The nation’s largest telco Telstra has revealed plans to upgrade its Next G mobile network in central business districts around the nation to the Long-Term Evolution (LTE) standard by the end of 2011, introducing the ‘4G’ or fourth generation marketing term into the Australian market as it is doing so.
Australia’s current generation of mobile networks are currently known as ‘3G’ networks for the third generation of mobile technology, but operators in the US have recently adopted the ‘4G’ moniker to refer to the incoming generation of infrastructure based on the LTE and WiMAX standards.
In a statement released from the Mobile World Congress conference in Barcelona today, Telstra chief executive David Thodey said the LTE hardware, running at 1800MHz, would be installed in Telstra’s network in the CBDs of all Australian capital cities and selected regional centres by the end of 2011.
“The technology can provide many Australians with faster data speeds, high-quality video conferencing and faster response times when using mobile applications or accessing the internet,” Thodey said. “It can also help Telstra meet demand for mobile data, which is doubling every year as customers move to adopt data-hungry smartphones, mobile modems and tablets.”
The upgrade will target areas where traffic demand is most concentrated, and will be integrated with Telstra’s existing 3G HSPA+ service — which uses the 850MHz spectrum range.
Along with the upgrade, Telstra will by the end of 2011 start selling dual-mode LTE/HSPA+ mobile broadband modems, which will utilise both spectrum ranges, allowing customers to use LTE where it is available, and HSPA+ where it’s not. There will be no impact on customers who don’t wish to immediately upgrade their devices — their modems will still function as normal.
As well as deploying 4G, Telstra also plans to upgrade parts of its network “over time” with “next-generation HSPA+ technologies” — providing what the telco described as “4G-like services” using the existing 850MHz spectrum.
Telstra said it was working with chipset, network and device vendors, as well as the Global Suppliers Association and the GSM Association, to establish a “global industry group” to champion and guide the development of the 4G ecosystem at 1800MHz. Its 2011 rollout is taking place with the assistance of Ericsson, which built the Next G network, and vendors Qualcomm and Sierra Wireless.
The news is slated to push Telstra’s Next G network even further out in front of Australia’s other mobile networks when it comes to the capability of their rival offerings.
A study in June 2010 by analyst house IDC showed Telstra’s network was — on average — 60 percent faster than that of Optus, as Telstra has continually been pushing the envelope, gradually ramping from 14.4Mbps to 21Mbps, and then to 42Mbps speeds in some sections of its network — with 84Mbps on the horizon.
In comparison, neither Optus nor VHA have disclosed the peak theoretical speeds which are being achieved on their networks, and both have suffered problems over the past several years with widespread customer complaints about dropouts.
Image credit: Telstra
The perfect compliment to the NBN!
Oops, I meant “complement” there… damn fingers…
hehe totally .. fibre, 4G, a filter, Australia will have it all muhahahahhaha … wait.
Why did that article read like a paid advisement?
It’s a press-release driven news site in the main, what do you expect? And remind me how much you paid for the service?
Defensive much Renai?
I wasn’t being critical of the information, the piece just reads like a bit of Telstra propaganda you’d find on the old NWAT website. Look how great Telstra, oh yeah and everyone else sucks. On topic It’s good to see a 4G network being rolled out.
As for how much I paid for this article, I wasn’t aware you had/are a subscription service.
I don’t think you were replying to Renai there… he replies to comments in his own name.
I also don’t see why this reads like a paid advertisement. Of course it sounds like “positive” news – that’s exactly what it is! Telstra = great, everybody else = bad is pretty much the current state of mobile in Australia, anyway.
oops, my mistake, I was replying to anonymous wasn’t I, sorry Renai.
It’s a press release rewrite mate — they only give us so much info, and won’t talk much beyond that ;)
Yeah I should have figured as much. I guess my post is one of the reasons you shouldn’t post tired ;-)
Not a paid advert, just a basic rewrite of the Telstra media release (http://www.telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/media-centre/announcements/telstra-to-launch-4g-mobile-broadband-network-by-end-2011.xml)
No new analysis is probably a good thing, seeing how other news outlets have used this opportunity to give the Libs a voice in attacking the NBN. Like they hadn’t heard of LTE before and it “adds to reasons why the NBN is unnecessary” Ergh.
