×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Verizon CTO Says 4G Service Is On Track

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 4 years ago | from the too-many-g's dept.

Communications 74

Verizon has announced that it is on track to roll out their new 4G LTE service using the 700 MHz band that it acquired in the recent FCC auction. Targeted first towards USB air cards for laptop customers, the service will be extended to cell phones and other mobile devices with embedded LTE eventually. Testing in Boston and Seattle should conclude in the next couple of months and commercial deployments should follow soon thereafter. "Lynch said getting voice to work over LTE has been particularly challenging. But that challenge is getting resolved as Verizon and other members of the GSMA announced Monday they are supporting a standard that uses IMS technology to deliver voice services over LTE. Still, more work needs to be done. Until a solution is complete, Verizon will use its CDMA network to provide voice services. And the LTE network will be used for data. Eventually, when voice over LTE becomes a reality, Verizon will use that technology. Verizon will also have to integrate EV-DO into its LTE offering to ensure that customers can switch to the 3G EV-DO network when the 4G LTE network is not available. Even though Verizon is being aggressive in building its network, it won't happen overnight."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

74 comments

For cell carriers, can we have a new story icon? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31149756)

Like one of those evil characters that eat humans from some video game or movie?

Or better yet, some flesh eating parasite? Yeah! A flesh eating parasite would be a perfect story icon for a cell company! None of those old rotary phone, tower and motherboard.

Impressive.... (4, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#31149772)

So, everything is hunky-dory, going right according to plan.

But the phone company doesn't actually have any way of making the new technology make voice calls, so they'll be retaining the legacy CDMA technology. And, of course, they'll be building the intermediate legacy EV-DO technology for the forseeable future to deal with places where the new hotness is not actually available. Oh, and support for mobile devices is planned for "eventually"...

I wish my standards for success were this achievable.

Re:Impressive.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31149824)

I wish my standards for success were this achievable.

They are if you work for Verizon. Oh...wait.....

Re:Impressive.... (0, Flamebait)

mjwalshe (1680392) | more than 4 years ago | (#31150400)

well "getting voice to work over LTE" isnt that the main fucking point of a mobile phone network! for crying out loud just how fucking usless do you have to be to get a job in the mobile industry in the states.

Re:Impressive.... (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | more than 4 years ago | (#31150472)

of course I ment a 4g network - maybe they ought to get a working 3g one first or just stick to strowger gear :-)

Re:Impressive.... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31150566)

I'm guessing you don't understand how long it takes to roll out new generation to one city, let alone an entire country, let alone a country with the size and landscape of the United States.

Nevermind the fact that once the cabinets and antennas are in place, that all of the cell phone makers have to create phones with new radios that can talk on this fancy new generation.

I'd be _extremely_ happy to have an upgraded Verizon BlackBerry that has a separate radio JUST for extremely fast data. Do you really think an LTE call is going to sound any different than a EV-DO call? Why on earth would anybody care about voice calls when LTE users should have the speed and bandwidth to handle real VoIP calls? Who will care about voice plans then?

The real truth is that Verizon is moving forward on this and on-schedule, while AT&T has just confirmed what company will supply their cabinets and will begin building it out next year. There is no big switch somewhere that somebody simply needs to flip ON for 4G to be ready for you. It takes thousands and thousands of employees and contractors to make it happen, so just wait patiently like everybody else, okay?

Re:Impressive.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31150940)

Or instead of making excuses, why not just switch to Sprint who have Wimax available already?

Re:Impressive.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31154440)

Works if you're in an area that has WiMax available. But by the time Verizon rolls out all of their LTE, are they already going to outdo the availability of WiMax? It seems likely, and therefore it really might be significantly more advantageous to just stick with Verizon and wait it out. 3G isn't really that bad, and if you can get wifi (and use it on your phone), it's really not so bad that waiting for 4G should be much of a problem...

Re:Impressive.... (1)

jon3k (691256) | more than 4 years ago | (#31151008)

Actually calls will probably sound better [wikipedia.org] over LTE.

Calling someone on another network? Lose quality (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31151314)

Actually calls will probably sound better [wikipedia.org] over LTE.

Until you call someone on a different network, such as the landline network, at which point the voice quality goes back to narrowband.

