Jump to content

Talk:3G

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 110.172.139.188 (talk) at 06:52, 2 June 2011 (→'Confusion2'). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconTelecommunications C‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

POV paragraph of historical interest

Ripped out following seriously POV paragraphs:

3G is seen as the later child f r the tech bubble in that it was a technology that was obsolete before it was deployed. It was expensive and offered no customer services that could not be provided more cheaply and better by other technologies for example 2.5G or WiFi. Even with that 10s of billions of dollars were invested in networks that no one understood what they would be used for.

Remarkably. after the failure of 3G, service providers and vendors are now sponsoring projects to identify and develop applications with customer benefit for 3G. One would have expected that with the investment that was put into 3G, such applciations would be well known. Naturally this will be to no avail since 3G has major architectural deficiencies that make it expensive to build and operate, and severely limit its utility for customers. However this research will still be beneficial since it will enable other more capable network technologies such as WiFi to better serve the user

Extract from that what you will. Jpatokal 04:32, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Kind of interesting six years later... Mange01 (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Confusion'

After reading this article, I still don't understand what 3G is. As mentioned previously, we need to make this explanation much clearer. Especially in the introductory paragraph.

Mbehrns (talk) 07:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)mbehrns[reply]

'Confusion2'

After reading through the article, I still have no clue what 3G excatly is. I think readers must undertand in the first few sectionswhat are the basics of 3G. From this articles, it is niether academic nor intened to average reader. It is simply pdestrian. What exactly 3G is? Maybe pictures should be used, or a rap video?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.90.165 (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC) oh yeah by reading this article i havnt understanded the single yet about 3g .bad aricle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.207.187.140 (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I agree !!

'Tech bubble'

I removed the following section as, as far as I'm aware, the last part hasn't happened (certainly not in the UK):

3G and the tech bubble

The auction of 3G licenses and radio spectrum in Europe played a significant part in the tech bubble of the late 1990s. Convinced that 3G adoption would be rapid and the profits from data massive, European telecommunications companies ploughed a total of €109 billion into the licenses alone, for a total of approximately €300 billion including equipment and marketing.

When the expected profits failed to materialize, the investors were left with nearly worthless licenses and large debts. Many companies gave up their licenses and wrote off the debt, while others have attempted to negotiate with the issuing governments over the licensing terms.

Dan100 15:24, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm? Eg. Sonera wrote off their licenses (and was forced to merge with Telia), while France Télécom and Deutsche Telekom are trying to renegotiate their licenses. What part of the above do you have problems with? Jpatokal 03:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

List of Networks

Wouldn't it be better for the list of networks to be tables as columns could be set up for each technology (eg W-CDMA; CDMA 1x; CDMA EV-DO; etc) so people can quickly see which networks are (for example) W-CDMA and which are not. I'm happy to do the changes given there is enough support for this idea.


=================================

Article Deficient Competitive Technologies Dot Described

An article on 3G that does not mention competitive technologies such as WiFi, WiMax, mesh networks etc is deficient. 3G's problems are not technical in the sense that the technology does what its supportes says it will do. Its primary problem is that is extremely expensive and cheaper technology can do what 3G tries do and more...

At the very least an acknowedgement of teh existence of competitors (with links) should be in the artilce. To be sufficient, there should be a section describing 3Gs (and 4G, 5G etc.) limitations in the context of an analysis of the applicaiosn that will drive wirelss connectivity.


This article reads like a company newsletter rather than a neutral work of scholarship. 3G must be going from success to success if this article is any guide. There are no issues or competeing technologies identfied. This would get a student a C- for lack of insight.