I would like to see how 1800Mhz comes into play. Are there any other countries using this spectrum for LTE? Is there any chance that popular handsets in the future will come with support? Will Telstra retune this to 700Mhz when the digital switchover is complete?
Like they hadn’t heard of LTE before and it “adds to reasons why the NBN is unnecessary” Ergh.
Yeah I was thinking the same thing. I strongly suspect we will see some artilcles taking this line particular from a certain paper .
Oh, and you gotta love their balls lately, not statifised with just misleading the public, they want to all out lie:
The telco giant plans to usher in the nation’s first commercial release of 4G mobile technology, the LTE (Long Term Evolution) standard, which is capable of peak download speeds as high as 150Mbps, on par with the National Broadband Network.
First of all, the peek speeds for the NBN are 1Gbps, and second, due to the very high contention nature of any wireless based technology you will never not get anywhere near the peak speeds advertised.
As usual, UK Register adds sensiablity to the arguement, as does a ARNNet.
What I find interesting in this is this debate, in attempt to draw attention away from the flaws of Wireless, Lynch hits the nail on the head here, he says:
I would take Telstra’s claims that it needs 700MHz to rollout LTE beyond CBDs lightly, I would not be surprised if it aggressively moves with its current holdings to deploy the new platform ahead of the 2013 availability of new spectrum. Simply, LTE is more spectrum efficient than current GSM and HSPA usages.
Now, I hate to point this out to Lynch, but even if Telstra are being zealous in their spectrum requirements (which I tend to agree with you that they are) the fact they are throwing around a ballpark figure of 700MHz, and the US is trying to free up 500MHz for wireless, well it makes you think doesn’t it? How much spectrum precisely, do we need to service the needs of all Australians effectively?
I’m starting to get the feeling that if we continue, sans a fixed line based Broadband Plan (such as the NBN), we’re going to roll forward mindlessly deploying 4G technologies (because they are cheaper and “more popular”), and within 20 years not only are we going to run out of spectrum, we would have completely neglected our fixed line network to the point that the value propersition of deploying FTTN in lieu of FTTP (i.e. reusing already established copper lines) will be deminished. We will also need to drasitcly take corrective action, such that an 8 year roll out such as the NBN proposes will be completely unacceptable.
If and when this happens, I’ll try not to say “I told you so.”
If you did radio telecommunications engineering, you would realise that the amount of spectrum available for 4G services would probably be able to give everyone 100mbit speeds uncongested, even in high density areas. In fact its even in the 4G standard to use much more spectrum available (which you can see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G)
Furthermore, 4G has numerous benefits over 3G (not including being able to use more spectrum)
– It can jump to different spectrum bands ‘instantly’, which is what allows 4G to download so much faster
– It has much higher spectral efficiency (that is, it is able to deliver much more bits per spectrum, i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_efficiency)
– It uses topologies much better then 3G
– It uses leveraging of spectrum to provide much better latency then 3G (this is already evident by Verizon’s deployment, which cut latency by average in half)
Also a thing to note, is that no carrier is actually deploying 4G yet. 4G standard is to provide minimum 100mbit speeds (not peak). All the carriers are currently deploying 3GPP. Its a marketing gimmick that carriers use the term 4G
The issue of course is that spectrum in almost all countries is a resource owned by governments, and the onus is on them to release it. There is further technologies, such as plasma antenna’s (already being used in military) which can deliver 7 gbits per cell http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/boffin-watch-blog/1932234/plasma-antennas-boost-wireless-speeds). This is of course why America is being smart and is pushing wireless so much, they realize that the limitations for wireless were
– Not enough spectrum being allocated
– Using outdated 3G which was a wireless network designed for voice, and not for internet (really bad efficiency with IP services)
The point is, the amount of spectrum actually being used (currently) for wireless is a complete drop in the ocean. Wireless would (normally) not be able to compete on wired for price, but against NBNCo its a real big possibility due to the fact that the capital cost of NBN (plus the fact that all the demand is in wireless) its a real issue. Currently in Australia we have 12% of households only on wireless, which grew at around ~1-2% a year, NBNCo expects that figure to be 16% in 2030, which of course isn’t making any sense
If you did radio telecommunications engineering, you would realise that the amount of spectrum available for 4G services would probably be able to give everyone 100mbit speeds uncongested, even in high density areas. In fact its even in the 4G standard to use much more spectrum available (which you can see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G)
The fact that is “probably” will be able to do it is in fact irrelevent. Until someone actually does it, in real world conditions, with complicated topography, outside of a lab, then we’ll use real world data. Real world data shows user speeds of between 7-40Mbps. Now granted, this is going to improve, and is better than ADSL2+ is currently, but how long is it going to take us to get that 100Mbps per user you just mentioned, i.e. how long it it going to take to meet the definition of 4G as it was outlined by the ITU before they revised it to include current LTE, WiMax and HSPA+ standards?
