HSPA+ is true, official, bona-fide 4G

[kre62]

It seems many have missed the fact that the ITU has redefined the term "4G" to include LTE, WiMax, and HSPA+. Around the 18th of December, this change happened. The ITU is the original group that defined 4G as 100mbps. This has now been changed. Here is an article about it:

http://www.intomobile.com/2010/12/18/itu-reverses-its-decision-lte-wimax-and-hspa-are-now-4g/

Also, some of you may missed T-Mobiles keynote today in which they demonstrated their 42mbps HSPA+ tech on stage. It pulled a 30mbps real world download.

For reference, most cable modem speeds are around 10mbps, and Verizon LTE is between 5-12mbps. So T-Mobile's 42mbps HSPA+ is already 3x faster than LTE.

Heres to hoping for an HSPA+ iphone soon, and to not caring about LTE.

 

[rjohnstone]

No, it is not.
Source: http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/p...s/2010/48.aspx

Following a detailed evaluation against stringent technical and operational criteria, ITU has determined that “LTE-Advanced” and “WirelessMAN-Advanced” should be accorded the official designation of IMT-Advanced. As the most advanced technologies currently defined for global wireless mobile broadband communications, IMT-Advanced is considered as “4G”, although it is recognized that this term, while undefined, may also be applied to the forerunners of these technologies, LTE and WiMax, and to other evolved 3G technologies providing a substantial level of improvement in performance and capabilities with respect to the initial third generation systems now deployed. The detailed specifications of the IMT-Advanced technologies will be provided in a new ITU-R Recommendation expected in early 2012.

ITU has not even officially defined 4G.
That won't be released until sometime in 2012.
They caved to the telecom companies in a bid to remain relevant.

 

[kre62]

No, it is not.
Source: http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/p...s/2010/48.aspx



ITU has not even officially defined 4G.
That won't be released until sometime in 2012.
They caved to the telecom companies in a bid to remain relevant.

If we use your line of thinking, with 4G as undefined, I can call anything 4G, even dial up modems.

What I'm trying to say is that those who have decided in their minds that 100mbps downstream=4G must now revise their thinking as the original group that provided that number has revised their statements.

 

[zephxiii]

What difference does it make about the term "4G" anyways? It's just a stupid label.

 

[rjohnstone]

If we use your line of thinking, with 4G as undefined, I can call anything 4G, even dial up modems.

What I'm trying to say is that those who have decided in their minds that 100mbps downstream=4G must now revise their thinking as the original group that provided that number has revised their statements.

ITU-R has no "official" 4G standard in place.
This is why it remains undefined.
However their technical requirements for the "proposed" 4G standard are still intact and still read as 100MBps for 4G mobile broadband.

All they did was cave to the cell phone companies by letting them call their networks 4G in a bid to remain relevant.

This article in InfoWorld is a good example of how the cell companies didn't give a d@mn what the actual standard were.

Verizon Wireless spokesman Jeffrey Nelson told InfoWorld that the ITU's current technical definition in no way affects our plans to launch the world's first large-scale LTE network later this year.
He claimed it was all about "real people using actual products and services." So in other words it does not matter what engineers say, if people think it's 4G then it "is" 4G.

 

[QuarterSwede]

HSPA+ is more like 3.5G.

 

[Small White Car]

What I'm trying to say is that those who have decided in their minds that 100mbps downstream=4G must now revise their thinking as the original group that provided that number has revised their statements.

Which is EXACTLY what's stupid about it.

So 20 Mb is 4G and 100 Mb is 4G...well, great. So everything for the next decade will be 4G? Every new phone...every new speed boost...whatever...it's still just '4G.'

Why even call it anything? Let's just call it "cell phone data" and be done with it. If it's all gonna be the same label then I don't see the point in having a label at all.

But here's the main problem: All these companies have marketing departments. You think they're gonna be happy selling the same old "4G" phones in 2013? No, they'll come up with all new labels. So this 'regulation body' (or whatever it's called) really didn't do anything except pass power from themselves to the marketers.

And that never ends well.

 

[kre62]

ITU-R has no "official" 4G standard in place.
This is why it remains undefined.
However their technical requirements for the "proposed" 4G standard are still intact and still read as 100MBps for 4G mobile broadband.

All they did was cave to the cell phone companies by letting them call their networks 4G in a bid to remain relevant.

