That's why I question all the numbers when they talk about high adoption rates. This seems to be assuming that everyone has two phones with two accounts. How often would that be true?
"The report says that out of the total 910.8 million mobile subscribers (in Europe) at the end of May, there were 101.5 million 3G subscriptions. Only devices that were actively used for either voice or data services (or both) were counted."
I would like to know what their definition of Europe is here, as we can all agree that there aren't nearly 910 million people in any european configuration that I can imagine.
If they include Russia east of the Ural mountains, that doesn't help, as there is almost no 3G available in Russia.
So are they saying that everyone including all children, have two phones and two accounts? This is very unlikely. Somehow the count is doing something that is fishy, or they are not measuring just Europe proper.
This seems to match the obviously screwed up numbers that Sapporo posted earlier for Finland.
Since I know people on other 3G AT&T phones that have noticed no ill effects from the emergence of the iPhone 3G and there are many who state that the 2.0.2 update resolved nothing I am inclined to think that Apple addressed the power request in the new update but that it isn't the whole story with the wonky 3G signal.
I'm sorry to say I haven't followed the whole thread. so forgive if I'm covering old territory, but could that mean even if a phone is capable of 3G that the phone may just use GSM if a data plan is not enabled?
I have no idea how it's done, but surely the iPhone doesn't NEED a 3G plan, or any data plan at all. As far as I know, neither does any other 3G enabled phone.
It just looks that either the assumption that all phones there have 3G is wrong, or that the fact that the phone is capable of it doesn't mean that the subscription is giving it.
All I can see is that there are numbers being published that are cockeyed. Somehow they are counting usage for the same people several times over, or the numbers are just wrong.
We need an explanation of exactly how they get numbers that are much greater than the known populations in these countries.
Since I know people on other 3G AT&T phones that have noticed no ill effects from the emergence of the iPhone 3G and there are many who state that the 2.0.2 update resolved nothing I am inclined to think that Apple addressed the power request in the new update but that it isn't the whole story with the wonky 3G signal.
We already know that many people pick up pre-paid SIMs when traveling across borders so this is just another possible explanation to account for more cellular numbers than a 100% of a countries population.
I'm sorry to say I haven't followed the whole thread. so forgive if I'm covering old territory, but could that mean even if a phone is capable of 3G that the phone may just use GSM if a data plan is not enabled?
Interesting question.
I can not speak of other places. Just Germany and Finland. In both countries data comes with the sim card. They warn you about its usage but it is there. The phone automatically connects to a 3G network.
I have no idea how it's done, but surely the iPhone doesn't NEED a 3G plan, or any data plan at all. As far as I know, neither does any other 3G enabled phone.
Sorry if this further confuses things, but don't iPhone users in Japan require 3g for voice? I believe they use CDMA instead of GSM for regular mobile (voice) service. Corrections welcome if this is wrong.
They really need to fix this article to make it accurate. The engineers DID NOT say all of the hardware and software worked properly. They only said the ANTENNA worked properly. There is a big difference. The editor is stretching what they said to encompass things they did not say.
Not correct; read the article(s). They tested TRP and TIS, i.e, both the transmitter and receiver parts of the radio chain (of which the antenna is just a component).
Quote:
Originally Posted by djdj
A few interesting bits of information:
1. The report only concludes that the antenna isn't at fault. It isn't that hard to design an antenna, so we can probably assume that Apple got that part right.
Not correct; read the article(s). See above. Furthermore, designing an antenna is hard in general, and for a phone it's a serious challenge, particularly with the small form factor and the number of frequency bands to be covered in an incredibly small volume (from a wavelength point-of-view). Certainly the performance at other bands will be different (maybe worse, maybe better), but I somehow doubt that Apple decided to skew the performance in favor of Europe...
Quote:
Originally Posted by djdj
A few interesting bits of information:
4. The chart showing sensitivity lists the units as deciBels (which is normal for signal reception). But deciBels are logarithmic, so a difference of 2dB is actually significant. When taken into consideration that a difference of 3dB is an approximate doubling of signal power, a 2dB difference actually can mean a difference between picking up and not picking up a signal under some circumstances.
2 dB is nothing compared to normal variations in a radio channel. I mean, the way one holds a phone can easily influence the signal strength 10 dB deterministically!
What they measured using a reverberation chamber (a standard measurement method, by the way) using a base station emulator is a reasonably non-biased comparison of phones. BUT, of course, with only three iPhone samples (and one Nokia and one Sony Ericsson) one can always argue that the results are non-representative (which could be true). But for the moment, that's the best we have for the tested frequencies.
Sorry if this further confuses things, but don't iPhone users in Japan require 3g for voice? I believe they use CDMA instead of GSM for regular mobile (voice) service. Corrections welcome if this is wrong.
