Well, Dan Hesse's arguments about Android not being ready for Sprint became quite the controversial topic.
I should have posted this earlier, but Sprint is now announcing plans to adopt an Android handset in the near future, as was always expected. Apparently, Dan's comments meant to illustrate that they were watching and gauging T-mobile's success with it before pulling the trigger themselves.
In fact, at Sprint's mobile developer conference last week, Google's VP of mobile technology, Rich Miner, was a keynote speaker.
So, it would appear that Sprint never turned their back on Android, as was speculated. They just decided to play it safe.
Given their current economic status, perhaps that was a smart move. Here's to hoping something turns up soon (HTC Pegassi, anyone?).
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Monday, December 08, 2008
2G, 2.5G, 2.75G... isn't 2G DEAD?!
Most people know that 3G means faster than 2G.
The standard school of thought is that the older 2G data networks will give you roughly the speed of a dial-up modem, whereas the modern 3G can rival some broadband connections.
What people seem to forget is that we're not actually referring to the speed of the network, but rather the generation (hence the G) of technology.
This is why the latest news from Nokia Siemens Networks might seem puzzling to some:
The problem is that many people equate EDGE, 2G, and Dial Up data speeds, and that is not necessarily true.
Anyone remember GPRS? It was the GSM data network that predated EDGE. It was the first data network to use packet-switching on a cellular connection, which meant data and voice were separate. The original 2G data was NOT packet-switched, and therefore data sessions exists as a phone call (you would "dial up" the Internet as a phone call much like a home dial up modem, and your line would be in use during the session, often using your cellular minutes), not to mention data speeds averaged around 9.6kpbs or a theoretical 14.4. Meanwhile, GPRS was able to rival dial-up modems, and reach speeds of 60kbps.
Before GPRS was around, the next (3rd) generation of cellular network was being planned, and hoped to offer higher data rates and packet switching, among other features. So when GPRS came around and offered packet switching on the current network without any major overhaul of the equipment, some people wanted to call it 2.5G. This was never an official term, and so it remained "2G" since the 3rd generation technology was almost ready to come out.
Then there was EDGE.
EDGE was supposed to further bridge the gap between 2G and 3G by offering 4x the data speed of GPRS (reaching a theoretical speed of over 240kpbs, although real-world use averages around 150kbps), once again without a complete overhaul of the network as the next generation 3G would require. Some people wanted to call this 2.5G, and those who referred to GPRS as 2.5G wanted to call it 2.75G, and the whole name game became a real mess.
Therefore, no new names were adopted, and the title remained 2G for all of these technologies since it still existed on the second generation network.
Now, Nokia Siemens is offering a theoretical 590kbps for towers using EDGE with little more than a software update. With the low end of 3G data averaging around 500kpbs, this seems to bring 2G hardware into almost the same ballpark as far as data transmission speeds!
This is sure to confuse the general public, not to mention it begs the question of what to refer to this as- 2.875G?
I'm laying claim to that title. If this tech becomes mainstreamed, I'm going to call it 2.875G, and think you all should too!
The standard school of thought is that the older 2G data networks will give you roughly the speed of a dial-up modem, whereas the modern 3G can rival some broadband connections.
What people seem to forget is that we're not actually referring to the speed of the network, but rather the generation (hence the G) of technology.
This is why the latest news from Nokia Siemens Networks might seem puzzling to some:
"Nokia Siemens Networks has made the world's first Downlink Dual Carrier EDGE end-to-end call with mobile devices ... that can double data speeds to 592 kbps on existing EDGE-capable GSM networks, providing a user experience that is akin to 3G."I'll bet many who read this are scratching their heads and saying "Isn't EDGE/2G dead?", I mean, why else would we have made such a stink about the original iPhone being only EDGE in a world of broadband data devices?
The problem is that many people equate EDGE, 2G, and Dial Up data speeds, and that is not necessarily true.
Anyone remember GPRS? It was the GSM data network that predated EDGE. It was the first data network to use packet-switching on a cellular connection, which meant data and voice were separate. The original 2G data was NOT packet-switched, and therefore data sessions exists as a phone call (you would "dial up" the Internet as a phone call much like a home dial up modem, and your line would be in use during the session, often using your cellular minutes), not to mention data speeds averaged around 9.6kpbs or a theoretical 14.4. Meanwhile, GPRS was able to rival dial-up modems, and reach speeds of 60kbps.
