Posted by amagab
Why don't service providers in the US follow world standards on cellular technology? I see Sprint saying that their 2.5G phones are 3G even though they are not. In LAPTOP magazine they even said that SE T68i is a 3G phone. I've seen other claims like this from both service providers and retailers. Do they think they will increase sales by bending the truth???
Posted by n|ck_xp
Not all the companys.
T-Mobile USA owned by T-Mobile De in Germany is gonna follow the Europian standards fot the 3G.
Here in the USA T-Mobile was the first company who offer Wap then GPRS, SMS, and now is the only company who offer real MMS servise just 3 months after the MMS launch in Europe...!!!!!
That's are just COOl!!!
Stay tune with T-Mobile and you have nothing to miss!!!!!
Posted by woutervg
It only shows that the Americans think they rule the world, and can make their own rules....In fact their a lot less developed in mobile communication then they think....
Posted by amagab
Yes, T-Mobile do follow world telecom standards and unlike Sprint adhere to them well. I do use T-Mobile and have noticed a great improvement since DT bought Voicestream.
Posted by wapchimp
harsh comments - america should get with it - brick phones analog networks - they are well behind - i feel sorry for u guys.
Posted by wapchimp
i thought u were the most demanding consumers in the world??? demand a better service - kick ass
Posted by amagab
orangeman> a lot has happened this year and it is not as bad as you think. There might be a lack of gadgets and phones. However, I travel frequently between US and Europe and one thing that works much better in the US is GPRS. Much faster connection.
On a different note...it seems like the US are focusing more on wireless broadband than 3G. 802.11 networks are being installed everywhere. I have a T-Mobile wireless broadband account and can take my PDA or laptop to any Borders bookstore, Starbucks coffee shop, and the major airports to connect instantly to internet with broadband speed. Wireless broadband might have a brighter future than 3G.
Posted by jnonhoffzieg
@amagab, interesting that you mention that GPRS is much faster in the US - I haven't noticed that at all compared to Europe. I've been told by an engineer that all US carriers are restricted to 2-1 timeslots by the FCC but can't confirm it. I asked about it in the following topic but haven't heard anything:
http://www.esato.com/board/viewtopic.php?topic=12756&forum=31
It's true that WiFi is much more widespread in this country than Europe but it really isn't comparable to true mobile technology. There will never be widespread WiFi coverage which could challenge GSM and its successors and it isn't meant to. I expect WiFi to have continued growth as a standard for corporate and consumer wireless LANs but public access WiFi points will eventually disappear when 3G networks and handsets finally gain momentum.
Posted by gsmwraith
I will say it if no other Americans will, we are ASS BACKWARD when it comes to mobile phones and technology, I mean AT&T has just really got GSM going this year how long has the rest of the world had it??
I mean i love the T68i, and I cant wait for more phones to come out, the technology is awsome, all the things that can be done and will be able to be done are just amazing.
Isnt true mobile to mobile video conversations one of the goals of true 3g??
Posted by jnonhoffzieg
The US still lags behind most of the world in mobile technology because:
-The US government hasn't subsidized or forced network operators to implement one particular technology as most other countries have done with GSM. They decided to let competition pick the best winner, which usually works, but in this case has slowed down an entire industry. We now have a fragmentation of mobile technology instead of a focus on one standard which would have been better. Hindsight is always 20/20...
-American consumers love gadgets but until recently have primarily used their phones for nothing other than making phone calls. I personally believe that American corporations have failed to recognize how desireable features such as SMS and WAP are. To this day, advertisements in the US focus almost entirely on "voice quality" than anything else. Mobile phones have only recently started to be marketed as something more than a phone which can take and send pictures or play games. As mainstream consumers become aware of these features they will start getting used more. Marketing 101.
With the shift to GSM as a standard and more capable, color handsets hitting the market, the US may finally start catching up with the rest of the world!
Posted by porterg
Let me add a couple things. 2 other reasons for network lag is money and NIMBY. As far as money, there are HUGE areas in which to develop network, and it is not cheap to put up a network in the US. Most analog based carriers have limited digital: in rural areas, forget it. As a matter of fact, the FCC said that analog only towers can be turned off 5 years from last July. They will do it. And why spend huge amounts of cash when less then 10% of US consumers what wireless internet? And, according to the latest poll, 13% want sms? For NIMBY, means not in my backyard. US users want coverage, but then complain about seeing towers. As I told a city councilman, he cannot have it both ways (he voted against a tower inside his town).
