
Call it "3G" or "4G," America's wireless networks are still slow - evo_9
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/the-wireless-generation-gap-america-in-the-slow-lane.ars
======
natnat
A big reason our wireless infrastructure sucks (and won't improve a whole lot)
is that we devote a huge amount of the best spectrum space to broadcast radio
and television. Signals sent on TV or radio-sized frequency travel farther and
are less vulnerable to interference than cell phone signals or LTE just about
anything else except for some channels reserved for military communication. We
have the ability to send a whole lot of data over the air more robustly than
we can right now, but it's being used to support obsolete technology.

The FCC auctioned off or gave away a lot of prime spectrum to radio and TV
providers back when it wasn't nearly as precious as it is today, and they
adopted old, inefficient formats that need an enormous range of frequencies to
transmit very little data. Do you know anyone who has used broadcast
television over the past ten years? I don't, and I don't think I know very
many people who have either. Yet we still use a whole lot of really good VHF
space for wasteful analog communication. Meanwhile, the channels used for some
of the most important things, like Wi-Fi, need to use some of the crappiest
spectrum around, because everything else has been allocated already.

Things are improving, albeit slowly. The switch from analog to digital
broadcast TV is opening up a whole lot of space, much of which is being used
for WIMAX. But radio uses up even more space than TV did, and there are no
plans on the horizon to change it at all.

~~~
joh6nn
actually, i know several people who still use both broadcast TV and radio.

a major issue that many people seem to miss is that all communication
necessarily self-selects for people who can receive it. today, in what many
people consider to be the "internet-age", those of us who use the internet
tend to forget about those who do not (or simply miss them, if we do
remember). and the people who don't tend to be those who are either disabled
(because it is difficult for them to make use of the tech), or those who can't
afford it.

while i'll definitely agree that we need to take another look at how we're
allocating the spectrum, let's not forget as we do so that there are people
who depend heavily on tech that is only obsolete for us personally, not for
the world as a whole.

~~~
natnat
I have no problem with broadcast TV, although ubiquitous fast internet service
could make that unnecessary. What I have a problem with is the use of really
good spectrum space for analog signals inefficiently. TV now is a lot better
than it used to be, but radio still uses up a huge band of frequencies, and it
could use a lot less if we switched to digital.

------
apress
The problem is the labels themselves which have been rendered meaningless. At
a minimum, the US carriers should just cite the theoretical maximum rate. But
maybe Consumers Union or someone of that ilk should create an objective, real
world rating system that would reflect upload, download and latency speeds.

~~~
sabat
This is largely the result of cynical MBAs running companies. Can you imagine
Google trying to water down terms to this degree? -- muchless just inventing
buzzwords for "new technogies" out of whole cloth and cynically marketing
them?

~~~
chc
I kind of can imagine Google watering down terms to that degree:
<http://www.html5rocks.com/>

I do think Google does it more judiciously. Simplification can be a good
thing.

~~~
sabat
What AT&T has done goes far beyond simplification -- it's downright
dishonesty.

 _Google does it more judiciously_

Comparing the two, that's an understatement.

------
phamilton
The big issue is that the US is so big. They talk about the new 4g in nordic
countries. That would be like Verizon rolling out screaming fast 4g only in
California, and leaving the rest of the country on 3g. That just wouldn't
work.

Building a 4g network across the entire US is a big deal.

~~~
tjogin
The term "big" doesn't really mean anything. The US has a higher population
density. Per person served, it would be cheaper to cover the US than the
Nordic countries.

~~~
nkurz
Wow, I hadn't realized that. Yes, that's true: the US as a whole has about
twice the population density as Scandinavia.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_and_population_of_European...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_and_population_of_European_countries)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_populati...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density)

This makes Sweden, Norway and Finland roughly comparable in density to
Colorado, Maine, and Oregon, which we tend to think of as relatively spacious
states. By contrast, each is about the size of California, which has 5-6x the
population density.

------
te_platt
Does anyone here know, given current frequency allocations, what the
theoretical maximum connection speed is? That is, allowing for improvements in
hardware, how fast is really fast on a cell phone?

