7.2/1.4 is not 3G, it's 3.5G. And... practical speeds are actually ~5 Mbps down & ~1 Mbps up, but still... it's a pretty decent speed in my opinion.
Being pedantic isn't going to win your argument. Saying "3G" clearly encompasses the UTMS standard. I even made a post yesterday that included an image that explains it all nicely so it's a safe bet that I probably glanced over it before posting.
No matter what the carrier is capable of you aren't going to get those theoretical speeds of 7.2Mbps/1.4Mbps with a 3G radio that maxs out at those same data rates. So what cell phones are you using that have a HSUPA radio capable of 14.4Mbps down and at least 2.0Mbps up? I'd like to find out what chip they are using.
No matter what the carrier is capable of you aren't going to get those theoretical speeds of 7.2Mbps/1.4Mbps with a 3G radio that maxs out at those same data rates. So what cell phones are you using that have a HSUPA radio capable of 14.4Mbps down and at least 2.0Mbps up? I'd like to find out what chip they are using.
Not actually a phone. There are external (USB) or internal modems (PCMCIA) that work with HSUPA technology. You put a SIM card in it, and voilá, you have fast internet without the need of wifi access points and you can also call and receive calls, and send and receive SMSs.
7 Mbps downloads doesn't seem to have much sense on cell-phones unless you download a lot of music or you use your cellphone as a modem, or unless you watch HD streamed videos witch doesn't make much sense unless you plug the cellphone into an HD TV...
Well, you CAN find things to use 7 Mbps on a cellphone, but not really things that most people would take advantage of. In cellphones I think that latency is more important than bandwidth once a certain speed is achieved.
Are you saying that you can get average data rates of 7.2Mbps/1.4Mbps on a 3G cell phone when you test the throughput? I am highly doubtful of that.
It's highly unlikely they can get anywhere near that. Thats the problem with these comparisons. They can set the radio equipment to max out at 7.2mbps, but most people won't see anything above 1-2mbps, but of course it depends on distance, capacity, load, bandwidth to the tower, etc.
What I keep seeing is people looking at these actual, real-world average bitrates for AT&T, and then comparing them to the theoretical rates of different HSDPA and HSUPA levels, like 1.8/3.6/7.2/14.4 for HSDPA, which is obviously a mistake. real-world, average bitrates are the only thing that matters.
Just look at the Aussie's Telstra mobile carrier. They say their "Next G" network is one of the fastest in the world at 14.4mbps download and 1.9mbps upload. However, they also say :
"High speed Next G™ services can deliver information to your compatible mobile, PDA or laptop, within seconds, with download speeds averaging 550kbps to 3Mbps, and upload speeds averaging 300 kbps-1 Mbps.".
And even 3mbps is pushing it for download. Someone recently told me they rarely see anything over 1.5mbps download. So It all depends on the exact network we are talking about and their average speeds. Theoretical maximums mean nothing..
7.2/1.4 is not 3G, it's 3.5G. And... practical speeds are actually ~5 Mbps down & ~1 Mbps up, but still... it's a pretty decent speed in my opinion.
There is no such thing as 3.5G, a generation is marked by a change in the air interface. Fractional generations are stupid. What is the generation between your mother and grandmother?
Not actually a phone. There are external (USB) or internal modems (PCMCIA) that work with HSUPA technology. You put a SIM card in it, and voilá, you have fast internet without the need of wifi access points and you can also call and receive calls, and send and receive SMSs.
7 Mbps downloads doesn't seem to have much sense on cell-phones unless you download a lot of music or you use your cellphone as a modem, or unless you watch HD streamed videos witch doesn't make much sense unless you plug the cellphone into an HD TV...
Well, you CAN find things to use 7 Mbps on a cellphone, but not really things that most people would take advantage of. In cellphones I think that latency is more important than bandwidth once a certain speed is achieved.
Fast speeds on phones make a lot of sense. Video streaming, for instance. More importantly phones can be linked to computer like I do every day to access the internet. I think the USB things are pretty useless, who wants something like that hanging off your laptop draining your battery when you have a phone in your pocket.
Latency and bandwidth are equally important and both contribute to the speed of a connection. Think of a network connection as a highway. Latency is the posted speed limit and bandwidth is the number of lanes each way. Reduce either of these and things slow down quickly with a lot of traffic.
It's highly unlikely they can get anywhere near that. Thats the problem with these comparisons. They can set the radio equipment to max out at 7.2mbps, but most people won't see anything above 1-2mbps, but of course it depends on distance, capacity, load, bandwidth to the tower, etc.
