn't upload 5 megapixel photos to Flickr, and Steve Wozniak
they most certainly didn't turn into wireless hotspots. 5 hours ago

Amazon rolling out Netflix-like

Of course, those bleak days are mercifully behind us now -- but as carriers around the world start to light
unlimited video streaming for
up a promising new generation of high-speed wireless networks, things are beginning to get a little Prime subscribers?
confusing. Just what is "4G," anyway? It's one higher than 3G, sure, but does that necessarily mean it's 1 day ago
better? Why are all four national carriers in the US suddenly calling their networks 4G? Is it all the same
thing? Answering those questions requires that we take a take a little walk through wireless past, present, The Engadget Show returns this
Sunday with Steve Wozniak!
and future... but we think it's a walk you'll enjoy.
2 days ago

First things first: "G" stands for "generation," so when you hear someone refer to a "4G network," that Alphyn Industry jackets play
means they're talking about a wireless network based on fourth-generation technology. And actually, it's iPad close to the chest, stick
the definition of a "generation" in this context that has us in this whole pickle in the first place; it's the smartphones on your wrist
reason why there's so much confusion. But more on that in a bit -- first, let's take a trip down memory 3 days ago
lane into the primordial ooze that gave rise to the first generation way back in the day.

1G
Our journey begins in the early 1980s with the introduction of several
groundbreaking network technologies: AMPS in the US and a
combination of TACS and NMT in Europe. The meanings of those
acronyms are unimportant -- there won't be a quiz later. All you
really need to know is that unlike earlier systems, these new
standards were given enough spectrum for reasonably heavy use by
subscribers, were fully automated on the carrier's end without
requiring any human operator intervention, and used electronics that
could be miniaturized enough to fit into smallish packages (think
Motorola DynaTAC -- early prototype pictured right). Though there
were several generations of mobile telephone services before these
that date all the way back to the 1950s, the trifecta of AMPS, TACS,
and NMT is commonly considered to be the first generation -- "1G,"
if you will -- because they made cellphones practical to the masses
for the very first time. They were robust, reliable, and would
eventually come to blanket the entirety of many industrialized
nations around the world.

1 of 9 31/01/2011 09:59
2G, 3G, 4G, and everything in between: an Engadget wireless primer --... http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/17/2g-3g-4g-and-everything-in-bet...

Thing is, no one was thinking about data services in the 1G days; these were purely analog systems that
were conceived and designed for voice calls and very little else. Modems existed that could communicate
over these networks -- some handsets even had them built-in -- but because analog cellular connections
were susceptible to far more noise than conventional landlines, transfer speeds were ridiculously slow.
And even if they'd been fast, it wouldn't have really mattered; per-minute rates on AMPS networks in the
80s made cellphones luxuries and Wall Street powerbroker business necessities, not must-haves for the
everyman. Besides, the technology didn't exist for an awesome smartphone that could consume that
much data anyhow. Oh, and YouTube had yet to be invented. The stars simply hadn't yet aligned.

2G
The early nineties saw the rise of the first digital cellular networks,
which had a number of obvious benefits over the analog networks
they were supplanting: improved sound quality, better security, and
higher total capacity, just to name a few biggies. GSM got off to an
early start in Europe, while D-AMPS and an early version of
Qualcomm's CDMA known as IS-95 took hold in the US. (You might
remember D-AMPS better as "TDMA," though that's technically not
descriptive enough -- GSM also employs the TDMA multiplexing
scheme, even though the two standards are incompatible.) No one
disputes that these systems collectively represented the second
generation of wireless networks -- they were authentically different
and revolutionary. Furthermore, a solid decade had gone by at that
point since the first 1G networks had gone live. This stuff was
definitely borne of a new generation.

