Talk:4G/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3G is a flop?

"However, 3G is regarded by many as being a bit of a 'flop', so telecommunications companies are planning to roll out 4G earlier (possibly as early as 2008)." What?! Since when has 3g been considered a flop? In Australia most phone shops don't even display 2.5G phones anymore, you're pretty much limited to the 3G offering here. I imagine it would be similar in Europe and in many of the Asian countries. Whose benchmark are we using for "flop" ? --Jaymo 09:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Compare the money spent by most telcos on 3G to the money they have earned from 3G. Then cry. Jpatokal 06:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Consider the fact that losses are normal in this industry. Initial investments must be paid off in order for long term returns to be made. --Jaymo 08:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
very much a flop in asia... despite owning 3G phones, few people found good use of it's application. shanghai is planning to skip the whole 3G tech and go 4G. question to 3G economic if it's going to have a short life, there won't be long term returns. 1 problem is the rate of wireless internet adoption here; it is faster, cheaper and even free to just go wireless then 3G! Akinkhoo 13:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
It's too early to be calling 3G a flop however; 2G phones were around for 6 or 7 years before people even thought of using SMS. Same situation here. Mobile TV and other multimedia functions are catching on pretty fast where I'm from :). I noticed a few people watching mobile TV when catching various metros in Europe too --Jaymo 02:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Number one, I agree. Number two, this article is incredibly advertisey-preachy. Is it really worth leaving on Wikiepedia? It's one long advert. Nameless9123 (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Ya here in America 3G is the only way or the highway. IceBlade710 (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like to take a shot at cleaning the article up, Here is the approach I would like to take, the fundamental goal of the 4G Standards is to make an All IP Wireless Network. We can make the distinction that in marketing to the consumer which is now using their phones for more data than voice, the use of the term 4G reflects the consumers use and not the technology. All technologies have a path to the technical 4G. Alwaysoncarl (talk) 13:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)alwaysoncarl 2011

MIMO

I've seen a few references to MIMO being used in 4G with space-time coding; maybe that's worth mentioning - I'll try to dig one out. Tom1234 21:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's a few:
http://www.cwc.oulu.fi/nrs04/slides/mimo_tutorial.pdf
http://www.txtec.org/DShaver.pdf
http://www.scitechpub.com/Jankiraman.htm

1 Gbit/s?

That's incredibly fast.

