site Search:


 
   
story category
ITU Certifies New 100 Mbps Wireless Standards
LTE Advanced, WirelessMAN-Advanced (WiMax 2)
by Karl Bode Friday 20-Jan-2012 tags: Fiber · coverage · business · wireless · hardware · alternatives · bandwidth · stats · networking · consumers · wireless · LTE
With people already confused over what constitutes 4G wireless broadband, the International Telecommunication Union threw another wrinkle into the mix this week by approving IMT-Advanced, which some are already not-really-accurately calling "5G." According to the ITU press release, they've approved new specifications for the next generation of wireless broadband, IMT-Advanced, including LTE Advanced and WirelessMAN-Advanced (aka WiMax 2). The real benefit? Speeds up to 100 Mbps.

IMT-Advanced would be like putting a fibre optic broadband connection on your mobile phone, making your phone at least 100 times faster than today’s 3G smart phones."
-ITU
"IMT-Advanced would be like putting a fibre optic broadband connection on your mobile phone, making your phone at least 100 times faster than today’s 3G smart phones," claims François Rancy, Director of ITU’s Radiocommunication Bureau, who adds it's not just about speed, but efficiency.

"IMT-Advanced will use radio-frequency spectrum much more efficiently making higher data transfers possible on lesser bandwidth, (enabling) mobile networks to face the dramatic increase in data traffic that is expected in the coming years."

The ITU's release is careful to avoid the term 4G or 5G, after the kerfuffle it caused when the organization kowtowed to the whims of U.S. wireless company marketing departments, and allowed pretty much everything but carrier pigeon to be defined as "4G". That resulted in significant consumer confusion to the point where the term was pretty much rendered utterly meaningless.

All you really need to know is that these new standards offer faster and more efficient connectivity -- particularly when the user is in motion. Both AT&T and Sprint have stated they plan to begin upgrading their networks to the standard sometime in 2013.

Surely the more efficient use of bandwidth means you'll be seeing higher usage caps, right? Probably not, since pricing is increasingly not actually tied to network and congestion realities but to investor demand for ever-escalating returns. LTE was supposed to give carriers the ability to raise caps given the added legroom (something engineers will confirm), but instead caps have gotten lower and we've moved away from unlimited data plans despite capacity improvements.

view: topics flat text 
Post a:

DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

1 edit

With 2 GB caps?

With current caps by our lovely incumbents who cares.

fAcEtIOUs
Premium
join:2002-03-03
kudos:4

Re: With 2 GB caps?

said by DataRiker:

With current caps by our lovely incumbents who cares.

The caps will go up. You will also just have to pay more. Just like the current new AT&T data rate increases.

Alex J

@speakeasy.net

Re: With 2 GB caps?

Yeah on the low end, $5 more for 100 MB of data. Truly scaling with the advancements of the times, those folks at AT&T are.

BF69
Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
said by fAcEtIOUs:

The caps will go up.

based on what? Caps went from NO CAP to 2 GB for the same $30 tier. That sounds like a downward trend not an upward trend.

Alex J

@apexcovantage.com

Re: With 2 GB caps?

Right, went from unlimited on 3G to low caps on 4G. Actually went the opposite direction of what poster above suggests.

buddahbless

join:2005-03-21
Premium
Reviews:
·Comcast
·T-Mobile US

1 edit
said by BF69:

Caps went from NO CAP to 2 GB for the same $30 tier. That sounds like a downward trend not an upward trend.



Agreed...

Heck we all know if the option was here, lets say you had a choice of $30 a month for customers to have truly unlimited 3G ( say its advertised @ 1-5mbps, technically its 4G service just throttled to 3G speeds) or have 4G ( advertised @10-100mbps) but with 4G having a 2GB cap and $10 per GB overage, just watch how fast the masses who jumped to a 4G plan jump back over to a 3G plan, once they find out how data really works !
speedreality

join:2012-01-14
Seattle, WA

Re: With 2 GB caps?

I've been frustrated in the past with network speeds with different carriers and devices. As a side project, have created a free (and ad-free) android app to track speed over time and location, compare to others and other carriers. Thought i would share here:

»market.android.com/details?id=co···dReality

Oh_No
Trogglus normalus

join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL
So now they finalized the 4G standard.

