The requirements for the proposed 4G spec are actually even higher than that -- 100Mbps was for high-mobility clients, whereas low-mobility clients were promised 1Gbps speeds.
page 9 defines high / low mobility as follows: "low mobility covers
pedestrian speed, and high mobility covers high speed on highways or fast trains (60 km/h to
~250 km/h, or more)." (this is roughly 35 to 150 mph)
We are nowhere near those speeds, even on the best networks.
4G requires data rates of 100mbps while moving and 1Gbps while stationary. LTE-A only hits 300Mbps, but the ITU eventually gave up fighting it and now calls LTE-A officially "4G" even though it doesn't meet the original standard.
Well, according to the original design specification for the 4G name, the standard had to support a certain throughput in rest (I believe it was 1Gbps) and a certain throughput while moving at a certain speed (something like 100mbps at 100km/h). LTE failed to reach the 1gbps threshold but managed to get the high speed while moving so it was basically declared "4G enough" and people just accepted LTE as 4G. This is why the ITU now has definitions for 4G (LTE at the moment it started being marketed as 4G) and "True 4G" (4G technologies that actually pass the requirements for 4G such as LTE advanced, which AT&T now markets as "5G E" because screw consumers I suppose)
Care to elaborate ? Are you referring to the fact that 4G was meant to be 1 Gbps but marketing departments hijacked the term to just mean "as fast or faster then 3g"
They just set aspirational targets, but don’t define any technology for meeting those targets. ITU jumped from 200 kbps for 3G to 1 gigabit for 4G. That was not a useful definition and the market correctly ignored it. Imagine if we had “3G” wired networking defined as 100 mbps and “4G” wired networking aspirationally defined as 10 gigabit. What would you do when the IEEE (the folks who actually make the technology) release 1G Ethernet. Would you insist on calling it 3.5G wired networking?
“4G” is LTE. It’s 4G because it’s what came after HSDPA/EVDO, not because it meets any particular ITU target.
A quick reminder that 4G != LTE. The 4G specification requires a minimum speed [1] so LTE was launched to avoid exactly this minimum. It seems that the companies did it right by launching LTE instead of 4G as they could have lost their 4G status, while now they could drop as low as 3G speeds and still be called LTE (which is ironic on itself).
This wasn't commented at all in the article, using 4G and LTE interchangeably which I find troubling.
Not sure why you say that? I am not convinced that 100x speed on fast 4G really makes any difference. But 5G is nice and I've never found 4G better? Im just a consumer these days though so...
LTE's initial iterations were actually not considered 4G by definition. Part of the longterm evolution part was that as the components were upgraded they would comply with 4G. I can break 100mbps down in a few places on an iphone SE with only a cat3 modem, but that's pushing the spec's real-world limit for that.
Today these speeds are easily achievable on most networks, it's just unlikely for AT&T due to congestion and their poor network and spectrum planning. It helps to spend money on capex instead of buying up shitty Mexican carriers and DirecTV to stem the flow of fleeing customers.
4G was supposed to achieve 100mbit peaks and I have yet to see speeds even approaching this with 4G LTE. So if somebody is enforcing advertising rules they're doing a shit job...
LTE does achieve up to 100 Mbps on a highway for me in Serbia, and LTE Advanced does up to 150 Mbps while stationary in a crowded city area with a base station far away. However, that is nowhere near 1 Gbps. I don't know any devices getting over 300 Mbps over LTE Advanced (4G+).
https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/m/R-REC-M.1645-0-20...
page 9 defines high / low mobility as follows: "low mobility covers pedestrian speed, and high mobility covers high speed on highways or fast trains (60 km/h to ~250 km/h, or more)." (this is roughly 35 to 150 mph)
We are nowhere near those speeds, even on the best networks.
reply