What I keep seeing is people looking at these actual, real-world average bitrates for AT&T, and then comparing them to the theoretical rates of different HSDPA and HSUPA levels, like 1.8/3.6/7.2/14.4 for HSDPA, which is obviously a mistake. real-world, average bitrates are the only thing that matters.
Just look at the Aussie's Telstra mobile carrier. They say their "Next G" network is one of the fastest in the world at 14.4mbps download and 1.9mbps upload. However, they also say :
"High speed Next G™ services can deliver information to your compatible mobile, PDA or laptop, within seconds, with download speeds averaging 550kbps to 3Mbps, and upload speeds averaging 300 kbps-1 Mbps.".
And even 3mbps is pushing it for download. Someone recently told me they rarely see anything over 1.5mbps download. So It all depends on the exact network we are talking about and their average speeds. Theoretical maximums mean nothing..
Exactly. Not to mention that there is no hardware that receives 14.4Mbs.
Fast speeds on phones make a lot of sense. Video streaming, for instance.
7 Mbps for streaming to a cellphone. That's 720p in h.264 to a cellphone. I'm pretty sure that you'll not see that kind of screen resolution on cellphones for a long time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by merdhead
More importantly phones can be linked to computer like I do every day to access the internet. I think the USB things are pretty useless, who wants something like that hanging off your laptop draining your battery when you have a phone in your pocket.
USB is the normal way of connecting a phone to use it as a modem. You can also do it by bluetooth for example, but it's wasting more battery than with USB.
Quote:
Originally Posted by merdhead
Latency and bandwidth are equally important and both contribute to the speed of a connection. Think of a network connection as a highway. Latency is the posted speed limit and bandwidth is the number of lanes each way. Reduce either of these and things slow down quickly with a lot of traffic.
When bandwidth exceeds what small handsets need, than the important thing to improve is latency. I can't really find any meaning on making 3.5G speeds faster on portable devices if they can't do a good use of them. The really important thing to improve then is latency and not bandwidth, because it makes VoIP better for starters.
Comments
Are you saying that you can get average data rates of 7.2Mbps/1.4Mbps on a 3G cell phone when you test the throughput? I am highly doubtful of that.
7.2/1.4 is not 3G, it's 3.5G. And... practical speeds are actually ~5 Mbps down & ~1 Mbps up, but still... it's a pretty decent speed in my opinion.
7.2/1.4 is not 3G, it's 3.5G. And... practical speeds are actually ~5 Mbps down & ~1 Mbps up, but still... it's a pretty decent speed in my opinion.
Being pedantic isn't going to win your argument. Saying "3G" clearly encompasses the UTMS standard. I even made a post yesterday that included an image that explains it all nicely so it's a safe bet that I probably glanced over it before posting.
No matter what the carrier is capable of you aren't going to get those theoretical speeds of 7.2Mbps/1.4Mbps with a 3G radio that maxs out at those same data rates. So what cell phones are you using that have a HSUPA radio capable of 14.4Mbps down and at least 2.0Mbps up? I'd like to find out what chip they are using.
No matter what the carrier is capable of you aren't going to get those theoretical speeds of 7.2Mbps/1.4Mbps with a 3G radio that maxs out at those same data rates. So what cell phones are you using that have a HSUPA radio capable of 14.4Mbps down and at least 2.0Mbps up? I'd like to find out what chip they are using.
Not actually a phone. There are external (USB) or internal modems (PCMCIA) that work with HSUPA technology. You put a SIM card in it, and voilá, you have fast internet without the need of wifi access points and you can also call and receive calls, and send and receive SMSs.
7 Mbps downloads doesn't seem to have much sense on cell-phones unless you download a lot of music or you use your cellphone as a modem, or unless you watch HD streamed videos witch doesn't make much sense unless you plug the cellphone into an HD TV...
Well, you CAN find things to use 7 Mbps on a cellphone, but not really things that most people would take advantage of. In cellphones I think that latency is more important than bandwidth once a certain speed is achieved.
Are you saying that you can get average data rates of 7.2Mbps/1.4Mbps on a 3G cell phone when you test the throughput? I am highly doubtful of that.
It's highly unlikely they can get anywhere near that. Thats the problem with these comparisons. They can set the radio equipment to max out at 7.2mbps, but most people won't see anything above 1-2mbps, but of course it depends on distance, capacity, load, bandwidth to the tower, etc.
