Yet another attempt to rip off the consumer:
http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/01/technology/4g_myth/index.htm?cnn=yes&hpt=C2 (http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/01/technology/4g_myth/index.htm?cnn=yes&hpt=C2)
[thumbsdown]
You mean the Wireless Industry is the sleaziest business since the Porn Trade ??
I really don't care about download speeds on a mobile phone, particularly when I can connect to a WiFi network.
What I'd really like the mobile providers to focus on is good reception so I can make phone calls that don't drop.
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha...breath...hahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Damn marketing ploys being exposed by the consumer!
Quote from: RAT900 on December 02, 2010, 07:52:05 AM
You mean the Wireless Industry is the sleaziest business since the Porn Trade ??
I for one don't think the porn trade is really THAT sleazy....it is pretty up front and understood exactly what you are paying for with most of that stuff....
Quote from: Randimus Maximus on December 02, 2010, 09:08:42 AM
What I'd really like the mobile providers to focus on is good reception so I can make phone calls that don't drop.
We've got pretty good reception here with Verizon, but I hear that Sprint is all crap when it comes to dropped calls.
I am loath to defend wireless companies, but to put things in perspective...
"the organization previously approved the use of the term "4G" for Sprint's WiMAX and Verizon's LTE networks, he said -- though not for T-Mobile's HSPA+ network."
4G is more like a brand at this point and less like a specification, and the ITU sanctioned the use of the name on non-4G technologies. Misleading and confusing? Expedient for the carriers that get to call what they use "4G"? Yes and yes.
A blatant attempt to fleece consumers that don't really know the technical details behind the differences between 3G and 4G, aside from knowing one more G must be better? Subject to debate, but I don't think so.
Also, ITU specifications are not iron-clad. 100M ethernet for example - even if you were to adhere to the specification exactly, you are not going to reach the theoretically possible 100M speeds. That is more about the limitations of the technology (ie, pulsing signals on copper or fiber) and not really what is spelled out by the ITU.
Quote from: RAT900 on December 02, 2010, 07:52:05 AM
You mean the Wireless Industry is the sleaziest business since the Porn Trade ??
the porn industry doesn't lie to you about charging you one thing and giving you another, the porn industry also does not charge you extra fees and taxes on everything you do with their product and they don't tie you to multiyear contracts either.
sounds like the porn industry is the most honest business when it comes to giving you what you want for your money, unlike the cell phone carriers.
Quote from: il d00d on December 02, 2010, 10:06:41 AM
4G is more like a brand at this point and less like a specification, and the ITU sanctioned the use of the name on non-4G technologies. Misleading and confusing? Expedient for the carriers that get to call what they use "4G"? Yes and yes.
A blatant attempt to fleece consumers that don't really know the technical details behind the differences between 3G and 4G, aside from knowing one more G must be better? Subject to debate, but I don't think so.
Also, ITU specifications are not iron-clad. 100M ethernet for example - even if you were to adhere to the specification exactly, you are not going to reach the theoretically possible 100M speeds. That is more about the limitations of the technology (ie, pulsing signals on copper or fiber) and not really what is spelled out by the ITU.
then maybe they should just say its faster than other 3g instead of this 4g stuff.
Absolutely... "3G+" would have been a better way to go than 4G. Aside from confusing people now, it has muddied the waters for when 4g is actually implemented. When a carrier actually puts the ITU spec 4g in place, consumers will think "I have had 4G for years, whatev'"
Unless they get it right and call it 4G+ (good idea by the way)!
So I guess me waiting for a 4g phone on Verizon is moot?
Good read....I do agree with il d00d on the ITU themselves being inconsistent
Quote from: sbrguy on December 02, 2010, 10:06:43 AM
the porn industry doesn't lie to you about charging you one thing and giving you another, the porn industry also does not charge you extra fees and taxes on everything you do with their product and they don't tie you to multiyear contracts either.
sounds like the porn industry is the most honest business when it comes to giving you what you want for your money, unlike the cell phone carriers.
sounds like the porn industry should, from hence forth, be in charge of all advertising for cell phone companies [evil]
Quote from: Le Pirate on December 02, 2010, 11:26:23 AM
sounds like the porn industry should, from hence forth, be in charge of all advertising for cell phone companies [evil]
I've been expecting this since the advent of being able to set your phone to "vibrate."
*ahem....end thread jack.
I want 5G
[evil]
Quote from: Buckethead on December 02, 2010, 12:20:06 PM
I've been expecting this since the advent of being able to set your phone to "vibrate."
[laugh] [laugh] [laugh] [laugh] [laugh] [laugh] [laugh] [laugh] [laugh] [laugh] [laugh] [laugh] [laugh] [clap]
Quote from: Heath on December 02, 2010, 10:37:40 AM
So I guess me waiting for a 4g phone on Verizon is moot?
Not really, it's still much faster than the current offerings. 5-12mbps (Verizon's "4G" offering) vs. 500K-1.5mbps (current "3G"). I'd like to think you'd notice a considerable difference. While not 100mbps. It's still multiple times faster than what we've had offered.
This will all be moot once GLOBAL WIFI is implemented.
Quote from: slowpoke13 on December 03, 2010, 04:07:26 PM
Not really, it's still much faster than the current offerings. 5-12mbps (Verizon's "4G" offering) vs. 500K-1.5mbps (current "3G"). I'd like to think you'd notice a considerable difference. While not 100mbps. It's still multiple times faster than what we've had offered.
at&t's hspa+ is a little faster than that:
http://www.bgr.com/2010/11/17/at-data-growth-slowed-in-q3/ (http://www.bgr.com/2010/11/17/at-data-growth-slowed-in-q3/)