Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Communications Wireless Networking Hardware

EDGE Can Out-Perform 3G; Here's Why 255

Posted by kdawson from the bandwidth-is-the-new-mhz dept.
goombah99 writes "Blackfriars's communications has an interesting discourse on why the practical difference between 3G and EDGE cellphone data networks is less than it appears to be based on a naive bandwidth metric. Their argument is that the user experience of TCP/HTML is much more impacted by latency, error rates, and processor speed than by bandwidth — and Edge had the edge on all three. Additionally, EDGE may consume considerably less power."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EDGE Can Out-Perform 3G; Here's Why More

EDGE Can Out-Perform 3G; Here's Why

Comments Filter:

  • Is this article sponsored by Apple? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Corporate Troll ( 537873 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @05:48AM (#20992887) Homepage Journal
    Or some other iPhone lover? ;-)

  • The latency issue is for real (Score:4, Informative)

    by allcar ( 1111567 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @05:52AM (#20992897)
    When performance testing web applications, I typically find that latency does indeed have a very significant impact. Obviously some types of application are more susceptible than others. Bandwidth is critical in data intensive applications. Latency is much more important in highly interactive applications. Rich Web 2 applications, making lots of (Ajax) calls to the server for small amounts of supplementary data are badly hit by latency problems.

    • Re:The latency issue is for real (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Saint Fnordius ( 456567 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @06:07AM (#20992955) Homepage Journal
      Translating into "layman's terms", EDGE is more responsive than UMTS or HDSPA, but the 3G protocols are better at shovelling huge files up and down the stream. That means that lots of small data like an IM client will feel faster on EDGE, but downloads and video will be faster on UMTS/HDSPA.

      I can accept that argument. If this is true, then Meebo would be faster on EDGE; but YouTube faster on UMTS. Using my cell phone as a modem (no DSL in my neighbourhood), I can say that my experience has been pretty much like that, though I thought it was due to longer "handshaking" at the beginning of a UMTS connection...
      • I already thought it was in layman's terms all :P
        • That'll learn me to use smily faces that involve the less than sign and then a greater than sign later in the post..

          I already thought it was in layman's terms? More layman than UMTS and HDSPA anyway :p This is assuming that your average layman has played Counter-Strike, and so knows that latency > all :P"

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by allcar ( 1111567 )
        Thanks for all those "layman's terms", like UMTS and HDSPA.

      • Re:The latency issue is for real (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @08:11AM (#20993599)
        That's just plain wrong.

        HSDPA latency is significantly lower than for UMTS, thanks to a couple of enhancements (Lower TTI, HARQ, etc). There's been a major effort to reduce latency in the 3G/3.5G systems in order to make VoIP viable.

        http://www.umts-forum.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,1632/Itemid,12/ [umts-forum.org]

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by drew ( 2081 )
          So you're saying that once I upgrade to a 3G cellphone, my network performance should be high enough to support real time voice communication with other people? I can't wait!
      • So why not have 2 chips in the phone. Use one network when you want to stream huge video files to the phone, and the other for all the smaller downloads, which require less latency. Granted I think that on a mobile device, the need for low latency outweighs the need for higher throughput. If you want video on your phone, just have a SD card, and download the video from your home internet conneciton. I got a new iPod Nano Video, and I have no problem loading the videos and music on in the morning before

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Mike Buddha ( 10734 )
        Translating his article into layman's terms would be useful if his article wasn't pure crap. I have EDGE and 3G (HSDPA) phones that I use with the same account on AT&T's network. Hands down, HSDPA has lower latency. His 'Arguments' are pure crap. The battery issue is the only thing he mentions that holds any water, and it's really not that noticeable. If you charge your phone every night, does it matter if it has one bar left or two bars left?

        I use a Cingular 3125(EDGE), a Samsung Sync(HSDPA), and a Sam

  • Diggdot? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @05:56AM (#20992911)
    So one guy who owns an iPhone (and Apple stock) writes an argument, based on his own limited experiences with an iPhone and a Nokia, without any precise measurements, concluding that EDGE is better for mobile web browsing than 3G.