This article in InfoWorld is a good example of how the cell companies didn't give a d@mn what the actual standard were.

You're coming up with straw man arguments to keep from admitting you were wrong. Just man up.

100 buck says that on December 17th, if anyone would have claimed LTE was 4G, you would have been FIRST IN LINE to tell them that 100mbps is true 4G, and nothing else. Now that the ITU has revised its (ok how about this) "initial chatter" about what constitutes a 4G network, you are trying to fall back on this "undefined" argument.

Dude. It's over. HSPA+ is 4G. Deal with it.

 

[crazytiger86]

ITU-R has no "official" 4G standard in place.
This is why it remains undefined.
However their technical requirements for the "proposed" 4G standard are still intact and still read as 100MBps for 4G mobile broadband.

All they did was cave to the cell phone companies by letting them call their networks 4G in a bid to remain relevant.

This article in InfoWorld is a good example of how the cell companies didn't give a d@mn what the actual standard were.

+1.

I dont see what the problem is. The link OP cited was some off brand tech website. And uses that as conclusory evidence that "Dude. Its over." If you want, heres one claiming that HSPA+ isnt 4G, from yesterday: http://is.gd/kgmVU Geez at least RJ cited the official source as it came straight out of the horses mouth.

If ITU, the very people tasked with defining the term 4G, state that it is undefined, then its undefined. In the end, no one is right, simply because there is no standard by which it can be properly defined. And if it cant be defined or isn't yet defined, your cute cable modem example falls apart as well because you're defining something. The problem arises because having 42mbps isnt exactly 3G but it isnt exactly 4G either. Thus, it is undefined. ITU themselves said that it "may also be applied to the forerunners of these technologies, LTE and WiMax, and to other evolved 3G technologies". Its not a statement that carries full logical force and modality and you really shouldn't take that as a "true, official, bona-fide" conclusory statement.

But honestly, in the end, does it truly matter? If it makes cell service for all of us just a little bit faster and makes it more available to all of us, what does it matter what we call it?

Read up on what Small White Car said, in the end, I think he may be the most correct out of all of us. It is all marketing in the end...and if you're so easily persuaded by marketing and you believe it, then good sir, I have got a bridge to sell you...

 

[kre62]

+1.

I dont see what the problem is. The link OP cited was some off brand tech website. And uses that as conclusory evidence that "Dude. Its over." If you want, heres one claiming that HSPA+ isnt 4G, from yesterday: http://is.gd/kgmVU Geez at least RJ cited the official source as it came straight out of the horses mouth.

If ITU, the very people tasked with defining the term 4G, state that it is undefined, then its undefined. In the end, no one is right, simply because there is no standard by which it can be properly defined. And if it cant be defined or isn't yet defined, your cute cable modem example falls apart as well because you're defining something. The problem arises because having 42mbps isnt exactly 3G but it isnt exactly 4G either. Thus, it is undefined. ITU themselves said that it "may also be applied to the forerunners of these technologies, LTE and WiMax, and to other evolved 3G technologies". Its not a statement that carries full logical force and modality and you really shouldn't take that as a "true, official, bona-fide" conclusory statement.

But honestly, in the end, does it truly matter? If it makes cell service for all of us just a little bit faster and makes it more available to all of us, what does it matter what we call it?

Read up on what Small White Car said, in the end, I think he may be the most correct out of all of us. It is all marketing in the end...and if you're so easily persuaded by marketing and you believe it, then good sir, I have got a bridge to sell you...

As usual crazytiger doesn't fully grasp the concept and instead rewards us with a long winded monologue that has little to no bearing on reality.

This thread isn't about marketing. I get the marketing point. Here's the point of this thread since it seems to have eluded you.

People who argue that 4G means 100mbps must now revise their thinking to the point that evolved 3G is included. This is because the group they relied on for their original figure has revised it's guidelines.

Here's the key: the fact that 4G WAS and STILL IS officially undefined has not changed. It is a constant. That condition existed when everyone was claiming 4G meant 100mbps, and exists today. However 100mbps champions can not just switch over to the undefined argument unless they then admit they were wrong to claim it means 100mbps. You either accept the current Quasi-definition the ITU has given, which means accepting that HSPA+ is 4G, or state that 4G means absolutely nothing.

Now the next argument you'll give me is "but in the end who cares blah blah blah" as a deflection vs admitting I'm right.

 

[Alisstar]

Tell me if I'm understanding ITU's statement correctly...

What ITU now says is that because everybody's calling LTE, WiMax, & HSPA+ "4G," then they're going to give in and call 'that' 4G simply because everybody else is, and the real 4G will later be named something else? That's basically what they're saying, right?

 

[Vegastouch]

All you will need to know is that T-Mobiles network will be faster than everybody elses.
I mentioned this before. They are working on getting their network much improved but dont advertise as much as everybody else but bottom line is, they will be far ahead of the compitition by 2011's end in that regard.

They are right now really but many dont pay attention to T-Mobile and what they are doing.
They announced today at CES that they wont be charging extra for 4G usage and they will be bringing 25+ 4G devices (HSPA+) to their arsenal in 2011 with some of them running on the new 42 mbps.

 

[crazytiger86]

As usual crazytiger doesn't fully grasp the concept and instead rewards us with a long winded monologue that has little to no bearing on reality.

This thread isn't about marketing. I get the marketing point. Here's the point of this thread since it seems to have eluded you.

People who argue that 4G means 100mbps must now revise their thinking to the point that evolved 3G is included. This is because the group they relied on for their original figure has revised it's guidelines.

Here's the key: the fact that 4G WAS and STILL IS officially undefined has not changed. It is a constant. That condition existed when everyone was claiming 4G meant 100mbps, and exists today. However 100mbps champions can not just switch over to the undefined argument unless they then admit they were wrong to claim it means 100mbps. You either accept the current Quasi-definition the ITU has given, which means accepting that HSPA+ is 4G, or state that 4G means absolutely nothing.

Now the next argument you'll give me is "but in the end who cares blah blah blah" as a deflection vs admitting I'm right.

Nice. As usual, kre62 chooses to open with his favorite logical fallacy: ad hominem. Well since, I don't want to make anything too complicated for you or turn it into a "long winded monologue" ...

saying that something may be something ≠ saying that thing is "true, official, or bona-fide".
something that is undefined ≠ cannot be something that is constant.
quasi-defined ≠ defined

I dont know why you're arguing with me...I'm agreeing with you ...read my last post again. Very slowly and out loud to help you. Use your finger to follow the words as you read them. Yikes.

One of your key points posits that: "You either accept the current Quasi-definition the ITU has given, which means accepting that HSPA+ is 4G, or state that 4G means absolutely nothing." You're right, it means absolutely nothing. As Small White Car, RJ, and I have told you... It is all marketing.

Geez, some people...

Honestly, are you just trolling or something? You kind of started the same yelling match over in this thread: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1075530/ Where my viewpoints are essentially the same as many other readers and yet somehow, you didnt take issue with anything they said...

 

[goobot]

so att is gana have 2 4g networks..... (technically if this is true)

 

[crazytiger86]

Tell me if I'm understanding ITU's statement correctly...

What ITU now says is that because everybody's calling LTE, WiMax, & HSPA+ "4G," then they're going to give in and call 'that' 4G simply because everybody else is, and the real 4G will later be named something else? That's basically what they're saying, right?

That sounds more likely. Its what SWC was saying up there.

 

[GolpherZX]

Personally I think the difference between 3G and 4G networks at this point should be one basic principality. IP (Internet Protocol). That is the way that most networks are heading these days (curious where the competition is for IP, how will IP improve if there is no competition). The 3G networks of EVDO and HSPA (and HSPA+ for that matter) are all based on time. GSM networks are typically packet based, but still time slots are in it. Same goes for CDMA networks.

I have a feeling it is too late to really get a true 4G definition as the large companies have already polluted the waters.

 

[nosser]

so att is gana have 2 4g networks..... (technically if this is true)

AT&T will launch hspa+ very soon and use is as a backup to LTE. So if you were in a LTE coverage area to one that is not you'll drop to hspa+ versus Verizon dropping from LTE to 3G service.

 

[rjohnstone]

AT&T will launch hspa+ very soon and use is as a backup to LTE.

AT&T has already launched their HSPA+ network. It's been on for a few months already.
They just don't have any phones capable of using it yet.

 

[cocky jeremy]

Pretty sure 4G is supposed to be 100 Mb/s.

 

[Applejuiced]

Only thing I care about is fast download and upload speeds and simultaneous voice and data transfers.
I wouldnt ask for something rediculous like 100mbps but I'd be more than happy between 8-16mbps.
If they want to deliver that thru HSPA+ and call it 4G then its fine with me.
Cause no matter what the tech is behind it its still delivering 4G speeds to the consumer.
Hope it doesnt kill the battery fast like it does with other 4G phones out there.

 

[kre62]

Pretty sure 4G is supposed to be 100 Mb/s.

Way to read and comprehend the thread

 

[Bonds79]

It seems many have missed the fact that the ITU has redefined the term "4G" to include LTE, WiMax, and HSPA+. Around the 18th of December, this change happened. The ITU is the original group that defined 4G as 100mbps. This has now been changed. Here is an article about it:

http://www.intomobile.com/2010/12/18/itu-reverses-its-decision-lte-wimax-and-hspa-are-now-4g/

Also, some of you may missed T-Mobiles keynote today in which they demonstrated their 42mbps HSPA+ tech on stage. It pulled a 30mbps real world download.

For reference, most cable modem speeds are around 10mbps, and Verizon LTE is between 5-12mbps. So T-Mobile's 42mbps HSPA+ is already 3x faster than LTE.

Heres to hoping for an HSPA+ iphone soon, and to not caring about LTE.

i am alittle disappointed by the new labelling systems of using HSPA+ as 4G, HSPA+ was NEVER NEVER supposed to be labelled as 4G. It was always 3.5G.
This is kinda sleezy of att and t-mobile to try and pass this off as 4G just because they don't have their LTE ***** together!

And T-Mobile's 42 HSPA+ getting 30mbps that laughable, you better believe they had the signal tuned and turned up just for the CES Show is Las Vegas! you will never see the speed in real everyday life from HSPA+

 

[Bonds79]

AT&T will launch hspa+ very soon and use is as a backup to LTE. So if you were in a LTE coverage area to one that is not you'll drop to hspa+ versus Verizon dropping from LTE to 3G service.

But att is NOT going the 42mbps HSPA+ route they have said during the CES that they are upgrading to 14.4mbps only. SO even on the 3.5G or you wanna say 4G route att is half-stepping.

 

[kdarling]

Tell me if I'm understanding ITU's statement correctly...

What ITU now says is that because everybody's calling LTE, WiMax, & HSPA+ "4G," then they're going to give in and call 'that' 4G simply because everybody else is, and the real 4G will later be named something else? That's basically what they're saying, right?

First, it partly depends on how you read their statement. The writer could've used "may" not as permission, but as "might" as in "people are simply doing it and it can't be stopped".

Second, the ITU has a poor record on this type of thing. Back in 2000 they declared that EDGE was 3G... and got laughed at by all the carriers who refused to agree. Eventually they had to admit that no one else called it that.

Personally I think the difference between 3G and 4G networks at this point should be one basic principality. IP (Internet Protocol).

Agreed that IP should be a major part of the definition. And it is.

Some people have picked out just a piece about mobile data working from 10Mbps to 100Mbps, and think the top number is it. It's not. 4G is not just about speed, it's about a whole new generation.

AT&T will launch hspa+ very soon and use is as a backup to LTE. So if you were in a LTE coverage area to one that is not you'll drop to hspa+ versus Verizon dropping from LTE to 3G service.

Remember the blue vs red 3G coverage maps. At least with Verizon you'll be able to fall back to 3G outside of LTE. With ATT, there might not be any 3G to fall back on.

 

[zephxiii]

But att is NOT going the 42mbps HSPA+ route they have said during the CES that they are upgrading to 14.4mbps only. SO even on the 3.5G or you wanna say 4G route att is half-stepping.

They've already corrected the 14.4 statement, it will be 21mbps HSPA+.

Also it would not take much for AT&T to go to 42mbps because they are already running multiple HSPA(+) channels. 42mbps is just combining 2 HSPA+ channels.

On another note, i recently just watched Clear's LTE video, they got 48mbps out of 10mhz. HSPA+ gets 42mbps (without MIMO) on 10mhz as well...pretty close and you can see why ITU decided to consider HSPA+ 4G as well....not that it matters as the 4G is pointless anyways.

Remember the blue vs red 3G coverage maps. At least with Verizon you'll be able to fall back to 3G outside of LTE. With ATT, there might not be any 3G to fall back on.

OH. So YOU are saying they are completely halting 3G/HSPA+ coverage expansion? That's funny since they released a map showing additional coverage expansion to be completed by the end of March. And you'd be a fool if you think it stops there....