4G: What's in a name

If you've seen all of the new cellphone company ads you heard the term "4G" but what does it mean? It's a unit higher than 3G, but does that mean it's better? Why are all the carriers in the US over night claiming their networks to be 4G compatible? Is all 4G the same? To answer those questions requires a little walk through some wireless technology terms like WiMax, HSDPA+ .

As one would expect, the 4 in 4G stands for the fourth generation of mobile wireless technology. It encompasses a range of VoIP and mobile broadband technologies used by smartphones, wireless modems, and other broadband device . According to the International Telecommunications Union, the standards group that came up with the term,  defines 4G as a network that offers mobile speeds of 100Mbps up to 1Gbps -- a 500-fold improvement over current 3G speeds.

There has been lots of discussion as to whether the current wave of mobile technologies marketed as 4G are truly deserving of the name. As it is now, all of the 4G technologies currently in use, are technically considered to be 4G predecessor systems. In almost all the cases the "4G" is used as a markinting tearm . None of the cell companies have even come close to the 100Mbps speed requirement and the ITU has not approved any of them as 4G.



T-Mobile and AT&T market their HSPA+ service with the 4G label, but HSPA+ is widely considered to be an advanced 3G standard -- 3.5G tops. T-Mobile's  HSPA+ network tops out at 21Mbps. The aple for using these technology is it's upgread cost to the cell comapiny. Both T-Mobile and AT&T used older HSPA technology to provide 3G servers, therefore they can upgrade their equipment.  This is also why you can buy 4G phones for less then $50 now --the cost of manufacturing the chips are much lower then other 4G technologies.

WiMax has been deployed by Sprint, the oldest of the 4G standard, it's been around since 2001.  The hope was that WiMax could become a replacement for both 3G and WIFI. That it could provide theoretical download speeds of up to 100Mbps. In the real-world speeds were far below that level more like  3-6Mbps. Sprint has recently debated jumping ship and going to LTE in the near future.  Even though WiMax will still be supported for the next couple of years, WiMax was on foot in the grave

The new kid on the block is LTE -- Long Term Evolution.  It is generally accepted to succeed both CDMA2000 (Version and Sprint)  and GSM (T-mobile and AT&T). It lacks a dedicated voice network -- 100 percent of the bandwidth  is used for data services, which means that voice calls would be treated as VoIP (not unlike Skype). speeds are about  5-8Mbps but the standard could evolve to 100 Mbps some day in the future. All of the big 4 cell phone compies are working on developing LTE, as of right now LTE is the clear front runner for the race to 4G speeds.

Currently, we are seeing the very beginning of 4G. Most of the cell companies know that it's going to be a while before we hit the 100Mbps goal but that doesn't stop them from using slogans like "America's fastest most advanced 4G network"

Wi-FI on the farallon's

A Wi-Fi link that shoots 20 miles over the sea form the academy of science san francisco to proved internet  on the Farallon islands.  The researchers based on the island get quite high bandwidth, typically 18-20 megabits per second. The system cost a mere $500 per station , a fraction of the cost of a satalite link or microwave system. The system's uses a power-efficient single-board computer (like one found in slot machines) running  Linux operating system with three wireless cards for routers. The cards are made by Atheros', there off-the-shelf, high-power 802.11a/b/g.   The links between stations are using high-gain parabolic directional antennas -- hey act like a focused beam .  The system consumes very little power about 10w which is provide by a small solar panel. I love the fact that sea gulse in the ocean have accsee to faster internet then most Americans. 

 

AT&T –T-mobile Merger

Last week the Department of justice filed a lawsuit against theAT&T and T-mobile merger.  The government’sposition is that if this merger goes through, it will be terrible for consumers, worse for competition and will eventually lead to a duopoly –when two companies dominate a single industry.   Incontradiction, AT&T argues the polar opposite.  In their regard, T-mobile is not a legitimatecompetitor; therefore gobbling up the financially burdened company wholesale can’t hurt competition or consumer choice. The merger will make AT&T stronger as a company and revolutionize the wireless industry of the United States. Their slogan for this ambitious campaign is 1+1=3—somehow magically reducing nationwide wireless companies will make everything better.


AT&T representatives claim that the T-mobile merger must go through because the wireless industry is going to face a “bandwidth tsunami”.  They say the only way for AT&T to developnext generation 4G network would be to combine, T-mobiles wireless spectrumtogether with theirs.  They claim thiswould give them huge improvement in coverage and give them 97% of America.  The go so far as saying that without thisvaluable spectrum, they will not be able to accomplish this greatchallenge.  The problem with this argumentis AT&T’s own documents, which they accidently submitted to thegovernment.  These papers show thatAT&T has plans to roll out a new 4G network without the T-mobile spectrum,and even hints to the fact that the T-mobile merger will not give bettercoverage to AT&T customers. 

In all of AT&T’s presentations, they do gloss over howmuch it will cost AT&T if th $39 billion merge does not go through.  Both companies have a multi-year roamingagreement, which will conclude next year and will cost AT&T $3 billion to  sign a new one. 
One of the biggest critics of the plan is Sprint.  Their problem with the merger is access.  Sprint and T-mobile are the only two nationalwireless carriers that do not operate physical wired network.  This means they must purchase fiber opticbackhauls from their two biggest competitors Verizon and AT&T.  Sprint’s fear is without T-mobile, AT&Tand Verizon can essentially jack up the price for these lines, putting them ata huge disadvantage.  This combined withthe fact that Sprint will be the smallest of the national carrier’s means thatthey can be easily muscled out of the market.

I hope that the merger is stopped at all costs.  Over the years I have been a customer at onepoint to: AT&T, T-mobile, Sprint and Verizon.  The worst cell phone company by far has been AT&T.  They have the worst coverage, atrociouscustomer service—that makes dealing with the DMV seem pleasant and relaxing,and the most confusing billing process I have ever seen.  I pray that the government does not allow AT&T to consolidate their power.  Keep in mindthis is the company that thought that the internet would never work, fax wasuseless and tried to sue to stop the car phone.