Talk:4G
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of Computing WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to computers and computing. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale |
 |
This article is being improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of article quality. It is likely to change frequently until completed. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details. |
|
==4G==
The article needs to be expanded. Assigning article to Smilers. Ceros 02:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Assigning article to Dvandersluis. Ceros 02:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reassign Added to User:Voyagerfan5761/Desk RJFJR 16:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm slightly uncomfortable with the headings as they don't seem to be in-line with many other articles: Objectives and Wireless System Evolution are unusual. There are also extra line spaces in the Developments section. Also, the Applications section in POVey. Computerjoe's talk 21:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Added to User:Metromoxie/Desk RJFJR 14:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
[edit] 3G is a flop?
"However, 3G is regarded by many as being a bit of a 'flop', so telecommunications companies are planning to roll out 4G earlier (possibly as early as 2008)." What?! Since when has 3g been considered a flop? In Australia most phone shops don't even display 2.5G phones anymore, you're pretty much limited to the 3G offering here. I imagine it would be similar in Europe and in many of the Asian countries. Whose benchmark are we using for "flop" ? --Jaymo 09:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Compare the money spent by most telcos on 3G to the money they have earned from 3G. Then cry. Jpatokal 06:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Consider the fact that losses are normal in this industry. Initial investments must be paid off in order for long term returns to be made. --Jaymo 08:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- very much a flop in asia... despite owning 3G phones, few people found good use of it's application. shanghai is planning to skip the whole 3G tech and go 4G. question to 3G economic if it's going to have a short life, there won't be long term returns. 1 problem is the rate of wireless internet adoption here; it is faster, cheaper and even free to just go wireless then 3G! Akinkhoo 13:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- It's too early to be calling 3G a flop however; 2G phones were around for 6 or 7 years before people even thought of using SMS. Same situation here. Mobile TV and other multimedia functions are catching on pretty fast where I'm from :). I noticed a few people watching mobile TV when catching various metros in Europe too --Jaymo 02:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] MIMO
I've seen a few references to MIMO being used in 4G with space-time coding; maybe that's worth mentioning - I'll try to dig one out. Tom1234 21:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Here's a few:
[edit] 1 Gbit/s?
That's incredibly fast.
- Will it really be available in 2010 for commercial use? --Arado 21:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- I believe the time frame is 2010-2015 for a global standard rollout; however the Japanese/Chinese/S.Koreans will likely be there first, maybe with a standard or maybe with their own version Tom1234 21:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, and more. The other day they've just reached 5 Gbit/s moving at 10 Km/h (jogging speed) and I guess that just like before, it will be slower when increasing the speed. HERE's the link. Europe is working at ~3.6 Mbit/s (mayor cities are starting to work at 7.2 Mbit/s) and the USA is still with EDGE (~300 KBit/s) so... yes, we are behind their technology by far, not only speed-wise, but also in the practical sense: they do make use of their 3G/3.5G capabilities right now. Like with their 1seg technology. You have to see the video quality for yourself. It's amazing what their phones do. They don't care that they're big and bulky, they just love to use all the things they have. Watching TV in their phone and videoconferencing is something completely normal in Japan and doesn't cost an arm and a leg. They watch YouTube videos in their flash-compatible phone internet browsers and even download music like if it were iTunes to listen to whatever they like. It's almost like having a small computer with you just like our smartphones but a lot better :-D Heffeque 01:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] disambiguation page
I suggest we make the "4G" entry a disambiguation page as 4G is also a term in computer science relating to fourth generation langauges (like SQL for instance). Please see this for example: http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/F/fourth_generation_language.html
- That would be 4GL, which already redirects to Fourth generation language. I wouldn't object to a pointer up top tho. Jpatokal 08:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Allright, done. English is not my native tongue, so please have a look and change as you see fit.
[edit] Disambiguation again
I also suggest we make the "4G" entry a disambiguation page as 4G is also a term in psychology for a particular model of personality.
Please see this for example: 4G Psychological Model
- That is a theory developed and advocated by a single business consulting company. Please see WP:OR. Let's mention that one only after it gets picked up by reputable psychology textbooks. Weregerbil 10:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] GAN vs. pervasive networks?
From the description of "pervasive networks", it would seem that GAN/UMA, by providing handoff between GSM and WiFi, is a step towards that definition of 4G.
In actuality, of course, no new transmission technology is being provided by GAN, just a patch on both network and handset ends to manage the handover between already existing networks, which seems a very different sort of development as the other "G"s have been (i.e. load and bandwidth-related). - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 23:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mobile Satellite Ventures
Mobile Satellite Ventures is claiming a 4G network that combines terrestrial and satellite coverage. Recent job openings at this site betray some interesting data--they are looking for engineers with knowledge of beam-forming to help design terrestrial transmitters that simulate the satellite signal where it's not available. The handsets are using L-band which is also what their current platform uses. The satellites now require a large antenna on the handset but satellites launched in 2009 are going to be very high-powered L-band and remove the large antenna requirement but keep the existing system running.