As far as any elitist attitude, don't blame the consumers for the over-inflated advertising. Most of the US advertising is like that. Have y'all ever seen our rediculous car ads?
Posted by DragonEye
One must also consider the size of North America and it's scarce population compared to areas in Europe and Asia. Also, North America doesn't seem to be as fond as the little gadgets that the rest of the world appreciates so much. I know tons of people who still use phones from 2-3 years ago.... with no intention of changing it... it's just a different world.... in England I know lots of people who carry 2 phones one for text and the other to talk. I don't think there is 1 person in North America that deos that..
Just my thoughts,
dragoneye
Posted by Owen
@woutervg
I agree with you. It seems that the US of A want to be different from all other countries... They're against a European system for global navigation (just like GPS), they use GSM1900 instead of the GSM900/GSM1800 standards, have NTSC (eg Japan) as TV signal (in most continental countries we use PAL which is better), they use 110 Volts and we 220 Volts, they think making war is the only way to make people listen to them (BUSHHHHH).... Hehehehe... And there are so many arrogant Americans who actually think that the US rules the rest of the world (of course not all of them).
Cheers
Posted by Bjerkebanen
Paranoid
[ This Message was edited by: Bjerkebanen on 2002-12-01 19:34 ]
Posted by amagab
I have not used GSM in NYC but in a lot of other cities in the US on the T-Mobile and Cingular network and I would say the coverage is pretty good. As someone said earlier - it is hard to cover such a large nation as the US.
Regarding packets> I found it odd too that my GPRS experiences have been better in the US even though providers support less packets compared to Europe. My explanation would be that Europe is more dense - more users per tower. The European networks often get crowded and that slows down connection speed.
Posted by jnonhoffzieg
| Quote: |
|
Owen, one thing that's different in the US is that the government doesn't impose standards or technologies like they tend to do in European countries. They usually choose to let market forces decide what works best, which often leads to slower implementations of standards.
Where have you heard that Americans are against a European GPS system? Just wondering because I haven't heard anything like that.
I have heard that GSM1900 is better suited to covering large areas which is a geographical consideration in a large country like the US.
NTSC broadcast format is not used only by the US and Japan. In fact, there are 3 formats being used widely in the world and none of them have become a world standard like GSM. Have a look at this map to get a better picture of things. I agree that PAL is better than NTSC or SECAM.
Just because Holland uses 220v current doesn't mean it's a world standard. In fact, 110v and 220v are both used by many countries around the world. Have a look at this table to see what I mean.
There are more Americans who aren't even aware of the rest of the world than those who think they rule it. Most are far more interested in making money, hehe. I sure wish people here had a better understanding of world events...
Last time I was in Amstelveen, most people were still speaking Dutch!
Jeff
Posted by amagab
To my knowledge the US had to go with the 1900 frequency because of the Department of Defense didn't want to let go of their frequencies. Telecom had the same problems with the 3G bands.
Posted by jnonhoffzieg
amagab, I just read the same thing.
Is it true that the license auctions have concluded for 3G frequencies in the US? I hope the DOD doesn't hinder that as well...
Posted by amagab
I can't prove this but last thing I heard was that the Clinton administration forced DOD to give up frequencies for the US 3G networks. In these arms buildup days I wonder if Bush would have done the same thing. Hopefully, most service providers will go with WCDMA.
Posted by gsmwraith
Still kinda new to all this stuff whats the difference between GSM/3G/WCDMA ?
Posted by jnonhoffzieg
GSM is the current standard which is 2G. GPRS is the packet-based upgrade to GSM networks and is considered 2.5G. You could say that Sprint's PCS network is also 2.5G since it has similar data speeds even though their newer handsets are more advance than most GPRS handsets. Sprint likes to call their network 3G but as amagab pointed out, that's marketing BS. WCDMA is the true 3G technology that everyone is waiting for. It'll provide far greater data bandwidth. 3G handsets will take advantage of the bandwidth and have more features than anything we have today.
