LTE approved by 80 of the industries biggest -- 326Mbps downloads on track for 2010
By Thomas Ricker 
posted January 23rd 2008 8:53AM
posted January 23rd 2008 8:53AM
LTE took another big step forward with an announced specification approval by the 3GPP. Who are they, exactly? Try China Mobile, DoCoMo, ETRI, Motorola, Nokia, Intel, LG, Qualcomm, RIM, Verizon, Vodafone, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile... round about 80 of the industries biggest movers. That puts the spec on deck for inclusion in the forthcoming 3GPP Release 8. 3GPP LTE you'll recall, is the 2010 (at the earliest) next generational followup to today's GSM/UMTS data networks -- just like WiMAX -- offering 326Mbps peak downloads (173Mbps demonstrated) and 86Mbps uploads. So hearing Alan Hadden, GSA President, say "LTE is firmly on track" sure sounds sweet to us even if he is just hocking his wares. P.S. Hey, 3GPP. It's cute that someone's kid from your organization designed that logo and all, but seriously, this ain't Romper Room.
[Via TrustedReviews]
Sprint, Intel?! I thought WiMax was their big thing. And Qualcomm must have given up on their Ultra Mobile Broadband, LOL.
Anyways, yay for LTE!
Is that speed (300mbps down / 80 up) the speed of everyone in the area, or for each connection?
It's for each connection - 3GPP uses quantum mechanics to create a brand new electromagnetic spectrum every time a new user logs on!
LTE meh.
It trades in well-proven CDMA technology for an OFDM system that will improve speeds for fixed emplacement devices with access to a lot of power but not help out us with actual handheld devices and their small antennas and batteries.
I'm excited for 3G. LTE doesn't seem to have found its purpose yet.
@Standingfast
Decreased government regulation (1996 Telecommunications Act) is WHY you are paying an arm and a leg for outdated networks. Decreased regulation created those monopolies and the entry barrier is way too high for any smaller companies to provide competition. Municipal Wi-Fi could have been a good alternative, but those same monopolies have done a great job of lobbying for legislation to prevent that from happening too.
Well, you stated this:
"but those same monopolies have done a great job of lobbying for legislation to prevent that from happening too."
EXACTLY! lol, what was it that stopped those? "LEGISLATION"!! Without government legislation, in a TRULY FREE situation, competition ALWAYS finds away. The reason monopolies can exist in a global economy is BECUASE of government legislation and regulations. I mean look at the richest man in the world, Carlos Slim, and his telco "monopoly" in Mexico.
Correct, I said legislation. Amazingly, there exists both good and bad legislation. No legislation at all is anarchy-- is that what you're promoting? That seems a bit dramatic or naive. Where was it you experienced this TRULY FREE country where competition always finds a way? I'd like to email someone from there and ask them how fast their internet connection is.
I will wait for you O' faster downloading speed!
---From India with love.
It's highly unlikely we'll see speeds anywhere near this to the home or business by 2010, much less to a mobile platform - This is a lot of marketing B.S.
I'd like to get our home connections up to snuff before we put all of this work (and OUR money ^_^) into this. I wonder how much longer the cable and other telco's can keep making us pay an arm/and or leg for their outdated networks, before we all revolt and move to Switzerland...
You mean South Korea or Japan, where they already have uber internet speeds =)
Either that or you can vote for Obama, since one of his propositions is to improve the internet infrastructure across the country ;)
From his site: "Deploy Next-Generation Broadband: Barack Obama believes that America should lead the world in broadband penetration and Internet access. He believes we can get true broadband to every community in America through a combination of reform of the Universal Service Fund, better use of the nation's wireless spectrum, promotion of next-generation facilities, technologies and applications, and new tax and loan incentives. Full broadband penetration can enhance competition, provide economic growth, and bring significant consumer benefits. Obama has supported Chicago's citywide wireless broadband initiative and believes national policy should support state, local, and public-private partnerships as well as private efforts to make high speed access to the Internet available to all Americans. As a key step to achieving full broadband access, Obama believes the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should provide an accurate map of broadband availability using a true definition of broadband instead of the current 200 kbs standard and an assessment of obstacles to fuller broadband penetration. "
Engadget should endorse obama!
But Obama would raise the taxes. My Dad is a doctor, and already pays almost HALF of his income in taxes. I think in order to support economic growth, we should LOWER taxes, AND regulations on companies. This would put more money in the consumers pocket (which most people would spend), BOOSTING the economy. The decreased government regulations would allow for smaller competitive companies to rise up and challenge the current government sanctioned "monopolies" if you will. I want government OUT of my life. I want to pay for my own insurance, save for my own retirement, etc...
If you want to find out what Obama's "Broadband Penetration" thing would be like, look at Comcast... Don't believe me? Go down to your local county clerks office for any type of driver registration issue (license, vehicle registration, testing, certification, etc..) and see what type of "customer service", or even any type of QUALITY service you get. NONE! They have signs everywhere stating it bold letters "NO CELL PHONES!!!!" (btw, not kidding about the multiple !! ^_^)
Faster broadband internet access is a really compelling reason to move to Switzerland.