I have no idea, though the iPhone doesn't use CDMA.
Not correct; read the article(s). They tested TRP and TIS, i.e, both the transmitter and receiver parts of the radio chain (of which the antenna is just a component).
Not correct; read the article(s). See above. Furthermore, designing an antenna is hard in general, and for a phone it's a serious challenge, particularly with the small form factor and the number of frequency bands to be covered in an incredibly small volume (from a wavelength point-of-view). Certainly the performance at other bands will be different (maybe worse, maybe better), but I somehow doubt that Apple decided to skew the performance in favor of Europe...
2 dB is nothing compared to normal variations in a radio channel. I mean, the way one holds a phone can easily influence the signal strength 10 dB deterministically!
What they measured using a reverberation chamber (a standard measurement method, by the way) using a base station emulator is a reasonably non-biased comparison of phones. BUT, of course, with only three iPhone samples (and one Nokia and one Sony Ericsson) one can always argue that the results are non-representative (which could be true). But for the moment, that's the best we have for the tested frequencies.
This is the first intelligent post on the question of signal strength and phone parameters here so far.
The rest of the responses have shown a notable lack of understanding of the issues and procedures used, as well as the design difficulties. Having designed front ends to FM station monitors for my company years back, I can assure people that this is complex, and that antenna design is a very difficult procedure.
Also, relating to that is the publics desire to not have a visible antenna at all. This has made good design much harder. When they moved from pull-out antennas to stubs, reception quality declined noticably. When they moved from stubs to internal antennas, it declined again.
In other words, the signals reaching the receivers, and being transmitted from them, is much weaker than it was years ago, compounding the design difficulties.
That's why I question all the numbers when they talk about high adoption rates. This seems to be assuming that everyone has two phones with two accounts. How often would that be true?
Well it may not always be two phones.
A couple of ways this happen is
1. companies giving their employee a phone and not allowing them to use it for personal calls.
2. companies giving their employees a black berry and only allowing it for data.
3. companies giving their employees an embedded device of some kind (say a POS system) with data
1. companies giving their employee a phone and not allowing them to use it for personal calls.
2. companies giving their employees a black berry and only allowing it for data.
3. companies giving their employees an embedded device of some kind (say a POS system) with data
The first two don't work, because the number given is over 300 million larger than the population. You are saying that business in Europe are giving 300 million phones to their employees? That would mean that almost every adult has a phone from their employer. Not likely at all. Maybe a few tens of millions at most.
The third shouldn't count as a cell phone, should it? Even assuming that it's happening. Also not likely that a couple of hundred million of these rare devices are being distributed.
No, something odd about these numbers all round. Just like the ones for Finland, where there are almost 50% more 3G cell accounts being reported than total population in the country. That includes babies! While we give our kids phones at earlier ages, that would be a bit much. Likely 4 million people there are old enough for a cell.
The first two don't work, because the number given is over 300 million larger than the population. You are saying that business in Europe are giving 300 million phones to their employees? That would mean that almost every adult has a phone from their employer. Not likely at all. Maybe a few tens of millions at most.
The third shouldn't count as a cell phone, should it? Even assuming that it's happening. Also not likely that a couple of hundred million of these rare devices are being distributed.
No, something odd about these numbers all round. Just like the ones for Finland, where there are almost 50% more 3G cell accounts being reported than total population in the country. That includes babies! While we give our kids phones at earlier ages, that would be a bit much. Likely 4 million people there are old enough for a cell.
Yes the embedded connections are considered cellphones, and they are counted as active connections by the network providers.
And yes the first two do work, as companies do, do this.
The question is, how are they counting the population of Europe, it seems higher than it should be.
Also, in Europe there is a large number of pre-pay connections, which a certain number could be from vistors to Europe, a while back we had eight active connections for four of us in the family, and the network providers might not drop them from being active connections for six months after the last top-up.
Also, some providers here, when you upgrade your phone, they give you a pre-pay connection for your old phone, thus another connection.
Comments
This is why I am having a problem with the study regarding 3G penetration subscriptions.
Finland has only about 5.2 million people but they will have 113% penetration.
http://wirelessfederation.com/news/t...-mark-finland/
That's why I question all the numbers when they talk about high adoption rates. This seems to be assuming that everyone has two phones with two accounts. How often would that be true?
Boy, are you late in the conversation. As I updated the number to 100 million as of May 2008 and included the reference http://www.unwiredview.com/2008/06/2...s-100-million/, which states in part,
"The report says that out of the total 910.8 million mobile subscribers (in Europe) at the end of May, there were 101.5 million 3G subscriptions. Only devices that were actively used for either voice or data services (or both) were counted."
