Talk:3G/Archive 2

Packet switched necessary?

I don't know much about 3G specifically, but I know a lot about data networks, information theory, and multimedia, and I was surprised to find a statement that 3G's move from circuit-switching to packet-switching was (at least in part) to support mobile multimedia. I have added a comment into the text (which I know some people disapprove) in order to let readers know that this is a questionable uncited statement. (Perhaps I should have used a {{fact}} or {{dubious}} tag instead; anyone who seriously wants to put one or both of those tags in and remove the in-line question may be my guest.) In the history of the world wide web, packet switching was one of the things that made delivering continous-time media over the network in a streaming mode (as opposed to download-whole-first-then-run) more difficult than it was in, say, broadcast television technology. (The other major challenges were the low bandwidth of most client connections and the best-effort service provided by Internet routing.) With packet switching, pieces can arrive out-of-order and some may arrive very late, requiring several seconds of pre-buffering and robust, complex encoding schemes that can deal with a packet not arriving on time (just as if it was lost) without a major dropout or pause in the media playback. The packet-switched Internet was designed for efficient transmission of text and other time-invariant (atemporal) forms of information. Circuit switched networks, on the other hand, have all sorts of disadvantages in terms of failure modes and maintenance costs and ungraceful response when they are overloaded (i.e. when the demand for circuits exceeds the fixed circuit capacity of the network), but they have the advantage of being FIFO systems--first in, first out, so the data always arrives in the order it was sent. This greatly simplifies the transmission of content that has a time order.

Therefore, the only reason I can see that cellular networks would switch to a packet-switched model is for reduced maintenance and equipment costs--benefits to the companies, not the customers. Since reasonably successful solutions to most of the major problems of transmitting multimedia over packet-switched best-effort networks have already been developed for the Internet, it is now feasable for them to switch to a packet-switching system and reap its benefits for their business operations. Also, since those companies want to provide general access to the Internet over their networks as well, packet-switching on their own networks may allow them to more simply (and so at lower cost) relay information between the public Internet and their customers over their network, as less conversion needs to be done. Simplification of any computer application has the potential to reduce bugs, and so this aspect may actually benefit customers a good bit, but their devices may require more electrical power and more memory to implement the techniques that overcome the characteristics of packet switching that are ill-suited to .

Maybe some aspects of the way the industry works are ill-suited to their continued use of circuit-switching for multimedia from a technical standpoint, explaining this otherwise counterintuitive move to me. I'm not an industry insider, so I don't know. There may be a drive to migrate away from circuit switching because it is "old" and packet switching is "new", but just because a technology is old is no reason to move away from it, if it continues to be the best available technology for the application being contemplated. More likely, to me, packet-switching has financial benefits to the companies which make it the best technology available from a financial point of view, but not from a technical point of view for multimedia. If that is the case, then the statement in the second paragraph that mentions packet switching as necessary for mobile multimedia should be modified to remove that claim. However, if there is some reason I have not considered which makes packet switching inadequate for mobile multimedia, then the paragraph should simply be augmented to explain that reason, so that the claim of the necessity doesn't beg the question "why is it necessary?"

(P.S.: I see that I've written a good bit about packet vs. circuit switching here, and if anyone wants to use any of it in an article about such subjects, or about multimedia over digital [computer] networks, adding appropriate citations, feel free to.)

71.242.7.208 (talk) 08:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you're grieving too much about this. GSM is already packet switched, isn't it? The theoretic out of order issue can be managed well by the upper layer media encoding. Packet switching is more efficient and really there are no real (only virtual) circuits anywhere anyhow. I hate to sound dismissive and I'm not an expert, but I don't think your point warrants keeping the "dubious" tag in the text. Gschadow (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the statement refers to streaming over the public IP network, so in this sense it's accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.198.108.120 (talk) 05:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Packet switching was introduced as the only practical way to interleave the data with the voice packets, which are the avowed original purpose of the network. It's the most efficient way to allow the transfer of large amounts of data, which coincidentally these days usually happens to involve some sort of multimedia. In non-streaming applications it doesn't really matter if the packets arrive in order or not. Attempting to do multimedia streaming anyway is a misuse of this technology.Freddy011 (talk) 05:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Canada 3G implementation

The page reference to the first 3G network in Canada coming in 2007 via Rogers is not correct,assuming EV-DO as 3G. SaskTel and Bell both have had EV-DO netoworks since at the latest 2006, and I presume Telus has as well. Further investigation may be required.

