5 ms·
AT&T Pins 4G Label to Existing Network
- barredo 16y agoSeems that "4G" is the new "2.0"
- nhangen 16y agoor HTML5
- chc 16y agoThe term "HTML5" is not nearly as vague. It's less exclusive than some purists would prefer (because it's used as a general term for corresponding changes to markup, CSS, the recommended parsing algorithm and the DOM), but it's not like "HTML5" could suddenly refer to Flash tomorrow.
- zach 16y agoThey should have just pulled a Gillette and gone straight to 5G: http://boingboing.net/2005/09/14/gillettes-5blade-raz.html http://boingboing.net/2005/09/14/gillettes-5blade-raz.html
- kurtsiegfried 16y agoI agree, I can't help but thinking how awesome it would be just to see the press release: "Fuck it, we're doing 5Gs."
- clistctrl 16y agoIts already in the works though (release 2020) speeds faster than 1Gbps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G).
- jwn 16y agoThat's pretty ambitious of them considering I don't even have 3G service from ATT in my area. I'm still stuck on the Edge.
- wmf 16y agoThey rebranded their existing HSPA+ network as 4G; they're not dumb enough to try to pass off EDGE as 4G.
- danilocampos 16y agoI just... I, I mean... I... I can muster nothing but expletives. Wow. Absolutely nothing more than expletives. Fuck these guys.
- tvon 16y agoNobody else seems to care about accuracy in labeling things "4G", I don't see why AT&T should.
- danilocampos 16y agoI'd rather AT&T actually create a better network than spend time on marketing nonsense that simulates the creation of a better network. They may as well have a zero-G network if you live in a half-populated area.
- forensic 16y agoWell you aren't their target customer
- nitrogen 16y agoWhose target customer are we? It seems that nobody is targeting people who want a dumb, fat, wireless pipe with an unlocked smartphone and no marketing BS.
- forensic 16y agoand I bet you want it at a decent price too. there's no profit in selling to smart people. Much easier to sell to the suckers.
- jmtulloss 16y agoWhat's wrong with this?
- 16y ago
- dminor 16y agoT-Mobile seems to have gotten away with it, so it was probably just a matter of time. 4G is just much catchier that HSPA+. Coming soon: LTE aka 5G.
- wmf 16y agoThis is the result of a series of steps that each seemed somewhat reasonable — like a marketing version of path dependence (or maybe ratcheting). Clearwire called WiMax 4G because it's an incompatible, more advanced, and dramatically faster protocol than EV-DO or WCDMA. Then T-Mobile introduced HSPA+ which is technically an incremental evolution of 3G but is actually faster than WiMax; thinking that it's unfair for a faster network to have fewer Gs, they called it 4G. Now AT&T will be penalized if they call their HSPA+ 3G, so they also call it 4G. Honestly, the traditional G naming scheme was too arbitrary and confused users.
- eli 16y agoIt's also worth noting that the ITU (closest thing to an authority on this) announced that "4G" has no technical meaning and therefore might as well apply to T-Mobile's HSPA+ network. I'm sure AT&T was pissed. (Only LTE and WiMAX can use the ITU label "IMT-Advanced" but that term is lacking a certain bit of marketing cachet) http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2010/48.aspx http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2010/48.as...
- tienshiao 16y agoOriginally the ITU ruled that neither WiMax or LTE were 4G in October: http://www.infoworld.com/d/mobilize/4g-defined-wimax-and-lte-dont-qualify-683 http://www.infoworld.com/d/mobilize/4g-defined-wimax-and-lte... Which meant neither Sprint's or Verizon's network were 4G, but that didn't stop them from advertising. In December, the ITU changed their mind and now WiMax, LTE, and HSPA+ can be called 4G: http://www.intomobile.com/2010/12/18/itu-reverses-its-decision-lte-wimax-and-hspa-are-now-4g/ http://www.intomobile.com/2010/12/18/itu-reverses-its-decisi... At this point, I think 4G is just mostly a marketing phrase now.
- T_S_ 16y agoIn a persuasive setting words are currency. Gresham's Law (bad currency drives out good) applies. Since the words in question are actually numbers we get slapped in the face with it this time. Or we get a chuckle, depending on your prior level of cynicism.
- Mahh 16y agoThis reminds me of when Heroku was acquired... I call it Cloud 2
- rorrr 16y agoThe only solution is see for Verizon and Sprint is to advertise actual speeds.