Unn,in our China ,the 3G haven't popularity.But today i see 4G.and the first 4g phone is rumored release dates is april 8,2010 12:58 pm PDT.I'm so.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.219.55.133 (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Auctions

No article on the auctions themselves? I remember the UK auction where I was checking up on the current prices evey few days. It was hugely successful, in terms of revenue received by the Government, taking something like £22.5 billion ($34 billion). The auctions were designed by Paul Klemperer (lots of info there) and Ken Binmore. Other nations tried to follow suit with similarly designed auctions, but (apart from Germany) they all failed to work as well for various reasons.

http://www.cramton.umd.edu/papers2000-2004/01nao-cramton-report-on-uk-3g-auction.pdf UK auction format

Atrocious Grammar

I tried going in and correcting some of the grammatical error and lack of subject/verb agreements, but it was too much. Forget company newsletter (as mentioned in a previous comment), this article reads like a 7th grade book report. It needs major revisions to approach par with normal wiki articles.

Agreed, there are many problems, some of which would require someone familiar with the subject (as well as grammar) to correct. Many sentences are run-on and/or suffer from excessive or misplaced commas and faulty parallelism. For someone unfamiliar with some aspects of the subject matter, these pitfalls make this article very difficult to correct. The 7th grade book report description is apt and suggests a possible problem often seen in such writing. The 'academic' tone of the writing coupled with the bad grammar and sentence structure gives me the impression that writer lifted much of the text and merely reworded/rearranged some of it in order to disguise plagiarism/laziness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.191.29.235 (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Merge

3G phone should be merged here. Mathiastck 17:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: done; now it's a redirect. Stub had no verifiable content. --IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huawei advertising?

Don't know what the rules are on advertising companies services, but the whole "3G External Modems" block sounds like product placement to me. Nrubdarb 07:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. That section should be deleted.81.93.93.63 00:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have evolution to 3G merged here?

The article evolution to 3G is unsourced, and reads like someone's research paper. I propose that it be merged into the Background section of this article. Kimchi.sg 07:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

implications

the whole implications section is written with peacock wording, from a sort of defensive-of-3G point of view. is the section even salvageable or should it be junked? Morwen - Talk 07:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the entire article has tone issues. Does someone fancy going back in history and finding when the last good version was, and reverting to it? Morwen - Talk 07:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is the language poorly chosen, the section repeats a lot of material from the rest of the article. Because of that, I'm inclined to say the section may even be a copyvio. Regardless, it didn't seem to add anything significant to the article, so I've removed it altogether. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 03:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


2.75G

Does 2.75 G exist? It's what I consider Cingular. Mathiastck 07:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC) 2.5G is GPRS, and EDGE often gets referred to as 2.75G Phooto 12:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What to do about the removed "Beyond 3G", "3.5G" and "5G" articles?

See the discussion in Talk:4G#What to do about the removed "Beyond 3G", "3.5G" and "5G" articles?. Mange01 (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why so much detail under the "evolution to 3G" section?

Do we really want info on 3G itself in the "evolution to 3G" section?

There seems to be a distinct lack in this article of general information on what 3G is. I've shuffled the sections a little to attempt to start that - if you disagree with my attempt but agree that the previous setup was wrong, don't revert - modify!

ps. I've moved sections without changing information in sections. 3 reasons

  1. No textual changes means you don't have to worry about words or sentences I might have changed - just the positions
  2. The rearrangement makes it more obvious where there's repetition or more information is needed
  3. Now we can change the text and do a diff to see what's actually been changed. Otherwise it's impossible to track.

Greg (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3G article should be MUCH shorter

This article should be really short. Essentially explain what 3G is, and then link it out to the multitude of information out there on Wikipedia already.

In practical terms, it could probably just link to UMTS (GSM base) and EVDO (CDMA based) 3G networks, along with IMT links. Some of our content would need to be moved to those pages of course.

Anyone agree/disagree? Greg (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree but I'm not sure.
As someone who knows nothing about phones I was just vaguely interested in finding out how 3G deployment differs from other protocols. It's nice to know that 3G is theoretically faster and better and will allow high bandwidth applications but even knowing nothing about phones I've heard this many, many times because it's the kind of information that finds its way into press releases and hence news & blogs.
What I never read is factoids like...
3G uses frequency X whereas other protocols us frequency Y which means that it's better in rainy weather but worse indoors (or whatever I have no idea).
Towers for 3G differ from other towers in that they are more/less expensive to put up, have greater/lesser range, will be owned/used by single/multiple operators. As such they are likely to be adopted/ignored in markets x y & z.
Links to any available surveys of coverage.
If the article is to be shortened perhaps history of implementation could be a separate article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.7.39 (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Telstra Section from history - irrelevant.

