Jump to content

A journey on the evolution of the G


kckid

Recommended Posts

I'm glad this infographic actually mentioned the fact that 4G vs 3G is a move from a switched network to an all-IP one, which is one of the biggest, real broad changes between generations (along with increases in spectral efficiency, etc.). Sadly, it falls in to the "numbers" trap, quoting the (often touted and completely, utterly arbitrary) "100 Mbps" number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad this infographic actually mentioned the fact that 4G vs 3G is a move from a switched network to an all-IP one, which is one of the biggest, real broad changes between generations (along with increases in spectral efficiency, etc.). Sadly, it falls in to the "numbers" trap, quoting the (often touted and completely, utterly arbitrary) "100 Mbps" number.

 

Well, the speed benchmark is kind of arbitrary, but when they were writing the standard, a line had to be drawn somewhere. At the end of the day, speed (and ping) is what effects the experience of using data on a phone, and users don't know or care whether the data is circuit or packet-switched. If an "all-IP" network only ended up being capable of 4 Mbps instead of 3G Ev-DO rA's 2 Mbps, I wouldn't really consider that to be enough of a technological advancement to be worthy of being considered a new "generation."

 

I figured with the spectrum that Sprint now has on band 41, it'd be possible with TD-LTE-A

 

Yes, a single 20 MHz TDD carrier is I believe capable of 90 Mbps downstream, so two of those aggregated together should get the job done. I'm pretty sure Sprint has at least 40 MHz of Clearwire spectrum in every market, although unfortunately it's not usually contiguous. Once battery life limitations are overcome (carrier aggregation apparently draws a lot of power), I can see Sprint deploying additional TDD carriers pretty quickly, along with whatever firmware upgrades are needed to update from LTE r9 to r10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the speed benchmark is kind of arbitrary, but when they were writing the standard, a line had to be drawn somewhere. At the end of the day, speed (and ping) is what effects the experience of using data on a phone, and users don't know or care whether the data is circuit or packet-switched. If an "all-IP" network only ended up being capable of 4 Mbps instead of 3G Ev-DO rA's 2 Mbps, I wouldn't really consider that to be enough of a technological advancement to be worthy of being considered a new "generation."

It's completely artbitrary, because it depends on the amount of spectrum you're using and the spectral efficiency of your technology. The first depends entirely on licensing schemes, and has nothing to do with technology. The second involves new engineering, and is indicative of a new generation. Are you seeing the problem? By assigning an arbitrary speed cap, an arbitrary assumption of (iirc) 67 MHz (for 1 Gbps fixed) worth of spectrum being the minimum to run a network was put in place. Having more spectrum to use doesn't make your technology new, it just means... you have more spectrum. Spectral efficiency? Yes, that matters, a lot. It also is something end users don't know a thing about and don't care about. Engineering standards should not be measured by how an end user perceives it. That's dumb and silly and we should stop. Providing a good user experience is a worthwhile goal, but that's not what my first post was about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something to think about. I am on a 20mb fiber connection at 7ms ping and can do all I want to with hd video and all, so why is it everyone with a phone wants to have 100mb connection knowing that there phone doesn't have the capabilities there normal comnputer have? It makes no sense?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's completely artbitrary, because it depends on the amount of spectrum you're using and the spectral efficiency of your technology. The first depends entirely on licensing schemes, and has nothing to do with technology. The second involves new engineering, and is indicative of a new generation. Are you seeing the problem? By assigning an arbitrary speed cap, an arbitrary assumption of (iirc) 67 MHz (for 1 Gbps fixed) worth of spectrum being the minimum to run a network was put in place. Having more spectrum to use doesn't make your technology new, it just means... you have more spectrum. Spectral efficiency? Yes, that matters, a lot. It also is something end users don't know a thing about and don't care about. Engineering standards should not be measured by how an end user perceives it. That's dumb and silly and we should stop. Providing a good user experience is a worthwhile goal, but that's not what my first post was about.

 

100Mbps/1Gbps is a speed floor (for theoretical peak speeds) not a cap. If it takes 67 MHz of spectrum to deploy a true 4G network, then that's what it takes. I agree with you that spectral efficiency matters more than raw throughput (as long as that throughput noticeably exceeds the top speed of the previous generation), but that's not how the ITU chose to define it. They own the trademark to the "4G" moniker, so they can define it however they like. I found it frustrating to see private industry abuse the term and defining it however they wanted to, which led to consumer confusion as each "faux-G" network performed very differently.

 

Hopefully the ITU has learned from that debacle and will be a bit more realistic about constraints on spectrum availability when writing the next set of IMT standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

100Mbps/1Gbps is a speed floor (for theoretical peak speeds) not a cap. If it takes 67 MHz of spectrum to deploy a true 4G network, then that's what it takes. I agree with you that spectral efficiency matters more than raw throughput (as long as that throughput noticeably exceeds the top speed of the previous generation), but that's not how the ITU chose to define it. They own the trademark to the "4G" moniker, so they can define it however they like. I found it frustrating to see private industry abuse the term and defining it however they wanted to, which led to consumer confusion as each "faux-G" network performed very differently.

 

Hopefully the ITU has learned from that debacle and will be a bit more realistic about constraints on spectrum availability when writing the next set of IMT standards.

Whoops, misspoke. Meant speed floor.

 

I'm glad you agree that the ITU requirements are a little ridiculous, and as "they can define it however the like", that you agree that it's completely arbitrary.

 

My point is, when it comes down to it - "faux G" or no... It's one thing entirely to say "your technology must have a minimum peak downlink spectral efficiency of 15 bits/s/Hz" (to quote Wikipedia), and another thing altogether to say, as I've heard so many tech afficionados and media sites say, "ITS NOT REAL FOUR GEE UNTIL I GET A HUNDRED DOWN!!!1111". The first is a real technological advancement, the second is a dick waving contest, and has nothing to do with generational advancement.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • Yup. Very true. We were originally on an Everything Data 1500 Plan, which got Unlimited Minutes thanks to Marcelo's "Loyalty Benefits" offer. We then switched to Unlimited Freedom (with the Free HD add-on that Sprint originally wanted $20/month per line for.... remember that?) because the pricing was better with "iPhone for Life", vs. the "Loyalty Credit" for staying on a Legacy Plan. After that, I ran the numbers and switched us over to Sprint MAX, especially for the international travel benefits. There's absolutely no reason for us to switch to Go5G Plus or Go5G Next if we're going to do BYOD by purchasing from Apple/Samsung/Google directly as we've been doing. These new plans aren't priced for current customers to switch to. They're price for new customers, where they throw in a free line, etc. It's gone from "Uncarrier" to "Carrier". What a shame.
    • Strange business model that they keep around all these pricing plans. 1000s of plans per carrier is reportedly not uncommon.  Training customer support must be a nightmare. Even MVNOs have legacy plans. A downside of their contract mentality I guess. Best to change contracts during a recession. But then all carriers try to squeeze out legacy plan benefits as they grow old.  
    • Everything "Uncarrier" is becoming "Carrier" again. Because of the Credit Limit that T-Mobile put on our account for no reason at all (and wouldn't change/update the last time I checked all the way up to the CEO), I don't plan on buying/upgrading our iPhones through T-Mobile. I'm going through Apple directly. Looks like I'll be going through Google and Samsung directly for our other lines for upgrades. Also, we're staying on Sprint Max given the ridiculous pricing for Go5G Plus. On Sprint Max, we currently pay for our Plan: $260 for 7 Voice Lines $25 for two Wearable Lines. (One is $10/Month. The other is $15/Month because the AutoPay discount only applies up to 8 lines.) Total: $285/Month vs. Go5G Plus (Per the Broadband Facts "nutrition label" on the T-Mobile Website): https://www.t-mobile.com/commerce/cell-phone-plans $360 - ($5 AutoPay Discount x 7 Voice Lines) = $325 The Watch Plans show as either $12/Month or $15/Month: https://www.t-mobile.com/cell-phone-plans/affordable-data-plans/smartwatches So this is about the same for the wearables as what we're paying now. Overall, it's quite more than we're paying now to switch plans. Ridiculous....
    • Welcome back! That's similar to my best (1250ish). A few people have broken 2000 on good sites. 
    • Lots of new multi-carrier nodes popping up in Bushwick. Crown Castle Fiber node at Ridgewood & Palmetto:   Crown Castle Solutions node at Irving & Jefferson:   Crown Castle Solutions node at Wilson & Noll:  
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...