Now showing 4G on iPhone 4S after iOS 5.1 update

[veriztd]

So what is AT&Ts liability when the software it approved doesn't work as it should?

I can't disagree with you there. This is the same type of issue that showed up when At&t showed up in the network indicator domestically, even when off-network. That was debated thoroughly just a few years ago.

You make a valid point and I won't try to defend At&t for this decision. Ultimately, At&t can force whatever they want to show in the phone indicators/icons whether or not we feel it is entirely true or fair. Would take intervention by the government to change that choice.

[spdickey]

When someone makes a statement and presents no evidence to back it up, I simply comment that no evidence was presented.

When someone states that evidence was presented when it was not or states that I ignored evidence that was presented (when no such evidence was presented), I will correctly state that is false. It has nothing to do with my opinion or what I believe.



It's an insignificant, minor bug. As I told squid, if you want to make a big campaign because the 4G shows when it is connected to a MicroCell, go ahead make a big stink about it. Make it your life's work if it pleases you. Contact Apple, HTC or whomever, and get them to change it.

Because I didn't make the statement, that's why. If you want to ask me for evidence for something I state as a fact, then go ahead and ask and I will provide it. But I will hold others to the same standards that I hold myself to. If that makes you uncomfortable then I would advise that you don't make factual statements that you can't back up.

You made a statement that it was false, and then demanded proof. Sorry, if you want to say its false, you provide the proof, stop being so lazy when you obviously don't know something.

[efparri]

I was looking at the website of the wireless carrier in the Bahamas. They advertise 4G service. One of the phones they sell for 4G service is the BlackBerry Bold 9900 which has HSPA 14.4 capability.
http://btc4g.com/devices.php

[wlo8]

"Apple challenges Australian "4G" definition, seems to think U.S. term should apply everywhere":

http://www.phonearena.com/news/Apple...ywhere_id29324

[efparri]

This is not a United States term. The International Telecommunications Union-Radio, an arm of the United Nations, promulgated the standard. Telstra was using "Next G" for its high speed service before the standard came out. In mathematics the next integer after "3" is "4." So "Next G" is equivalent to saying "4G."

This should take some of the wind out of the sails of those who are blaming it all on AT&T Mobility. Maybe Apple was not so unwilling after all.

[spdickey]

This is not a United States term. The International Telecommunications Union-Radio, an arm of the United Nations, promulgated the standard. Telstra was using "Next G" for its high speed service before the standard came out. In mathematics the next integer after "3" is "4." So "Next G" is equivalent to saying "4G."

This should take some of the wind out of the sails of those who are blaming it all on AT&T Mobility. Maybe Apple was not so unwilling after all.

4G isn't 4G worldwide as shown in the article about Apple in Australia linked above.

Apparently some of the world doesn't agree with the USA use of the term 4G in non-LTE applications.

This strikes us a rather ballsy, and not in a way that is likely to be rewarded in court. In Australia, after all, the term “4G” does convey that a product is compatible with a specific network technology (Australia’s LTE network, to be exact). Apple is implying that the Australian government is wrong, and that their definition of 4G should follow the U.S.-centered move to redefine 4G to include HSPA+ networks.

[GSMinCT]

This is not a United States term. The International Telecommunications Union-Radio, an arm of the United Nations, promulgated the standard. Telstra was using "Next G" for its high speed service before the standard came out. In mathematics the next integer after "3" is "4." So "Next G" is equivalent to saying "4G."

This should take some of the wind out of the sails of those who are blaming it all on AT&T Mobility. Maybe Apple was not so unwilling after all.

Yeah, many countries globally are calling HSPA+ 21 "4G".

[juan2three]

And let's not forget that T-Mobile started it. (Referring to HSPA+ as 4G)

[Nardva]

And let's not forget that T-Mobile started it. (Referring to HSPA+ as 4G)

I believe Tmobile started calling their HSPA+ 21 a 4G equivalent where as AT&T started calling their HSPA+ 14 a 4G equivalent. Looks like AT&T was trying to be more deceptive.