    Submissions to "articles" like these are making Slashdot look more and more like Digg. I don't know about the rest of you but in my opinion, that's a Bad Thing.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by jellomizer ( 103300 ) *
      Well for some odd reason everyone thinks Apple uses the latest and greatest technologies in their products... Apple doesn't they use tried and tested technology they are rarely on the latest and greatest Processors and Video cards and displays... (I am sure the iPod touch/iPhone touch display technology has been out for years) Apple most likely went with the EDGE for 2 reasons. 1. Less Power Consumption, if you I phone couldn't keep a day charge then people won't like it... 2. Availability if the iPhone on
      • Why did you qualify your statements with Apple "most likely" went with EDGE for 2 reasons? Jobs has been crystal clear on why they chose EDGE. You summed it up nicely. Everything in life is about tradeoffs. In a rare mistep, Apple chose the wrong tradeoff with the iPhone (IMHO). Does anybody really want longer battery time at the expense of slower data transfer? I know I don't (but bought the phone anyway).

    • So one guy who owns an iPhone (and Apple stock) writes an argument, based on his own limited experiences with an iPhone and a Nokia, without any precise measurements, concluding that EDGE is better for mobile web browsing than 3G.

      Clearly you didn't bother to RTFA. The author makes the argument that while 3G networks have more bandwidth than EDGE (they can transfer data at a faster rate), that higher bandwidth comes at a cost of higher latency (the time it takes for the transfer to begin) and more power c

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by oliderid ( 710055 )
      Before:
      "A mouse with one button is better than a mouse with two buttons."

      Now:
      "Edge is better than 3G"

      Mac fans look sometimes a bit errr...fanatic :-)

    • Submissions to "articles" like these are making Slashdot look more and more like Digg. I don't know about the rest of you but in my opinion, that's a Bad Thing.
      thumbs down...
    • Of course, you just misrepresented what the guy actually notes in his article, but one other thing about EDGE vs 3G: a lot of the time, I get solid EDGE connections with good throughput, where the 3G guys are waving their phones around trying to get ANY connection whatsoever.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by jrockway ( 229604 )
        That doesn't make any sense. In the US anyway, 3G HSDPA degrades to EDGE and then down to GPRS data.

  • This may be true... (Score:3, Informative)

    by reidconti ( 219106 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @05:56AM (#20992915)
    ... but my iPhone is still slow as hell doing anything on EDGE.

    It was well worth the (lower) price, as 400 is what most of my phones have cost, and they last me a long time, but I get the feeling I won't have this one for very long if the 3G version comes out soon :)
    • my iPhone is still slow as hell doing anything on EDGE

      Just as a quick test, Redhat [redhat.com] takes 48 seconds to load fully on my 3G M600i, and 11 seconds on my ADSL2 line at home.

      How long does your iPhone take to load the same site?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Curmudgeonlyoldbloke ( 850482 )
        Some more numbers...

        90 seconds on an Xda Orbit (Windows Mobile 6, GPRS only SIM card)
        20 seconds on a Blackberry 8800 (GPRS only SIM card)
        (and about 13 for me with Firefox and Noscript via ADSL)

        What's going on here isn't that RIM have some magic beads that make GPRS 4 times faster - different pages are getting served to each device. Redhat serves something pretty close to the "full" page (the same as the PC browser gets), whereas the Blackberry doesn't get sent the graphical tabs arrangement at all (although

        • Re:This may be true... (Score:4, Informative)

          by Tack ( 4642 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @08:51AM (#20993905) Homepage
          11 seconds on my BB 8300. RIM's magic beads involves recompressing images in transit. But your speculation that BB doesn't get served up the graphical tabs isn't quite the right perspective. What's really happening is that the tabs are rendered using certain CSS properties that BB doesn't fully support. So BB receives the same page and css, it just processes it differently due to its incomplete CSS support, so it doesn't end up requesting the background images used to build the tabs.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by meepzorb ( 61992 )
          redhat.com took 19 seconds on an HTC Mogul (Sprint/EVDO, Windows Mobile 6, using the vanilla IE Mobile browser).
      • I'm currently up to 2.5 minutes and I'm still counting.

        iPhone is pretty useless for browsing websites outside wifi zones.

        btw. WTF have redhat done to their page that takes so long?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by nxtw ( 866177 )
        It took me 21 seconds on my Samsung SGH-i607 Blackjack, using HSDPA & the Opera browser set to desktop rendering mode (so it shows the same page as desktop Opera would)

        It didn't start downloading until 5 seconds into that for some reason, and it was browseable after 16 seconds or so.

