when are the lawsuits over the use of '4G' going to start

[ElFenix]

none of the networks advertized as 4G are 4G. the only things that look like they'll be getting 4G certification from the ITU are second gen LTE and second gen WiMAX. so sprint's '4G' network is actually pre-4G, and verizon's currently unavailable 4G network is also pre-4G. t-mobile's '4G' network isn't even based on something that's evolving into a 4G network, it's just a 3G network.

i wouldn't expect any carrier but the first one to roll out an actual 4G network to file a false advertising suit over this, and since we don't know who that will be there's no suits from them, yet. but where the hell is the government in this? shouldn't the FCC or FTC or another alphabet agency be cracking down on this?

 

[sivart]

I'm filing now

What is "4G" anyway? What is the definition? 4th Generation Data network? If so, that is pretty vague.

 

[ElFenix]

I'm filing now

What is "4G" anyway? What is the definition? 4th Generation Data network? If so, that is pretty vague.

4th generation cellular serrvice. the ITU makes a spec. all networks that meet that spec are 4G. it's a yes-no question. no one is currently rolling out a network that meets the spec.


http://www.dailywireless.org/2010/10/21/itu-the-official-4g-standard-approved/

 

[sivart]

...well at least Verizon is saying 4G LTE...is that okay legally? Sounds like something for the courts to decide.

 

[gsaldivar]

where the hell is the government in this? shouldn't the FCC or FTC or another alphabet agency be cracking down on this?

Crack down on what...?

"3G", "4G" etc. was originally just an informal reference to the "generation" of technologies in use at any particular time by multiple carriers which yielded similar performance. The technologies are different, but rather than listing out what is being used on CDMA vs. GSM networks it was faster to just refer to them collectively as 2.5G, 3G... etc.

After carriers hijacked that engineering jargon and started to use them as a marketing terms, now standards groups rushed to apply definitions to what originated as purely arbitrary and informal terminology.

So, why should government tax dollars go toward assisting in the enforcement of marketing terminology? At the end of the day, who really cares what carriers call their service? It could be 4G, or 6Y, or 9L for all I care...

IMHO - this whole 4G mess is simply smoke and mirrors intended to direct attention away from what consumers should be focused on: performance and price.

 

[YoungGun21]

I thought they had already started? Wasn't T-mobile sued by AT&T or am I making this up?

 

[ElFenix]

Crack down on what...?

"3G", "4G" etc. was originally just an informal reference to the "generation" of technologies in use at any particular time by multiple carriers which yielded similar performance. The technologies are different, but rather than listing out what is being used on CDMA vs. GSM networks it was faster to just refer to them collectively as 2.5G, 3G... etc.

After carriers hijacked that engineering jargon and started to use them as a marketing terms, now standards groups rushed to apply definitions to what originated as purely arbitrary and informal terminology.

So, why should government tax dollars go toward assisting in the enforcement of marketing terminology? At the end of the day, who really cares what carriers call their service? It could be 4G, or 6Y, or 9L for all I care...

IMHO - this whole 4G mess is simply smoke and mirrors intended to direct attention away from what consumers should be focused on: performance and price.

why does the government require truth in any advertising? i disagree, no one marketed their network as 'G' anything until AT&T, the 3rd US network to a 2nd revision 3G service, decided to advertise as 3G, leaving off their EDGE network which is also 3G. and it's not like their ad materials say '4GLTE*' and then have an explanation at the bottom next to a *.

class action suit might happen :hmm:

 

[zerocool84]

It doesn't matter to me one bit, all that matters is that we get faster speeds. They can call it 55G for all I care. The "official" Generation names are retarded anyways. They say EDGE is 3G as well when it's MUCH slower than what we call 3G today.

 

[s44]

Any body that claims that EDGE is comparable to HSPA+ is completely f'in useless to the consumer.

 

[Bateluer]

Any body that claims that EDGE is comparable to HSPA+ is retarded

Fixed.

EDGE is fine for text emails, IMing, that sort of thing, but forget Youtube, App downloads, Pandora, or any media streaming.

 

[NutBucket]

Glad you feel that way since texts have nothing to do with 3G, 4G, whatever

 

[abaez]

I don't understand.. when you buy a router or something and it's advertised as N, you expect N speeds. Not B or G. What is the difference here? Yes, 4G wasn't an official spec, now it is, so they shouldn't be using it. Why have standards then? I have no idea who could enforce it though.

 

[gsaldivar]

I don't understand.. when you buy a router or something and it's advertised as N, you expect N speeds. Not B or G. What is the difference here? Yes, 4G wasn't an official spec, now it is, so they shouldn't be using it. Why have standards then? I have no idea who could enforce it though.

Because 802.11n refers to a single technology, whereas "4G" refers to many different technologies developed by different companies, operating over different networks, using totally different transmission schemes.

If car engineers looked at all hybrid automobiles and collectively called them "Car4G", this would be as accurate a definition as initially used by the mobile industry. One day manufacturers decide to actually *use* the "Car4G" moniker in their advertising, and now they are fighting with each other over which cars are really "Car4G" and which aren't. So a standards organization steps up and says that ONLY hybrid cars that have a top speed of at least 60mph qualify as "Car4G".