I would like to know what their definition of Europe is here, as we can all agree that there aren't nearly 910 million people in any european configuration that I can imagine.
If they include Russia east of the Ural mountains, that doesn't help, as there is almost no 3G available in Russia.
So are they saying that everyone including all children, have two phones and two accounts? This is very unlikely. Somehow the count is doing something that is fishy, or they are not measuring just Europe proper.
This seems to match the obviously screwed up numbers that Sapporo posted earlier for Finland.
I'm sorry to say I haven't followed the whole thread. so forgive if I'm covering old territory, but could that mean even if a phone is capable of 3G that the phone may just use GSM if a data plan is not enabled?
I have no idea how it's done, but surely the iPhone doesn't NEED a 3G plan, or any data plan at all. As far as I know, neither does any other 3G enabled phone.
It just looks that either the assumption that all phones there have 3G is wrong, or that the fact that the phone is capable of it doesn't mean that the subscription is giving it.
All I can see is that there are numbers being published that are cockeyed. Somehow they are counting usage for the same people several times over, or the numbers are just wrong.
We need an explanation of exactly how they get numbers that are much greater than the known populations in these countries.
Since I know people on other 3G AT&T phones that have noticed no ill effects from the emergence of the iPhone 3G and there are many who state that the 2.0.2 update resolved nothing I am inclined to think that Apple addressed the power request in the new update but that it isn't the whole story with the wonky 3G signal.
In the past week plus, my service has gotten markedly better. I mean a large amount, not just a little bit.
We need an explanation of exactly how they get numbers that are much greater than the known populations in these countries.
Companies, especially smaller ones, are using cell phones instead of landlines for business related tasks and internet access?
Companies, especially smaller ones, are using cell phones instead of landlines for business related tasks and internet access?
What, 300 million?
What, 300 million?
We already know that many people pick up pre-paid SIMs when traveling across borders so this is just another possible explanation to account for more cellular numbers than a 100% of a countries population.
I'm sorry to say I haven't followed the whole thread. so forgive if I'm covering old territory, but could that mean even if a phone is capable of 3G that the phone may just use GSM if a data plan is not enabled?
Interesting question.
I can not speak of other places. Just Germany and Finland. In both countries data comes with the sim card. They warn you about its usage but it is there. The phone automatically connects to a 3G network.
I have no idea how it's done, but surely the iPhone doesn't NEED a 3G plan, or any data plan at all. As far as I know, neither does any other 3G enabled phone.
Sorry if this further confuses things, but don't iPhone users in Japan require 3g for voice? I believe they use CDMA instead of GSM for regular mobile (voice) service. Corrections welcome if this is wrong.
They really need to fix this article to make it accurate. The engineers DID NOT say all of the hardware and software worked properly. They only said the ANTENNA worked properly. There is a big difference. The editor is stretching what they said to encompass things they did not say.
Not correct; read the article(s). They tested TRP and TIS, i.e, both the transmitter and receiver parts of the radio chain (of which the antenna is just a component).
A few interesting bits of information:
1. The report only concludes that the antenna isn't at fault. It isn't that hard to design an antenna, so we can probably assume that Apple got that part right.
Not correct; read the article(s). See above. Furthermore, designing an antenna is hard in general, and for a phone it's a serious challenge, particularly with the small form factor and the number of frequency bands to be covered in an incredibly small volume (from a wavelength point-of-view). Certainly the performance at other bands will be different (maybe worse, maybe better), but I somehow doubt that Apple decided to skew the performance in favor of Europe...
A few interesting bits of information:
4. The chart showing sensitivity lists the units as deciBels (which is normal for signal reception). But deciBels are logarithmic, so a difference of 2dB is actually significant. When taken into consideration that a difference of 3dB is an approximate doubling of signal power, a 2dB difference actually can mean a difference between picking up and not picking up a signal under some circumstances.
2 dB is nothing compared to normal variations in a radio channel. I mean, the way one holds a phone can easily influence the signal strength 10 dB deterministically!
What they measured using a reverberation chamber (a standard measurement method, by the way) using a base station emulator is a reasonably non-biased comparison of phones. BUT, of course, with only three iPhone samples (and one Nokia and one Sony Ericsson) one can always argue that the results are non-representative (which could be true). But for the moment, that's the best we have for the tested frequencies.
Sorry if this further confuses things, but don't iPhone users in Japan require 3g for voice? I believe they use CDMA instead of GSM for regular mobile (voice) service. Corrections welcome if this is wrong.
I have no idea, though the iPhone doesn't use CDMA.
Regular GSM is used for voice when not using 3G.
Not correct; read the article(s). They tested TRP and TIS, i.e, both the transmitter and receiver parts of the radio chain (of which the antenna is just a component).