Still, these nascent 2G standards didn't have intrinsic, tightly- The most commented posts on Engadget over the
past 24 hours.
coupled support for data services woven into them. Many such networks supported text messaging,
though, so that was a start -- and they also supported something called CSD, circuit-switched data. CSD
allowed you to place a dial-up data call digitally, so that the network's switching station was receiving Android Honeycomb port for Nook 314
actual ones and zeroes from you rather than the screech of an analog modem. Put simply, it meant that Color gets graphics acceleration,
you could transfer data faster -- up to 14.4kbps, in fact, which made it about as fast as an early- to first demo video
mid-nineties landline modem.
Enspert Identity Tab E201 rings up at 242
At the end of the day, though, CSD was a hack -- a way to repurpose these voice-centric networks for data.
$350 with Froyo, Gmail and Android
You still had to place a "call" to connect, so the service wasn't always available. The experience was very Market
similar to using a dial-up modem at home: either you were online, or you weren't. Services like push
email and instant messaging to your phone were basically science fiction. Furthermore, because a CSD
PS3 firmware 3.56 hacked in less 620
connection was a call, you were burning minutes to get connected -- and these technologies were in play at
a time when monthly minute buckets on cellular plans were measured in the dozens, not the hundreds or than a day, Sony's lawyers look
thousands. Unless you had a company writing a check for your wireless bill every month, using CSD for confused (update)
anything more than an occasional novelty wasn't practical.
Switched On: A suite segment for 152
2.5G: you know you're in trouble when you need a decimal PlayStation games
place
Mark Zuckerberg meets 154
The 4G identity crisis we're dealing with today really started well the fake Mark
over a decade ago, around the time that standards bodies were hard Zuckerbergs on
at work finalizing 3G technologies. The General Packet Radio Saturday Night Live
Service -- GPRS -- marked a watershed moment in cellular history (video)
when it was hammered out in 1997, because it offered a bolt-on for
GSM networks that permitted "always-on" data services. No more
dial-up CSD silliness -- as long as your account and phone were
appropriately configured, you could seamlessly use data whenever
and however you needed it. For all practical purposes, your handset
was permanently connected to the internet. It was also much faster
than anything CSD could offer: over 100kbps in theory (though we
don't recall ever getting anything much above 40kbps in practice
during the service's heyday). GPRS also marked one of the first
times that operators could effectively bill by the kilobyte, rather
than by the minute. Kind of a good news / bad news situation there,
we suppose.

Needless to say, GPRS was a big deal -- especially since it came

The 4G identity crisis
we're dealing with
today really started
well over a decade
ago, around the time
that standards bodies
were hard at work
finalizing 3G
technologies.
couldn't meet even on its best day.
right at the time when people started really checking their email
accounts incessantly. In fact, it was transformational. AT&T
Wireless, Cingular, and VoiceStream (which would later become
T-Mobile USA) all deployed the service, as did virtually every
GSM operator in the world. It didn't earn the right to add a
generational notch, though. You see, by the time GPRS was on the
market, the UN's International Telecommunications Union had
already put together its IMT-2000 standard, an official list of
specifications that a "true" 3G technology would have to meet.
Most importantly, IMT-2000 required stationary speeds of
2Mbps and mobile speeds of 384kbps -- benchmarks that GPRS

And that's the story of how GPRS got stuck as a tweener: better than 2G, not good enough to be 3G. It was

2 of 9 31/01/2011 09:59
2G, 3G, 4G, and everything in between: an Engadget wireless primer --... http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/17/2g-3g-4g-and-everything-in-bet...