        (The page took about 4 seconds to load on my ADSL line)
      • Took about 17 seconds on a Nokia 6120 over 192Kbps UMTS (I have HSDPA disabled, enabling it would not increase the transfer speed but it would decrease the latency, also, it cuts battery life in half)
      • Samsung Blackjack with 3G... too bad they haven't implemented 3G in the Twin Cities. So I'm on EDGE.

        The first two times I tried loading the page I got to 34KB and my phone stopped loading, so I reset it and now it hangs at 33KB. I have had nothing but problems with this POS and I'm very close to just out right paying AT&T the 200 to get off my contract and go elsewhere. Although I have no qualms about blaming it on AT&T's shoddy network.

        Tried loading the page after killing all apps, gets to 152K

      • It took me about 2 seconds to navigate to a new browser page. Then about 2 seconds to type "redhat". The page loaded in under 4 seconds. But then again, I'm using 10mbs wireless from my apartment. Which is the whole point of the iPhone offering WiFi.... Edge is a (painfully slow) alternative for those times there is no WiFi signal. Jobs has made it pretty clear that EDGE is not intended to the primary data network.
      • Not an iPhone, but Redhat.com takes 8 seconds to load on my 3G EVDO Motorola Q, as long as I'm using the Opera browser.

        That's definitely not cached, as I've never visited Redhat.com, and I'm using the "Desktop" view, so all images are being loaded.

  • Misleading title? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MoonFog ( 586818 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @05:56AM (#20992919)
    To me, it seems the author is concerned about one thing: Web browsing. Problem is, off course, that most of the advantage from 3G comes from other services such as wathing video or video chat on the phone. In Norway, we can watch football (soccer) games over the phone, something the 3G phones handle a lot better than Edge ones. 3G network is put out there to give us these kinds of services. This article, on the other hand, only talks about TCP connections and HTTP. This isn't a case of Edge outperforming 3G in all aspects, just that it appears (he doesn't mention how he measures this) faster browsing regular HTML web pages.
    • He compared it with his other phone supposedly, an Nokia E61i, and he feels the iPhone faster.
            Not much base for a scientific comparison, but I would tend to accept its conclusion (pending my own testing of the devices :D). As for high bandwidth, sequential transfers... I don't know, but you seem to have at least as good an opinion on those as the article writer has on that web speed.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Professor_UNIX ( 867045 )

      Problem is, off course, that most of the advantage from 3G comes from other services such as wathing video or video chat on the phone.

      Video chat on a cell phone!? What's next, you're going to want to use it as a camcorder and send movies via SMS? I suppose you've got an instant messaging application, 3G, user-customizable ringtones, Bluetooth data transfer, and replaceable battery on your fancy-shmancy European chic phone too right? These things are superfluous on a revolutionary communications device

    • Re:Misleading title? (Score:5, Informative)

      by zoney_ie ( 740061 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @07:37AM (#20993389)
      3G is rubbish here in Ireland, where people desperate for broadband have bought 3G data modems for internet access. The problem is that the system is not very scalable, and it is too expensive and slow for the operator to upgrade capacity to provide more service. The bandwidth they advertise for example (as "up to 3 Mbs") is shared for each cell - so even just two people using it solidly means half the bandwidth - but in city areas it means that the conditions can be worse than fixed-line dial-up.

      From what I gather, EDGE is nice and cheap and can be more easily scaled. I believe O2 are now planning to roll it out in Ireland despite having a 3G network already.

  • Skip 3G for 3.5G (Score:5, Informative)

    by jettoblack ( 683831 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @05:59AM (#20992929)
    My personal experience in Japan over the past 5 years has shown that 3G does little or nothing to address latency issues, but 3.5G (aka HSDPA/HSUPA or together just HSPA) has made a huge breakthrough in cellular latency.