Can you see how this makes no sense?

 

[abaez]

Because 802.11n refers to a single technology, whereas "4G" refers to many different technologies developed by different companies, operating over different networks, using totally different transmission schemes.

If car engineers looked at all hybrid automobiles and collectively called them "Car4G", this would be as accurate a definition as initially used by the mobile industry. One day manufacturers decide to actually *use* the "Car4G" moniker in their advertising, and now they are fighting with each other over which cars are really "Car4G" and which aren't. So a standards organization steps up and says that ONLY hybrid cars that have a top speed of at least 60mph qualify as "Car4G".

Can you see how this makes no sense?

4G only refers to many different technologies by different companies because they took advantage of a non-official spec and called their own stuff 4G. Who knows why, maybe in the hopes that when it became official they would be in compliance. There is now a STANDARD, officially, which means they titling their technologies 4G doesn't make it true.

How doesn't your example make sense? If a standard is unknown, but now it is known and official, then that's what a standard is. And if it was being used before and is now invalid, well then that's how it works?

Is this standards organization the same organization telcos have been working with and following before? You're talking like if some unknown organization came out and just decided to make the rules for 4G and telcos can choose to follow them or not.. from reading their site and wikipedia it doesn't say for sure.

 

[Slick5150]

There was already a thread on this. There is no legal definition of 4G, therefore you have no standing to sue over use of the marketing term.

 

[Oyeve]

IMO t-mobiles "fake" 4g is freaking fast. Even thought my vibrant is basically on tmos 3.5g network i get a constant 4.5mbps down and 1.7mbps up. Always. It is plenty fast for me.

 

[zerocool84]

IMO t-mobiles "fake" 4g is freaking fast. Even thought my vibrant is basically on tmos 3.5g network i get a constant 4.5mbps down and 1.7mbps up. Always. It is plenty fast for me.

Yup they can call it whatever they want, as long as it's faster than 3G.

 

[KentState]

Does the ITU have any legal jurisdiction in the US? What has the FCC stated on the definition of 4G?

 

[sjwaste]

IMO t-mobiles "fake" 4g is freaking fast. Even thought my vibrant is basically on tmos 3.5g network i get a constant 4.5mbps down and 1.7mbps up. Always. It is plenty fast for me.

That's pretty damn good. That's faster than the Wimax 4G speeds on my Evo.

 

[ElFenix]

Does the ITU have any legal jurisdiction in the US? What has the FCC stated on the definition of 4G?

the US is an ITU member

i don't think the FCC has said anything.

 

[gsaldivar]

4G only refers to many different technologies by different companies because they took advantage of a non-official spec and called their own stuff 4G. Who knows why, maybe in the hopes that when it became official they would be in compliance. There is now a STANDARD, officially, which means they titling their technologies 4G doesn't make it true.

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/121710-itu-softens-on-the-definition.html

Here is the "standard" redefined... yet again.

4G is a marketing standard, not a technical one.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

none of the networks advertized as 4G are 4G. the only things that look like they'll be getting 4G certification from the ITU are second gen LTE and second gen WiMAX. so sprint's '4G' network is actually pre-4G, and verizon's currently unavailable 4G network is also pre-4G. t-mobile's '4G' network isn't even based on something that's evolving into a 4G network, it's just a 3G network.

i wouldn't expect any carrier but the first one to roll out an actual 4G network to file a false advertising suit over this, and since we don't know who that will be there's no suits from them, yet. but where the hell is the government in this? shouldn't the FCC or FTC or another alphabet agency be cracking down on this?

they just addressed this:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/18/itu-capitulates-admits-that-the-term-4g-could-apply-to-lte-w/

 

[rootaxs]

Ditto, i don't mind what they call it when i'm getting these kinds of speeds right smack in the middle of the office with nothing but walls surrounding me (T-Mobile "4g").

(kbps)

 

[Qbah]

Ditto, i don't mind what they call it when i'm getting these kinds of speeds right smack in the middle of the office with nothing but walls surrounding me (T-Mobile "4g").

(kbps)

How much per month can you use? Cause at 1.5MB/s (~12Mbps) it will take you just under an hour to eat 5GBs... So... why do we need this speed again?

When I bought my iPhone 3GS, I had 20GB/month included in the contract. If I went over that, I was slowed down to ridiculously slow speeds (~GPRS level, seriously... same with the latency!). Tethering was also included in the price (it's actually for free in Denmark). And those 20 GBs a month were just enough for light browsing, some YouTube and an episode in HD / week. I had ~7Mbps speeds and those were actually wasted (I would much rather have half of that but double the quota).

What I mean to say is... such high speeds are useless if there is a monthly quota involved.

 

[shortylickens]

Is this still going?
I thought it was a pretty obvious troll myself.

Anyway, the lawsuits start when one company accuses another of not having "real" 4G, despite the fact there can be no such thing.