If you were doing radio telecommications engineering (are you?) you would also know there is a big diference between theoritical limits and actual achievable limits. There is noise, there is topology, there is the multipath-problem, there is shadow fading, and this is before we even get into the problems of contention.
Furthermore, 4G has numerous benefits over 3G (not including being able to use more spectrum)
– It can jump to different spectrum bands ‘instantly’, which is what allows 4G to download so much faster
– It has much higher spectral efficiency (that is, it is able to deliver much more bits per spectrum, i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_efficiency)
– It uses topologies much better then 3G
– It uses leveraging of spectrum to provide much better latency then 3G (this is already evident by Verizon’s deployment, which cut latency by average in half)
Which is all find and dandy, and why I am excited about it being deployed, aren’t you, but I still think we’re going to face an overuse and/or spectrum crisis in the next few decades. Theoritcally we might have enough, but in reality there are going to be other issues. Legacy networks (especially important as the older networks need more spectrum), people buying dedicated channels for corperate networks, hoarding of spectrum, competeting networks, FTA television expanding, etc, etc.
Also a thing to note, is that no carrier is actually deploying 4G yet. 4G standard is to provide minimum 100mbit speeds (not peak). All the carriers are currently deploying 3GPP. Its a marketing gimmick that carriers use the term 4G.
You’re a bit behind aren’t you? As linked before the ITU has revised it’s decision on 4G.
The issue of course is that spectrum in almost all countries is a resource owned by governments, and the onus is on them to release it. There is further technologies, such as plasma antenna’s (already being used in military) which can deliver 7 gbits per cell http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/boffin-watch-blog/1932234/plasma-antennas-boost-wireless-speeds). This is of course why America is being smart and is pushing wireless so much, they realize that the limitations for wireless were
– Not enough spectrum being allocated
– Using outdated 3G which was a wireless network designed for voice, and not for internet (really bad efficiency with IP services)
And if you haven’t noticed Australia does exactly the same thing. We are already pushing for Digital TV, we are already pushing to release new spectrum in 2013, and our carriers, of their own innectative, are already diving into the deployment of LTE and WiMax technologies. This does not excuse the fact that our fixed line network is one of the worse in the developed world and needs some serious attention, hence the NBN.
The point is, the amount of spectrum actually being used (currently) for wireless is a complete drop in the ocean. Wireless would (normally) not be able to compete on wired for price, but against NBNCo its a real big possibility due to the fact that the capital cost of NBN (plus the fact that all the demand is in wireless) its a real issue. Currently in Australia we have 12% of households only on wireless, which grew at around ~1-2% a year, NBNCo expects that figure to be 16% in 2030, which of course isn’t making any sense
Putting aside the NBNCo’s assumption of 16% by 2030, which I agreeseem a tad conservative, you’re right, the amount of spectrum used is a drop in the water. Hence why we should be concerned about the increasing demand for it, and why, as I stated in my original post, we need to continue to encourage investment in fixed line networks.
You may also not in my orignal post I was ambigious as the nature of the investment we need to make into fixed line networks, only that if we don’t invest it will turn out to be more cost effective to deploy FTTP than FTTN, so I don’t understand why you decided to bring up the NBN?
As a side note, how do you do italics when replying?
“The fact that is “probably” will be able to do it is in fact irrelevent. Until someone actually does it, in real world conditions, with complicated topography, outside of a lab, then we’ll use real world data. Real world data shows user speeds of between 7-40Mbps. Now granted, this is going to improve, and is better than ADSL2+ is currently, but how long is it going to take us to get that 100Mbps per user you just mentioned, i.e. how long it it going to take to meet the definition of 4G as it was outlined by the ITU before they revised it to include current LTE, WiMax and HSPA+ standards?”
Im just saying its easily possible outside of LAB conditions. Its just that more spectrum is required (as well as capital to install towers), but as with the wireless networks that are being deployed, they are upgrading gradually as demand increases
Right now in real world circumstances with just a bit of spectrum, Verizon is delivering 4G with average congested speeds of 12/4mbits, and peak speeds of around 40/12 mbits. This is their first public release (outside of a trial) btw
“If you were doing radio telecommications engineering (are you?) you would also know there is a big diference between theoritical limits and actual achievable limits. There is noise, there is topology, there is the multipath-problem, there is shadow fading, and this is before we even get into the problems of contention.”
Of course, I was just stating that the capabilities of wireless far exceed what we are currently using. Wireless will always be a congested medium. I was just making the point that we are barely scratching the capabilities of wireless. I mean even the NBN is using a shared service so it will have to deal with contention. In regards to noise and topology, thats what 4G specifically addresses since its able to jump between different spectrum’s depending on the topology of the user, which is something that 3G can’t do (so if you are at the bottom of a hill, 4G will transfer you to a spectrum which can penetrate to that area as an extremely simplified example)
“Which is all find and dandy, and why I am excited about it being deployed, aren’t you, but I still think we’re going to face an overuse and/or spectrum crisis in the next few decades. Theoritcally we might have enough, but in reality there are going to be other issues. Legacy networks (especially important as the older networks need more spectrum), people buying dedicated channels for corperate networks, hoarding of spectrum, competeting networks, FTA television expanding, etc, etc.”
This is where America is smart and is fixing all these issues
“And if you haven’t noticed Australia does exactly the same thing. We are already pushing for Digital TV, we are already pushing to release new spectrum in 2013, and our carriers, of their own innectative, are already diving into the deployment of LTE and WiMax technologies. This does not excuse the fact that our fixed line network is one of the worse in the developed world and needs some serious attention, hence the NBN.”
The problem is, and has been pointed out, Australia is in a conflict of interest with wireless regarding the NBN. The communications minister (and current government) has a really strong disposition to overcharge for spectrum licenses to protect the NBN investment
“Putting aside the NBNCo’s assumption of 16% by 2030, which I agreeseem a tad conservative, you’re right, the amount of spectrum used is a drop in the water. Hence why we should be concerned about the increasing demand for it, and why, as I stated in my original post, we need to continue to encourage investment in fixed line networks.”
No we need to do the exact opposite, we need to stop investing in wired networks so much, because its the over investment in wired networks that is going to push the price up for them so high, and as OECD (and other organisations, such as ABS) statistics have revealed, on a national basis, consumers always go for the cheapest prices
As a side note, how do you do italics when replying?
I presume you know HTML?
Okay, so for the majority of the post I’d say we’re on exactly the same page except after this point.
The problem is, and has been pointed out, Australia is in a conflict of interest with wireless regarding the NBN. The communications minister (and current government) has a really strong disposition to overcharge for spectrum licenses to protect the NBN investment
Yes, they have a conflict on Interest, but the assertion that he will overchage for spectrum licenses to protect the NBN investment was only put forward my Mr Turnbull to taint the debate. After talking to you for a while I’m actually quite concerned that someone as intelligent as yourself could fall for such an obvious politcal move.
No we need to do the exact opposite, we need to stop investing in wired networks so much, because its the over investment in wired networks that is going to push the price up for them so high, and as OECD (and other organisations, such as ABS) statistics have revealed, on a national basis, consumers always go for the cheapest prices
So we have a problem here, and I think you just nailed it, where we both need to invest in wired networks otherwise we’ll end up with service no one wants to purchase because Wireless is so much better until quite suddenly we hit a spectrum cirsis/overuse of wireless networks, but we can’t invest in wired because that will risk push up prices, speeding up the migration to wireless, bring the crisis forward even closer. Hmm… let me do the maths here…
Deetego, I may be a bit strange and hard to understand sometimes, and this often results in us debating issues here at Delimiter when (for the most part) we actually seem to be agreeing and as you put it, spliting hairs, but if you want to know why I want a Broadband Plan to happen here in Australia?
That is why. We have a crisis coming up, I can see it, just over the hozion.
Yes, they have a conflict on Interest, but the assertion that he will overchage for spectrum licenses to protect the NBN investment was only put forward my Mr Turnbull to taint the debate. After talking to you for a while I’m actually quite concerned that someone as intelligent as yourself could fall for such an obvious politcal move.
Im saying there is a conflict of interest, and looking logically at the dodgy NBNCo assumptions and Telstra releasing 4G so much faster then (anyone) has anticipated, this is a real threat. The conflict of interest exists, it normally wouldn’t so if NBN wasn’t being built at all (and fixed and wired would truly compliment themselves).
Stephen Conroy didn’t see wireless as a threat before because he didn’t expect 4G to come out before he released the spectrum for it, this changes that. Im just putting 2 and 2 together. If this does end up happening, I can see some backlash against Conroy, Malcom has already done a good job convincing people that wireless is very powerful and that our current wireless network (apart from NextG) is not that good, and the government has chosen not to invest in it at all
So we have a problem here, and I think you just nailed it, where we both need to invest in wired networks otherwise we’ll end up with service no one wants to purchase because Wireless is so much better until quite suddenly we hit a spectrum cirsis/overuse of wireless networks, but we can’t invest in wired because that will risk push up prices, speeding up the migration to wireless, bring the crisis forward even closer. Hmm… let me do the maths here…
Welcome to the world of “we need to do a CBA”. That is exactly what a CBA is. America did one with the FCC, a fully documented 500 page report with statistical evidence and whatnot. Its called the National Broadband Plan. If only we can get one done in Australia….
The wireless spectrum being overloaded in the short term (because Spectrum is not being released) can be a real issue, and that is one that is caused by the current government
Deetego, I may be a bit strange and hard to understand sometimes, and this often results in us debating issues here at Delimiter when (for the most part) we actually seem to be agreeing and as you put it, spliting hairs, but if you want to know why I want a Broadband Plan to happen here in Australia?
Lets just say we agree in a very unconventional way
Telstra releasing 4G so much faster then (anyone) has anticipated, this is a real threat.
Maybe I’m better at paying attention, but I wasn’t expecting Telstra to sit on their LTE trail for long, especially after VividWireless started making plans to expand their WiMax network to other CBDs. It is Telstra’s best interests to stay on top of Wireless game, so they will likely do anything, and everything, to defend that position.
Malcom has already done a good job convincing people that wireless is very powerful and that our current wireless network (apart from NextG) is not that good, and the government has chosen not to invest in it at all.
After the Optus and Vodafone network problems of late, I won’t give Mal the credit for this particular ruen of public opionion.
Lets just say we agree in a very unconventional way
Most definately. We appoarch the problem from completely different angles.
Maybe I’m better at paying attention, but I wasn’t expecting Telstra to sit on their LTE trail for long, especially after VividWireless started making plans to expand their WiMax network to other CBDs. It is Telstra’s best interests to stay on top of Wireless game, so they will likely do anything, and everything, to defend that position.
Yes, but as stated, Telstra 4G upgrade was very unorthodox in the sense they are using their existing spectrum. Telstra releasing 4G so soon really hit everyone on the head as a surprise. There is a difference between doing a trial, and having the spectrum required for real world situations
As a correction, I also just realized that 4G was redefined by the ITU
“and the US is trying to free up 500MHz for wireless,”
It will take them, and is planned for TEN YEARS to accompish this.
I dont know if I just misunderstood you, or you misunderstood what is meant by 700MHz
Seeing as this is the internet, I’ll assume you are wrong – but only because if I only misunderstood you then I wouldn’t have anything to write about.
In the US they use the 700MHz frequency band for LTE, since they’ve shut off analogue tv. They can consider using the 500MHz band if 700MHz becomes too congested in the future.
Telstra, and the other telcos, will move to 700MHz LTE after 2013 for our digital switchover. They’re using 1800MHz in capital cities because it’s mostly free, and low frequencies aren’t so important in dense capital cities.
When Telstra want a full national rollout of LTE, doing it at 1800MHz would be awfully painful.
Obviously Telstra is not after 700MHz worth of spectrum, nor are US telcos after 500MHz of spectrum. They’re just referring to the bands.
Okay, a fair critisism.
It appears I did misread that. It does appear that Telstra is not looking for 700MHz of spectrum but spectrum in the 700MHz band.
However, the National Broadband Plan in the US is to free up 500MHz of spectrum.
Here is a nice editional on the issue from Engadget.
And here is a more detailed outlook of their plan from Broadband.gov.
This is no big surprise, and not half as exciting as it is for those people migrating to 4G phones/modems in the US, as they are used to crappy overloaded HSPA networks (and T-Mobile has the cheek to calls it’s HSPA+ network “4G” when we already have that with Telstra here!). We already get such good speed, coverage and reliabilty with Telstra, that for most consumers I don’t think LTE is going to matter much here (at least as far as smartphones go) until the iPhone makes the inevitable jump to LTE in the US.
Still if this means higher download speeds (and hopefully higher data allowances to go with it) at a similar price, then I’m all for it. Particularly if it means we get some of the cool upcoming 4G phones the US are getting, like the Atrix.
Ahh…”4G”…the specification that reads that it gives 100Mbps download in mobile situations and 1Gbps in fixed situations.
LTE is not 4G. LTE Enhanced is “almost” 4G. Really hate how the term “4G” is misused.
Unfortunately, not anymore. The ITU revised it’s decision on the definition of 4G.
Oh excellent.
So the superior 4G spec has been dropped in favour of an inferior five-year-old solution…someone will spout a “5G” network any day now.
:o)
Yeah I heard about the downgrade of what constitutes 4G. Pretty depressing, but a big bonus for T-Mobile and other telcos wanting to re-brand their HSPA+ network.
Given Telstra already calls it’s HSPA+ network “Next G” I wonder what marketing name they are going to attach to LTE? 4G just isn’t a tacky enough name for Telstra’s marketing team surely! And “Next Next G” doesn’t really roll off the tongue :)
NextG eXtreme!
NextG Ultimate!
UberG!
FutureG!
AliG!
So many great possiblities!
Nexter G.
As Sean Parker would say: “Drop the G”
Next.
lol @ Sean Parker. Wouldn’t he say drop the “next” though?
Wait, I’ve got it, how about Or-G? :)
OMG!!
People like to get their knickers in a knot about this, but I don’t so much agree.
I think 2G, 3G and 4G best apply to describe new networks based on different network technology being rolled out, one generation being a paradigmatic shift from the previous. It works well because you can lump together multiple technologies within the same paradigm (LTE and WIMAX in this case, UMTS and CDMA2000 in the previous).
3G encompassed 384kbps to the present 42mbps. HPSA+ bears little resemblance to the data speeds on those clunky old original 3 handsets, but it’s still the UMTS network so is part of 3G.
The new, separately built LTE network has room to grow from a shaky ~50-100mbps to 1gbps and beyond, and the whole thing can and should come under the 4G umbrella.
It’s a simple way to explain to people that there are concurrent but separate networks, with different base stations and different wireless technology, and there is a hierarchy between them. Geeks will automatically want to know more information than a simple -G, so the lexicon isn’t really for them.
The whole pre-4G thing based on preconceived notions of a minimum speed annoys me.
All wonderful stuff for mobile business users. I suspect not a viable solution for low latency gaming to be able to play online games like StarCraft, WoW, etc. Fixed land lines are still king for online gaming.
Incorrect.
Fixed line is still king for almost everything…
Very true. :)
None of the MMO developers will support wireless connections. I know Blizzard don’t. Also Linden Labs won’t support it for Second Life either.
I’m not sure I would bother trying to play StarCraft II with a wireless connection … the latency would be ridiculous.
Try putting in a tech support request – if they discover you have a wireless connection, you will be promptly directed to requirements page
Minimum/Recommended system requirements for World of Warcraft
1. – Broadband Internet connection
This means the FCC’s definition of “basic broadband” i.e. minimum 4Mbps
Is the game playable over a Wireless or Satellite connection?
No, these are not supported connection types. While the game may play there are expectations of high latency, lag or disconnects involved. You can check your Internet provider’s website for their Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s) section. One such website states: “On-line games are not well suited for satellite-based Internet service due to associated latency factors.”
http://us.blizzard.com/support/article.xml?locale=en_US&articleId=21054&pageNumber=1&searchQuery=requirements
Minimum/Recommended system requirements for Second Life
Cable or DSL only
http://secondlife.com/support/system-requirements/?lang=en-US
…and if you use an Unwired.com.au wireless connection you will even have trouble authenticating at Battle.net and even if you can get in, your in-game latency will get up to 20,000 ms. Game is unplayable and you wasted a few gigabyes out of your download cap.
This is because many of the ISPs providing these services are heavy handed with their traffic management policies and these type of protocols simply do not like deep packet inspection and having its packets reprioritised.
If you can get DSL or cable to your home or business premises, why in earth would you want an unreliable and saturated wireless connection.
Telstra should know better. They once owned an entire private island in Second Life.
Latency on 4G networks is a lot lower then 3G, Verizon’s 4G network has an average latency of around 50, which is perfectly acceptable for gaming
…but not supported by the application developers. The 4 instead of the 3 makes absolutely no difference to the stance the above game developers have on this issue. They do not like or support the wireless protocols, period.
The 4 instead of 3 makes a huge difference since its a next step in technology which significantly reduces latency time (among other things)
If Blizzard wants to class 3G and 4G as the same wireless network, then that is their problem. As an example, with Verizon’s 4G deployment, they cut down the average latency time from ~50-75%. 4G also does not “drop out” like 3G does
anyway mate this is currently being discussed elsewhere – check the Blizzard and Secondlife forums.
In fact any connection that requires a stateful connection and realtime activity. eg. Client/Server applications.
The wireless compression is to blame, I believe.
To Google Sydney:
Next G: 60ms typical, range 40-120, 4.5Mbps/1.5Mbps
Telstra ADSL 2: 25ms typical, range 18-30. 18Mbps/0.8Mbps
Two months in Blackheath (upper Blue Mountains), about 150km from Sydney CBD.
Not great for FPS, but totally fine for Starcraft and Wow.
Hey everyone, I’m aware our article on this matter was a little basic; let me know if you have further questions and I’ll forward to Telstra.
I want to know if increased speed is going to mean higher data allowances for the same kind of price. Given we’ll be able to download so much data so quickly, Telstra will surely have to lift their data caps significantly if LTE is going to be considered truly “next generation”.
Telstra currently charge $70 a month for a measly 12GB just to put things in perspective.
“Telstra currently charge $70 a month for a measly 12GB just to put things in perspective.”
The BigPond Liberty 12GB is $89.95 /mth standalone plan which I am currently on.
http://go.bigpond.com/wireless/12gb/
Of course 12GB /mth usage allowance is miserly in this day and age. This is something else wireless dongle connection thingies are guilty of.
Sorry, my mistake. I was going off this page but I missed the “from” $69.95 part and “Cost per month with BigPond Mobile Broadband Multiple
Product Benefit”. Ridiculously worded as it is.
That makes their current wireless plans even more pathetic. Those caps are going to have quadruple for LTE to be taken seriously.
There is a big CAPs rave going on in Canada and the US at the moment. The regulators (FCC and CTRC) are getting into enquiries on this issue.
Yes and no additional usage charges (speed slows to 64kbps once usage allowance reached) for usage in Australia
So what we have is the pros and cons of wireless. At the end of the day it is the Internet user who must compare and make an informed decision based on what and how he/she is using the Internet for and the availability of current copper or fibre..