  • Will it really be available in 2010 for commercial use? --Arado 21:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe the time frame is 2010-2015 for a global standard rollout; however the Japanese/Chinese/S.Koreans will likely be there first, maybe with a standard or maybe with their own version Tom1234 21:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, and more. The other day they've just reached 5 Gbit/s moving at 10 Km/h (jogging speed) and I guess that just like before, it will be slower when increasing the speed. HERE's the link. Europe is working at ~3.6 Mbit/s (mayor cities are starting to work at 7.2 Mbit/s) and the USA is still with EDGE (~300 KBit/s) so... yes, we are behind their technology by far, not only speed-wise, but also in the practical sense: they do make use of their 3G/3.5G capabilities right now. Like with their 1seg technology. You have to see the video quality for yourself. It's amazing what their phones do. They don't care that they're big and bulky, they just love to use all the things they have. Watching TV in their phone and videoconferencing is something completely normal in Japan and doesn't cost an arm and a leg. They watch YouTube videos in their flash-compatible phone internet browsers and even download music like if it were iTunes to listen to whatever they like. It's almost like having a small computer with you just like our smartphones but a lot better :-D Heffeque 01:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
This is true about the US being behind in technology but the average American isn't as concerned about it. Unlike those in Japan, Americans prefer face-to-face even if that means traveling and unlike Europe, America don't have seemingly 20 million people in every city every 5 miles from each other. Americans have an easier lifestyle and rather enjoy those RL pursuits. That is an old part of the American lifestyle and even exemplified by how Britain and America were during the founding of the Union. Your post seems to be more critical of the US lifestyle than informative. I work in the telecom industry and I understand that America does not have the expectations that Europe and Japan has. I do not think it is necessary to spend a lot more money for a fringe clientèle that would utilize such technology. The cost of such increase in speeds would only be passed to consumers who don't use it. There simply isn't consumer demand for these improvements; otherwise Congress would be making this technology twice as affordable for telecom companies overnight and you would have your 10mb/s just like that. Europe and Japan has consumer advocacy. America does not. That's not the fault of Americans. That's just capitalism. The consumer is a force of capitalism and is thus the force of government policy. The consumers forcing the government to subsidize and invest in certain areas is capitalism as anything else. But Americans simply don't want that. End of story. it's not a stupid government, just one who knows what the people want.
However, I will add this: the notion of demand in the US is very flawed. Consumers don't know what they want until they see it. Most will not theorize on what they don't have or yet use. Except maybe to theorize that it's "pork barrel" spending.
Until then we will continue to improve the Japanese and European markets. It is because of the governments investing in those areas. Some Americans have criticized that as socialism, but if the government policy is steered by consumers, then it is as capitalist as anything. Socialism and capitalism is a very blurred line. Only capitalism can power socialism. The success of socialism is dependent entirely on consumer activism and education. America has 24% 4-year degree rates and low consumer protection. This is well known by any global corporation. Personally I moved out of the US technology research market, not because I dislike America but because I am a capitalist. I work in France.
But in many areas America is very smart. For example I think the French have become dependent on a retirement program which will fail miserably due to a shrinking labor force. That force is demanding more "conservative" changes because many have convinced themselves that retirement for themselves will not be there and that they spend most of their paychecks on a failing system. They are not so worried about 7mb/s. Plus, Europe is way behind int he gaming industry. krozar 07:40, 06 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Ehm... I'm not entirely sure this rant was called for. America still largely operates on edge and most of Europe and the wealthy parts of Asia don't. This is just cold facts, it's not judgemental and any far fetching conclusions (like: Americans like to see each other face to face or Europeans are more technically advance) seem to me as uncalled for, baseless and a gross simplification of matters that do not do justice to Americans, Europeans or Asians. As for the usefullness of 3/4G technologies functionality is still ahead of what is commenly used by people (possibly countries like Japan and Korea are exceptions) I feel this has to do with the inherent clumsiness of mobile phones and the lack of useable interfaces for increasingly complex features. but the introduction of the Iphone and other high functionality phones with easy interfaces and GPS have seen a huge rise in advance features used by consumers. Mark my words the pocket pc/mobile phone (the lines between those are blurring) might not have been introduced as quickly as some companies would have liked they are coming, the time of the simple phone standard is going to be over pretty soon. And oh the Europeans are behind in the gaming industry well Krozar good for you and good for America, who cares? This is not question of who is bigger or better, instead we might look at differences and pick the bits we like from each continent to create an versitile and ecletic mindset.Fietspomp (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

GAN vs. pervasive networks?

From the description of "pervasive networks", it would seem that GAN/UMA, by providing handoff between GSM and WiFi, is a step towards that definition of 4G.

In actuality, of course, no new transmission technology is being provided by GAN, just a patch on both network and handset ends to manage the handover between already existing networks, which seems a very different sort of development as the other "G"s have been (i.e. load and bandwidth-related). - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 23:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Mobile Satellite Ventures

Mobile Satellite Ventures is claiming a 4G network that combines terrestrial and satellite coverage. Recent job openings at this site betray some interesting data--they are looking for engineers with knowledge of beam-forming to help design terrestrial transmitters that simulate the satellite signal where it's not available. The handsets are using L-band which is also what their current platform uses. The satellites now require a large antenna on the handset but satellites launched in 2009 are going to be very high-powered L-band and remove the large antenna requirement but keep the existing system running.

Evolution section

This article doesn't a huge section on context - it spends too much time explaining what everything else was/is.

Agreed. I'm removing it. -Verdatum (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

IPv6

Someone added the claim that privacy would be lost on a move to IPv6. As I see it, in both IPv6 and NAT, only the gateway operator knows who truly made a particular connection to the Internet-proper. It may be easier to avoid the need for logging connections with IPv6, but it doesn't necessarily imply the forced removal of privacy to get it.