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using HowardForums

[efparri]

I have identified carriers in Canada, Bermuda, South Africa and The Bahamas who use 4G to describe both HSPA 14.4 and HSPA+ networks. I could have located more but I got tired of the quirky Google translation service. Many of them have the BlackBerry Bold 9900, which is capable of 14.4 and not LTE or HSPA+.

[jet1000]

I believe Tmobile started calling their HSPA+ 21 a 4G equivalent where as AT&T started calling their HSPA+ 14 a 4G equivalent. Looks like AT&T was trying to be more deceptive.

This is false information. Tmobile's first 4g devices were the G2 and the MyTouch 4G. Both were 14.4 and were called 4G prior to the ITU ruling. AT&T only called 14.4 devices 4G after receiving authorization from the ITU.

[spdickey]

This is false information. Tmobile's first 4g devices were the G2 and the MyTouch 4G. Both were 14.4 and were called 4G prior to the ITU ruling. AT&T only called 14.4 devices 4G after receiving authorization from the ITU.

Let's clarify. And to use your term, what you posted is also "false information." The ITU doesn't "authorize." Rather it loosened its definition of 4G to include LTE, WiMax, and HSPA+.

...although it is recognized that this term (4G), while undefined, may also be applied to the forerunners of these technologies, LTE and WiMax, and to other evolved 3G technologies providing a substantial level of improvement in performance and capabilities with respect to the initial third generation systems now deployed.
http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/p...s/2010/48.aspx

From PCMag.com

The ITU stands by its official definition of 4G speeds, LTE Release 10 and WiMAX 2, which are being tested and not expected to deploy commercially until 2012. But it's likely that the UN subsidiary just grew weary of re-educating consumers with its stringent definition.

In other words, all that public bickering over which carrier really has 4G (previous answer: zero) was all for naught. Based on the new guideline, commercially deployed LTE (Verizon), WiMax (Sprint) and HSPA+ (T-Mobile) can all call themselves "4G." (ed: Which the LTU now calls "undefined.")

"When the world's mobile carriers decided to ignore the ITU's definition of 4G, it really put the organization in a bind," PCMag's lead mobile analyst Sascha Segan said. "To remain relevant, the ITU had to find some way to fall in line with the language that much of the global cell phone industry is insisting on using."

Read more... http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2374564,00.asp

And this chart from 2010 reminds us of what we were talking about two years ago.

[jet1000]

what you posted is also "false information." The ITU doesn't "authorize."

It does authorize and it did authorize. In fact you posted the authorization for using 4G right in your last post:

"may also be applied to the forerunners of these technologies, LTE and WiMax, and to other evolved 3G technologies providing a substantial level of improvement in performance and capabilities with respect to the initial third generation systems now deployed. "

Note those keywords "may also be applied". That is where they authorized it. If you dispute that, then you should consult a good dictionary and locate the definition of authorize that applies to the way that I'm using it.

After which, you are welcome to return to this thread to post your apology for your accusation that I posted false information when in fact, it was completely accurate.

[spdickey]

It does authorize and it did authorize. In fact you posted the authorization for using 4G right in your last post:

"may also be applied to the forerunners of these technologies, LTE and WiMax, and to other evolved 3G technologies providing a substantial level of improvement in performance and capabilities with respect to the initial third generation systems now deployed. "

Note those keywords "may also be applied". That is where they authorized it. If you dispute that, then you should consult a good dictionary and locate the definition of authorize that applies to the way that I'm using it.

After which, you are welcome to return to this thread to post your apology for your accusation that I posted false information when in fact, it was completely accurate.

Also note the words "that this term (4G), while undefined..." The ITU was simply stating that the term 4G has no definition and as such it has no meaning and can be used by anyone for anything, including calling mayonnaise "4G." So the ITU, to remain relevant simply bowed out from describing "4G" as meaning anything for evermore. Far from an official "authorization" of the use of the term, and "[t]he ITU stands by its official definition of 4G speeds, LTE Release 10 and WiMAX 2." No apology from me will be forthcoming. Rather posters should be more exact in their terms.

[efparri]

If "4G" is "undefined," why all the dialog about phones showing the "4G" icon? You have managed to defeat your own argument.