Talk:3G/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Theres gotta be a more better article on wikipedia

There are literally at least 20 relevant acronyms (GSM, EDGE, 4G, 3G, LTE, EVDO, HSPA, WiMax, CDMA, UMTS, IMT)

It all has to relate somehow. Whoever can design that article that relates everything together will be an absolute genius.

I'm doing a brief writeup summarizing all this. It took me a while to comprehend it. But I'll paste it here in the talk page when I'm done and y'all can correct it and/or incorporate it into this article somehow (maybe via a chart).

P.S. Said writeup was not made for Wikipedia, it was made for personal in-company use

209.119.226.66 (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

POV paragraph of historical interest

Ripped out following seriously POV paragraphs:

3G is seen as the later child f r the tech bubble in that it was a technology that was obsolete before it was deployed. It was expensive and offered no customer services that could not be provided more cheaply and better by other technologies for example 2.5G or WiFi. Even with that 10s of billions of dollars were invested in networks that no one understood what they would be used for.

Remarkably. after the failure of 3G, service providers and vendors are now sponsoring projects to identify and develop applications with customer benefit for 3G. One would have expected that with the investment that was put into 3G, such applciations would be well known. Naturally this will be to no avail since 3G has major architectural deficiencies that make it expensive to build and operate, and severely limit its utility for customers. However this research will still be beneficial since it will enable other more capable network technologies such as WiFi to better serve the user

Extract from that what you will. Jpatokal 04:32, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Kind of interesting six years later... Mange01 (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

'Confusion'

After reading this article, I still don't understand what 3G is. As mentioned previously, we need to make this explanation much clearer. Especially in the introductory paragraph.

Mbehrns (talk) 07:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)mbehrns

'Confusion2'

After reading through the article, I still have no clue what 3G excatly is. I think readers must undertand in the first few sectionswhat are the basics of 3G. From this articles, it is niether academic nor intened to average reader. It is simply pdestrian. What exactly 3G is? Maybe pictures should be used, or a rap video?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.90.165 (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC) oh yeah by reading this article i havnt understanded the single yet about 3g .bad aricle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.207.187.140 (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.172.139.188 (talk) 06:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

'Confusion3'

This whole series of articles about all these supposed "generations" is just absurd. There never was any "1G", that was just a 'backronym' for the various analog systems that preceded GSM and CDMA. Never mind a "0G". Sheesh! There wasn't even a "2G" until the 3GPP organization began making some proposals for the 3G system. The truth is that to be referred to as any kind of "G" the system in question has to be part of or an extension of the original GSM system. So if it doesn't use a SIM card, then it isn't ANYTHING G. If the whole thing is treated with this in mind, it gets a lot simpler.Freddy011 (talk) 05:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your edits yesterday ("3rd generation of mobile telecommunications technology" -> "3rd generation of GSM mobile telephone technology") and this comment here: I think this article goes by the ITU IMT-2000 nomenclature, and their definition of 3G doesn't specifically mention GSM in it. See here for an official definition.Conquerist (talk) 09:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

'Tech bubble'

I removed the following section as, as far as I'm aware, the last part hasn't happened (certainly not in the UK):

3G and the tech bubble

The auction of 3G licenses and radio spectrum in Europe played a significant part in the tech bubble of the late 1990s. Convinced that 3G adoption would be rapid and the profits from data massive, European telecommunications companies ploughed a total of €109 billion into the licenses alone, for a total of approximately €300 billion including equipment and marketing.

When the expected profits failed to materialize, the investors were left with nearly worthless licenses and large debts. Many companies gave up their licenses and wrote off the debt, while others have attempted to negotiate with the issuing governments over the licensing terms.

Dan100 15:24, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm? Eg. Sonera wrote off their licenses (and was forced to merge with Telia), while France Télécom and Deutsche Telekom are trying to renegotiate their licenses. What part of the above do you have problems with? Jpatokal 03:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(My coments here refer to the UK.) As I recall (which I don't plan to use for edits on this page), there were some stories about the amount of money (a lot?) that phone companies paid the UK Government (in a auction), and for some time not making the money back. The companies paid to use the radio frequencies. Certain ones were set aside for 3G use. Those who already had 2G frequencies had to buy 3G ones to do 3G. I believe that some time later companies were allowed to use some 2G frequencies for/as? 3G. This bothered 3 mobile, as they only had 3G frequencies and so didn't gain anything. Whereas those who had 2G frequencies gained extra 3G frequencies/bandwidth. Dannman (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

List of Networks

Wouldn't it be better for the list of networks to be tables as columns could be set up for each technology (eg W-CDMA; CDMA 1x; CDMA EV-DO; etc) so people can quickly see which networks are (for example) W-CDMA and which are not. I'm happy to do the changes given there is enough support for this idea.