As such I added a { { fact } } tag. Anyone want to explain further? Squiggleslash 13:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

may i ask the problem as i cannot understand it well. Q: are the IP assigned per client statically, then based on IP, one would be able to track him based on that IP as we do for internet user? Akinkhoo 13:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Answer: It will be a dinamic IPoS (internet protocall over Satellite). Tracked(SkyNet)... yes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.249.59.210 (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

NGN

There is no reference in this article to Next Generation Networking, which is also All-IP, and is aimed to integrate mobile and fixed networks, allowing full mobility and integration of services. Both articles should be tied somehow. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.184.75.134 (talk) 09:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Personally I'm not seeing the difference, as that's the direction both major families of cellular standards (UMTS and CDMA2000) are taking (both UMTS rev. 8 and UMB respectively) are taking. Given "Next Generation" is relative anyway ("Next Generation" in 2060 will probably not be referring to an AIPN...), perhaps the two articles should be merged? --Squiggleslash 15:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The term NGN is originally refer to PSTN where the idea of softswitch was initiated. As I remember the company who pushed NGN was Tekelec, Communicasia 2002, Singapore just [Tekelec] booth had NGN product. From NGN model, they innovated to Distributed Mobile Switching Center (DMSC) composed of Softswitch and Media Gate Way. My ideal NGN is also full IP, but when we deployed the NGN, quite disappointment. Big players promised [IMS], also initiated by Teklec, will provide full IP. Recently, there is HP and Tekelec had developed [Open IMS solution] Nightwalker-87 (User talk:Nightwalker-87|talk) 19:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Svongthavone (talk • contribs) 09:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Quote presented as fact

the quote in the introduction is presented as if it were fact, rather than what it actually is; one persons speculations. noteably; "offering any kind of services anytime, anywhere, at affordable cost"

also 'summarized in a single sentence' .. well, yes it is one sentence, but it could easily be 3 its so long. Bungalowbill

4G Technology

In the section where 4G technology is located, I saw LTE but I did not see UMB {1X-EVDO Rev C}. Peak throughput rates are 290 Mbps. I think it is important to include all technologies in a truely neutral, informational article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.187.9.169 (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

To that point- 4g and LTE seem to be used as synonyms. Wimax is also a 4G technology and is currently being tested by Sprint in Baltimore, yet there is no recognition of this.206.17.98.102 (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

4G definition?

The article contains a couple of links with the text "[dated info]", regarding the definintion of 4G. These links point to a non-existant section on this page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:4G#obsolete

So, where's the relevant information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.13.206 (talk) 06:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed Mobile Convergence

How does this relate to Fixed mobile convergence? Mathiastck 21:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

What needs to be cleaned up

We need a list of specific things that need to be cleaned up, please. RJFJR 15:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Survey: bit/s/Hz, (bit/s)/Hz or bit·s−1·Hz−1 as Spectral efficiency unit?

Please vote at Talk:Eb/N0#Survey on which unit that should be used at Wikipedia for measuring Spectral efficiency. For background, see the discussion at Talk:Spectral_efficiency#Bit/s/Hz and at Talk:Eb/N0#Bit/s/Hz. Mange01 (talk) 07:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What to do about the removed "Beyond 3G", "3.5G" and "5G" articles?

The deleted "Beyond 3G" article

The Beyond 3G article was deleted in 18 April 2008 by user:TravisTX due to Expired PROD. Concern was: "Speculation / advert / redundant information".

Shame on you for such a speedy deletion (5 days!), without informing the WP:TEL project, which the article belonged to, causing the rest of us a lot of job. The article was poorly written, but several articles points at it, and it is an important concept in research publications - a Google scholar search gives 4,040 articles. It would have been better to redirect it to 4G (or 3G) instead of removing it - now we don't have the history. We don't know exactly what other articles that were linking to it. However, I found on old version in Google cache.

31 articles were today pointing at the "Beyond 3G" article. For a current list, see [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Beyond_3G].

Since Beyond 3G is synonym to, or almost synonym to, 4G, I have now recreated the article and forwarded it to 4G. Is this okay?

Any distinction can be discussed in the 4G article. I suppose Beyond 3G also includes Beyond 4G, i.e. 5G. I don't beleive it includes all 3GPP_Long_Term_Evolution (LTE) technologies, but it includes HSOPA. Am I right?

Mange01 (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The deleted 3.5G article and related articles

3.5G was forwarded to the removed beyond 3G article. I will now forward it to 3G#3G evolution (pre-4G). Is this okay?