important enough so that it might have earned the right to be called 3G had the ITU not already drawn
the line, but that's how the cookie crumbles. Turns out it would just be the first of many, many
generational schisms over the next decade.
Trending posts from Engadget on Twitter,
updated hourly.
3G, 3.5G, 3.75G... oh, and 2.75G, too
In addition to the aforementioned speed requirements, the ITU's official 3G specification also called out PSA: Change your old Amazon.com 1116
password for better security --
that compatible technologies should offer smooth migration paths from 2G networks. To that end, a
Engadget
standard called UMTS rose to the top as the 3G choice for GSM operators, and CDMA2000 came about
as the backward-compatible successor to IS-95.
Inhabitat's Week in Green: the 651
Following the precedent set by GPRS, CDMA2000 offered CDMA networks an "always-on" data power plant you can ski, and
connection in the form of a technology called 1xRTT. Here's where it gets a little confusing: even though NASA's orbiting solar-powered
CDMA2000 on the whole is officially a 3G standard, 1xRTT is only slightly faster than GPRS in real-world Nanosail-D -- Engadget
use -- 100kbps or so -- and therefore is usually lumped in with GPRS as a 2.5G standard. Fortunately,
CDMA2000 also defined the more advanced 1xEV-DO protocol, and that's where the real 3G money was 489
Golden Gate Bridge plans to
at, topping out at around 2.5Mbps.
collect all tolls electronically by
September 2012 -- Engadget
The first CDMA2000 and UMTS networks launched between 2001 and
2003, but that wasn't to say that manufacturers and standards
organizations were standing still with the 2G technology path, either. Android 2.3 security bug 423
EDGE -- Enhanced Data-rates for GSM Evolution -- was conceived as shows microSD access
an easy way for operators of GSM networks to squeeze some extra juice vulnerability -- Engadget
out of their 2.5G rigs without investing serious money on UMTS
hardware upgrades and spectrum. With an EDGE-compatible phone, Homebuilt UAV hunts down 370
you could get speeds over double what you got on GPRS; not bad at the hydrogen balloons, shoots
time. Many European operators didn't bother with EDGE, having firework missiles (video) --
already committed to going big with UMTS, but Cingular -- likely Engadget
looking to buy itself time -- jumped at the opportunity and became the
first network to roll it out in 2003.
The Engadget Show Live! 328
with Steve Wozniak --
So where would EDGE fit, then? Depends who you ask. It's not as fast
Engadget
as UMTS or EV-DO, so you might say it's not 3G. But it's clearly faster
than GPRS, which means it should be better than 2.5G, right? Indeed,
many folks would call EDGE a 2.75G technology, eliciting sighs from
fraction-haters everywhere. The ITU doesn't help matters, officially referring to EDGE as an ITU-2000
Narrowband technology -- basically, a 2G standard capable of eking 3G-esque speeds.

As the decade rolled on, CDMA2000 networks would get a nifty software upgrade to EV-DO Revision A,
offering slightly faster downlink speeds and significantly faster uplink speeds -- the original specification
(called EV-DO Revision 0) only allowed for uploads of about 150kbps, impractical for the rampant
picture and video sharing we're all doing with our phones and laptops these days. Revision A can do about
ten times that. Can't very well lump an upgrade that big in with 3G, can you? 3.5G it is, then! Ditto for
UMTS: HSDPA would add significantly faster downlink speeds, and HSUPA would do the same for the
uplink.

Further refinements to UMTS would produce HSPA+, dual-carrier HSPA+, and HSPA+ Evolution,
ranging in theoretical speeds from 14Mbps all the way past a mind-boggling 600Mbps. So, what's the
deal? Is it safe to say we've hit a new generation yet, or is this just 3.75G the same way that EDGE was
2.75G?

Lies, damn lies, and 4G

Just as it did with the 3G standard -- IMT-2000 -- the ITU has taken ownership of 4G, bundling it into a
specification known as IMT-Advanced. It's no slouch, either: the document calls for 4G technologies to
deliver downlink speeds of 1Gbps when stationary and 100Mbps when mobile, roughly 500-fold and
250-fold improvements over IMT-2000, respectively. Those are truly wild speeds that would easily
outstrip the average DSL or cable broadband connection, which is why the FCC has been so insistent that
wireless technology plays a key role in getting broadband data to rural areas -- it's more cost-effective to
plant a single 4G tower that can cover several dozen miles than it is to blanket farmland with fiber optics.

Unfortunately, those specs are so aggressive that no commercialized

standard in the world currently meets them. Historically, WiMAX
and Long-Term Evolution (LTE), the standard generally accepted to
succeed both CDMA2000 and GSM, have been thought of as "4G
technologies," but that's only partially true: they both make use of a
newer, extremely efficient multiplexing scheme called orthogonal
frequency-division multiple access (OFDMA, as opposed to the
older CDMA or TDMA we've been using for the past twenty years)
and they both lack a dedicated voice network -- 100 percent of their
spectrum is used for data services, which means that voice calls
would be treated as VoIP (not unlike Skype or Vonage). Considering Dead Space for iOS review: console-
how heavily data-centric our mobile society has become, that's a quality survival horror on the iPhone and
good thing. iPad
A Small Car is a frustrating 3D Flash
Where WiMAX and LTE fall short, though, is in raw speed. The former tops out at around 40Mbps and Time-Waster
the latter around 100Mbps theoretical, while practical, real-world speeds on commercial networks so far The Colour Clock, a beautiful marriage of
have tended to range between around 4Mbps and 30Mbps -- well short of IMT-Advanced's lofty (and, HEX and time

