Where some of the "Wimax is not 4G" confusion comes from
I believe that some of the confusion concerning whether or not Wimax is a 4G technology comes from the fact that Wimax is an evolution from 802.11-series Wifi technology. Wimax is technically known as IEEE 802.16, and it a logical upgrade from 802.11b wifi technology. In a sense, Wimax moves a signal beyond Wifi's 100m limitations out to a distance of 50km with similar speeds as Wifi.
As such, Wimax is technically a 2G evolution from Wifi.
The fact that it's being implemented onto mobile phones and not just mobile Internet cards and wireless WAN/LANs is what throws some people off. But if we accept this confusion, we also should start referring to phones with Wifi as being capable of 1G technology and/or speeds, too.
Where LTE makes more sense as a 4G technology is from the fact that it is literally a fourth generation of mobile data technology. There's no crossing of technologies in the same sense as Wimax making its way over to mobile phones. Think of it this way: would you consider Wifi on a phone a convergent technology, or an add-on feature to accomplish similar functions?
SO...
Those who say Wimax is not 4G are technically correct. It's a 2G, but for a different technology path. LTE is the fourth generation in the family that began with analog technology, and therefore qualifies as a 4G technology.
Those who say Wimax is 4G are also technically correct, when the 4G category is taken to mean a class of data solutions based on speed, which I think most of use as without realizing it. For many of us, 4G means speed - not evolution path.
Those of us who went to engineering school think of 4G in a different context than those who think in consumer terms of "what it means for me."
I can produce a dozen or more generational evolutions for the amateur radio versions of what we talk about on cell phones. They could be up around 12G, when you think of it from an engineering perspective. And yet, most of the generational evolutions in amateur radio wouldn't look any different to a consumer accustomed to walkie-talkies and cell phones.
So pick your side. Are you a 4G = speed kind of person? Or are you a 1G> 2G> 3G> 4G evolution person? And once you pick your version of 4G, be sure to understand where the other 4G people are coming from.
Thanks.
As such, Wimax is technically a 2G evolution from Wifi.
The fact that it's being implemented onto mobile phones and not just mobile Internet cards and wireless WAN/LANs is what throws some people off. But if we accept this confusion, we also should start referring to phones with Wifi as being capable of 1G technology and/or speeds, too.
Where LTE makes more sense as a 4G technology is from the fact that it is literally a fourth generation of mobile data technology. There's no crossing of technologies in the same sense as Wimax making its way over to mobile phones. Think of it this way: would you consider Wifi on a phone a convergent technology, or an add-on feature to accomplish similar functions?
SO...
Those who say Wimax is not 4G are technically correct. It's a 2G, but for a different technology path. LTE is the fourth generation in the family that began with analog technology, and therefore qualifies as a 4G technology.
Those who say Wimax is 4G are also technically correct, when the 4G category is taken to mean a class of data solutions based on speed, which I think most of use as without realizing it. For many of us, 4G means speed - not evolution path.
Those of us who went to engineering school think of 4G in a different context than those who think in consumer terms of "what it means for me."
I can produce a dozen or more generational evolutions for the amateur radio versions of what we talk about on cell phones. They could be up around 12G, when you think of it from an engineering perspective. And yet, most of the generational evolutions in amateur radio wouldn't look any different to a consumer accustomed to walkie-talkies and cell phones.
So pick your side. Are you a 4G = speed kind of person? Or are you a 1G> 2G> 3G> 4G evolution person? And once you pick your version of 4G, be sure to understand where the other 4G people are coming from.
Thanks.
...
That was a good post. Assuming that is all correct, thank you for keeping us all well informed. I never understand why people have to "hate on" another company. Its in everyone's best interest that all companies continue to improve and remain competitive.
...
So you went to engineering school, huh? I haVe a question for you. Martin Cooper (father of the cell phone) says that AT&Thas plenty of spectrum and doesn't need any more.
So why do people, possibly yourself, refer to AT&T's network as being over crowded, rather than make a more technologicly correct statement and say that AT&T needs to be more efficient with the spectrum they already have.
Because it is true that AT&T has lots of spectrum, they even used something like 30mhz worth during that SXSW conference recently in Austin, Tx. So they have spectrum, plenty of it, they just don't use it. Cause they are cheap bytches.