Before 9 April 2008, it was forwarded to HSDPA. Before 8 August 2005 is was a "real" article. The old version can be found here: [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3.5G&oldid=20559359]. Perhaps someone can use some of the old text in the 3G or HSDPA articles?

The somewhat related 3.75 G article is forwarded to HSUPA. I think this is okay. It has never been a "real" article.

The Pre-4G article point at 4G#Pre-4G_Wireless_Standards.

Mange01 (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, I should have checked the discussion section more carefully before making my edits. The "Pre-4G Wireless Standards" section seemed to focus on business information, and didn't explain how the technologies related to 4G. If some standard is important to the development of 4G, but not part of 3G, I'm fine with it being in this article, it should just be explained in context. I always prefer improving content over deleting it, but this just made no sense. I'll change the Pre-4G redirect to point to 3G#3G evolution (pre-4G), at least until a better section discussing the events leading to 4G can be written here. -Verdatum (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The deleted 5G article

5G is redirected to the "Beyond 3G" article since 25 September 2007. Before then it was a real article. The old version can be found here: [1].

I would have referred to keep and extend the old article, and it is too late now. A suggestion is therefor that we add a "Beyond 4G" section to the 4G article, and use some of the 5 G text in that article. The important thing is that it must be supported by many references, to avoid that it is removed once again. I don't have time to solve this issue. Mange01 (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

A rather poorly-written stub has appeared at 5G; it's unsourced and doesn't really say anything. . . my thought is that it should go.evildeathmath 18:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Solved: mid-2010 I restarted a fresh article stub for 5G. Given that 4G is upon us in the next 12 months or so and will grow in usage for roughly 6-8 years beyond, thus 5G theories and technology discussion has begun much more in ernest in the communications community, and so needs reflecting on wikipedia, and the article should obviously be updated as things slowly progress over the next decade. Jimthing (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

IMT-Advanced

Paragraph 4 states that 4g has not yet been formally defined, but the ITU has released specifications for IMT-Advanced. Which is effectively a definition of 4g, just as IMT-2000 was a definition of 3g.

Thoughts?

4G Requirements are formally defined. The first decission of what qualifies as true 4G technologies will be done in October 2010
http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2009/48.aspx
13:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.44.152 (talk)

The 4G of the future

This topic needs to be rethought and probably redone, as many companies are already making significant plans for their upgrade to 4G.

Verizon wireless for one. I've seen reports that Verizon is expected to have their 4G network built buy the end of 2009. One report that I'll cite, says "it hopes to launch its LTE network by 2010". LTE being their choice of 4G technology. http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/040708-verizon-lte-network.html

Trials have shown the LTE technology possibly capable of "download speeds of up to 250Mbps".

Verizon's purchase of the "C-Block" from the spectrum vacated by the "digital transition" will be the base for this expansion into 4G.

So yeah...time for updates? --Huper Phuff talk 22:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"Sprint plans to launch 4G services in trial markets by the end of 2007 with plans to deploy a network that reaches as many as 100 million people in 2008 and has also announced WiMax service called Xohm." I believe this may be the most outdated sentence that I have ever seen on Wikipedia.   — C M B J   18:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"Distortions" claim not proven.

Verdatum claims the 4th paragraph is accurate, but it contains weasel words to disguise the fact it is referring to Clearwire specifically (who is the only major telecom to claim commercial deployment of 4G), and to avoid being called-out for making a false claim against Clearwire.

Paragraph 4 is also strongly suggesting WiMax cannot be used to create a 4G network. In fact, WiMax can provide 4G speed (up to 1 gigabit/sec at last check), and Clearwire does have enough spectrum to provide 4G speed and performance using WiMax.

WiMax is farther along the ITU acceptance process than LTE, so it can be safely assumed WiMax will be accepted by ITU as a 4G air interface unless some new evidence can be found to indicate differently.

It is uncontested that Clearwire has deployed the Mobile version of WiMax in Baltimore, Chicago, Dallas, Portland, and Philadelphia, and it is possible to buy and use the service already in some of those cities. Wimax (and LTE) are scalable bandwidth technologies, and there is nothing in the 4G specifications which preclude selling or purchasing the bandwidth in chunks which are smaller than the peak speed described in the standard. It is, after all, a technology standard, not a business law. Indeed, it is expected the total bandwidth of a tower will be shared among hundreds of simultaneous users, and no single user will get to use the peak speed. The specification for WCDMA indicates we should see 14 Mbits/s from AT&T 3G, but Gizmodo averaged tests in eight cities and found the normal speed to be 1.2 MBits/s, which is slightly slower than the 1.4 Mbits/s via Sprint's CDMA Rev A in the same tests.

