Why Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T are calling LTE "4G"

[SockRolid]

I think I finally understand why the carriers are jumping the gun and calling LTE "4G." (Aside from the fact that marketing types are always happy to jump the gun.) It's because they want to hide the fact that the real 4G spec will combine voice and data. They don't want their subscribers to know that.

Why not? Because right now you pay for two different plans. The voice plan and the data plan. And the carriers want to keep it that way. I'm sure their beancounters have run the numbers and yes sir, separate prices for voice minutes and data bytes increase their profits.

The trouble with the dual-pricing scheme is that true 4G will combine voice and data into one single stream of data packets. It's going to be an all-IP (internet protocol) packet-switched future. And if customers learn that it's all just data, they'll ask "Why am I paying twice for the same technology?" And the carriers won't have a good answer, other than "Because we can charge you more for it that way."

LTE still requires two separate connections: one for voice, and another for data. Just like GSM and CDMA do now. So continuing with the voice/data dual-pricing scheme could more or less be justified. But LTE Advanced, which looks like it could be adopted as the 4G spec, combines voice and data into a single stream of internet packets. It will be VoIP done by the carriers themselves, and won't provide a technological excuse for the dual-pricing scheme any more.

So by 2012, when LTE Advanced starts to roll out, the carriers might start trying to differentiate their terminology. Just to make it sound like they are each using unique technology. They will try to hide the fact that their networks will all be using the same generic internet packets for everything. Instead of them all calling it "the real 4G," or "LTE Advanced," one carrier will call it "5G." Another will call it "Advanced 4G+." You get the idea.

Of course, maybe customers are comfortable with paying separately for voice and data and they won't mind continuing to do it. Talking and browsing are very different activities after all. And really, how many of us actually know the difference between LTE and LTE Advanced?

Just in case: 4G - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sky_eye]

It's marketing sakes, they want to be "better" then the others.

 

[whmurray]

Verizon is asserting that LTE will double the speed of EVDO Rev A and cut the latnecy in half. That sounds like a generation to me.

For the moment, AT&T HSPDA+ is nominally the fastest service. However, it is only available in a few markets and on a few devices. It is not available on the iPhone 4 though a software upgrade could fix that. LTE will require new hardware. Since HSDPA+ provides a better user experience and uses the available network capacity more efficiently, one wonders why AT&T does not make it available on the iPhone.

 

[SockRolid]

The key words are "in a few markets"

... For the moment, AT&T HSPDA+ is nominally the fastest service. However, it is only available in a few markets and on a few devices. ...

Thanks for the clarification! My guess as to why Apple doesn't go with HSPDA+ on AT&T, LTE on Verizon, and other advanced protocols is because of limited availability. Apple has been there, done that, and got the t-shirt in the niche-player space. They're going after the mass market now, not the bleeding edge early adopter elite.

I'd guess that Apple won't be first in line to release "real 4G" products in 2012, or 2013, or whenever the first LTE Advanced networks become available. (If LTE Advanced is actually chosen as the final 4G spec.) Better to wait until the tipping point is reached. After 4G has actually reached the mass market.

 

[SockRolid]

Marketing for marketing's sake

It's marketing sakes, they want to be "better" then the others.

Agree. They all want that magical "First!"

 

[whmurray]

Thanks for the clarification! My guess as to why Apple doesn't go with HSPDA+ on AT&T, LTE on Verizon, and other advanced protocols is because of limited availability. Apple has been there, done that, and got the t-shirt in the niche-player space. They're going after the mass market now, not the bleeding edge early adopter elite.

I'd guess that Apple won't be first in line to release "real 4G" products in 2012, or 2013, or whenever the first LTE Advanced networks become available. (If LTE Advanced is actually chosen as the final 4G spec.) Better to wait until the tipping point is reached. After 4G has actually reached the mass market.

I seem to recall that they took the same position on 3G. They wanted all users to have the same experience.

 

[GolpherZX]

So I've seen speeds of both the networks that I feel are closest to being 4G - because I really like the first post in that it is an IP network that both data and voice are just IP packets. That really expands on my personal designation of a 4G network - that it is IP native (not TDM). LTE I've gotten 20 Mbps, and WiMax I can consistently get 9 Mbps for download speeds. I'd say this blows away the 7.2 Mbps max of HSPDA+. However, HSPDA+ gets you a lot of bandwidth for little investment.

On phones, it is no big deal. For a home network connection, 5 GB is way too low.

 

[ChrisGonzales90]

Agree. They all want that magical "First!"

Like Sprint. Aside from the "Now network" (witch kind of sounds a lot better then the tween-ish "rule the air" thing) of course Sprint could always bring back Candice Burgen and she could be known as the "now" lady - or not.

but sprint was right. The EVO was the first "4G" phone, even if it is just advanced 3G there are a some things in the EVO that no other phone had back in March 2010.

 

[englishsoup#IM]

I think I finally understand why the carriers are jumping the gun and calling LTE "4G." (Aside from the fact that marketing types are always happy to jump the gun.) It's because they want to hide the fact that the real 4G spec will combine voice and data. They don't want their subscribers to know that.

Why not? Because right now you pay for two different plans. The voice plan and the data plan. And the carriers want to keep it that way. I'm sure their beancounters have run the numbers and yes sir, separate prices for voice minutes and data bytes increase their profits.

The trouble with the dual-pricing scheme is that true 4G will combine voice and data into one single stream of data packets. It's going to be an all-IP (internet protocol) packet-switched future. And if customers learn that it's all just data, they'll ask "Why am I paying twice for the same technology?" And the carriers won't have a good answer, other than "Because we can charge you more for it that way."

LTE still requires two separate connections: one for voice, and another for data. Just like GSM and CDMA do now. So continuing with the voice/data dual-pricing scheme could more or less be justified. But LTE Advanced, which looks like it could be adopted as the 4G spec, combines voice and data into a single stream of internet packets. It will be VoIP done by the carriers themselves, and won't provide a technological excuse for the dual-pricing scheme any more.

So by 2012, when LTE Advanced starts to roll out, the carriers might start trying to differentiate their terminology. Just to make it sound like they are each using unique technology. They will try to hide the fact that their networks will all be using the same generic internet packets for everything. Instead of them all calling it "the real 4G," or "LTE Advanced," one carrier will call it "5G." Another will call it "Advanced 4G+." You get the idea.

Of course, maybe customers are comfortable with paying separately for voice and data and they won't mind continuing to do it. Talking and browsing are very different activities after all. And really, how many of us actually know the difference between LTE and LTE Advanced?



Even if telco's adopt full LTE standards you have to remember that People are slow to adopt to change and unless there is one charge for unlimited usage customers will always feel cheated if they get surcharged for excess usage when they haven't done any data usage and just did voice calls. For this reason they will continue to charge each separately and one charged by the minute and one charged by the bandwidth used. It's easy to think in minutes for talking and Kilobytes for bandwidth/data and hard to think of it as a combined charge.

Jeez hope it makes sense.