So what do you think? Overcrowded network? Or inefficient use of spectrum?
So why do people, possibly yourself, refer to AT&T's network as being over crowded, rather than make a more technologicly correct statement and say that AT&T needs to be more efficient with the spectrum they already have.
Because it is true that AT&T has lots of spectrum, they even used something like 30mhz worth during that SXSW conference recently in Austin, Tx. So they have spectrum, plenty of it, they just don't use it. Cause they are cheap bytches.
So what do you think? Overcrowded network? Or inefficient use of spectrum?
...
Do you have a link for an article stating this? I like to hear his reasoning.
The only thing off the top of my head is efficiency. The FCC originally set up spectrum to be as efficient as possible, but technology differences use that capacity differently.
I need something to start from.
Interestingly, de la Vega (the CEO of AT&T) spoke about the critical need to increase available spectrum in the US, just barely in March at CTIA.
The only thing off the top of my head is efficiency. The FCC originally set up spectrum to be as efficient as possible, but technology differences use that capacity differently.
I need something to start from.
Interestingly, de la Vega (the CEO of AT&T) spoke about the critical need to increase available spectrum in the US, just barely in March at CTIA.
...
Here, it's a 32min long video interview of Martin Cooper on CSPAN, here he says that ATT has plenty of spectrum and just needs to be more efficient, I'd like to hear your response to what Martin Cooper has to say.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CZ4oLw58ek&feature=y ... »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CZ4oLw58ek&feature=y ... »
...
Perhaps its the late hour, but I didn't hear him specifically state that AT&T has plenty of spectrum. The closest I heard to that (aside from referring to the original, original AT&T from the past) he mentioned iPhone users in New York understanding the issues of poor spectrum efficiency.
What I gathered from the whole thing (which I've seen parts of before) was that there are other methods and other technologies that could be implemented to hold off a massive increase in demand for spectrum use in the coming decades. As I understand his perspective, all wireless telephony technology is inefficient, not just a specific carrier. That's right, CDMA, GSM - even Wimax and LTE - are spectrum hogs that could be made more efficient. Also, st...
(continues)
What I gathered from the whole thing (which I've seen parts of before) was that there are other methods and other technologies that could be implemented to hold off a massive increase in demand for spectrum use in the coming decades. As I understand his perspective, all wireless telephony technology is inefficient, not just a specific carrier. That's right, CDMA, GSM - even Wimax and LTE - are spectrum hogs that could be made more efficient. Also, st...
(continues)
...
He said that back in the 70s ATT asked the government for 30mhz of spectrum, and they said they will never ask for more again. And then he said here we are some 35yrs later and the wireless carriers have 250mhz of spectrum. And that's still not enough. That's prettyh much where he was talking about the need for more efficiency.
...
He's talking about AT&T from the late 40s early 50s, when they first invented wireless telephony. Cooper was trying to invent the portable wireless phone that you could take with you - AT&T had been sitting on a wired-in car telephone system for years. The estimated they needed 30 MHz to get it done. That was back when it was an analog signal using old school modulation. They were envisioning a party-style connection with few people using it.
Because of Cooper and his invention of the portable cellular phone, more than a few people started using it. the 250 MHz of spectrum was estimated to be more than enough for some time, just like any technological folly (no one would need more than 10 megs of hard drive space, no one would ever b...
(continues)
Because of Cooper and his invention of the portable cellular phone, more than a few people started using it. the 250 MHz of spectrum was estimated to be more than enough for some time, just like any technological folly (no one would need more than 10 megs of hard drive space, no one would ever b...
(continues)
...
So have you had a chance to check out that very, very interesting interview of Marty Cooper? I'm curious what your thoughts are.
...
They and Verizon are still hoarding that AWS spectrum they both purchased. I guess it will be 2020 before they get around to using it for anything.
...
Stop all this rational thinkin buddy... That kinda stuff has no place round these parts. K?
All I care about is how to sell *MY* phones and how to bad mouth the competition.
If I sell Sprint... WiMax is most definitely 4G. Why? Because 4G > 3G.
If I don't sell Sprint... WiMax is most definitely *NOT* 4G... because how can I sell the newest, best phones - if they are on that other company.
Guess that means I'm on the side that wants to sell phones... to heck with technicalities and techno mumbo jumbo.