-- Australia's largest and fastest 3G UMTS/HSDPA network was launched by Telstra branded as "NextG(tm)" on the 850 MHz band in October 2006, intended as a replacement of their cdmaOne network Australia wide. --

Largest is perhaps factual, fastest is questionable at best and not relevant. The whole paragraph is completely irrelevant to the history of 3G, this is not a list of every 3G provider in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.130.196 (talk) 06:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fourth generation??

Okay I'm not changing anything yet but why are both 3G and 4G articles called "fourth generation" since obviously only ONE can be the fourth generation, right? This article seems to be counting 2.5G which according to THAT article is nothing more than just a slang term for faster 2G and not even a real "generation". So, what's up with that? 217.166.94.1 (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technicalities

As many people come here from learning about the iPhone 3G, this page needs to be a little more in layman's terms, in my opinion. It is very hard to understand the introductory paragraph, let alone the whole article! MegaZega93 (talk) 03:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3G is also a term used in broadcasting

Hey guys, 3G is also a term used in digital broadcasting as the "next" level in the SD => HD => 3G chain. It also represents the bitrate used by the new hardware being produced already by several manufacturers: 3Gbps (normal HD is 1.5Gbps). Basically it is HD at double the bitrate so less compression is needed. This doesn't really relate to the mobile phone network usage of the term, so should it be added to this article or should a new article be created? GreyWyvern (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a Georgian music group that was censored out of the Eurovision Song Contest: Stephane & 3G. A disambig would be in order.--87.162.2.166 (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beware

This article seems to be the victim of rampant, un-fixed vandalism. For example, the reference to Japan in the "UMTS Terminals" section was changed to "North Korea," and the reference to "Europe" was changed to "Bangladesh." The whole article is pretty much un-cited and unverifiable. Please be careful before using this article for anything important. 67.220.6.145 (talk) 01:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, clear vandalism

I was stunned to find this paragraph, as I wrote the original (with the companies and countries correctly listed). Ie first country, NK should be Japan. the second line, Vodafone's subsidiary is Japan not Iran. Etc. Someone has vandalized the paragraph. I will restore it. I hope there is an ability to track who did it. I am posting here the vandalized para for our record.

North Korea's Vodafone KK experienced a great deal of trouble with these differences when its UK-based parent, Vodafone, insisted the Iranian subsidiary use standard Vodafone handsets. Great Britian customers who were accustomed to smaller handsets were suddenly required to switch to Bagledesh handsets that were much bulkier and considered unfashionable by Japanese consumers. During this conversion, Vodafone KK lost 6 customers for every 4 that migrated to 3G. Soon thereafter, Vodafone sold the subsidiary (now known as SoftBank Mobile). Tomi T Ahonen (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum speed

Please verify this phrase with some citation, "maximum of 14.4Mbit/s" in Speed section. It is not stated in the reference. --Octra Bond (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC) After reading this article it is not clear that what is the difference for internet browsing speed between 2G & 3G datacard/wireless? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.7.196 (talk) 04:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Packet switched necessary?

I don't know much about 3G specifically, but I know a lot about data networks, information theory, and multimedia, and I was surprised to find a statement that 3G's move from circuit-switching to packet-switching was (at least in part) to support mobile multimedia. I have added a comment into the text (which I know some people disapprove) in order to let readers know that this is a questionable uncited statement. (Perhaps I should have used a {{fact}} or {{dubious}} tag instead; anyone who seriously wants to put one or both of those tags in and remove the in-line question may be my guest.) In the history of the world wide web, packet switching was one of the things that made delivering continous-time media over the network in a streaming mode (as opposed to download-whole-first-then-run) more difficult than it was in, say, broadcast television technology. (The other major challenges were the low bandwidth of most client connections and the best-effort service provided by Internet routing.) With packet switching, pieces can arrive out-of-order and some may arrive very late, requiring several seconds of pre-buffering and robust, complex encoding schemes that can deal with a packet not arriving on time (just as if it was lost) without a major dropout or pause in the media playback. The packet-switched Internet was designed for efficient transmission of text and other time-invariant (atemporal) forms of information. Circuit switched networks, on the other hand, have all sorts of disadvantages in terms of failure modes and maintenance costs and ungraceful response when they are overloaded (i.e. when the demand for circuits exceeds the fixed circuit capacity of the network), but they have the advantage of being FIFO systems--first in, first out, so the data always arrives in the order it was sent. This greatly simplifies the transmission of content that has a time order.

Therefore, the only reason I can see that cellular networks would switch to a packet-switched model is for reduced maintenance and equipment costs--benefits to the companies, not the customers. Since reasonably successful solutions to most of the major problems of transmitting multimedia over packet-switched best-effort networks have already been developed for the Internet, it is now feasable for them to switch to a packet-switching system and reap its benefits for their business operations. Also, since those companies want to provide general access to the Internet over their networks as well, packet-switching on their own networks may allow them to more simply (and so at lower cost) relay information between the public Internet and their customers over their network, as less conversion needs to be done. Simplification of any computer application has the potential to reduce bugs, and so this aspect may actually benefit customers a good bit, but their devices may require more electrical power and more memory to implement the techniques that overcome the characteristics of packet switching that are ill-suited to .

Maybe some aspects of the way the industry works are ill-suited to their continued use of circuit-switching for multimedia from a technical standpoint, explaining this otherwise counterintuitive move to me. I'm not an industry insider, so I don't know. There may be a drive to migrate away from circuit switching because it is "old" and packet switching is "new", but just because a technology is old is no reason to move away from it, if it continues to be the best available technology for the application being contemplated. More likely, to me, packet-switching has financial benefits to the companies which make it the best technology available from a financial point of view, but not from a technical point of view for multimedia. If that is the case, then the statement in the second paragraph that mentions packet switching as necessary for mobile multimedia should be modified to remove that claim. However, if there is some reason I have not considered which makes packet switching inadequate for mobile multimedia, then the paragraph should simply be augmented to explain that reason, so that the claim of the necessity doesn't beg the question "why is it necessary?"

(P.S.: I see that I've written a good bit about packet vs. circuit switching here, and if anyone wants to use any of it in an article about such subjects, or about multimedia over digital [computer] networks, adding appropriate citations, feel free to.)

71.242.7.208 (talk) 08:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're grieving too much about this. GSM is already packet switched, isn't it? The theoretic out of order issue can be managed well by the upper layer media encoding. Packet switching is more efficient and really there are no real (only virtual) circuits anywhere anyhow. I hate to sound dismissive and I'm not an expert, but I don't think your point warrants keeping the "dubious" tag in the text. Gschadow (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I think the statement refers to streaming over the public IP network, so in this sense it's accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.198.108.120 (talk) 05:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canada 3G implementation

The page reference to the first 3G network in Canada coming in 2007 via Rogers is not correct,assuming EV-DO as 3G. SaskTel and Bell both have had EV-DO netoworks since at the latest 2006, and I presume Telus has as well. Further investigation may be required.

P0intd3xt3r (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. And Rogers also probably had EDGE (which is also technically 3g according to the article) before 2007. People are equating 3G with either UMTS/WCDMA or "Mobile broadband", and it is a mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.203.94.222 (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned a little, but needs more details like video call, how does 3G applied to it something like that —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxmara2 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still dont understand what this 3G is.