Before GPRS was around, the next (3rd) generation of cellular network was being planned, and hoped to offer higher data rates and packet switching, among other features. So when GPRS came around and offered packet switching on the current network without any major overhaul of the equipment, some people wanted to call it 2.5G. This was never an official term, and so it remained "2G" since the 3rd generation technology was almost ready to come out.
Then there was EDGE.
EDGE was supposed to further bridge the gap between 2G and 3G by offering 4x the data speed of GPRS (reaching a theoretical speed of over 240kpbs, although real-world use averages around 150kbps), once again without a complete overhaul of the network as the next generation 3G would require. Some people wanted to call this 2.5G, and those who referred to GPRS as 2.5G wanted to call it 2.75G, and the whole name game became a real mess.
Therefore, no new names were adopted, and the title remained 2G for all of these technologies since it still existed on the second generation network.
Now, Nokia Siemens is offering a theoretical 590kbps for towers using EDGE with little more than a software update. With the low end of 3G data averaging around 500kpbs, this seems to bring 2G hardware into almost the same ballpark as far as data transmission speeds!
This is sure to confuse the general public, not to mention it begs the question of what to refer to this as- 2.875G?
I'm laying claim to that title. If this tech becomes mainstreamed, I'm going to call it 2.875G, and think you all should too!
I wrote the following for mopocket.com first. I decided to go all Dave Barry at the end with a mock conversation. Well, I thought it was kind of funny... Hope you enjoy. -Mordy
In it, Sprint claims that with their new Samsung Rant, I’ll be able to “Experience texting at 3G speed.”
Can someone please explain this one to me?
Maybe I’m missing something here, but doesn’t Text Messaging get ZERO benefit from 3G data?
Texting (or the more technical term, SMS) was created as a way to embed short messages of up to 160 characters into the same networks used to carry digital voice.
3G Data came much later, and was created to offer high-speed internet access. It actually works using a separate (but parallel) technology to the voice network.
This is why SMS rates and cellular data rates are usually kept separate when billing. (Side note: Sometimes when roaming or in spotty coverage areas, one may find the data network does not work, however SMS works fine wherever you have voice coverage.)
Everytime I see this ad, I wonder who thought this was a good idea for a catch phrase. Then, I wonder who at Sprint gave the OK for it. Does anyone in the marketing team know how their phones work?
I actually picture the conversation going something like this:
Marketing rep #1: “Ok, how should we advertise the Samsung Rant?”
Marketing rep #2: “Hey, isn’t that the one that’s replacing the LG Rumor as our flagship texting phone?”
Marketing rep #1: “Yup.”
Marketing rep #2: “Ok, so how about : If you liked the LG Rumor, you’ll LOVE the Samsung Rant.”
Marketing rep #1: “No, people hated the Rumor, look at the blogs. We gotta compare it to something the public LOVES”
Marketing rep #2: “You mean like the iPhone 3G?”
Marketing rep #1 (cringing): “Yes. Like the iPhone 3G. In fact, suddenly people who don’t even know what 3G means are jumping to replace their 2G iPhones for it.”
Marketing rep #2: “Ok, so how about we mention 3G and Texting on a keyboard in one sentence? Experience texting at 3G speeds!”
Marketing rep #1: “I love it!”
Marketing rep #3: “That doesn’t make any sense.”
Marketing rep #1: “Quiet you, when did you even get here? Look, we had another terrible 3rd quarter net loss, and we need some positive results. If it means we have to market ourselves to ignorant people, so be it.”
Marketing rep #3: “But its idiotic.”
Marketing rep #1: “I don’t recall asking you. Let’s print it!”
Marketing rep #2 (beaming): “Already sent.”
Marketing rep #3: “Well, there go our jobs…”
Well, something like that, probably.
Honestly, I love Sprint, and they’re still my favorite underdog carrier. But I couldn’t resist commenting on this ad- I see it everywhere.
Well, I guess it works. Here I am discussing the Samsung Rant to the public, and I may actually have to try it out. Why? Well, I quite honestly can say I’ve never experienced texting at 3G speeds, and I’d like to see what it is like.
Until next time…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