What I keep seeing is people looking at these actual, real-world average bitrates for AT&T, and then comparing them to the theoretical rates of different HSDPA and HSUPA levels, like 1.8/3.6/7.2/14.4 for HSDPA, which is obviously a mistake. real-world, average bitrates are the only thing that matters.
Just look at the Aussie's Telstra mobile carrier. They say their "Next G" network is one of the fastest in the world at 14.4mbps download and 1.9mbps upload. However, they also say :
"High speed Next G™ services can deliver information to your compatible mobile, PDA or laptop, within seconds, with download speeds averaging 550kbps to 3Mbps, and upload speeds averaging 300 kbps-1 Mbps.".
And even 3mbps is pushing it for download. Someone recently told me they rarely see anything over 1.5mbps download. So It all depends on the exact network we are talking about and their average speeds. Theoretical maximums mean nothing..
7.2/1.4 is not 3G, it's 3.5G. And... practical speeds are actually ~5 Mbps down & ~1 Mbps up, but still... it's a pretty decent speed in my opinion.
There is no such thing as 3.5G, a generation is marked by a change in the air interface. Fractional generations are stupid. What is the generation between your mother and grandmother?
Not actually a phone. There are external (USB) or internal modems (PCMCIA) that work with HSUPA technology. You put a SIM card in it, and voilá, you have fast internet without the need of wifi access points and you can also call and receive calls, and send and receive SMSs.
7 Mbps downloads doesn't seem to have much sense on cell-phones unless you download a lot of music or you use your cellphone as a modem, or unless you watch HD streamed videos witch doesn't make much sense unless you plug the cellphone into an HD TV...
Well, you CAN find things to use 7 Mbps on a cellphone, but not really things that most people would take advantage of. In cellphones I think that latency is more important than bandwidth once a certain speed is achieved.
Fast speeds on phones make a lot of sense. Video streaming, for instance. More importantly phones can be linked to computer like I do every day to access the internet. I think the USB things are pretty useless, who wants something like that hanging off your laptop draining your battery when you have a phone in your pocket.
Latency and bandwidth are equally important and both contribute to the speed of a connection. Think of a network connection as a highway. Latency is the posted speed limit and bandwidth is the number of lanes each way. Reduce either of these and things slow down quickly with a lot of traffic.
It's highly unlikely they can get anywhere near that. Thats the problem with these comparisons. They can set the radio equipment to max out at 7.2mbps, but most people won't see anything above 1-2mbps, but of course it depends on distance, capacity, load, bandwidth to the tower, etc.
What I keep seeing is people looking at these actual, real-world average bitrates for AT&T, and then comparing them to the theoretical rates of different HSDPA and HSUPA levels, like 1.8/3.6/7.2/14.4 for HSDPA, which is obviously a mistake. real-world, average bitrates are the only thing that matters.
Just look at the Aussie's Telstra mobile carrier. They say their "Next G" network is one of the fastest in the world at 14.4mbps download and 1.9mbps upload. However, they also say :
"High speed Next G™ services can deliver information to your compatible mobile, PDA or laptop, within seconds, with download speeds averaging 550kbps to 3Mbps, and upload speeds averaging 300 kbps-1 Mbps.".
And even 3mbps is pushing it for download. Someone recently told me they rarely see anything over 1.5mbps download. So It all depends on the exact network we are talking about and their average speeds. Theoretical maximums mean nothing..
Exactly. Not to mention that there is no hardware that receives 14.4Mbs.
Fast speeds on phones make a lot of sense. Video streaming, for instance.
7 Mbps for streaming to a cellphone. That's 720p in h.264 to a cellphone. I'm pretty sure that you'll not see that kind of screen resolution on cellphones for a long time.
More importantly phones can be linked to computer like I do every day to access the internet. I think the USB things are pretty useless, who wants something like that hanging off your laptop draining your battery when you have a phone in your pocket.
USB is the normal way of connecting a phone to use it as a modem. You can also do it by bluetooth for example, but it's wasting more battery than with USB.
Latency and bandwidth are equally important and both contribute to the speed of a connection. Think of a network connection as a highway. Latency is the posted speed limit and bandwidth is the number of lanes each way. Reduce either of these and things slow down quickly with a lot of traffic.
When bandwidth exceeds what small handsets need, than the important thing to improve is latency. I can't really find any meaning on making 3.5G speeds faster on portable devices if they can't do a good use of them. The really important thing to improve then is latency and not bandwidth, because it makes VoIP better for starters.