- dhbanes 16y agoThe problem with that is, they will be held accountable for delivering those advertised speeds.
- alexqgb 16y agoIn other words, they're upset that AT&T's vacant marketing hype posing as a genuine technical specification is diminishing the value of their own (and better established!) marketing hype posing as a genuine technical specification. How...frustrating.
- guana 16y agoIn 3G (or 4G, whatever) the speeds are dependent on a lot of things you can't really control: amount of users, location, the 3g device, weather, etc etc. So you can never really promise "with us you'll get at least x megabytes per second!". On the other hand, you could advertise the "maximum speed", which is also meaningless since nobody ever gets that.
- cosmicray 16y agoand every consumer should multiply those speeds by 0.707
- agotterer 16y agoHey AT&T, why don't you forget 4G for now and concentrate on making Edge and 3G work first.
- S_A_P 16y agoI want to see my iPhone status bar to read "AT&T 4G" right now!!! I want my 4g speed, even if it is just a relabeling.
- johnnygood 16y agoATT isn't saying that your iPhone is 4G. Your iPhone supports HSPA 7.2. ATT's network is HSPA+ but they don't have any HSPA+ phones yet. HSPA+ is what ATT and T-mobile are calling 4G.
- InclinedPlane 16y agoThis is a remarkably poorly written article. I can see highlighting AT&T's change in marketing and seemingly trying to confuse customers by dropping mention of 3G. However, I don't see any evidence here that AT&T is starting to use the term "4G" incorrectly. The article papers over this inconvenient lack of perfidy on AT&T's part by using the term 4G on average once per paragraph. Is this the WSJ or is it techcrunch?
- Natsu 16y ago> However, I don't see any evidence here that AT&T is starting to use the term "4G" incorrectly. I believe the point of the article was that the term "4G" is currently meaningless, not that it is being used incorrectly. So we're being sold service that's allegedly next generation, even though nobody actually can agree on what 4G actually is.
- InclinedPlane 16y agoI believe the point of the article was to bait people into reading WSJ. The title of the article is "AT&T Pins 4G Label to Existing Network", but that statement is not supported by fact and the claim is not even made in the article. Instead, the writer uses a lot of sound and fury to obscure the fact that ... well AT&T is being more vague about the technology used in their network. Oh no, marketing. It may mean that people who are uninformed will buy products they otherwise might not have, and this is the first time such a thing has ever happened. If AT&T had actually called their non-LTE network "4G" that would be one thing. But they aren't. This article is below the standards of techcrunch, let alone WSJ.com. Wireless carriers pull enough BS on their own there's no need to go making things up.
- brudgers 16y agoNow Walt Mossberg and John Gruber can praise Apple for making a 4G iPhone. That sure was easy.
- brianobush 16y agoLying isn't right, so I tell my children. I am sure consumers don't really understand the technology, but clearly stating something you don't have is material the FTC should be investigating.
- awongh 16y agoHe says consumers generally won't notice the difference in speed between AT&T's HSPA-plus and upcoming LTE networks, so it makes sense to call both 4G ...the carrier will speed up the LTE network build out in 2012 and 2013. basically, they got the ceo of ATT wireless to say on-record that there would be no speed improvements on their network for a very long time... They probably won't have good (geographic) coverage on the new network for at least 2-3 years... Can anyone comment on why they are just starting to build a network with tech that isn't higher speed than their current network? I'm sure that's a lot of money spent, and you'd think that if they went to the trouble they'd deploy something that was faster.
- fuzzmeister 16y agoFrom what I've read, LTE will certainly be faster than HSPA+. I think what he is saying is that HSPA+ is "fast enough" for most smartphone activities (such as web browsing), so the speed boost provided by LTE will only be noticed in more data-intensive applications, such as video streaming.
- Prisen 16y agoThe fastest implementations of HSPA-plus are actually coming close to the theoretical limits of how much data can be transferred on a given frequency band, but they have some big drawbacks compared to LTE. The one that will be most noticeable at first is latency, which is at most half that of HSPA (the requirement is 20ms for LTE). The second is that LTE will be able to use bigger frequency bands than HSPA, eventually reaching a 100 MHz band. Even ignoring that, AT&T's current HSPA-plus network is nowhere near as fast as HSPA-plus can be. They would need to upgrade it to get close to the raw speed of LTE.