Anyways they should included a stipulation for no caps and officially say it is unethical to call anything 4G if it does not meet the 4G standard or has caps.
Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

Re: With 2 GB caps?

said by Oh_No:

So now they finalized the 4G standard.

It's interesting that the ITU certified WirelessMAN-Advanced. Is that the first step toward officially merging WiMAX 2 into TD-LTE Advanced? It seems that the ITU would really like everyone to say they're going to LTE even if isn't technically a single standard.

Good luck with getting the ITU to say there should be no caps.

yaplej
Premium
join:2001-02-10
White City, OR
Oh AT&T cares. You can reach you cap in a whole 164 seconds. Then they can charge you for overages. $_$

BigDnSF

@bellsouth.net

How about the backhaul?

100 MBPS sounds great but the carriers don't have sufficient backhaul to provide plain-old vanilla LTE in most areas. LTE barely works on microwave, LTE advanced will require lots of fiber. It's going to be a long time before sufficient fiber is out there to support this.
Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

Re: How about the backhaul?

said by BigDnSF :

LTE barely works on microwave, LTE advanced will require lots of fiber. It's going to be a long time before sufficient fiber is out there to support this.

It ain't going to happen until we get serious about fiber to (or at least much closer to) the premises. Most people don't realize that a national broadband plan that is based predominantly on wireless means we will fall further and further behind all but third world countries.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:4
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable

Re: How about the backhaul?

Interesting thought. AT&T U-verse for example already has pretty good and growing penetration of FTTN. They also already have wireless hookup for their STBs inside the home (using the home gateway as the wireless bridge/router). It wouldn't be too big a stretch for them, say in 2013/2014, to put a 100 megabit/user LTE advanced wireless antenna in their U-verse neighborhood node, and serve customers within a mile or so without any copper to the home. That is if they could get the spectrum, that would be the big issue.

Right now they get about 70 megabits/sec tops (with a good copper connection) to the home over VDSL+ protocols. This would allow them to increase bandwidth per customer by 40% and avoid the cost of maintaining the copper.
NWOhio

join:2011-10-25
Toledo, OH
we don't need FTTH/P to have Fiber to the Tower for LTE or anything else. There is PLENTY of fiber available for that and will ALWAYS be.

And by doing wireless for broadband doesn't mean we are going to fall farther behind. The countries that have full FTTH/P are #1- a full gov't deployment, #2 more people per square mile, #3 are generally countries that never had a copper system in place to start off with.
Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

Re: How about the backhaul?

said by NWOhio:

The countries that have full FTTH/P are #1- a full gov't deployment, #2 more people per square mile, #3 are generally countries that never had a copper system in place to start off with.

You mean countries like Australia! We have over 900 metropolitan and micropolitan areas in the U. S. so there are plenty of places with enough population density.

AnonMe2

@comcastbusiness.net

Wireless vs hardwire

While decent wireless access is important, I couldn't agree more about it not being the primary Internet access concern for the USA if we are to stay (or should I say GET) competitive in the global economy.

tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1
Reviews:
·T-Mobile US

Re: How about the backhaul?

said by Sammer:

said by NWOhio:

The countries that have full FTTH/P are #1- a full gov't deployment, #2 more people per square mile, #3 are generally countries that never had a copper system in place to start off with.

You mean countries like Australia! We have over 900 metropolitan and micropolitan areas in the U. S. so there are plenty of places with enough population density.

I'm not sure what your point is with Australia, but they aren't a good example of a national broadband plan. Especially not for the United States, since the exclusions buried in the Australian plan to make it fiscally possible pretty much exclude 99% of the United States.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara

tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1
Reviews:
·T-Mobile US

REAL 4g

Karl,

You can call this "4g" without needing qualifiers. The original definition of 4g was ALWAYS 100mbps near the tower as a minimum. This is why those of us who know better have been so vocal about articles which have nit-picked ATT and T-Mobile's HSPA+ networks as "Faux-G" while in the same sentence referring to WiMax and LTE as "4g". HSPA+, LTE, and WiMax have always been in the same boat. None of them can hit 100mbps, so they're all Faux-G.

Once LTE-A is rolled out a couple years from now though, we can finally welcome the arrival of "true" 4g.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara

troy864

@newsouth.net

5g

So I guess this means my Battery will last all of 25 minutes....Hopefully not of course

Wednesday, 23-May 23:22:48 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 12.5 years online © 1999-2012 dslreports.com.