3 of 9 31/01/2011 09:59
2G, 3G, 4G, and everything in between: an Engadget wireless primer --... http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/17/2g-3g-4g-and-everything-in-bet...

arguably, most important) goal. Updates to these standards -- WiMAX 2 and LTE-Advanced, respectively Week in Preview: January Employment
-- promise to do the job, but neither has been finalized yet... and production networks that make use of Data, UPS Earnings and More
them are still years away. Foreign Rights: How Authors Tap a Rich
Vein of Royalties
That said, you could still easily argue that the original WiMAX and LTE standards are authentically Travel Maze: Navigating With New Apps
different enough from the classically-defined 3G standards to call them a true generational upgrade -- and Common Sense
and indeed, most (if not all) of the carriers around the world that have deployed them have referred to
them as "4G." It's an obvious marketing advantage for them, and the ITU -- for all the good it's trying toMark Zuckerberg Confronts the
do -- has no jurisdiction to stop it. Both technologies (LTE in particular) will be deployed to many, many'Zuckerbergs' on Saturday Night Live
Switched Roundup: Top Posts This Week
more carriers around the globe over the next several years, and the use of the "4G" moniker is only going
Facebook Friends Help Dublin Man Find
to grow. It can't be stopped.
His Stolen Audi A4

The story's not over, though. T-Mobile USA, which has no Video: Chinese fire truck uses jet-powered
publicly-announced plans to upgrade its HSPA network to LTE
Arguably, it was any time soon, decided late last year to start branding its HSPA+
water cannon
Video: 2011 Nissan Quest is klutz-proof in
T-Mobile's move that upgrade as "4G," too. In principle, the move makes some sense: new TV spot
really sparked a the 3G technology path will ultimately scale to speeds well beyond Japan unwraps chocolate Smart ForTwo
fundamental what mere LTE can achieve today, eventually coming within for Valentine's Day
rethinking of what spitting distance of IMT-Advanced. There are many markets
'4G' means to the where T-Mobile's 21Mbps HSPA+ network is faster than Sprint's WWE Royal Rumble 2011 Results
phone-buying public. WiMAX network. And neither Sprint, Verizon, nor MetroPCS -- Report: Mistico Signs With WWE

the three American carriers with live WiMAX / LTE networks -- WWE Royal Rumble 2011 Predictions

are offering VoIP yet; they're still falling back on their 3G airwaves for voice, and will continue to do so for
Coffee and Ibuprofen Is the Best Hangover
some time. Furthermore, T-Mobile will upgrade to 42Mbps this year, still without touching LTE!
Cure
Self-Petting Zoo -- A Blog of Masturbating
Arguably, it was T-Mobile's move that really sparked a fundamental rethinking of what "4G" means to the Animals
phone-buying public. AT&T, which is in the process of upgrading to HSPA+ and will start offering LTE in So You've Failed -- Masterclash Says Its
some markets later this year, is calling both of these networks 4G -- and naturally, neither Sprint nor Final Goodbye
Verizon have even thought about backing down on their end. All four US national carriers seem
entrenched at this point, having successfully stolen the 4G label from the ITU -- they've taken it, run withTECH DESIGN
it, and reshaped it. gdgt FFFFOUND!
Slashdot Core77