Re:Calling someone on another network? Lose qualit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31151462)

also the sky is blue and water is wet

Re:Calling someone on another network? Lose qualit (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31154102)

Water is wet, which is important for someone who goes boating. Likewise, calls routed through the PSTN are narrowband, which is important for someone who calls mostly customers on another network.

Re:Impressive.... (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#31169040)

But (from your own link) the end product of that effort, AMR-WB, is being deployed rigtht now...without the need for LTE network. Even without the need for UMTS/3G; apparently it works also via GSM/2G connections.

Re:Impressive.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31151710)

Why on earth would anybody care about voice calls when LTE users should have the speed and bandwidth to handle real VoIP calls? Who will care about voice plans then?

I'm guessing Verizon customers since VoIP will be one of the services blocked on their network.

Re:Impressive.... (1)

Randle_Revar (229304) | more than 4 years ago | (#31151990)

>Why on earth would anybody care about voice calls when LTE users should have the speed and bandwidth to handle real VoIP calls?

LTE may not be Skype or Vonage, but it is VoIP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3GPP_Long_Term_Evolution#An_.22All_IP_Network.22_.28AIPN.29 [wikipedia.org]

Re:Impressive.... (1)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 4 years ago | (#31152678)

Would be great if it had the audio bandwidth of Skype. I'm tired of the crappy voice quality of cell phones being considered "good enough." Landline phones aren't that clear, and I'd love to have 16-bit audio.

Re:Impressive.... (1)

k_187 (61692) | more than 4 years ago | (#31154360)

Why on earth would anybody care about voice calls when LTE users should have the speed and bandwidth to handle real VoIP calls?

The biggest reason is that once everyone is transitioned over to Voice on LTE, three of the four major carriers in the US will be working on the same technology which will give a level of phone interoperability that the US has never seen. Quite honestly, it will change the game to have the ability to take your phone with you instead of relying upon carrier subsidies if you switch.

Re:Impressive.... (4, Insightful)

dlevitan (132062) | more than 4 years ago | (#31150700)

The lack of voice over LTE is because it will use the same data channel for voice (i.e. VoIP). So it's not like any of the hardware has to be change. The reason it's not being deployed now is that there's no consensus over how voice should be done on LTE. I'm thrilled that VZW is waiting. LTE will be the global standard, and it will be good if they maintain full compatibility with global networks. Unfortunately, VZW is one of the first companies to deploy it - it appears the rest of the world is lagging behind.

As for it needing to retain CDMA on phones, that's also good. IT will be a while before VZW deploys LTE with the same coverage as CDMA. This is needed for backwards compatibility.

While I understand it's a slow process, consider that VZW, unlike most of their competitors, is actively pushing forward with LTE.

Re:Impressive.... (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#31152110)

The lack of voice over LTE is because it will use the same data channel for voice (i.e. VoIP). So it's not like any of the hardware has to be change. The reason it's not being deployed now is that there's no consensus over how voice should be done on LTE.

How about they just ditch normal voice service and allow users to choose their own VoIP provider? I'm sure companies like Vonage and Skype would be willing to work with Verizon on a project like this.

Oh, right, because they won't be satisfied unless they can charge $0.40 per minute and $0.20 per SMS. If it's all packets, then they can't justify why an SMS message would cost so much.

Re:Impressive.... (1)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 4 years ago | (#31152690)

Why deliver voice packets via best-effort TCP/IP delivery, when you can reserve guaranteed bandwidth for voice on your own network? As a full-time user of VoIP, I can tell you that it's got a long way to go.

Re:Impressive.... (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#31154054)

Why deliver voice packets via best-effort TCP/IP delivery, when you can reserve guaranteed bandwidth for voice on your own network? As a full-time user of VoIP, I can tell you that it's got a long way to go

They control the air network end-to-end. There's no reason they can't do QoS on IP. Reserving a full channel with lots of dead air is just a recipe for higher costs.

Remember, AT&T has been all VoIP for a decade - but they own their network so it works. Your experience over the public Internet is likely to be different.

Re:Impressive.... (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#31154046)

If it's all packets, then they can't justify why an SMS message would cost so much.

SMS travels in network control packets that get sent regardless of whether there's an SMS message in them or not.