[edit] Evolution section
This article doesn't a huge section on context - it spends too much time explaining what everything else was/is.
[edit] IPv6
Someone added the claim that privacy would be lost on a move to IPv6. As I see it, in both IPv6 and NAT, only the gateway operator knows who truly made a particular connection to the Internet-proper. It may be easier to avoid the need for logging connections with IPv6, but it doesn't necessarily imply the forced removal of privacy to get it.
As such I added a { { fact } } tag. Anyone want to explain further? Squiggleslash 13:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
may i ask the problem as i cannot understand it well. Q: are the IP assigned per client statically, then based on IP, one would be able to track him based on that IP as we do for internet user? Akinkhoo 13:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Answer: It will be a dinamic IPoS (internet protocall over Satellite). Tracked(SkyNet)... yes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.249.59.210 (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] NGN
There is no reference in this article to Next Generation Networking, which is also All-IP, and is aimed to integrate mobile and fixed networks, allowing full mobility and integration of services. Both articles should be tied somehow. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.184.75.134 (talk) 09:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
Personally I'm not seeing the difference, as that's the direction both major families of cellular standards (UMTS and CDMA2000) are taking (both UMTS rev. 8 and UMB respectively) are taking. Given "Next Generation" is relative anyway ("Next Generation" in 2060 will probably not be referring to an AIPN...), perhaps the two articles should be merged? --Squiggleslash 15:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Quote presented as fact
the quote in the introduction is presented as if it were fact, rather than what it actually is; one persons speculations. noteably; "offering any kind of services anytime, anywhere, at affordable cost"
also 'summarized in a single sentence' .. well, yes it is one sentence, but it could easily be 3 its so long. Bungalowbill
[edit] 4G Technology
In the section where 4G technology is located, I saw LTE but I did not see UMB {1X-EVDO Rev C}. Peak throughput rates are 290 Mbps. I think it is important to include all technologies in a truely neutral, informational article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.187.9.169 (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Fixed Mobile Convergence
How does this relate to Fixed mobile convergence? Mathiastck 21:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] What needs to be cleaned up
We need a list of specific things that need to be cleaned up, please. RJFJR 15:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Survey: bit/s/Hz, (bit/s)/Hz or bit·s−1·Hz−1 as Spectral efficiency unit?
Please vote at Talk:Eb/N0#Survey on which unit that should be used at Wikipedia for measuring Spectral efficiency. For background, see the discussion at Talk:Spectral_efficiency#Bit/s/Hz and at Talk:Eb/N0#Bit/s/Hz. Mange01 (talk) 07:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] What to do about the removed "Beyond 3G", "3.5G" and "5G" articles?
[edit] The deleted "Beyond 3G" article
The Beyond 3G article was deleted in 18 April 2008 by user:TravisTX due to Expired PROD. Concern was: "Speculation / advert / redundant information".
Shame on you for such a speedy deletion (5 days!), without informing the WP:TEL project, which the article belonged to, causing the rest of us a lot of job. The article was poorly written, but several articles points at it, and it is an important concept in research publications - a Google scholar search gives 4,040 articles. It would have been better to redirect it to 4G (or 3G) instead of removing it - now we don't have the history. We don't know exactly what other articles that were linking to it. However, I found on old version in Google cache.
31 articles were today pointing at the "Beyond 3G" article. For a current list, see [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Beyond_3G].
Since Beyond 3G is synonym to, or almost synonym to, 4G, I have now recreated the article and forwarded it to 4G. Is this okay?
Any distinction can be discussed in the 4G article. I suppose Beyond 3G also includes Beyond 4G, i.e. 5G. I don't beleive it includes all 3GPP_Long_Term_Evolution (LTE) technologies, but it includes HSOPA. Am I right?
Mange01 (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The deleted 3.5G article and related articles
3.5G was forwarded to the removed beyond 3G article. I will now forward it to 3G#3G evolution (pre-4G). Is this okay?
Before 9 April 2008, it was forwarded to HSDPA. Before 8 August 2005 is was a "real" article. The old version can be found here: [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3.5G&oldid=20559359]. Perhaps someone can use some of the old text in the 3G or HSDPA articles?
The somewhat related 3.75 G article is forwarded to HSUPA. I think this is okay. It has never been a "real" article.
The Pre-4G article point at 4G#Pre-4G_Wireless_Standards.
Mange01 (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The deleted 5G article
5G is redirected to the "Beyond 3G" article since 25 September 2007. Before then it was a real article. The old version can be found here: [1].
I would have referred to keep and extend the old article, and it is too late now. A suggestion is therefor that we add a "Beyond 4G" section to the 4G article, and use some of the 5 G text in that article. The important thing is that it must be supported by many references, to avoid that it is removed once again. I don't have time to solve this issue.
