The 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), global custodian of mobile telephony standards up to and including LTE Advanced, has issued a statement insisting that "Advanced" is as, er, advanced as the naming system will go. LTE is the preferred 4G technology, and is currently being deployed around the world. Standards evolve …
Name calling - They started it
The whole reason that we got the name LTE was that anything beyond 3G was outside the remit of the 3GPP. So it got called "3G LTE" specifically so that the could look at "4G", and ODFM without saying that's what they were doing.
Surprised no-one's using KSD ...
... 'cause it's one up on LTE.
Either that or MUF.
(but yes, considering LTE-A is still being worked on in the standards bodies, it's pure marketing to talk about anything beyond it. But then again, I'm surprised no-one's pull a Dilbert and started talking about 5G, 6G, or 7G).
Re: Surprised no-one's using KSD ...
" I'm surprised no-one's pull a Dilbert and started talking about 5G, 6G, or 7G)."
Well a Google of "5G network" may quell your surprise. But I can spill the beans as far out as 7G without the aid of Google:
- EE will launch early, although all the "investment" will be in the celebrity advertising
- coverage will remain as sh!te as decent 3G
- headline speeds will be astronomical but rarely achieved in practice
- costs will melt your wallet
- backhaul won't be able to keep up with the wireless technology.
And OFCOM will be trying to sweep all the mobile networks into a small band of frequency, messing everything up to free the rest of the spectrum for person to person wireless communication, which they are sure will be what everybody needs in five years time.
The marketdroids gotta use letters that don't mean anything, see? If they did something sensible, like append the ACTUAL speed of their LTE network as a number after the letters, then they'd be as embarrassed as those blokes referenced in the article, talking about when they'd be delivering the half decade old GSM standard.
Except in this case, they'd be talking about delivering LTE network speeds that are the same from half a decade ago...
Says it all right there.
perhaps providers should be made to state explicitly which agreed standards they do meet or put in a disclaimer along the lines of "LTE-B is not a term recongised by the standards body, and anyway the speed you do get will be entirely dependent on what you mobile provider gives you not what the technology is. If in doubt remember your home broadband is supposed to be super mega bleeding fast, but it isn't is it?"
Re: standard compliant
That sounds a lot like the standard disclaimer that used to come with a "56k" modem, if anybody remembers those.
- Comment Renewable energy 'simply WON'T WORK': Top Google engineers
- Useless 'computer engineer' Barbie FIRED in three-way fsck row
- Game Theory Dragon Age Inquisition: Our chief weapons are...
- 'How a censorious and moralistic blogger ruined my evening'
- Leaked screenshots show next Windows kernel to be a perfect 10