Wrap-up MAKE Popcorn Shower

Technology Review MoCo Loco
Ars Technica Design*Sponge
So where does this all leave us? In short, carriers seem to have won this
TechMeme The Sartorialist
battle: the ITU recently backed down, saying that the term 4G "may ITU lays down law: WiMAX 2, Phone Scoop
also be applied to the forerunners of these technologies, LTE and LTE-Advanced are 4G, everyone
NEWS
WiMAX, and to other evolved 3G technologies providing a substantial else is a buster
Politics Daily
level of improvement in performance and capabilities with respect to ITU capitulates, admits that the The Daily Beast
the initial third generation systems now deployed." And in a way, we term '4G' could apply to LTE,
WiMAX, and 'evolved 3G AOL News
think that's fair -- no one would argue that the so-called "4G" network technologies' GNN
of today resembles the 3G network of 2001. We can stream extremely Taxes
high-quality video, upload huge files in the blink of an eye, and -- given Sprint's XOHM WiMAX service
gets official Stock Quotes
the right circumstances -- even use some of these networks as DSL DJIA
replacements. Sounds like a generational leap to us. AT&T: both HSPA+ and LTE are
'4G,' 20 such devices planned for
this year LIFESTYLE ENVIRONMENTAL
Whether WiMAX 2 and LTE-Advanced will ultimately be called "4G" Lifehacker Inhabitat
4G at CES 2011: AT&T, Verizon,
by the time they're available is unclear, but our guess is that they won't Lemondrop Good
and T-Mobile make big moves
-- the experience you'll have on those networks will be vastly different StyleList Autoblog Green
than the 4G of today. And let's be honest: the world's marketing Luxist Green Daily
departments have no shortage of Gs at their disposal. Personal finance TreeHugger
Gadling
ENTERTAINMENT
336
WoW
Massively
The Onion
2g, 3g, 4g, cdma, cdma2000, edge, ev-do, ev-do rev. 0, ev-do rev. a, Ev-doRev.0, Ev-doRev.A, gprs, i09
gsm, hspa+, umts, wireless PopEater
Spinner
Cinematical
Big Download

FCC unanimously approves LTE standard for nationwide public safety network 4 days ago
T-Mobile releases: Streak 7 and Galaxy S 4G in February, G-Slate in late March? 5 days ago
Nikkei: PSP2 will have 3G cellular data, OLED touchscreen 7 days ago

VoxOx combines all your contacts into one Mac client 18 days ago
iPad will also go Verizon for 3G, says Bloomberg 19 days ago
AT&T warns Verizon iPhone users of "life in the slow lane" 20 days ago

Login below to leave a comment:

Add New Comment Powered by

4 of 9 31/01/2011 09:59
2G, 3G, 4G, and everything in between: an Engadget wireless primer --... http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/17/2g-3g-4g-and-everything-in-bet...

POST AS …

Showing 1-49 of 337 comments

Sort by Subscribe by email Subscribe by RSS Real-time updating is paused. (Resume)

MIchael Vesagas 1 week ago REPORT

Very cool
+ 101
REPLY

Guest 1 week ago in reply to MIchael Vesagas

Comment exploded into a million tiny pieces of glittery magic.

Indefinite Implosion 1 week ago in reply to Guest REPORT

I'm fuming because of their lies, argh!

+ 64
I don't even live in America and it stall angers me, GROAAARRRR! REPLY

In other news, we want real 4G in the UK!

(Edited by author 1 week ago)

Michealfelps 1 week ago in reply to Indefinite Implosion REPORT

They forgot OG
+ 208
All the original gangsters are going to be up in arms. REPLY

kangaruhs 1 week ago in reply to Michealfelps REPORT

Mr. Ziegler, you are, for the time being, my favorite writer on Engadget. Excellent
+ 155
article. REPLY

Kane Stapler 1 week ago in reply to kangaruhs REPORT

I cant believe i just read that whole thing.

+ 241
REPLY

TheDarkKnight 1 week ago in reply to Kane Stapler REPORT

I read the whole thing and it was awesome. Of coarse I'm a gadget freak as I
+ 40
should be. Bring on WiMax 2 and LTE advanced. I want at least 40 mbps up
and 10 mbps down. Haha.

Joseph Lee 1 week ago in reply to Kane Stapler REPORT

That was a good read, looks like marketing is still king for now. FYI according
+ 34
to the logo its the flames that makes 4G faster lol.

Leland Robinson 1 week ago in reply to Kane Stapler REPORT

@ TheDarkKnight
+ 9
Shoot, if I blink, I want it that fast. But that'll never happen. Just give me
enough bandwidth so I can use it as my sole internet connection.

benjbong 1 week ago in reply to Kane Stapler REPORT

this was a nice reminder of my data comm class in college

+ 3

EstebanJobs 1 week ago in reply to Kane Stapler REPORT

Coming soon, the Apple iPhone 3.75G!

