

AT&T Pins 4G Label to Existing Network  - tewks
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704405704576063912912052074.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

======
wmf
This is the result of a series of steps that each seemed somewhat reasonable —
like a marketing version of path dependence (or maybe ratcheting). Clearwire
called WiMax 4G because it's an incompatible, more advanced, and dramatically
faster protocol than EV-DO or WCDMA. Then T-Mobile introduced HSPA+ which is
technically an incremental evolution of 3G but is actually faster than WiMax;
thinking that it's unfair for a faster network to have fewer Gs, they called
it 4G. Now AT&T will be penalized if they call their HSPA+ 3G, so they also
call it 4G.

Honestly, the traditional G naming scheme was too arbitrary and confused
users.

~~~
eli
It's also worth noting that the ITU (closest thing to an authority on this)
announced that "4G" has no technical meaning and therefore might as well apply
to T-Mobile's HSPA+ network. I'm sure AT&T was pissed.

(Only LTE and WiMAX can use the ITU label "IMT-Advanced" but that term is
lacking a certain bit of marketing cachet)

[http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2010/48.as...](http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2010/48.aspx)

------
zach
They should have just pulled a Gillette and gone straight to 5G:

<http://boingboing.net/2005/09/14/gillettes-5blade-raz.html>

~~~
kurtsiegfried
I agree, I can't help but thinking how awesome it would be just to see the
press release: "Fuck it, we're doing 5Gs."

------
tienshiao
Originally the ITU ruled that neither WiMax or LTE were 4G in October:
[http://www.infoworld.com/d/mobilize/4g-defined-wimax-and-
lte...](http://www.infoworld.com/d/mobilize/4g-defined-wimax-and-lte-dont-
qualify-683)

Which meant neither Sprint's or Verizon's network were 4G, but that didn't
stop them from advertising.

In December, the ITU changed their mind and now WiMax, LTE, and HSPA+ can be
called 4G: [http://www.intomobile.com/2010/12/18/itu-reverses-its-
decisi...](http://www.intomobile.com/2010/12/18/itu-reverses-its-decision-lte-
wimax-and-hspa-are-now-4g/)

At this point, I think 4G is just mostly a marketing phrase now.

------
dminor
T-Mobile seems to have gotten away with it, so it was probably just a matter
of time. 4G is just much catchier that HSPA+.

Coming soon: LTE aka 5G.

------
awongh
_He says consumers generally won't notice the difference in speed between AT
&T's HSPA-plus and upcoming LTE networks, so it makes sense to call both 4G
...the carrier will speed up the LTE network build out in 2012 and 2013._

basically, they got the ceo of ATT wireless to say on-record that there would
be no speed improvements on their network for a very long time... They
probably won't have good (geographic) coverage on the new network for at least
2-3 years...

Can anyone comment on why they are just starting to build a network with tech
that isn't higher speed than their current network? I'm sure that's a lot of
money spent, and you'd think that if they went to the trouble they'd deploy
something that was faster.

~~~
Prisen
The fastest implementations of HSPA-plus are actually coming close to the
theoretical limits of how much data can be transferred on a given frequency
band, but they have some big drawbacks compared to LTE.

The one that will be most noticeable at first is latency, which is at most
half that of HSPA (the requirement is 20ms for LTE). The second is that LTE
will be able to use bigger frequency bands than HSPA, eventually reaching a
100 MHz band.

Even ignoring that, AT&T's current HSPA-plus network is nowhere near as fast
as HSPA-plus can be. They would need to upgrade it to get close to the raw
speed of LTE.

------
barredo
Seems that "4G" is the new "2.0"

~~~
nhangen
or HTML5

~~~
chc
The term "HTML5" is not nearly as vague. It's less exclusive than some purists
would prefer (because it's used as a general term for corresponding changes to
markup, CSS, the recommended parsing algorithm and the DOM), but it's not like
"HTML5" could suddenly refer to Flash tomorrow.

------
jwn
That's pretty ambitious of them considering I don't even have 3G service from
ATT in my area. I'm still stuck on the Edge.