Article Deficient

Competitive Technologies Dot Described

An article on 3G that does not mention competitive technologies such as WiFi, WiMax, mesh networks etc is deficient. 3G's problems are not technical in the sense that the technology does what its supportes says it will do. Its primary problem is that is extremely expensive and cheaper technology can do what 3G tries do and more...

At the very least an acknowedgement of teh existence of competitors (with links) should be in the artilce. To be sufficient, there should be a section describing 3Gs (and 4G, 5G etc.) limitations in the context of an analysis of the applicaiosn that will drive wirelss connectivity.

Nearly everyone seems to forget that the G in GSM stands for Global. Half of the obfuscating crap in this series only applies to America, where the whole telecommunications scene has been put in a blender. The rest of the world makes a lot more sense, except maybe for Canada.Freddy011 (talk) 05:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

This article reads like a company newsletter rather than a neutral work of scholarship. 3G must be going from success to success if this article is any guide. There are no issues or competeing technologies identfied. This would get a student a C- for lack of insight.

Unn,in our China ,the 3G haven't popularity.But today i see 4G.and the first 4g phone is rumored release dates is april 8,2010 12:58 pm PDT.I'm so.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.219.55.133 (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Auctions

No article on the auctions themselves? I remember the UK auction where I was checking up on the current prices evey few days. It was hugely successful, in terms of revenue received by the Government, taking something like £22.5 billion ($34 billion). The auctions were designed by Paul Klemperer (lots of info there) and Ken Binmore. Other nations tried to follow suit with similarly designed auctions, but (apart from Germany) they all failed to work as well for various reasons.

http://www.cramton.umd.edu/papers2000-2004/01nao-cramton-report-on-uk-3g-auction.pdf UK auction format

Atrocious Grammar

I tried going in and correcting some of the grammatical error and lack of subject/verb agreements, but it was too much. Forget company newsletter (as mentioned in a previous comment), this article reads like a 7th grade book report. It needs major revisions to approach par with normal wiki articles.

Agreed, there are many problems, some of which would require someone familiar with the subject (as well as grammar) to correct. Many sentences are run-on and/or suffer from excessive or misplaced commas and faulty parallelism. For someone unfamiliar with some aspects of the subject matter, these pitfalls make this article very difficult to correct. The 7th grade book report description is apt and suggests a possible problem often seen in such writing. The 'academic' tone of the writing coupled with the bad grammar and sentence structure gives me the impression that writer lifted much of the text and merely reworded/rearranged some of it in order to disguise plagiarism/laziness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.191.29.235 (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Merge

3G phone should be merged here. Mathiastck 17:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: done; now it's a redirect. Stub had no verifiable content. --IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Huawei advertising?

Don't know what the rules are on advertising companies services, but the whole "3G External Modems" block sounds like product placement to me. Nrubdarb 07:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. That section should be deleted.81.93.93.63 00:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Have evolution to 3G merged here?

The article evolution to 3G is unsourced, and reads like someone's research paper. I propose that it be merged into the Background section of this article. Kimchi.sg 07:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Implications

the whole implications section is written with peacock wording, from a sort of defensive-of-3G point of view. is the section even salvageable or should it be junked? Morwen - Talk 07:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact the entire article has tone issues. Does someone fancy going back in history and finding when the last good version was, and reverting to it? Morwen - Talk 07:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Not only is the language poorly chosen, the section repeats a lot of material from the rest of the article. Because of that, I'm inclined to say the section may even be a copyvio. Regardless, it didn't seem to add anything significant to the article, so I've removed it altogether. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 03:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

2.75G

Does 2.75 G exist? It's what I consider Cingular. Mathiastck 07:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC) 2.5G is GPRS, and EDGE often gets referred to as 2.75G Phooto 12:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

What to do about the removed "Beyond 3G", "3.5G" and "5G" articles?

See the discussion in Talk:4G/Archives/2012/January#What to do about the removed "Beyond 3G", "3.5G" and "5G" articles?. Mange01 (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Why so much detail under the "evolution to 3G" section?

Do we really want info on 3G itself in the "evolution to 3G" section?

There seems to be a distinct lack in this article of general information on what 3G is. I've shuffled the sections a little to attempt to start that - if you disagree with my attempt but agree that the previous setup was wrong, don't revert - modify!

ps. I've moved sections without changing information in sections. 3 reasons

  1. No textual changes means you don't have to worry about words or sentences I might have changed - just the positions
  2. The rearrangement makes it more obvious where there's repetition or more information is needed
  3. Now we can change the text and do a diff to see what's actually been changed. Otherwise it's impossible to track.