P0intd3xt3r (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Very true. And Rogers also probably had EDGE (which is also technically 3g according to the article) before 2007. People are equating 3G with either UMTS/WCDMA or "Mobile broadband", and it is a mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.203.94.222 (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Too technical. Please add some applications or business services related to 3G

It is mentioned a little, but needs more details like video call, how does 3G applied to it something like that —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxmara2 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I still dont understand what this 3G is.

I have rewritten the article lead. Is this better? Mange01 (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Confusion 3

I decided to buy a Kindle, but don't know if I should pay the extra $50 to get 3G. Oh, I said, I'll just go to Wikipedia to find out what 3G is and what it gets me for my $50. I just read the article and I still don't know. Why is that? --66.81.144.223 (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Revertion of article

@User:Mange01^{User_talk:Mange01} I'm not entirely certain why my edits were (almost fully) reverted; but my reasoning for doing them originally was thus:

• It was overcomplicated. For a non-technician, I didn't need to know about TSCDMA and the rarer technology, as I would have never encountered it. When I was attempting to find out which paticular network and systems I used, I was left confused. Common bands, networks, and examples, are also excluded from the article and this limits its relevance to consumers.
  • This is not solely caused by the one article; many other related articles, like UMTS, W-CDMA and Cdma2000 are also confusing. I planned to revise the group of them but never found the time.
• Furthermore, I believed it was inconcise and inconsistently cluttered. I also felt that it was inaccurate in describing its relationship to the IMT2000.
  • I do accept that my limited knowledge caused me to make mistakes in technical accuracy. I did, however feel that the article needed clarification.
• The page attempts to merge the standard for 3G, IMT-2000 with the generation of standards produced from it (IMT-2000).
  • Perhaps I should have created my edits under a new section or into IMT-2000 itself (currently a redirect) as they were not necessarily relevant to introducing 3G networks themselves.

I will wait before proceeding further, for your feedback and your vision/interpretation of the article, but I do intend to edit the page further in future. Please, feel free to discuss on this page, or via my/your talk page. Techhead7890 (talk) 06:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to further develop the article, for example by combining our versions. I noticed that some incorrect facts for example about GPRS have been introduced in the article lately, that's why I brought the article lead back to an earlier version, keeping a few formulations made by you. Also, I think the article lead should provide definition (>200 kbit/s), and sumarize the most important applications from user point of view rather than provide historical details. Today's users understand data rates, so I see no problem in mentioning number of Mbit/s. Also I think UMTS, WCDMA, CDMA2000, IMT-2000 should be mentioned early in the article, since that is what we normally mean by 3G. But okay, perhaps some of the other technical details that I added can be placed later in article. Mange01 (talk) 09:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"First network in the southern hemisphere"

"The first pre-commercial demonstration network in the southern hemisphere was built in Adelaide, South Australia by m.Net Corporation in February 2002..."

I don't know if it was a fellow Australian who added that, but (even if there is a source) claims re "in the southern hemisphere" always begs the question: do we really know what is/was going on in South America, southern Africa, the South Pacific, Indonesia, New Zealand....?

Grant | Talk 08:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. We don't present the first demo or deployment in the other three hemispheres. It would not be very interesting. You can always find a set of countries where a certain country was first in deploying or demonstrating 3G in some sense. Remove! Mange01 (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

this article is far too not tough to be understood by a common person as for me.so, please make it is to under stand as i need it for my computer project to be submitted in my school

How about a simplified version of this content?

A simplified version of technical content would allow for two audiences, two separate pages: 1. your peers: technology lovers -- for those who want to see it all 2. the average person, trying to make decisions about products and develop some basic understanding.

Writing for the second audience often requires mastery of the topic: an ability to cut to the chase, make something interesting, yet preserve the essence when simplifying, even to the delight of the tech saavy. This is a skill well worth developing through practice.

A vastly different article is needed immediately or those seeking information about technological subjects will go elsewhere. For my purposes, this was the worst article I have ever encountered on Wikipedia. I learned worse than nothing. I wish I could help change it, but I'm not up to it; you guys who have the ability to create such a page know who you are. Please do so as soon as possible.

---

jgkragt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgkragt (talk • contribs) 14:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

External links

• 3g coverage checker

Used to check mobile phone and mobile broadband 3g coverage.

