Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Lampynoiseboy on 10 March 2012, 16:00:02
-
Test in a few places round the country recently, underneath the actual Marble Arch in London, 4G USB dongle, speeds of 40mb are being reported.
Is this the end for cable? Why would you pay virgin/bt/anyone for service at home & a wifi router, when you have that speed on a stick anywhere?
Obviously usage limits are to be expected to keep speed up, but still, 40mb anywhere?? (unless you are TB in the back end of nowhere apparently)
Looking forward to a rollout....
-
Test in a few places round the country recently, underneath the actual Marble Arch in London, 4G USB dongle, speeds of 40mb are being reported.
Is this the end for cable? Why would you pay virgin/bt/anyone for service at home & a wifi router, when you have that speed on a stick anywhere?
Obviously usage limits are to be expected to keep speed up, but still, 40mb anywhere?? (unless you are TB in the back end of nowhere apparently)
Looking forward to a rollout....
Because it'll slow right down once you get a decent number of users on the network. ;)
-
Granted, but they've been upping the capacity of gsm/3g as and when needed, so surely this would follow?
-
Granted, but they've been upping the capacity of gsm/3g as and when needed, so surely this would follow?
Speeds will also be dependant on signal strength as well as signal quality (just as standard Wi-Fi is now).
-
cant get any signal here let alone ever getting 4G lol, wont ever replace proper broadband
-
As Kevin says hardly any users, doubt its fully 4G yet, more like 3.75G+, or HSPDA+ what ever there calling it these days, 4G in its proper format should be more stable in terms of speed.
3G when it arrived pretty much gave you what it said on the tin, 330k speed with 44k through put from memory, then came only 3.5G (HSDPA or variants), then the speed would go up and down like a Yo Yo.
Still all good fun, love to know what it will all be doing in 10 years time.
-
Just as it was with "Wireless N", 4G doesn't have a set standard at this moment in time.
-
IF they had the capacity which they won't have as soon as the network is loaded with users to pay for the massive licence fees in the auction, then 4G or 5G or 6 G would seem to be the Bees Knees. Why have anything else for communicating other than your own device?
How long before you have to carry your communicator with you at all times and it has to be on or you get fined (via your account of course)?
Isn't there also a problem with some TV users are going to lose their digital signal as 4G is rolled out. Fixing that is going to cost someone(the operators?) a pretty penny.
It will be like Spain where 3G - 5Gb per month is about £40 regardless of operator.
-
As an advance 1st world economy 4g should be available from 2014 in London and more widespread in the UK from 2015. :(
Meanwhile in poor 2nd world country Ukraine, they have had Wimax in Kiev since 2010 and up to 1GB broadband and by the end of 2011 Wimax and high speed broadband had been installed in 133 towns and cities, with the aim of having most of the country covered by the end of 2013. :y
This link is a real world Wimax test in Kiev in Sept 2010 on an English Expat forum.
http://www.expatua.com/forum/index.php?topic=6855.0 (http://www.expatua.com/forum/index.php?topic=6855.0)
My interest is that when I move over there I need a decent Internet connection. At the moment in my wife's village it is 3g upload and satellite download, which is quite slow. Only the local town has broadband. :(
-
To be honest, I don't get why they don't use more satellite based stuff. You'd get a much wider coverage than land cells, especially in the sticks, and it worked (still works??) for the Motorola Iridium satellite phone- even if it was a lump & very expensive to call.
Granted they are expensive to set up, rockets n stuff, but surely once they're up & running......?
I will be interested to see when 4G does start rolling out, Verizon have be trialling it with Blackberry in the U.S, with very good results iirc
-
To be honest, I don't get why they don't use more satellite based stuff. You'd get a much wider coverage than land cells, especially in the sticks, and it worked (still works??) for the Motorola Iridium satellite phone- even if it was a lump & very expensive to call.
Granted they are expensive to set up, rockets n stuff, but surely once they're up & running......?
I will be interested to see when 4G does start rolling out, Verizon have be trialling it with Blackberry in the U.S, with very good results iirc
lol. They are switching off analogue tv in favour of digital tv (satelite) brilliant service till it rains, wonder how the country would cope if the same problem happended with thier internet.
-
To be honest, I don't get why they don't use more satellite based stuff. You'd get a much wider coverage than land cells, especially in the sticks, and it worked (still works??) for the Motorola Iridium satellite phone- even if it was a lump & very expensive to call.
Granted they are expensive to set up, rockets n stuff, but surely once they're up & running......?
I will be interested to see when 4G does start rolling out, Verizon have be trialling it with Blackberry in the U.S, with very good results iirc
Very big ping times due to huge distance signal travels .
-
A basic fact is that an rf based system is ALWAYS going to have significant bandwidth limitations and hence the max data stream that can be supported will always be compromised and dependent on number of users, signal state etc.
THE answer is a thin piece of glass to the home......
-
To be honest, I don't get why they don't use more satellite based stuff. You'd get a much wider coverage than land cells, especially in the sticks, and it worked (still works??) for the Motorola Iridium satellite phone- even if it was a lump & very expensive to call.
Granted they are expensive to set up, rockets n stuff, but surely once they're up & running......?
I will be interested to see when 4G does start rolling out, Verizon have be trialling it with Blackberry in the U.S, with very good results iirc
Very big ping times due to huge distance signal travels .
Yup, the days of satellite comms are fact dissappearing thanks to fibre optic cables under our sea's.....even the satellite earth station at Goonhilly carrys bugger all in the way of telecoms anymore.
If you consider that a single piece of fibre will carry a 40G signal with latest units also supporting 100G.....throw a photonics layer on top and you can multiply this by 32-40 times.......its a no brainer!
-
I tested my mobile against 3G+ and wifi via home .. home connection 6 mbit and 3G+ is like a turtle compared to home speed..
-
A basic fact is that an rf based system is ALWAYS going to have significant bandwidth limitations and hence the max data stream that can be supported will always be compromised and dependent on number of users, signal state etc.
THE answer is a thin piece of glass to the home......
If you ever want some fun, call virgin media and ask them to fit the fibre optic broadband they bang on so much about, they normally reply "you have it sir"
Er, no, there's no red light in my cable, i want fibre........then listen to them try to explain the fact that it's in the box at the end of the road...... You can run rings round them!!
Trouble is, it seems to me that we're going backwards. Whilst I agree that cable of any type is always more stable (unless bt layed it 80 years ago), so much has moved forward to wireless it seems a shame to have to still plug stuff in.
Appreciate cable to the home for tv and film streaming etc, because of the file sizes, but as some-one not desk based, decnt speed internet anywhere is very important to me
-
To be honest, I don't get why they don't use more satellite based stuff. You'd get a much wider coverage than land cells, especially in the sticks, and it worked (still works??) for the Motorola Iridium satellite phone- even if it was a lump & very expensive to call.
Granted they are expensive to set up, rockets n stuff, but surely once they're up & running......?
I will be interested to see when 4G does start rolling out, Verizon have be trialling it with Blackberry in the U.S, with very good results iirc
lol. They are switching off analogue tv in favour of digital tv (satelite) brilliant service till it rains, wonder how the country would cope if the same problem happended with thier internet.
That's just because sky are shit. Virgin manage to receive the signals and re-transmit down cable ok no matter what the weather!
-
Test in a few places round the country recently, underneath the actual Marble Arch in London, 4G USB dongle, speeds of 40mb are being reported.
Is this the end for cable? Why would you pay virgin/bt/anyone for service at home & a wifi router, when you have that speed on a stick anywhere?
Obviously usage limits are to be expected to keep speed up, but still, 40mb anywhere?? (unless you are TB in the back end of nowhere apparently)
Looking forward to a rollout....
