[IP] more on Mobile industry looks ahead to 4G

[Dave Farber <dave@farber.net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Steven Cherry <s.cherry@ieee.org>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 16:58:14 -0400
To: Dave Farber <dave@farber.net>
Subject: Re: [IP] Mobile industry looks ahead to 4G

Dave,

There's no industry agreement in what's meant by "4G", so I guess
Pearce can say whatever he wants. In fact, one thing we know is that
whatever it means now, it'll mean something different when its prime
time rolls around. That's what happened with "3G".

Here's what Webopedia has to say. I think this is pretty much what
everyone meant when 3G came along in the late 1990s:

"3G is an ITU specification for the third generation (analog cellular
was the first generation, digital PCS the second) of mobile
communications technology. 3G promises increased bandwidth, up to 384
Kbps when a device is stationary or moving at pedestrian speed, 128
Kbps in a car, and 2 Mbps in fixed applications."

In fact, here's what the ITU itself said in 2000:

"Speeds nearly three times faster than today's basic rate ISDN for
fast-moving mobile terminals and even higher speeds for users who are
stationary or moving at walking speed"

and here's what Ericcson said:

"3G combines high-speed mobile access with Internet Protocol (IP)
based services."

Compare that to today (talking about EDGE, a 3G application/network):

"... 3-4 times higher voice and GPRS data capacity and 3-4 times
higher data rates than GSM."

That's just a narrowband-like 30-60 kb/s data rates, a far cry from
the broadband-like numbers originally envisioned. And indeed, today,
companies like Sprint and Verizon use "3G" to refer to data rates in
that range.

In fact, one working definition of "4G" is that it actually deliver
what 3G promised: 2 Mb/s data rates on pure-IP networks. (3G still
does data overlaid on a voice-optimized network, which is one of the
main things impeding its throughput.)

In the opinion of some, 1G (analog cellular service) was little more
than a proof-of-concept of mobile telephony, and 2G networks were the
first to do something that large numbers of consumers wanted -- and
were willing to pay for. Indeed, the continued success of 2G is one
of the main stumbling blocks to 3G, particularly in Japan, where many
people see a big gap in price unmatched by only modestly greater
functionality.

So some industry experts have said, pay attention to the even
numbers, we may just end up skipping 3G and go straight to 4G. There
are already companies, such as Flarion and Soma and MeshNetworks,
with technology that matches the definition of 4G given above. So I
think Pearce's title is correct, though he may be wrong in some of
the details.

  Steven


>Mobile industry looks ahead to 4G
>By James Pearce
>ZDNet Australia
>May 9, 2003, 8:55 AM PT
>URL: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-1000756.html
>
>Third-generation mobile technology has arrived, duly accompanied by a
>barrage of hype. But the industry is already casting its eyes forward to the
>next big thing--4G.
>
>However, while 4G is viewed by many as a communications technology that will
>allow one device to roam seamlessly over several different wireless
>technologies, arguments over the fine detail of what constitutes 4G continue
>to rage.
>
>Jason Ross, senior analyst at amr interactive, told ZDNet Australia,
>"everyone was arguing about what 3G is for a while, and you've still got
>people trying to muddy the waters".
>
><etc.>

-- 

--
   Steven Cherry, +1 212-419-7566
   Senior Associate Editor
   IEEE Spectrum, 3 Park Ave,  New York, NY 10016
   <s.cherry@ieee.org>  <http://www.spectrum.ieee.org>


------ End of Forwarded Message

-------------------------------------
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/