IT IS ENTIRELY PLAUSIBLE CLEARWIRE DOES HAVE A 4G NETWORK UP AND RUNNING. It would still be reasonable and helpful to point out that the 4G specification, and the Clearwire service is subject to change in the final days of the standardization process.

The phrase "self-serving" implies something is not of service to anyone else. But I find Clearwire's references to 4G (in their announcements of product intentions and deployments) to be of service to me and to other people.

It is the duty of the author, or in this case the editor Verdatum, to back-up a claim that someone else's statements are a distortion. Otherwise such a libelous and inflammatory expression doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.78.3.120 (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is old, but I should respond. I disagree with what you think the paragraph was suggesting. Just because Clearwire was the only organization you were familiar with, it doesn't mean it's the only one. It is not plausible that clearwire has a 4g network up and running as defined by ITU, because ITU hadn't at the time, and still hasn't defined 4G (source). Regardless, I've never heard anyone claim "It is entirely plausible that we have a 4G network". I have however heard "We have a 4G network". The phrase "self-serving" implies that the company's usage serves itself; that's it. If you want(ed) to soften the phrase to something you feel is less charged, you could. Anyone's references to working 4g networks, regardless of what else they accomplish, serve to increase confusion. The comments below evidence this. Be careful when using terms like "libelous and inflammatory expression"; Wikipedia has a firm policy, No Legal Threats. But I'm sure you were just expression your opinion. -Verdatum (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

4G and what it means to the consumer

"A 4G system will be a complete replacement for current networks and be able to provide a comprehensive and secure IP solution where voice, data, and streamed multimedia can be given to users on an "Anytime, Anywhere" basis, and at much higher data rates than previous generations."...one very important thing that is always left out of basic info of "new" electronics information...it will also create and already high cost to purchase as well as a higher cost to own and operate. Very important information and I'd be willing to bet that the companies that will be selling this new technology discuss this long before this basic info is released. ( best guess the monthly basic costs will approach $125.00 to $150.00 per month). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Englishsunset (talk • contribs) 18:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion??

I suggest we put this article up for deletion. It really is nowhere near Wikipedia's quality standards and it is also one long advert. In fact, I have decided to put it up for speedy deletion because it is not an article appropriate for an encyclopedia. If you don't agree, I would like you to post your comments on my talk. I am open to suggestions. Nameless9123 (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Why speedy deletion? "Beyond 3G" gives 518.000 hits in scholar.google.com. 4G wireless gives 17.500 hits. Mange01 (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this article is written very poorly. Jonverve (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC

I tend to agree. We should have an article on the concept of 4G and the different meanings the term can have. This one's worse than having nothing at all.Dublinblue (Simon in Dublin) (talk) 08:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The article shouldn't be deleted. 4G is a notable concept that belongs on wikipedia. The article just needs work; even if that work means stubbing the page, so long as it meets with consensus. Due to the reasons expressed at WP:RUBBISH, issues of article quality alone is not a strong argument for deletion. Personally, given the current state of the article, I believe it should be moved to IMT-Advanced and have 4G redirect there. This way, it clarifies that the scope of the article is the standard currently being developed by the ITU. Alternatively, this article should go into detail about other definitions of 4G that have been used. -Verdatum (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

3.9G

I'm seeing LTE referred to as 3.9G, in announcements like this:

http://www.hitachi.com/New/cnews/081203a.html

Anyone seen a definition of 3.9G? Mathiastck (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to look up a link, but the consensus is that LTE (and WIMAX) in their first incarnations are actually 3.9G. 4G as defined by 3GPP and 3GPP2 call for a minimum BW of 1Gbps in a nomadic configuration and 100Mbps+ in a mobile scenario. Thus LTE Advanced and later releases of WIMAX can be called 4G. I'll try to find an official statement somewhere Nasula (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Needs updating

This entry needs updating. Specifically, the section on Developments. Sprint has now launched 4g in Portland, Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Baltimore, among other cities. See recent Sprint press releases. Sprint is currently the only telecom company with an operational 4g network. 68.244.39.123 (talk) 03:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC) So is metroPCS check their press releases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.129.232 (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver olympics...