So, a current cost of $0 doesn't stop them from charging 20 cents now, why would it in the future? They could only allow signed comms on their network and AppStore the developers into submission.

Re:Impressive.... (1)

rhadc (14182) | more than 4 years ago | (#31151882)

It's harder than it looks. In an ideal LTE environment, services that had their own dedicated channels in earlier technologies share the IP-based channel. Your average VoIP call is made of bidirectional streams of, say, 20-millisecond samples. When one doesn't arrive, you're missing audio and it's too late to recover. To have decent call quality, the packets must be protected via some resource reservation method - QOS, etc. Your 911 call _IS_ more important than the next guy's file transfer. (I can hear the howls of the net neutrality folks). Aside from voice calls, high-bitrate streams (video) and any real-time communication may need resource reservation. Since it isn't something that has been as important in the past, the providers and their suppliers must get it working before they can sell it. .. Vendors haven't been making cellular radio equipment for that spectrum. Don't forget that since it's RF spectrum, there may be interference as well. Lots of hurdles.

Re:Impressive.... (1)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 4 years ago | (#31152694)

The voice won't be going over the public Internet. Just the same data channel. I see no reason for net neutrality complaints.

Re:Impressive.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31154832)

Your 911 call _IS_ more important than the next guy's file transfer. (I can hear the howls of the net neutrality folks).

Only the net neutrality folks who don't understand what net neutrality is about.

(Hint: it has nothing to do with QoS or [reasonable] traffic shaping based on protocol)

Re:Impressive.... (1)

Sandbags (964742) | more than 4 years ago | (#31154458)

Me thinks this is simply a ploy to keep people on existing, non-700MHz technology for their phone plans, so that Verizon can avoid "open network" devices for a longer time period. Essentially, wether or not your device, that you acwuired from a non-Verizon source, has ANY voice network chip in it other than strictly LTE, then Verizon could refuse it on their network, or refuse to allow the device you bought from them on someone lese's network...

VoIP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31149856)

Why not use VoIP for voice services? That's trivial over a data network.

Re:VoIP (3, Insightful)

zero0ne (1309517) | more than 4 years ago | (#31149886)

If they used VoIP, they wouldn't be able to justify the price they charge the end users.

Re:VoIP (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#31150040)

Who says they have to justify? Not a lot of alternatives out there.

And they do VoIP on the back end ...

Re:VoIP (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31150210)

VoIP has large problems with latency. IP over wireless latency is all over the place. One tower can be 150ms the next 3000. Yet there will still be voice slots open. I know you will say go all IP. What about the *MILLIONS* of people out there with working cell phones who could give a crap about IP? They are in a bit of a pickle. They scavenged up all the slots for voice. Now they do not have enough for IP itself. Never mind the 8 different ways they have of talking over the air (all backwards compatible with the old AMPS network). LTE or WiMAX are the future (my money is on LTE due to who is going for it At&t, vodaphone, and verizon). But they do not have have (at least right now) the capital to spend on new equip. Especially when they have a depreciation sched of 5-10 years and just upgraded the whole show 3-4 years ago. They havent finished paying for the old equip yet and are upgrading when it makes sense and they think they can charge you more for it.

Just switching over to IP doesnt change their pricing model at all. The over the air cost is actually quite small (think cents per hour per hundred users). The real costs are the million dollar radios/backhaul lines. Then the tower rentals. Then all the people to support that. THEN and this is most important what the market will bare. People seem to think if it costs 2cents to make they should charge 2 cents. They are not a 'non profit' they will charge what they think they can get out of you (if its 2 cents or less they probably will not bother to do it at all). They will set their prices to the 'sweet spot'. So even if magically they go all IP they will still charge just as much. Take text messageing they literally get the over the air for free as the message is sent padded out all 0's anyway. It is the same message so the tower can see where you are at. Yet they charge what the market will bare in 15 cents to 50 cents a message.