Posted by gsmwraith
Ok thanks, just wondering, so AT&T is 2.5G ??
And i assume these features woudl be true videoconferencing , and other features??
Posted by jnonhoffzieg
I'm not sure about true video-conferencing although that would be really sweet. We'll probably see something with pretty low frame-rates. Having true streaming video being up- and downloaded simultaneously might be too much even for 3G. But 4G networks are already being tested...
We'll definitely see one-way streaming video downloads, online multi-player games, and media-rich browser environments similar to the true WWW. Japan already has that with their i-mode technology. That's why they have a market for mobile phones which are so much cooler than anywhere else. It'll be a while (we're talking years) before we get that far.
Posted by amagab
gsmwraith> let me answer your question in a very short simple way:
GSM: is the digital mobile phone system that is supported in Europe, most of Asia, Australia, and by some poviders in the US (T-Mobile, Cingular, and to some extent AT&T).
3G: is the new technology that will enable mobile phones to support streaming video (video conference calls, TV, etc). 3G is short for third generation.
WCDMA: is the 3G technology that is supported by GSM providers. The other alternative is CDMA2000, which is the technology that Sprint and Qualcom supports.
Posted by gsmwraith
Looks like I might need to move!!!
Posted by amagab
Japan are very fortunate to be such a small country. They can implement new technology very fast. Wish the rest of the world had iMode too. However, it's annoying not being able to use my GSM phone when travelling there.
Posted by gsmwraith
@ama ===>> Do you have to buy a phone when you travel there or do they "rent" them.??
just wondering.
Posted by amagab
Well, most of my travelling has been in GSM markets. So I just bring my excellent T68i. Going to Japan you would have to rent a phone. However, they are currently installing the WCDMA technology so when the 3G phones are on the market you'll be able to use them there too.
Posted by jnonhoffzieg
amagab, some carriers in Europe have been offering i-mode since this summer. It isn't the same as in Japan - it runs on GPRS. But the content is the same since i-mode is just a content protocol and has the potential to work with any phone that supports cHTML. I'm hoping we'll see i-mode here long before 3g gets implemented. Especially since DoCoMo, who developed i-mode, owns part of AT&T wireless.
Hmm, as an island, maybe Hawaii would be a good place to test 3G in the US...
Posted by amagab
It sure would be...if only they would understand that. No one cares about Hawaii. It's just an island far out somewhere... Problem is also that even the people here don't care. I'm constantly trying to explain to people here that there is technology beyond 2G. People don't understand that there is a great potential for development here in Hawaii. Maybe with the new governor there will be some positive change. That is a political issue...and I can go on and on with that...but this is not really a forum for that kind of discussion.
Posted by woutervg
I-mode isn't that special, its nothing more than colored wap sites, based on another technologie....
Posted by porterg
Coming in a little late in the chat, but one of the biggest things that is starting to happen to cell towers is conversion to GSM 850mhz. For the US, this will be huge: 850mhz will have a bigger radius per tower then 1900mhz, and better building penetration. The military really doesn't want to give up it's 2 to 3 ghz frequencies, but the FCC is going to start releasing those blocks soon. From my point of view, that is the last thing we in the US need, unless you really want more high tech, vs just coverage (which is what most US citizens want, especially with LD being part of most calling plans.)
Posted by amagab
3G needs the higher frequencies and I believe quality is more important than quantity. That is why FCC now is trying to make higher frequencies available for telecom.
Posted by jnonhoffzieg
woutervg, i-mode is much more than colored wap sites. Two of the major differences are:
-It includes support for page-embedded Java applications which greatly enhance the functionality available in the browser environment.
-It allows the user to access many standard HTML sites which expands the amount of content available from a mobile phone.
Posted by laffen
Found an interesting article on theregister today. It's called "Qualcomm monoculture is 'killing American wireless'"
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/27975.html
Posted by jnonhoffzieg
Excellent article - that kind of BS needs to end for the benfit of everyone. It's also interesting that both MS and Apple have only added built-in
support to their respective OS's this year, which is one of the reasons why it's so difficult to configure for many users.
Speaking of Qualcomm monoculture, it seems they also don't want to play fair when it comes to the WCDMA patents they own:
http://news.com.com/2100-1033-964999.html?tag=fd_top
_________________
T68m -> R2F0004 on Cingular - I want my MMS!