+ 33

Indefinite Implosion 1 week ago in reply to Kane Stapler REPORT

Can someone give a tl;dr summary for those that care less than you?
+ 4

Ryan S 1 week ago in reply to Kane Stapler REPORT

Maybe if they can beat Apple to it, the carriers can make WiMAX2 and LTE
+ 1
Advanced 4GS technologies

Foren 1 week ago in reply to Kane Stapler REPORT

"Can someone give a tl;dr summary for those that care less than you?"
+ 3

5 of 9 31/01/2011 09:59
2G, 3G, 4G, and everything in between: an Engadget wireless primer --... http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/17/2g-3g-4g-and-everything-in-bet...

GSM is shitty technology, inferior to CDMA but more widely deployed

because it's older.

zerocool159 1 week ago in reply to Kane Stapler REPORT

@ foren: Seems like you didn't read either or you didn't comprehend what
+ 5
you read. GSM and CDMA are on their way out.

ErrorMatt 1 week ago in reply to Kane Stapler REPORT

Article summary: The ITU set lofty and way to optimistic goals on what the
+ 2
next "generation" of cellular network capability should be, and left everyone
hanging for years.

E! 1 week ago in reply to Kane Stapler REPORT

Thank you Engadget for finally covering this one. I have been saying for
+ 10
months that none of those "4G" networks meet the standards that are set by
the UN.

However we could get to this standard. Sweden enjoys 100 Mbit/s

connections for a ridiculous 40 euros a month. That makes your 4-10 Mbit/s
Verizon plan for 80 bucks a month look like a bad joke. Our providers simply
want to use every opportunity to rip us off. And they will as long as the FCC
looks away.

hotman88 1 week ago in reply to Kane Stapler REPORT

lol same here

+

Shoulders 6 days ago in reply to Kane Stapler REPORT

Sweden also has a 'slightly' smaller surface area to cover with towers than
+ 3
we do. Bringing technology. To rural areas ain't cheap at all. That's a lot of
copper and fiber my friend (aka monies)

Tony Varin 6 days ago in reply to Kane Stapler REPORT

Just curious, but how is Sweden's coverage of it's rural areas? They do have
+ 1

less surface area as Shoulders pointed out. Countries like Japan or S. Korea
can update so quickly and for a lot less because of surface area (I will say
that they sure have a lot of traffic in small areas so that must be rough, but
cities like New York aren't far off). U.S. is slower in that respect, and if it
weren't for our government, the rural areas would be screwed; there's hardly
a market in those places.

statelypenguin 4 days ago in reply to Kane Stapler REPORT

@Shoulders
+ 1
True, true. However, the US has SLIGHTLY more money than Sweden. And
why aren't our cities blanketed in extreme data speeds? And why are we
paying way more than Sweden (and everybody else) for slower speeds?
Gotta love the telecommunications industry.

sssgadget 1 week ago in reply to kangaruhs REPORT

Amen to that.... I read the whole thing... a First on the interwebz

+ 20
REPLY

THB101 1 week ago in reply to kangaruhs REPORT

Yea this is a super cool and informative read

+ 16
REPLY

Mechagodzilla 1 week ago in reply to kangaruhs REPORT

Amen to that! Was I really just reading an Engadget article? But it was . . .
+ 97
engaging and informative . . . and unbiased! REPLY

I'd better check the URL again. This can't be Engadget.

Highest 1 week ago in reply to Mechagodzilla REPORT

Ironically it's your own personal bias that leads you to put on the tinfoil hat
+ 9
regarding this site's "bias". Also Engadget is a mainstream tech blog so
in-depth and very informative is not exactly why most come here, there's
plenty of other sites to geek out at, however its nice to get them every now
and then.

sssgadget 1 week ago in reply to Michealfelps REPORT

And now you know.

+ 10
REPLY

6 of 9 31/01/2011 09:59
2G, 3G, 4G, and everything in between: an Engadget wireless primer --... http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/17/2g-3g-4g-and-everything-in-bet...

THE_GUN_DOES 1 week ago in reply to Indefinite Implosion REPORT

L.M.A.O.@ All the carriers..com..smh...monkey see.monkey do..4g of today is like

+ 6
justin bieber.. yeah some people think it's ready... But most people don't think it meets REPLY
the standards.