Re:VoIP (2, Informative)

Algan (20532) | more than 4 years ago | (#31150336)

VoIP over a cell network would be a bad idea. At least in the traditional sense. Yes, it works, barely, but it's like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. The problem stems from the fact that voip infrastructures are usually designed around a mostly reliable network, that very occasionally drops entire packets. A cell network is designed to cope with an unreliable network, where bit errors are common. Everything, from codecs to protocols are designed with that in mind. Is the reason why G729 can get the same quality at 8kbps as AMR at around 12kbps. The extra bits are there for redundancy. In addition to that, you definitely want traffic shaping and QoS guarantees when doing voice. Otherwise your neighbor's porn downloads might crowd out your calls. You don't really notice that in broadband based voip installations, simply because there's usually a ton of bandwidth to go around. But a shared radio connection is an entirely different ballgame.

They will probably use packet switching (read IP) on the backend though. Once the bits are safely tucked in some fat fiber pipes.

Re:VoIP (4, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31150556)

That's the plan. LTE will use SIP with QoS to guarantee maximum latency and jitter. To all of the people saying you can't use VoIP: how stupid are you? Almost all voice calls in the western world go over packet switched networks and have for most of the last decade, and most of the last three decade in some cases. Do you think things magically get worse because those packets have an IP header? If you make a landline call anywhere in the UK or Canada, you are using VoIP.

The problem is that some of the standards for telephony services over LTE (which is an all-IP network) have not quite been finalised yet. This includes things like SMS bridges and the standards for mapping SIP addresses to phone numbers.

Re:VoIP (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#31154070)

how stupid are you?

Wait, so you're saying my personal experience using Skype at a coffee shop doesn't scale to massive international networks? Shocking, shocking I say.

Re:VoIP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31154772)

LTE will use SIP with QoS to guarantee maximum latency and jitter.

Yes, compatibility with their existing network is a must.

Re:VoIP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31156376)

... LTE will use SIP with QoS to guarantee maximum latency and jitter. To all of the people saying you can't use VoIP: how stupid are you?

I think you probably meant minimum latency.

Re:VoIP (2, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31156528)

No, I mean maximum latency. QoS guarantees a maximum latency, not a minimum latency for each packet. It doesn't need to guarantee a minimum latency; that is defined by the physical conditions of the network.

Re:VoIP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31157816)

The problem is that some of the standards for telephony services over LTE (which is an all-IP network) have not quite been finalised yet. This includes things like SMS bridges and the standards for mapping SIP addresses to phone numbers.

sip->phone number mapping can be done with dns. naptr [wikipedia.org]. are there other approaches?

Re:VoIP (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31161676)

That's not the entire problem. How does the handset find the SIP to POTS gateway, for example? Do you hard-code it in the SIM? Do you use anycast (in which case, is there some authentication to prevent spoofing)?

Re:VoIP (1)

Mulder3 (867389) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163458)

The Cellphone doesn't need to know the SS7 gateway(aka pots gateway), that's SIP proxy job... However you may ask how does the cellphone get the registar and proxy addresses, and the anwser is:or via a field in DHCP or a field in the PDP activation context..

True Story (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31149862)

My sister in law, a very attractive girl in college and unfortunatly, raised by nigger loving parents became close friends with a coalburner. Seeing no problem with this because her parents did her no favor by not educating her about the reality of real niggers, but how all niggers are magic niggers, this is what happened:

Coalburning friend asks her to take her and her buck nigger to a party because she had a car. So she actually gives this buck nigger a lift to the party. It's a college rager, everyone is drinking, her girlfriend leaves her to go smoke some black dick. She finds herself swarmed by a group of bucks totaly Muh Dikking her. One of them spikes her drink.

She wakes up in the morning on a mattress in the basement of a piss smelling apartment building. Her shoes, pants and underwear nowhere to be found. Her shirt is around her neck, her bra missing as well. No keys, cell, or purse either.

She felt somthing crusty all over her face along with a gagging awful slime in her mouth and throat. Her vagina and anus felt as if they were burning. She had been gang raped for what was later to be determined by at least 8 niggers for at least 2 hours, possibly longer.

She was able to pull her shirt down far enough to walk out to look for help. She saw a gas station 2 doors down but had to run behind the dumpster to throw up. She found her purse behind the dumpster, empty of course. She had a spare car key zipped into a purse pocket, she knew where she was and with a nasty discarded jacket she found behind the dumpster, she walked back to where the party was to get her car. It was gone, recovered a week later, tires smoked off, an empty chicken bucket in the backseat along with her jeans and underwear. They apparently used her car to drive her to the scene of the crime.