[ This Message was edited by: jnonhoffzieg on 2002-11-08 19:30 ]
Posted by MrSavoy
Wow this thread is alot to digest but I can say that things here in the US mobile wise aren't as ancient as some people here would like to bleieve. Things are really starting to take off here and 2003 promises to be a good year for the US for mobile.
We in the US don't think we rule the world as some people here have suggested. In fact most people here don't want to get involved in the affairs of other countries half a world away. The US govt, now thats a horse of another color. Please don't make blanklet statements to which you know nothing about.
Also, when a tech becomes hot and US mobile companies see the public wants it, you will see how fast we can implement this new tech. We can get off the ground running faster then anyone else. Now thats a blanket statement.
Posted by amagab
MrSavoy> I agree with you regarding the politics of the current administration. Considering the majority of the US population voted for the other presidential candidate it shows you that world domination is not what people want. But cash is king and Bush's people has most of it.
I also think there is a great potential for mobile tech in the US. But first someone needs to get kick Qualcomm, Verizon and Sprint out of the country.
Posted by jnonhoffzieg
amagab,
well let's not hurt our economy more than it already is. But these corporations need to open their eyes up if they want to be global players. Soon that will be the only kind of player left. It's time for them to give up their religious beliefs in their own strengths and get with the program.
Posted by amagab
Well put, Jeff! I got a little carried away!
Posted by MrSavoy
Amagab I hate to say this but it really wouldn't have mattered who won the presidency they are all corrupt and have their own agendas. Especially once they sit in the big chair.
Posted by GixxerForHire
| Quote: |
|
That would suit me fine since I work at AT&T
Posted by amagab
It sure is a good thing we have AT&T, Cingular, and T-Mobile. Would be even better for consumers if there were more GSM service providers in the US.
Posted by jnonhoffzieg
GixxerForHire, LOL, I agree with amagab. Check out Qualcomm's latest attempt to get carriers away from the GSM>WCDMA migration path. You'd think that with Qualcomm holding 20% of WCDMA patents they wouldn't care so much. Maybe they're afraid that 3G will never catch on at all with the current lack of interest in wireless applications. I still think that the interest will pick up soon...
http://news.com.com/2100-1033-965147.html?tag=fd_top
Posted by amagab
Qualcomm can suck this and suck that but they actually are coming with a pretty good invention. They have created a chip that will make it possible for WCDMA phones to roam on CDMA2000 and vice versa. I guess they are trying every attempt to save their technology and keep other US carriers from going over to WCDMA.
Posted by woutervg
Mobile technology would be much better if you would have more providers.... Here in the EU we have 3-6 providers per state.
Posted by snap-hiss
The main problem and reason the US isn't up to speed with Europe and Asia is because our population is very resistant to change reguarding technology compared to those countrys. AT&T WS has actually slowed down their full 3G development to first completely implement their 2.5 G systems simply because they felt that the population wouldn't be ready for it. It's sad, but this is our problem.
!snap
Posted by gadgetboytom
its like the pal - ntsc thing
and the radio freqency thing
and the hdtv thing
they always get it wrong!!
keep up u.s!!!
Posted by porterg
You have to consider that prior to this century, what the carriers and users wanted was better coverage and more minutes for the money. The manufacturers threw more features on phones, but, unlike the people who come to this website, most US users want more minutes and better coverage. I hear it EVERY day I work. (I work for a carrier). They don't care about MMS, photo messaging, SMS, GPRS, etc. They don't even program more then a few #'s into the phone. Computer internet is so readily available the it really isn't an option that most users care about nor want. Most don't want to spend money on a phone, and the more bells and whistles, the more $. The last 5 phones we got are priced at $49, $99, $199, $249, and $299. Most don't care. What they want is to be able to place long distance calls from their homes.
Posted by Deric
AT&T doesn't call it 3G, but 2.5 I agree that some other carriers are in the worng by calling it 3G, but on the whole are using "3g" as a buzzword to attract a larger customer base.
For the most part the US is not ready for 3G. Our customers are not picking up on 2.5G as they were expected, and as you know that pulls from the revenue that we'd use to fund a 3G conversion
Deric