~~~
wmf
They rebranded their existing _HSPA+_ network as 4G; they're not dumb enough
to try to pass off EDGE as 4G.

------
brudgers
Now Walt Mossberg and John Gruber can praise Apple for making a 4G iPhone.
That sure was easy.

------
brianobush
Lying isn't right, so I tell my children. I am sure consumers don't really
understand the technology, but clearly stating something you don't have is
material the FTC should be investigating.

------
T_S_
In a persuasive setting words are currency. Gresham's Law (bad currency drives
out good) applies. Since the words in question are actually numbers we get
slapped in the face with it this time. Or we get a chuckle, depending on your
prior level of cynicism.

------
agotterer
Hey AT&T, why don't you forget 4G for now and concentrate on making Edge and
3G work first.

------
InclinedPlane
This is a remarkably poorly written article.

I can see highlighting AT&T's change in marketing and seemingly trying to
confuse customers by dropping mention of 3G. However, I don't see any evidence
here that AT&T is starting to use the term "4G" incorrectly. The article
papers over this inconvenient lack of perfidy on AT&T's part by using the term
4G on average once per paragraph.

Is this the WSJ or is it techcrunch?

~~~
Natsu
> However, I don't see any evidence here that AT&T is starting to use the term
> "4G" incorrectly.

I believe the point of the article was that the term "4G" is currently
meaningless, not that it is being used incorrectly.

So we're being sold service that's allegedly next generation, even though
nobody actually can agree on what 4G actually is.

~~~
InclinedPlane
I believe the point of the article was to bait people into reading WSJ. The
title of the article is "AT&T Pins 4G Label to Existing Network", but that
statement is not supported by fact and the claim is not even made in the
article. Instead, the writer uses a lot of sound and fury to obscure the fact
that ... well AT&T is being more vague about the technology used in their
network. Oh no, marketing. It may mean that people who are uninformed will buy
products they otherwise might not have, and this is the first time such a
thing has ever happened.

If AT&T _had_ actually called their non-LTE network "4G" that would be one
thing. But they aren't. This article is below the standards of techcrunch, let
alone WSJ.com. Wireless carriers pull enough BS on their own there's no need
to go making things up.

------
Mahh
This reminds me of when Heroku was acquired... I call it Cloud 2

------
rorrr
The only solution is see for Verizon and Sprint is to advertise actual speeds.

~~~
dhbanes
The problem with that is, they will be held accountable for delivering those
advertised speeds.

~~~
guana
In 3G (or 4G, whatever) the speeds are dependent on a lot of things you can't
really control: amount of users, location, the 3g device, weather, etc etc. So
you can never really promise "with us you'll get at least x megabytes per
second!". On the other hand, you could advertise the "maximum speed", which is
also meaningless since nobody ever gets that.

------
danilocampos
I just...

I, I mean... I...

I can muster nothing but expletives. Wow. Absolutely nothing more than
expletives.

 _Fuck these guys._

~~~
tvon
Nobody else seems to care about accuracy in labeling things "4G", I don't see
why AT&T should.

~~~
danilocampos
I'd rather AT&T actually create a better network than spend time on marketing
nonsense that simulates the creation of a better network. They may as well
have a _zero_ -G network if you live in a half-populated area.

~~~
forensic
Well you aren't their target customer

~~~
nitrogen
Whose target customer are we? It seems that nobody is targeting people who
want a dumb, fat, wireless pipe with an unlocked smartphone and no marketing
BS.

~~~
forensic
and I bet you want it at a decent price too.

there's no profit in selling to smart people. Much easier to sell to the
suckers.

------
S_A_P
I want to see my iPhone status bar to read "AT&T 4G" right now!!! I want my 4g
speed, even if it is just a relabeling.

~~~
johnnygood
ATT isn't saying that your iPhone is 4G. Your iPhone supports HSPA 7.2. ATT's
network is HSPA+ but they don't have any HSPA+ phones yet. HSPA+ is what ATT
and T-mobile are calling 4G.