Back to the gas station to call her niggerloving dad. Suddenly, he wasn't the niggerlover he had been prior to his daughter sitting next to him with nigger jiz breath on the way to the hospital.

DNA was collected and she was given an abortion type pill to prevent her from having a zebra. No DNA matches because apparently the
criminals had never been caught by any enforcement agency yet.

Today, 10 years later, she has the worst type of STD known to man, it will never go away, but what does go away is any man who finds out she has an STD from a nigger gang bang. And if someday she finds a sympathetic man who isn't afraid to put his dick in her, he will also face the risk of catching a severe case of crank rot as well as any children she may have that will be infected.

Now, tell me how her niggerloving daddy did her any good preparing her for the real world. It was only one night but that one night ruined her for the rest of her life.

You could probably find daddy here on Chimpout today, but he paid a high price for addmission here, he paid it with one of his little girls.

Spread the word. Girls, stay away from niggers at all cost!

Re:True Story (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31150016)

LOL @ zebra

Wimax (5, Informative)

Psychotic Lab Mouse (691626) | more than 4 years ago | (#31149940)

It is worth nothing that while LTE is still in development Sprint and Clearwire have already deployed 4G services that are operational and covering 30 million people in the US. Wimax is deployed in around 145 countries worldwide. Sprint will have a 4G device in 2Q or 3Q this year, and will likely have 120 million people covered by 4G before LTE is even deployed here.

Re:Wimax (1)

zero0ne (1309517) | more than 4 years ago | (#31150086)

What are the specs on Sprints 4G?

Re:Wimax (3, Informative)

Psychotic Lab Mouse (691626) | more than 4 years ago | (#31150118)

Typical average speeds are 3-3.5 MB down and 0.5-1 MB up. Peak is around 10 MB down and 5 MB up. As I understand it they are capping up at 1 MB during the phased rollout.

Re:Wimax (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31150424)

Typical average speeds are 3-3.5 MB down and 0.5-1 MB up. Peak is around 10 MB down and 5 MB up. As I understand it they are capping up at 1 MB during the phased rollout

Umm.... is that a little b or big B? It makes a big difference (x8) and I'm assuming you used the incorrect one (though I would be delighted if you were correct).

Re:Wimax (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#31169256)

How is that 4G? That's worse than currently deployed HSDPA/HSUPA (a variant of UMTS...3G) networks, and much slower than upcoming versions.

Re:Wimax (4, Informative)

XXeR (447912) | more than 4 years ago | (#31150414)

Yep, I love my Sprint/Clear Wimax service...I get ~12Mb down / ~1Mb up pretty much everywhere I get a signal! They even already have solutions that will fall back to 3G when 4g isn't available. The coverage is definitely sparse right now (at least in my area I have to be pretty close to a major road and near the city), but they're clearly far ahead of this Verizon/LTE rollout.

Re:Wimax (2, Interesting)

dzdragonlord (1424907) | more than 4 years ago | (#31150736)

It is worth nothing that while LTE is still in development Sprint and Clearwire have already deployed 4G services that are operational and covering 30 million people in the US. Wimax is deployed in around 145 countries worldwide. Sprint will have a 4G device in 2Q or 3Q this year, and will likely have 120 million people covered by 4G before LTE is even deployed here.

But the 4g sprint's rolling out is only 10 mb/s while the 4g verizon will be rolling out will be up to 100 mb/s.

Re:Wimax (3, Interesting)

sonicmerlin (1505111) | more than 4 years ago | (#31152604)

Not true. What you're thinking of is LTE evolution, which is still being tested by carriers in other countries. Verizon's LTE is *not* 4G. From wiki: Being described as a 3.9G (beyond 3G but pre-4G) technology the first release LTE does not meet the IMT-advanced requirements for 4G also called IMT Advanced as defined by the International Telecommunication Union such as peak data rates up to 1 Gbit/s. Fortunately, LTE Advanced should be compatible with first release LTE equipment, and should share frequency bands with first release LTE. So if Verizon ever fancied upgrading, they could easily do so. Of course, with little to no competition in the US this is obviously not going to happen.