"Government"?

"Both the government and communication companies unanimously approved the 3G standard."
--What government?
--Why would it matter if 3G followed ITU specs?
--What is the point of this sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.217.120 (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

In the case of this sentence, the soure appears to be the Indian government. But the reason this sentence is here is because radio frequencies are regulated by national governments as a natural monopoly. There's only one 1900 MHz frequency, so the government must regulate how it is used. Agreement between telecommunication companies and the government needed for the successful deployment of new communication technology, like 3G. Hope that explains it. —fudoreaper (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

New Intro draft

This article is way too technical for any normal person to understand, and as someone studying computer science it is still confusing. As a comparison read the intro to quantum mechanics, it is sort of understandable. So I am not that good at writing but here is a draft for a new intro.

3G, short for third Generation, also called Tri-Band 3G, is a term used to represent the 3rd generation of mobile telecommunications technology. This is a set of standards developed for mobile devices and for mobile telecommunication services and networks. A sentence or two should be here to explain how 3G is better than 2G, this article surely doesn't say that. 3G finds application in wireless voice telephony, mobile Internet access, fixed wireless Internet access, video calls and mobile TV.

Services marketed as 3G are required to meet the International Mobile Telecommunications-2000 (IMT-2000) specifications by the International Telecommunication Union.[1] These standards include providing a peak data rate of at least 200kb/s as well as meet standards for reliability. Later 3G releases, often denoted 3.5G and 3.75G, also provide mobile broadband access of several Mb/s to smartphones and mobile modems in laptops.

3G has been superseded by 4G technology, though is still in widespread use around the world.

This entire section from the intro does not belong there, and could be added to another section or be put into it's own section as a "definition of 3G" or something.

The following standards are typically branded 3G: the UMTS system, first offered in 2001, standardized by 3GPP, used primarily in Europe, Japan, China (however with a different radio interface) and other regions predominated by GSM 2G system infrastructure. The cell phones are typically UMTS and GSM hybrids. Several radio interfaces are offered, sharing the same infrastructure: The original and most widespread radio interface is called W-CDMA. The TD-SCDMA radio interface was commercialised in 2009 and is only offered in China. The latest UMTS release, HSPA+, can provide peak data rates up to 56 Mbit/s in the downlink in theory (28 Mbit/s in existing services) and 22 Mbit/s in the uplink. the CDMA2000 system, first offered in 2002, standardized by 3GPP2, used especially in North America and South Korea, sharing infrastructure with the IS-95 2G standard. The cell phones are typically CDMA2000 and IS-95 hybrids. The latest release EVDO Rev B offers peak rates of 14.7 Mbit/s downstream.

The above systems and radio interfaces are based on spread spectrum radio transmission technology. While the GSM EDGE standard ("2.9G"), DECT cordless phones and Mobile WiMAX standards formally also fulfill the IMT-2000 requirements and are approved as 3G standards by ITU, these are typically not branded 3G, and are based on completely different technologies. A new generation of cellular standards has appeared approximately every tenth year since 1G systems were introduced in 1981/1982. Each generation is characterized by new frequency bands, higher data rates and non backwards compatible transmission technology. The first release of the 3GPP Long Term Evolution (LTE) standard does not completely fulfill the ITU 4G requirements called IMT-Advanced. First release LTE is not backwards compatible with 3G, but is a pre-4G or 3.9G technology[citation needed], however sometimes branded 4G by the service providers. Its evolution LTE Advanced is a 4G technology. WiMAX is another technology verging on or marketed as 4G.

27.33.230.172 (talk) 06:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)LogiC

The Lede Section is too long & technical.

...but it's not terrible, far better than Evolution-Data Optimized's, which is ...well. Good writing here, but please see: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section). It says the lead should be an INTRO and it should be only (about) 4 paragraphs long. Because it's an overview of the concept it should not be written as a check-list essay...meaning not every major aspect is required, nor desired. A well written lede that's not jargon-reliant can satisfy most of the too-technical complaints, since many people never go further. Inappropriate jargon is simply lazy, bad writing, as are "lazy hyperlinks". The lede is especially one such place.

I'm moving several paragraphs into the section below, only because of the 4-paragraph rule, but it will ease the too-technical problem.
--71.133.255.249 (talk) 19:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford