Comments on: Rok TV Takes On MobiTV

By: Jesse Kopelman

Jesse Kopelman — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 22:10:46 +0000

Richard, that is like arguing that "nuculer" is an acceptable alternative to nuclear because many people make the mistake. 2.5G was a marketing term created to make a very basic enhancement to existing 2G services (EDGE upgrade for GPRS) seem like a big deal. 3G has only one correct deinition -- just because Verizon wanted to market their 2G services as 3G doesn't change that. There is no way that 3.5G is a reasonable term for HSPDA/HSUPA. Even in their final iterrations, those technologies will only be up to 25% of the speed needed for 4G. Besides, just like everyone agreed well ahead of actually commercial products that 3G would be implemented on a CDMA-based platform, everyone seems to agree that 4G will be implemented on a OFDM-based platform.

By: Richard

Richard — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 07:38:40 +0000

2.5G is a well-understood term for GPRS that has been around for years, and 3.5G is a reasonable term for HSDPA/HSUPA. 3G has more than one definition in reality, given the existence of CDMA flavours, EDGE and UMTS.

By: Jesse Kopelman

Jesse Kopelman — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 21:49:37 +0000

I thought we had grown out of using "2.5G" and "3.5G." Guess what, 2G, 3G, and even 4G have actual definitions. If your data service is slower than 3G, it is 2G. 4G is 100 Mbps, so let's not even worry about it. Anyway, there is certainly not enough of a difference in the core technology to class EDGE as different than GPRS or HSDPA/HSUPA as different than UMTS.