Yes, but remember that a significant proportion of the UK population will have access to 'up to 80Mb' fixed line broadband by April, so even 4G is looking slow. Those lucky enough to get FTTP may soon see 300Mb :-X
We have seen from 3G and so-called 3.5G than actaul in-use speeds are relatively poor compared to the marketing promises.
Although, in reality, is this speed required. I can stream SD IPlayer stuff over a 2Mb line. OK, can't stream HD IPlayer. But then, currently, I rarely stream anything. Agreed, my "Linux Distros" would come down faster than I can "test and install them", but I don't really do that either.
-
If you ever want some fun, call virgin media and ask them to fit the fibre optic broadband they bang on so much about, they normally reply "you have it sir"
Er, no, there's no red light in my cable, i want fibre........then listen to them try to explain the fact that it's in the box at the end of the road...... You can run rings round them!!
Trouble is, it seems to me that we're going backwards. Whilst I agree that cable of any type is always more stable (unless bt layed it 80 years ago), so much has moved forward to wireless it seems a shame to have to still plug stuff in.
Appreciate cable to the home for tv and film streaming etc, because of the file sizes, but as some-one not desk based, decnt speed internet anywhere is very important to me
The optical node isn't necessarily in the cabinet, it can be half a mile or even more away from you.
-
We have seen from 3G and so-called 3.5G than actaul in-use speeds are relatively poor compared to the marketing promises.
Yep. That's because the Marketeers promise the absolute best case theoretical speed possible, and it has become normal practice to quote speeds that aren't remotely realistic. The coding needed to transmit this kind of rate over the air is extremely fragile, and as soon as you have more users sharing the air interface, or a real-world propagation path between the node B and your device, the system backs down to more robust, but slower, coding.
We are developing with LTE devices at work and even with a cabled RF connection they don't hit their promised bit rates. Take it out of a shielded chamber and you can see the performance hit straight away.
At least with a wired / fibre connection you have some level of dedicated throughput back into the core network.
Much of the driving force behind 4G is actually more efficient use of spectrum but, of course, to sell it, it has to be marketed as "up to <insert bull5h1t here>". ;)
-
We have seen from 3G and so-called 3.5G than actaul in-use speeds are relatively poor compared to the marketing promises.
Yep. That's because the Marketeers promise the absolute best case theoretical speed possible, and it has become normal practice to quote speeds that aren't remotely realistic. The coding needed to transmit this kind of rate over the air is extremely fragile, and as soon as you have more users sharing the air interface, or a real-world propagation path between the node B and your device, the system backs down to more robust, but slower, coding.
We are developing with LTE devices at work and even with a cabled RF connection they don't hit their promised bit rates. Take it out of a shielded chamber and you can see the performance hit straight away.
At least with a wired / fibre connection you have some level of dedicated throughput back into the core network.
Much of the driving force behind 4G is actually more efficient use of spectrum but, of course, to sell it, it has to be marketed as "up to <insert bull5h1t here>". ;)
Pretty much what the manufacturers of cheap amplifiers have been doing for years, so much so they even invented a whole new acronym known as PMPO in order to make the specs read impressively.
What I'd like to know is how those manufacturers arrive at the PMPO figure, because as far as I'm aware there isn't an agreed method of calculating it in the first place. Having said that, the brain of the average chav who buys in to that crap would probably go in to meltdown trying to understand the comprehension of true RMS, let alone having to cope with the task of doing the math to get the true figure ;D
-
Chavtastic PMPO definition: Any peak power higher than this and the output transistors are toast. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
PMPO....... Ah yes, those 800w computer speakers that will produce that for about 3 nanoseconds before it catches fire faster than a powersounder
Code for RMS 4w
Tw8ts
Tbh i'd be more than happy with 40mb, as long as i can get it everywhere, i don't stream or dnld movies, at least not 'til i can afford my THX cinemascape tv ;D ;D