Not correct; read the article(s). See above. Furthermore, designing an antenna is hard in general, and for a phone it's a serious challenge, particularly with the small form factor and the number of frequency bands to be covered in an incredibly small volume (from a wavelength point-of-view). Certainly the performance at other bands will be different (maybe worse, maybe better), but I somehow doubt that Apple decided to skew the performance in favor of Europe...
2 dB is nothing compared to normal variations in a radio channel. I mean, the way one holds a phone can easily influence the signal strength 10 dB deterministically!
What they measured using a reverberation chamber (a standard measurement method, by the way) using a base station emulator is a reasonably non-biased comparison of phones. BUT, of course, with only three iPhone samples (and one Nokia and one Sony Ericsson) one can always argue that the results are non-representative (which could be true). But for the moment, that's the best we have for the tested frequencies.
This is the first intelligent post on the question of signal strength and phone parameters here so far.
The rest of the responses have shown a notable lack of understanding of the issues and procedures used, as well as the design difficulties. Having designed front ends to FM station monitors for my company years back, I can assure people that this is complex, and that antenna design is a very difficult procedure.
Also, relating to that is the publics desire to not have a visible antenna at all. This has made good design much harder. When they moved from pull-out antennas to stubs, reception quality declined noticably. When they moved from stubs to internal antennas, it declined again.
In other words, the signals reaching the receivers, and being transmitted from them, is much weaker than it was years ago, compounding the design difficulties.
I have no idea, though the iPhone doesn't use CDMA.
Regular GSM is used for voice when not using 3G.
Well technically the iPhone does use CDMA. You are confusing the Qualcomm product, with the technology, UTMS is based on w-cdma
That's why I question all the numbers when they talk about high adoption rates. This seems to be assuming that everyone has two phones with two accounts. How often would that be true?
Well it may not always be two phones.
A couple of ways this happen is
1. companies giving their employee a phone and not allowing them to use it for personal calls.
2. companies giving their employees a black berry and only allowing it for data.
3. companies giving their employees an embedded device of some kind (say a POS system) with data
Well technically the iPhone does use CDMA. You are confusing the Qualcomm product, with the technology, UTMS is based on w-cdma
I know that. W-CDMA is not CDMA. It's different. He meant CDMA vs GSM.
Well it may not always be two phones.
A couple of ways this happen is
1. companies giving their employee a phone and not allowing them to use it for personal calls.
2. companies giving their employees a black berry and only allowing it for data.
3. companies giving their employees an embedded device of some kind (say a POS system) with data
The first two don't work, because the number given is over 300 million larger than the population. You are saying that business in Europe are giving 300 million phones to their employees? That would mean that almost every adult has a phone from their employer. Not likely at all. Maybe a few tens of millions at most.
The third shouldn't count as a cell phone, should it? Even assuming that it's happening. Also not likely that a couple of hundred million of these rare devices are being distributed.
No, something odd about these numbers all round. Just like the ones for Finland, where there are almost 50% more 3G cell accounts being reported than total population in the country. That includes babies! While we give our kids phones at earlier ages, that would be a bit much. Likely 4 million people there are old enough for a cell.
I know that. W-CDMA is not CDMA. It's different. He meant CDMA vs GSM.
So are you referring to the Qualcomm mobile product called CDMA, or the radio technology CDMA?
So are you referring to the Qualcomm mobile product called CDMA, or the radio technology CDMA?
I'm talking about old fashioned non wideband CDMA, as used for years here and elsewhere. Code division multiple access. Not cdmaOne, or CDMA2000.
The first two don't work, because the number given is over 300 million larger than the population. You are saying that business in Europe are giving 300 million phones to their employees? That would mean that almost every adult has a phone from their employer. Not likely at all. Maybe a few tens of millions at most.
The third shouldn't count as a cell phone, should it? Even assuming that it's happening. Also not likely that a couple of hundred million of these rare devices are being distributed.
No, something odd about these numbers all round. Just like the ones for Finland, where there are almost 50% more 3G cell accounts being reported than total population in the country. That includes babies! While we give our kids phones at earlier ages, that would be a bit much. Likely 4 million people there are old enough for a cell.
Yes the embedded connections are considered cellphones, and they are counted as active connections by the network providers.
And yes the first two do work, as companies do, do this.
The question is, how are they counting the population of Europe, it seems higher than it should be.
Also, in Europe there is a large number of pre-pay connections, which a certain number could be from vistors to Europe, a while back we had eight active connections for four of us in the family, and the network providers might not drop them from being active connections for six months after the last top-up.
Also, some providers here, when you upgrade your phone, they give you a pre-pay connection for your old phone, thus another connection.