Yes, they conceded that HSPA+ et al "may" also be called 4G but such 3G technologies are still not officially part of IMT-Advanced, which currently only includes LTE-Advanced and WiMAX-Advanced (although the ITU announcement at the time was leapt on as proof that the ITU had bowed under pressure mainly from US operators).
Anyway, by the time we actually get to "real 4G" goodness knows what else will be out there...
Interesting comments about AT&T's LTE timetable. One aspect of LTE rollouts that I have always struggled with is the insistence on calling LTE "4G" even as ITU works on defining IMT-Advanced - the "real" 4G. AT&T/T-Mobile further complicate the matter as T-Mobile now calls its HSPA+ network "4G". Many out there simply do not care what operators/vendors call their networks - 3G, 4G, super-duper 3.75G - but to me it would make more sense to follow the standards approach.
Words are most useful when they make important distinctions, not when they follow some standard.
Data on mobile networks meant 100s of Kbits per second at their fastest, and this was called 3G. So when WiMax, LTE, and HSPA+ brought speeds as fast as 10s of Mbits per second, consumers needed a new term and the marketing departments were all too willing to supply one. The term 4G existed and so was usurped from the standards groups, and as often happens with words, the standards groups had no choice but to grudgingly follow along.
Maybe we should use 5G for the next step in speed.
Regardless of the ITU definition, LTE is truly a new generation of technology is that it is ALL IP. Forget the speed argument, LTE is a total break from past RAN technologies that used two channels, each dedicated to 1 type of service: circuit-switched for voice and messaging and packet-switched for Internet and data.
LTE has one fast IP channel for all communications and uses IP signaling protocols and IP transport throughout. It's a new and next generation compared to 3G!
I was just reading about Cell C in South Africa being ordered to drop its "4Gs" branding as it's deemed as misleading by the advertising authorities there. The company said "4Gs" stands for ‘For Great Speeds’ and ‘For Great Support’ – but this did not go down well with rival operators! Cell C has HSPA+. So attempts in South Africa to use 4G (even with an added small "s") for marketing purposes have so far been shot down in flames...
"Maybe we should use 5G for the next step in speed."
Ugh, no, only one G-shift a decade allowed, thanks! And "4G" did have a solid definition, 100Mbit/s downloads on the move, 1Gbit/s stationary, the ITU just ended up saying that 3.5/3.75G tech could play too.
Re: "Yes, they conceded that HSPA+ et al "may" also be called 4G but such 3G technologies are still not officially part of IMT-Advanced, which currently only includes LTE-Advanced and WiMAX-Advanced (although the ITU announcement at the time was leapt on as proof that the ITU had bowed under pressure mainly from US operators)."
Even though ITU "softened" it's position and is allowing the "languaging" by marketing departments to now call or "re-brand" higher speed versions of 3G as "4G", it does not make it right. Rather, it is an indication of how powerful "marketing" departments have become and how important "messaging" is in our society. Messaging which supplants reality in many cases.
Typical marketing hype and mis-direction which leads to confusing of consumers. Which I suppose is the intent or purpose of the intense "4g" messaging we are seeing in all outlets for marketing communications. Including LR and pretty much all the popular press.
while cool for the carriers, I think it does a dis-service to consumers.
I would far rather see it branded as something like "fast 3g" or something equivalent. Keep 4 G for true 4g including advanced modulation, SON, intelligent backhaul, true IP core, and of course much faster.
Yes, they conceded that HSPA+ et al "may" also be called 4G but such 3G technologies are still not officially part of IMT-Advanced, which currently only includes LTE-Advanced and WiMAX-Advanced (although the ITU announcement at the time was leapt on as proof that the ITU had bowed under pressure mainly from US operators).
Anyway, by the time we actually get to "real 4G" goodness knows what else will be out there...