Daniel Hinojosa 1 week ago in reply to Indefinite Implosion REPORT

dude i live in america! and it pisses me off!

+
REPLY

Cole_K 1 week ago in reply to Guest REPORT

just fyi, you probably wont see much difference on a phone with 4g. with the dual core
+ 1
phones there will be able to procces all of that incoming data but a standard single core REPLY
1 GHz phone with 4g would most likely have an imperceptible speed boost because it
just cant process data that fast. at least thats what ive been told

spilledmy 1 week ago in reply to Cole_K REPORT

In my experience, Sprint's WiMax is sometimes slower than 3G for web browsing. The
+ 3
actual speed, though, is a lot better than EVDO, but my EVO doesn't seem to be REPLY
making full use of it.
I know speeds aren't the problem, because tethering is fastet and video streaming is
faster, too.

Cole_K 1 week ago in reply to spilledmy REPORT

im thinking thats probably because video streaming is relatively consistent strain

+ 6

wise. web browsing is not at all consistent. tethering would be fastest because you REPLY
have the processing power of whatever device your tethering it too, and the phone
simply relays the data as opposed to processing it. so the data can get to the
phone fast its a matter of how fast it can process it. i think.

KGBoston 1 week ago in reply to Cole_K REPORT

that...makes sense!
+
REPLY

Cole_K 1 week ago in reply to KGBoston REPORT

Woo I make sense!

+ 2

SparksUnwired 1 week ago in reply to Cole_K REPORT

Agreed. Either way, thanks Engadget for posting this. I'd imagine it will help clear up a
+ 6
fair deal of questions that people have now with the myriad levels of connection REPLY
speed available.

Wyseguy 1 week ago in reply to Cole_K REPORT

You've been told wrong. iPhone 4 (not "4G") has enough CPU power to handle faster
+ 3
connections. It does quite well on WiFi, which is faster than either AT&T's current REPLY
HSPA or Verizon's EVDO Rev. A networks. Quick test of my iPhone 4 on WiFi
showed 15.55 Mbit/sec down, 8.10 Mbit/sec up. Good luck trying to find that in the
real world on either cellular network. As for iPhone 5 (or whatever it will be called),
will probably have a faster CPU, which should be fast enough for emerging HSPA+
and LTE speeds available at that time.

(Edited by author 1 week ago)

Cole_K 1 week ago in reply to Wyseguy REPORT

Well iphone has a rediculous optimized OS which helps

+ 3

REPLY

Anitesh Jaswal 1 week ago in reply to Wyseguy REPORT

I pull 50up/50down on my iPhone 4 when running through my schools WiFi, so of

+ 1
course WiFi will be faster then your cell carrier. REPLY

Tethering on Bell I get 2up/11 down. That's fast enough for me and it strips my
DSL which is 1up/15down in day to day use.

Alexei Panicev 1 week ago in reply to Wyseguy REPORT

CPU and network speed has nothing to do with each other. calling 3G a 4G does
+ 1
not turn 3G into 4G. REPLY

Wyseguy 1 week ago in reply to Alexei Panicev REPORT

A device's CPU speed, relative to overall system load, can impact network
+
performance. Processing incoming or outgoing data packets requires CPU REPLY
cycles. If you actually read what I wrote, I didn't say anything about 3G being
4G. That is just silly marketing wars between the carriers. The whole "G" thing

7 of 9 31/01/2011 09:59
2G, 3G, 4G, and everything in between: an Engadget wireless primer --... http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/17/2g-3g-4g-and-everything-in-bet...

was supposed to be a reference to wireless technology generation, but has

been turned into a somewhat useless marketing term.

I don't think that CPU is a limiting factor for 4G. Look at my first post above. I
said "Phone 4 (not "4G") has enough CPU power to handle faster connections."
That was in response to Cole_K's comment that he thought 4G support would
require a faster CPU.

(Edited by author 1 week ago)

Alexei Panicev 1 week ago in reply to Wyseguy REPORT

looks like you know a lot about CPU cycles, lol. However, if you think CPU
+ 3
speed of the phone is the limiting factor of using "4G", it's total
misconception. Modern cellphones use the most of the processing resources
not on data transfer support but, web page rendering, graphics, screen back
light and so on. Network support requires very little resources. iPhone 4 has
wireless N build in and theoretically the data transfer rates are limited at 300
Mbit/S.