1. The cost /mth is high (almost double) compared to DSL or cable.
2. DSL and cable data caps are better value.
3. Many wireless connections are subject to over zealous throttling/shaping and bad traffic management policies instead of expanding their networks. eg P2P and gaming protocols et.al.
4. Certain applications don’t support wireless protocols. eg MMORPGs and 3D Virtual Worlds
Currently deep packet inspection technologies are undetectable and not declared in many ISPs non-existant “Network Management Policies”
That’s a reasonable cap for a “true” mobile device (i.e. smartphone or maybe even iPad), I think. Most of the time my phone is connected to a Wi-Fi network anyway (i.e. at home and at work) so it’s only when I’m actually on the move that I use my data allowance. I usually get < 500MB usage on my phone the way I currently use it.
Personally, I think this is how 3G/4G *should* be used – not as the ONLY data connection, but only when a Wi-Fi connection is not available. With that in mind, you don't need the huge caps/unlimited allowances that you get with fixed-line broadband.
It also helps to keep the congestion on the network down.
It also helps to keep the congestion on the network down.
And profits up. I’d say one the biggest sources of revenue for mobile carriers is excess data usage charges. Because of a little “Steam” accident I’m liable for excess usage chages of the order of $200 this month. My cap is $49 a month.
To say I’m annoyed is putting it rather mildly.
When I was with Unwired, if you went over the limit you would be throttled to 64kbps. To fix that you then have to buy additional useage at $14.95 per 1GB to unthrottle.
What about when you want to tether your phone and/or use it as a mobile hotspot? I go through 3GB every month using my iPhone 4 as a wireless access point (I had 3 people using it at the same time the other day thanks to the jailbroken app “MyWi”) and I feel massively constrained and have to always be careful about what vids and pictures I decide to look at when I’m on the move. Is this the way to surf the web? Basically it sucks being on a network that is so fast, but not being free to use it as you want.
I want my phone to be able to act as the true multi-purpose mobile device it is. 3GB is the maximum data I can get with my iPhone 4 each month. Ridiculously small amount to live on if you use the phone to its full potential.
wonderful
Is it not amazing how solid things can look with a close high res photo ?
I feel like I could mount the device pictured on a cliff face and hang off it till the cliff face erodes.
From The Consensus Understanding of the FCC’s role with respect for broadband:
As a unanimous FCC said a few weeks ago in our Joint Statement on Broadband, “Working to make sure that America has world-leading high-speed broadband networks—both wired and wireless—lies at the very core of the FCC’s mission in the 21st Century.”
http://www.broadband.gov/the-third-way-narrowly-tailored-broadband-framework-chairman-julius-genachowski.html#book3
Now here is a real clanger. IDC do not know how to measure Internet speed.
“A study in June 2010 by analyst house IDC showed Telstra’s network was — on average — 60 percent faster than that of Optus, as Telstra has continually been pushing the envelope, gradually ramping from 14.4Mbps to 21Mbps, and then to 42Mbps speeds in some sections of its network — with 84Mbps on the horizon.”
The 14.4, 21 and 42Mbps speeds they are referring is the link speed of the device. On my Wireless Network Connection Status is 42.2 Mbps and in Task Manager in the Networking tab state Link Speed 42 Mbps.
Meanwhile, in the real world Telstra plan clearly states:
Speed: Typical download speeds are from 1.1Mbps to 20Mbps in all capital city
CBDs and selected metropolitan, regional and rural areas. In other areas speed
ranges will be less. Capital CBD means within 5km of the GPO of a capital city.
Speeds vary due to factors such as distance from base station, local conditions,
user numbers, hardware and sofware configuration.
http://go.bigpond.com/wireless/?cid=ZBP_access_3_mobilebb_181010
That is why 80% of the public do not know their Internet speed!!! Frigging bean counters!!!!
Sydney CBD
Speed Test #95246799 by dslreports.com
Run: 2011-02-15 03:22:22 EST
Download: 1051 (Kbps)
Upload: 341 (Kbps)
In kilobytes per second: 128.2 down 41.6 up
Boost: 1051
Latency: 361 ms
Tested by server: 3 flash
User: anonymous
User’s DNS: bigpond.net.au
Comments are closed.