Template talk:Table Mobile phone standards
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Under "frequency bands" in the "mobile phone standards" template it shows GSM and PCS... GSM is not a frequeny band, its a technology, and other systems can be employed in the cellular (800-900mhz) band. I think it should say SMR, Cellular, and PCS, as those are the current band division names according to the FCC. I am making the change, if there is dispute because of standards in other countries we should discuss and expand the template. --Wesman83 17:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The most neutral would be to simply list them as freqencies. - Keith D. Tyler ΒΆ (AMA) 17:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well the only problem is that other countries have different ranges for each mobile band, as well as, presumably, different names. I certainly think its fair that all countries systems are represented... this should certainly be discussed more. I will look into it and I hope there will be more feedback in the meantime. --Wesman83 18:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 3.9995G
Should 3G standards really be broken up into 3.5G, 3.75G, etc? The g.xx numbering made some sort of sense for the 2G categories (2G = circuit switched, 2.5G = 2G with packet switching, 2.75G = "Packet switching at so-called 3G speeds but still, essentially, a slow packet switched bolt-on to a 2G network"), but here we seem to just be saying "Oh, this is slightly faster than the former ones."
What do you do with something like EVDO which is the same name, but subject to revisions that make it faster, with a system like that? If UMTS is still UMTS, but HSDPA makes it faster, is it really a new system simply because you have a name for the enhancement?
If the 2.xxG terms were used, surely 3.5G would be 3G with VoIP, and 3.75G would be a 4G system supporting VoIP but using an underlying 3G standard?
They come across as a little arbitrary and subjective. Perhaps something based upon speed might work better and be more informative, eg:
| Mobile phone and data standards |
|
0G
|
|
| 3G | |
| 4G | ...etc... |
I admit a bias against "3G" as a term anyway, given it's more marketing than anything else, but at the same time I could see the logic of the 2.xxG categories which I don't think applies here. Arguably the 2G section could usefully be reorganized along similar lines, except people in real life are using terms like "2.5G". Squiggleslash 16:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I too dont like the 3.5G, 3.75G ecspecially as HSOPA should now be added to 3.875G. It's on the roadmap after HSUPA (now 3.75G) and before 4G. Should we just add all these HSxPAs into 3.5G and leave them there?--Darin-0 10:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
If I were to reorganize the section according to my proposal, where would you want it? Under Improvements, or maybe "4G convergance"? Also from what I was reading of your (very informative, thanks!) HSOPA article, it looks like it's not a W-CDMA tweak like HS[DU]PA, but an entirely new air interface system for UMTS. Is this a correct characterisation? Do you support reworking the 3G part of the template the way I suggest?
(I'm also thinking of putting explanations after 2.5G (2G with packet switching) and 2.75G (2.5G with 3G technologies) so that these terms are more explicit too.)
Let me know what you think, Squiggleslash 14:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I like your approach Squiggleslash. --Darin-0 15:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