At least Ted (see above) is willing to stay and fight for better internet access. I don't like Ted's suggestion (relying on a politician to "give" us a better internet through government is never a good idea) because it puts power (to tax) and mediocrity (infrastructure designed by government committee) deeper into the hands of the Federal government.
To Ted directly, I say, I defend your right to state your opinion - now go vote.
Lastly to all, remember to be careful what you ask for, you may just get it. If change is what you want, it is most likely what you'll end up getting - in your pocket.
@dlheritage
I agree with you 100%, you nailed it right on the head. ^_^
@dlheritage
or..out of your pocket. :(
Obama is in favor of a tax cut... It would be for middle class incomes and would be funded by rolling back the Bush cuts on the wealthiest Americans as well as savings from withdrawing from Iraq and reform of the health service which will reduce the long term strain on the economy of the current system.
Also, in terms of the internet, his policy is not to have a government-run internet services, it's to promote the availability of better services through tax incentives etc. ie. passive encouragement not active intervention. Hillary and Edwards are overall more interventionist than Obama. :)
Maybe moving to Switzerland is a good option though, I can't talk because I already live in the U.K. even though I'm American lol ... but don't move here if fast internet speeds is what you're after!!!
@ted
Great yes, tax the rich. After all they don't deserve all of that money. We should have it. Lets pass a new law that says we can all go up to Bill Gates' house and take all his money. Better yet, let the govt. take all his money so we can fund all of our social programs.
I have heard of friends that are DECLINING raises!! Why, you ask? Because it will put them into a higher tax bracket, and/or kick them off medicade. What is the end result of this you ask?, well, get this, they would get to keep LESS than if the stayed at their current salary.
I love living in a country that teaches us not to work too hard and make money. Sounds like another country we used to make fun of by saying "papers please". ^_^
Don't get me wrong, I think the US is still the free'st nation out there, but we are RAPIDLY going down hill... Especially our tax system, and even more if we let these new changes be made.
So yes, lets punish the people with the most money $$, if I don't have it, then no one should...sigh, end of rant ^_^
Taxes aren't legal anyways.. so yes, give the breaks to those who might actually have the power to do something about it, and keep the lower class struggling to keep they're head above water so they don't have the resources or spirit to. Meanwhile give all that money back to wealthy war mongers and corrupt bankers instead of encouraging the development of nationwide infrastructure. Looking out for number at any cost... it's the U.S.American way. Recession is good for some people right? Too bad the other 98% of us get the short smelly end of the stick :(
That's sort of reductio ad absurdium, since we're not talking about pillaging the rich or somehow stopping the fact that some people are richer than others. The point at which people are no longer motivated to improve themselves due to the high taxes is somewhere in the region of 80%... that's what it was at in Britain when the country experienced the so-called 'brain drain' when the wealthy 'movers and shakers' were leaving for lower taxed countries. The core argument is that of fairness, that everyone should pay an amount which is reflective of their means to help the country.
The point of having taxes on the wealthy is that they can still be well off after paying taxes. The point of taxes generally is that you can make sure that the odds will not be stacked too heavily against the poor in their attempt to build wealth. If there was no redistribution of wealth whatsoever, the wealthy would gradually entrench themselves into the upper end of society... that is how aristocracies are formed. Taxation is what makes the american dream a real possibility and not just an illusion. Taxation without representation is wrong, but taxation is not.
@ted
But Ted, that is my point. If their was a flat tax, the rich WOULD PAY MORE! Even if their was a national sales tax, the rich...WOULD STILL pay more. Having a tired tax system is not helping to re-distribute wealth, the super wealthy just pay good lawyers and get around all that crud anyways. This tired system does nothing but try to "punish" the rich. Penlize them. And it hurts the people that have just "emerged" from the middle class the most. Why does their have to be a punishment for the rich? You stated that the American dream is protected by this? I say, that it is being prohibited.
I understand that if corporations get "super powerful", their could be a rights issue (be it child labor, long work hours etc...), all we need the govt to do is protect our basic rights, not regulate corp. or "punish" the rich. Have you seen how hard it is for companies to fire people? It is easier now to get a divorce from your wife, then it is to fire a lazy employie. Now think about this, does this hurt a mega corp? A little maybe, but how about a startup corp (by someone who is trying to "follow the American dream". This KILLS him, he might only have 5 or so employees, and his company is losing money because he can not fire the lazy one! Yes, you may say, that he gets "tax breaks" to "help him along", its too bad that our tax code is so complicated that he has to pay tons of $$ in legal fees to some attorney to get his taxes done. Once again, the mega corp is not affected.
(lol, I hope no one gets angry with me, I am just sharing my opinion. I respect the opinions of others and mean no offense). ^_^
Great graphic! As soon as I saw the logo and I had to go PP.