Re:Wimax (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#31169174)

In that case, Wimax available on sprint is also not 4G. Heck, from the numbers given by some posters it's in the league of networks definatelly called 3G...

Re:Wimax (1)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 4 years ago | (#31152878)

Yes, because what the mobile business desperately needs is another standards war now that 3GPP2/CDMA has bit the dust.

I'm jealous (1)

Blazarov (894987) | more than 4 years ago | (#31149974)

Having worked on LTE and LTE Advanced these last two years of my university degree, I can't wait to see and use the actual network... Well, guess I'll have to wait a bit longer to see it in Europe...

Re:I'm jealous (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31150216)

Well, guess I'll have to wait a bit longer to see it in Europe...

Not if you are in Oslo or Stockholm, for example...

http://www.telecoms.com/16997/teliasonera-launches-commercial-lte-in-stockholm-and-oslo

Re:I'm jealous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31152584)

Yes, if by "longer" you mean "shorter".

F**k Verizon (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31150026)

After the stupid 4chan "DDoS" attack and filtering: Fuck Verizon. Right in the ass.

I live in Verizon ILECland and I plan on vandalizing as much of their infrastructure as I can until I get caught.

Fuck Verizon.

Re:F**k Verizon (0, Offtopic)

baka_toroi (1194359) | more than 4 years ago | (#31150274)

Don't be stupid, anon. The filtering lasted only one or two days, it has been lifted. Sure, it wasn't the best way to handle the pseudo-issue they were having with their network, but it's not really that bad.

I hope the first LTE phone will be... (1)

ickleberry (864871) | more than 4 years ago | (#31150078)

An obscure unpopular candybar-shaped brick, preferably with a non-standard keypad and an external antenna and a kick-ass field test app pre-installed. Kinda like the Nokia 6650 [wikipedia.org], but with LTE. I'd cringe if the first production LTE phone was, for example an iPhone 4G or some Google Touchscreen phone that uses LTE to supply a continuous barrage of text based ads

Who cares... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31150332)

Current 10 Mbit/s with 3G is enough for my mobile needs at least. Even 300 kbit/s is fine most of the time for some random maps and browsing. 4G is not going to compete with 100 Mbit/s home connections everyone has anyways.

4g forces IPV6? (2)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 4 years ago | (#31150558)

According to Wiki, 4G is packet based only. It's assumed that by the time 4G is rolled out, IP4 addresses will have been exhausted. So does that mean all new 4G phones will use IP6 by default? Sounds like a good idea to me. If your going to make a move to IP6, handheld devices are the perfect place to start rolling out the new IP standard.

Re:4g forces IPV6? (1)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 4 years ago | (#31150660)

A great way to get tracked everywhere you go, too. IPV6 addresses are so easy to traceroute. And what fun!

Re:4g forces IPV6? (1)

chill (34294) | more than 4 years ago | (#31151056)

No, it means most cellphone IP addresses are NAT -- usually in the 10.x.x.x range.

Re:4g forces IPV6? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31151704)

IP-based cell phones don't necessarily have the same address space as the Internet so they could reuse all the addresses.

Re:4g forces IPV6? (1)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 4 years ago | (#31152866)

Cellular telephone systems present a large deployment field for Internet Protocol devices as mobile telephone service is being transitioned from 3G systems to next generation (4G) technologies in which voice is provisioned as a Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service. This mandates the use of IPv6 for such networks due to the impending IPv4 address exhaustion. In the U.S., cellular operator Verizon has released technical specifications for devices operating on its future networks.[30] The specification mandates IPv6 operation according to the 3GPP Release 8 Specifications (March 2009) and deprecates IPv4 as an optional capability.

Wikipedia. [wikipedia.org] Print version of Wikipedia's source. [circleid.com]

Re:4g forces IPV6? (1)

BrookHarty (9119) | more than 4 years ago | (#31152918)

Telecoms are already using NAT'ed IP's for mobiles. They are not even using normal NAT IP space due to large amount of IP's needed.

I should care? (1)

f16c (13581) | more than 4 years ago | (#31151682)

No. I don't think so. I can't afford Verizon any more so this spring I close the account and smash the phones to move to another carrier. The phones are junk and the plan costs too much. I'll get new phones if or when I choose a replacement carrier.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...