Diego Mota 1 week ago in reply to MIchael Vesagas REPORT

The cake is a lie

+ 46
REPLY

David Witthoft 1 week ago in reply to Diego Mota REPORT

No its not, I found it

+ 8

REPLY

Turbogame 1 week ago in reply to David Witthoft REPORT

Shit, that's all you did? I ate it whole...

+ 2

REPLY

ev149 1 week ago in reply to Diego Mota REPORT

We'll have to wait for Portal 2 to find out if that's really true...
+ 2
(That rhyme was unintentional) REPLY

palomosan 1 week ago in reply to MIchael Vesagas REPORT

Yeah I know, they're all lying to us but since their marketing is so good, everybody will fall
+ 43
into their trap, not only that but they'll start charging outrageous amount of money for a REPLY
3.5G technology now called 4G.

It's was a needed post for us, lots of info.

(Edited by author 1 week ago)

Halfyada 1 week ago in reply to palomosan REPORT

Yeah, by the time actual rollout full 4G tech they'll call it 6G. They should give ITU
+ 14
authority to stop their bs. But, you'd be more likely to see a law suit over McDonald's REPLY
"100% Pure Beef" burgers which also ain't happening.

SergeantGrumbles 1 week ago in reply to palomosan REPORT

The part that worries me the most is this. What did I pay for my data plan on the original
+ 23
iphone (2.75G?) ? $20 for unlimited internet and 200 text messages too, just for grins. REPLY
Then they bumped the speed up to 3G, and they bumped the price up to $30, data only.
Now, we have carriers charging an extra $10 for 4G, even if its not available where you
live. By the time we get TRUE 4G, they'll be calling it 7G and charging nearly $100 a
month. Woo, I can't wait.

fugeesnfunions 1 week ago in reply to palomosan REPORT

Exactly. The current "4G" tech is clearly "3.5G". It sounds like the standards body had
+ 3
quite a but of control in the 90's and early 00's but lost it in the 2010's. I'm sorry but if I'm REPLY
supposed to be getting a freaking gigabit a second standing still, even 42Mbps doesn't
come CLOSE. That would be like my internet provider calling their 28Kbps dial up
service, broadband back in '97 because it's "close enough". Wasn't Sprint the first
network to claim 4G? Not that other networks HAD to follow along and don't have their
own blame in the situation, but I think it's safe to blame Sprint for forever ruining mobile
standards.

The best point in the article is that the networks are screwed once they finally get
around to real 4G speeds. The upgrades to reach that point will no doubt be expensive
and they'll want to brag their new capabilities, but how will they do that? They can't just
say: "well we know we SAID you had "4G" before (and charged you a premium for it), but
that was just our marketing department, now you can REALLY have 4G!". Are they going
to call it 5G and forever screw up the nomenclature? I'd love for the standards body to
test the honesty of all the networks and let them go buck wild calling their networks
whatever they want, then in 6 months release a statement telling everyone what 4G
really means and show exactly how far away they really are.

(Edited by author 1 week ago)

8 of 9 31/01/2011 09:59
2G, 3G, 4G, and everything in between: an Engadget wireless primer --... http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/17/2g-3g-4g-and-everything-in-bet...

1xinfusion 1 week ago in reply to fugeesnfunions REPORT

I think thats what ITU already did. except everyone turned their attention elsewhere
+ 3
and disregarded the info REPLY

denmike 1 week ago in reply to fugeesnfunions REPORT

From a technical point of view, it actually makes a lot of sense to call LTE for 4G:
+ 3
They have moved to 100% TCP/IP in the network (almost only excluding the SIM REPLY
card, which will follow in a few years). There is no longer a CS (circuit switched)
domain in the network, only a PS (packet switched) domain. The 4G speeds the ITU
is (mostly) focusing on are plain ridiculous to me.

1 2 ... 7 Next

LATEST NEWS HUBS GALLERIES VIDEO PODCASTS TOPICS REVIEWS

© 2011 AOL Inc. All rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks | AOL A-Z HELP | Advertise With Us

9 of 9 31/01/2011 09:59