The article says 'Rogers Wireless has already begun the development of their 4G LTE network. The network will be online but only for mobile internet usage and not handset talk & text usage by Summer 2010, in time for the Vancouver Olympics.'

The Vancouver 2010 Olympics are in February. Summer is not soon enough. So is the timing wrong or the Olympics wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.250.180 (talk) 06:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sprint offers 4G? Really??

According to citation 16 at the bottom of this 4G Wikipedia article (which points here: http://nextelonline.nextel.com/en/stores/popups/4G_coverage_popup.shtml),
Sprint defines 4G as 3-6Mbps average download and 0.5-1.0Mbps average upload.

Is that what 4G really means?? Elsewhere in this article, it discusses speeds of 100Mbps and 1Gbps implying those speeds define a 4G network.

--Dan (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

ITU-R defined for IMT-Advanced (4G) that 100Mpbs while traveling and 1Gbps when stationary are the requirements for the technology. In October 2010 ITU-R will select the official 4G technologies out of six proposals aligned around the 3GPP LTE Release 10 and beyond (LTE-Advanced) technology and the IEEE 802.16m technology. LTE R10 and Wimax 802.16m are both upgrades to their previous versions. If Sprint has an 802.16m network they can officially have a 4G network starting from October 2010. Then again 4G is often used as marketing term (not only by Sprint) to indicate "better than before" datanetworks. Etmjang (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a simple explanation

I am one of those people who held out on getting a cell phone for quite a long time. Maybe I'm somewhat of a Luddite in this respect.

In any case, I'm always seeing various advertisements from Cellular Providers which refer to a "3G Network" and "4G Network". In an effort to find a simple explanation of what these are and what they might mean to me as a potential user, I turned to Wikipedia and searched on the term 4G.

This article was of absolutely no help for the purposes I had for reading it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.211.188 (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the article is confusing. I reorganized the wording of the lead paragraph, but plenty more could be done. "4G" is used by marketing to just mean "faster than 3G". No existing network is truly 4G, as 4G is not a finalized standard. The rest of the article gets rather technical because nearly all published sources on the concept are very technical. This article could be improved by finding other definitions used for the term, and by giving more focus on the timeline of events. What aspects are settled upon, and what aspects remaintentitive. -Verdatum (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
3G was branded as a video telephone. There were many visions for new 3G services, like mobile TV, allthough in practice streaming multimedia is not the main use of the 3G service. The main application of 4G is i.m.o. not some new fancy mobiletelephone service, but wireless broadband access to your laptop when you are on the move, or to your home if you live on the countryside (where fiber-to-the-home will be too expensive). The definition is simply about datarate in Mbps. The number of Mbit/s should be the focus of the lead. Previously the lead gave the impression of a salesman speech with incorrect and vague formulations but no numbers.
The problem is that media and the carriers (like Swedish Telia) define 4G in one way, while the manufacturers (for example Ericsson) and ITU standardization organisation, has another. The carriers call their new LTE systems "4G", while Ericsson says we have to wait until 2011 for a real 4G system. The current LTE systems are pre-4g or "3.9G". This makes the article confusing. Should this article really describe the current LTE trials?
This should be explained early in the article. I suggest a table the shows the Mbps numbers for the 4G requirements (according to IMS-advanced) for today's LTE system, and for the kandidate IMS-advanced systems (like LTE-Advanced and next generation Wimax). And we need sources for this.
Another problem is that most part of the article was written before we knew much concrete details 4G, LTE and IMT-advanced, and that we still don't know the exact details of LTE-advanced. It is based on research papers rather that standardization. Mange01 (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, that is certainly a fantastic start. I would assume that with the beginning of all of the media hype(commercials, consumer articles, so on...), this article has the potential for a lot of hits. If I were in the market for a new phone I would certainly read an article on 4g then on 3g and make a decision based on my reading. However this is so hard to understand and out dated, at his point its slightly useless. 76.22.20.99 (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 4G. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 4G. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 4G. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 4G. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 4G. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:4G/Archive_1&oldid=1191319360"