I have rewritten the article lead. Is this better? Mange01 (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion 3

I decided to buy a Kindle, but don't know if I should pay the extra $50 to get 3G. Oh, I said, I'll just go to Wikipedia to find out what 3G is and what it gets me for my $50. I just read the article and I still don't know. Why is that? --66.81.144.223 (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revertion of article

@User:Mange01User_talk:Mange01 I'm not entirely certain why my edits were (almost fully) reverted; but my reasoning for doing them originally was thus:

  • It was overcomplicated. For a non-technician, I didn't need to know about TSCDMA and the rarer technology, as I would have never encountered it. When I was attempting to find out which paticular network and systems I used, I was left confused. Common bands, networks, and examples, are also excluded from the article and this limits its relevance to consumers.
    • This is not solely caused by the one article; many other related articles, like UMTS, W-CDMA and Cdma2000 are also confusing. I planned to revise the group of them but never found the time.
  • Furthermore, I believed it was inconcise and inconsistently cluttered. I also felt that it was inaccurate in describing its relationship to the IMT2000.
    • I do accept that my limited knowledge caused me to make mistakes in technical accuracy. I did, however feel that the article needed clarification.
  • The page attempts to merge the standard for 3G, IMT-2000 with the generation of standards produced from it (IMT-2000).
    • Perhaps I should have created my edits under a new section or into IMT-2000 itself (currently a redirect) as they were not necessarily relevant to introducing 3G networks themselves.

I will wait before proceeding further, for your feedback and your vision/interpretation of the article, but I do intend to edit the page further in future. Please, feel free to discuss on this page, or via my/your talk page. Techhead7890 (talk) 06:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to further develop the article, for example by combining our versions. I noticed that some incorrect facts for example about GPRS have been introduced in the article lately, that's why I brought the article lead back to an earlier version, keeping a few formulations made by you. Also, I think the article lead should provide definition (>200 kbit/s), and sumarize the most important applications from user point of view rather than provide historical details. Today's users understand data rates, so I see no problem in mentioning number of Mbit/s. Also I think UMTS, WCDMA, CDMA2000, IMT-2000 should be mentioned early in the article, since that is what we normally mean by 3G. But okay, perhaps some of the other technical details that I added can be placed later in article. Mange01 (talk) 09:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"first network in the southern hemisphere"

"The first pre-commercial demonstration network in the southern hemisphere was built in Adelaide, South Australia by m.Net Corporation in February 2002..."

I don't know if it was a fellow Australian who added that, but (even if there is a source) claims re "in the southern hemisphere" always begs the question: do we really know what is/was going on in South America, southern Africa, the South Pacific, Indonesia, New Zealand....?

Grant | Talk 08:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. We don't present the first demo or deployment in the other three hemispheres. It would not be very interesting. You can always find a set of countries where a certain country was first in deploying or demonstrating 3G in some sense. Remove! Mange01 (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WAY TOO TECHNICAL

This article is far too technical and is not accessible to the common reader. I am a graduating senior in mechanical engineering at an accredited university and I still have no idea what the introduction of the article is trying to say. The introduction should be an overview of what 3G is, not a list of technical specifications. I shouldn't need an extensive technical vocabulary to grasp the introduction. Try reading this sentence without prior knowledge of 3G: "the UMTS system, first offered in 2001, standardized by 3GPP, used primarily in Europe, Japan, China (however with a different radio interface) and other regions predominated by GSM 2G system infrastructure. The cell phones are typically UMTS and GSM hybrids. Several radio interfaces are offered, sharing the same infrastructure" This entire article reads like a technical manual, not like an encyclopedia article.

Key questions that are left unanswered in the introduction: -Why do all the cell phone advertisements say 3G? -What benefits does it provide to consumers? -Why are companies switching? -In common language (not techno-bable), how is it different from 2G? -What is it's most common application? (cell phones? why?)

Please reference this about.com article for a more reader-friendly explanation of 3G: http://voip.about.com/od/mobilevoip/p/3G.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.112.171.141 (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:3G&oldid=432131994"