~~~
Splines
It's been way too long since my signals class, and I'm not even going to try
since I know I'm going to be wrong (a whole lot of good that education did me,
huh.). But I do know that it's proportional to the bandwidth available.

Careful reading of these [1] equations may yield you an answer. Flashbacks to
college are an unintended side effect.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_capacity>

------
harshpotatoes
I think there are a few extra layers to this problem that aren't frequently
brought up. 1) people believe they need cell/data service and would never
cancel their service regardless of how bad/slow the service is. How many San
Franciscan's or New Yorkers canceled their iphone service? The answer: Not
enough. Will we as a country continue to pay $30/mnth for slow speeds and
spotty coverage. Hell yes we will.

2) I don't think most people would notice faster network speeds if they came.
They would notice better coverage, but would most of us be able to tell 50mps
compared to 5mps? I have a feeling the speed my phone loads websites right now
is limited by the cpu, not the network. And with 5gb caps (if we're lucky), we
can't use our networks for anything more intensive like video streaming. What
would be the point of a superfast network if it takes 20 minutes of
downloading to use up my monthly alotment?

------
peterpaul
4G is not what it is advertised for. my favorite is the marketing scheme
behind 4G LTE(long term evolution), which is the same as saying "ohh we are
thinking about 4G but it wont actually be here for a while"

------
th0ma5
The best comment is that the speed doesn't matter so much. since downloads are
capped, so your running throughput can be as little as 2 bytes per second
throughout the month. I don't think Sprint is this way at the moment, however.

~~~
vertr
Sprint 4g access is unlimited, and 3g is limited to 5 gigs per month. Still
better than any other carrier right now.

------
jawee
I usually get about 2mbps on my Verizon 3G, which is faster than my home ADSL
connection. I´ve thought of my wireless as very fast, though perhaps not from
a global perspective.

~~~
electromagnetic
2mbps is great, I remember having ADSL. However with cable internet I've maxed
out at 14.5mbps on a 16mbps advertised connection, although I'm actually
testing at peak usage time from a wireless connection, so in ideal connections
I might actually get what they're advertising for me (until I hit their bitcap
which will be spot on 16mbps).

------
zwieback
I wonder if a strong public sector has something to do with the fact that
European and Asian countries always (supposedly) have so much better
networking infrastructure.

~~~
henrikschroder
Actual competition between providers is probably the major reason. It's
amazing how consumer choice can motivate corporations to invest in
infrastructure so they can gain marketshare.

------
cfontes
Try Brazil ones them... you will love yours afterwards.

------
phlux
I have an iPhone 3G, a 3Gs and a Tmobile MyTouch 4G.

Both iPhones are a complete joke. To the point of rage WRT ATT service.

The tMobile, while not having 'H' coverage everywhere in SF, is LIGHTNING fast
by comparison.

There are several other factors, aside from network, that play into this. The
OS and HW on the iPhones are just slow and old by comparison. Where - even on
my home wifi network pages are slow to render in the browser.

(Even simply launching the SMS app on the 3G iPhone takes as much as 10-ish
seconds to display text)

The MYT4G also has no progress indicator on the sending of SMS - where the
iPhone does -- and it does the classic "Load to 90% quickly, then pause
forever, if sending at all"

Finally, I have had the iPhone since launch day, and have gone through 9
separate handsets in that time. On every single one of them - the 3G and
signal bar indicator have been an utter lie. At times when it claims to be
online - it has, over a large percentage of the time I have been a user, not
been able to "activate cellular data network" for various reasons - or simply
"call canceled" so many times I am fed up.

The "call canceled" sound is heard at least 3 times a day minimum.

In closing, if I could have apple and AT&T reps in the room - I would like to
kick them in the balls.

~~~
metageek
Where are you? In the Boston area, I've never had the kind of trouble with
AT&T people talk about in NYC and SF.