Granted...
I sell *BOTH* sets of phones so... 4G is whatever the customer needs to hear at that moment.
Either it's the greatest thing since sliced bread... and yet another reason why Sprint is the best company since dawn ...
(continues)
All I care about is how to sell *MY* phones and how to bad mouth the competition.
If I sell Sprint... WiMax is most definitely 4G. Why? Because 4G > 3G.
If I don't sell Sprint... WiMax is most definitely *NOT* 4G... because how can I sell the newest, best phones - if they are on that other company.
Guess that means I'm on the side that wants to sell phones... to heck with technicalities and techno mumbo jumbo.
Granted...
I sell *BOTH* sets of phones so... 4G is whatever the customer needs to hear at that moment.
Either it's the greatest thing since sliced bread... and yet another reason why Sprint is the best company since dawn ...
(continues)
...
Although the G stands for generation when I have said wimax is not 4G and lte is not 4G I am referring to a set of standards laid out by the Radiocommunication Sector of the International Telecommunication Union as to what constitutes a 4G technology. The international organization is responsible for creating global radio frequency standards.
There are a number of standards to meet what the agency considers 4G, wimax and lte in their current forms conform to most of the standards but not all and thus are not truly 4G by the agencies definition of such.
There are a number of standards to meet what the agency considers 4G, wimax and lte in their current forms conform to most of the standards but not all and thus are not truly 4G by the agencies definition of such.
...
According to the ITU, LTE and WiMax are 3.9G technologies.
ITU considers 4G to be any mobile telephony system which can transfer data at a rate of 100 Mbit/s. This is their definition, and may not be the same criteria as other organizations and government agencies.
LTE is said to have a theoretical capacity to be transmit at these speeds, thereby being considered a 4G tech by the ITU, but because LTE is an emerging technology this capacity has not been realized yet.
So, by the ITU, LTE is NOT 4G, but by most everyone else, LTE IS 4G based on the untested physics pertaining to the technology.
In fact, the ITU considers CDMA2000, EDGE, and WCDMA to all be 3G technologies, despite other organizations, commercial interests, and th...
(continues)
ITU considers 4G to be any mobile telephony system which can transfer data at a rate of 100 Mbit/s. This is their definition, and may not be the same criteria as other organizations and government agencies.
LTE is said to have a theoretical capacity to be transmit at these speeds, thereby being considered a 4G tech by the ITU, but because LTE is an emerging technology this capacity has not been realized yet.
So, by the ITU, LTE is NOT 4G, but by most everyone else, LTE IS 4G based on the untested physics pertaining to the technology.
In fact, the ITU considers CDMA2000, EDGE, and WCDMA to all be 3G technologies, despite other organizations, commercial interests, and th...
(continues)
...
So, i think you're with me that it is the technology developers and the cell companies that are driving using the 4G term-- and not the telecommunications organizations and regulators.
In some ways it's similar to companies that make speakers listing the peak power on their products and not the RMS. (reccemmended manufacturer setting)
Or camera companies acting like megapixels are the sole determiner of the quality of a camera like it has nothing to do with the quality of the lens or optical sensor.
Or like megahertz is the sole indicator of the speed of a processor. the list goes on and on.
From a sales standpoint 4G sounds much more marketable than 3.9 G, or almost 4G.
So in some sense companies have jumped the gun in a desi...
(continues)
In some ways it's similar to companies that make speakers listing the peak power on their products and not the RMS. (reccemmended manufacturer setting)
Or camera companies acting like megapixels are the sole determiner of the quality of a camera like it has nothing to do with the quality of the lens or optical sensor.
Or like megahertz is the sole indicator of the speed of a processor. the list goes on and on.
From a sales standpoint 4G sounds much more marketable than 3.9 G, or almost 4G.
So in some sense companies have jumped the gun in a desi...
(continues)
...
Yeah, for the most part I agree with you. I just don't think it's worth splitting hairs over who means what and what anything means. Once "4G" made its way to the public, the definition was written as far as I'm concerned. We can spend money and time trying to convince the public that LTE AND Wimax are both 3.9G, but will the public really care?
As this point, let's call it what we're calling it already and move on. We can better define all this once we start looking at 5G.
As this point, let's call it what we're calling it already and move on. We can better define all this once we start looking at 5G.
...