Greg (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

3G article should be MUCH shorter

This article should be really short. Essentially explain what 3G is, and then link it out to the multitude of information out there on Wikipedia already.

In practical terms, it could probably just link to UMTS (GSM base) and EVDO (CDMA based) 3G networks, along with IMT links. Some of our content would need to be moved to those pages of course.

Anyone agree/disagree? Greg (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree but I'm not sure.
As someone who knows nothing about phones I was just vaguely interested in finding out how 3G deployment differs from other protocols. It's nice to know that 3G is theoretically faster and better and will allow high bandwidth applications but even knowing nothing about phones I've heard this many, many times because it's the kind of information that finds its way into press releases and hence news & blogs.
What I never read is factoids like...
3G uses frequency X whereas other protocols us frequency Y which means that it's better in rainy weather but worse indoors (or whatever I have no idea).
Towers for 3G differ from other towers in that they are more/less expensive to put up, have greater/lesser range, will be owned/used by single/multiple operators. As such they are likely to be adopted/ignored in markets x y & z.
Links to any available surveys of coverage.
If the article is to be shortened perhaps history of implementation could be a separate article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.7.39 (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed Telstra Section from history - irrelevant.

Australia's largest and fastest 3G UMTS/HSDPA network was launched by Telstra branded as "NextG(tm)" on the 850 MHz band in October 2006, intended as a replacement of their cdmaOne network Australia wide. --

Largest is perhaps factual, fastest is questionable at best and not relevant. The whole paragraph is completely irrelevant to the history of 3G, this is not a list of every 3G provider in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.130.196 (talk) 06:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, although the sentence is basically true, Telstra formerly had the only CDMA network in Australia, everyone else uses GSM. As hardly anybody was using it, except in rural areas because the range was better, Telstra decided to abandon it and use the spectrum space for a new 3G network, which is why Telstra is alone in using the 850 MHz band for 3G.Freddy011 (talk) 05:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Fourth generation??

Okay I'm not changing anything yet but why are both 3G and 4G articles called "fourth generation" since obviously only ONE can be the fourth generation, right? This article seems to be counting 2.5G which according to THAT article is nothing more than just a slang term for faster 2G and not even a real "generation". So, what's up with that? 217.166.94.1 (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Technicalities

As many people come here from learning about the iPhone 3G, this page needs to be a little more in layman's terms, in my opinion. It is very hard to understand the introductory paragraph, let alone the whole article! MegaZega93 (talk) 03:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

3G is also a term used in broadcasting

Hey guys, 3G is also a term used in digital broadcasting as the "next" level in the SD => HD => 3G chain. It also represents the bitrate used by the new hardware being produced already by several manufacturers: 3Gbps (normal HD is 1.5Gbps). Basically it is HD at double the bitrate so less compression is needed. This doesn't really relate to the mobile phone network usage of the term, so should it be added to this article or should a new article be created? GreyWyvern (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It's also a Georgian music group that was censored out of the Eurovision Song Contest: Stephane & 3G. A disambig would be in order.--87.162.2.166 (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Beware

This article seems to be the victim of rampant, un-fixed vandalism. For example, the reference to Japan in the "UMTS Terminals" section was changed to "North Korea," and the reference to "Europe" was changed to "Bangladesh." The whole article is pretty much un-cited and unverifiable. Please be careful before using this article for anything important. 67.220.6.145 (talk) 01:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, clear vandalism

I was stunned to find this paragraph, as I wrote the original (with the companies and countries correctly listed). Ie first country, NK should be Japan. the second line, Vodafone's subsidiary is Japan not Iran. Etc. Someone has vandalized the paragraph. I will restore it. I hope there is an ability to track who did it. I am posting here the vandalized para for our record.

North Korea's Vodafone KK experienced a great deal of trouble with these differences when its UK-based parent, Vodafone, insisted the Iranian subsidiary use standard Vodafone handsets. Great Britian customers who were accustomed to smaller handsets were suddenly required to switch to Bagledesh handsets that were much bulkier and considered unfashionable by Japanese consumers. During this conversion, Vodafone KK lost 6 customers for every 4 that migrated to 3G. Soon thereafter, Vodafone sold the subsidiary (now known as SoftBank Mobile). Tomi T Ahonen (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Maximum speed

Please verify this phrase with some citation, "maximum of 14.4Mbit/s" in Speed section. It is not stated in the reference. --Octra Bond (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC) After reading this article it is not clear that what is the difference for internet browsing speed between 2G & 3G datacard/wireless? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.7.196 (talk) 04:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:3G/Archive_1&oldid=705137699"