    I have used data services via 2G (9600bps), PHS (32-128kbps), 3G (384kbps), and now 3.5G (3.6-12mbps). While the bandwidth has gone way up and monthly charges have gone way down, everything before 3.5G had horrible latency (400-900ms), not to mention ridiculous fees (think $20/MB or more).

    Now I use a 3.5G (HSDPA) cellular data service called eMobile which sprung up just over the past few months. I get about 300KB/s (bytes not bits) down and 100ms latency, unlimited use for about $50/month. Not quite as fast as the gigabit fiber I have at home for $40/month, but it certainly works well enough for a snappy browsing experience, and WoW and FPS games are perfectly playable.

    • Isn't most '3G' 3.5G anyway? Certainly is here... It's just marketed as the same. Certainly my N95 comes up as 3.5G wherever it is, even when I was stuck in the middle of nowhere camping..

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by jrumney ( 197329 )

        Isn't most '3G' 3.5G anyway? Certainly is here...

        Maybe if here is the US, where conversion to 3G has lagged. In Europe and Japan the networks are still upgrading their old UMTS equipment, and a lot of 3G handsets were sold that are not HSDPA capable, or have that capability disabled due to inability of the network to test it properly at time of release.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fons ( 190526 )
      I totally agree.

    • aka HSDPA/HSUPA or together just HSPA

      Ah, I was eagerly waiting for the merger of those two technologies under the name HSDUPA, and the bastards decided to go with the shorter name HSPA. They've lost such a chance of the century on the name of technology that actually sounds like what it does [www.dict.pl] ;)

      Robert

    • Re:Skip 3G for 3.5G (Score:5, Funny)

      by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) * on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @09:02AM (#20994055) Journal

      the gigabit fiber I have at home for $40/month
      I just bit through my coffee mug.

  • Useless article. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by NeuralAbyss ( 12335 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @06:01AM (#20992933) Homepage
    EDGE smedge. Try using HSDPA.. it royally kicks the arse out of EDGE or UMTS. Downloading at 3mbps whilst in a train at 80km/h.. I don't think that comes anywhere close to the "user experience" of EDGE.

    The article doesn't cite /any/ real-world statistics to back up the arguments.. sounds like a load of iHype to me.

    • Real world conditions. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by jsiren ( 886858 )
      What I want to know if $MOBILE_DATA_PROTOCOL is still usable once the train is doing 200 km/h in the middle of nowhere.


      (The good thing about 200 km/h is that the tunnels around here don't last long enough for connections to time out...)

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by itsdapead ( 734413 )

        What I want to know if $MOBILE_DATA_PROTOCOL is still usable once the train is doing 200 km/h in the middle of nowhere.

        I'm from the UK you insensitive clod!

        "Real world conditions" is that the train is stopped in the middle of nowhere because the rail system is being run at 150% capacity and if one train has to slow down (because, e.g. some slippery leaves have fallen on the track; its a bit windy; its a bit sunny; we've had the "wrong type of snow" or the embankment has collapsed because the cut down a

  • Bullshit (Score:4, Informative)

    by RzUpAnmsCwrds ( 262647 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @06:03AM (#20992945)
    UMTS/HSDPA can easily hit 700kbps, as can CDMA2000 1x EV-DO. EDGE hits 180kbps on a good day. On a REALLY good day.

    The "error" argument is bullshit. All digital cellular technologies have extensive error correction.

    Streaming media (Verizon/Sprint/AT&T all have services), downloads, and pretty much everything else benefits from more bandwidth. There is absolutely ZERO way that your browser is going to get slower because you have a faster network link, unless your browser is a piece of crap. Your browser may not get much faster if it's CPU constrained (pages don't load any faster on my 770 using the 15Mbps campus network instead of 1.5Mbps DSL), but it's certainly not going to trip the browser up or any garbage like that.

    As for battery life, yes, UMTS/HSDPA takes more power. You also spend less time downloading, because it's faster.

    T-Mobile doesn't have UMTS/HSDPA in the US right now, so I use EDGE every day - on my phone or on my laptop. EDGE is slow and has horrible latency. There's simply no other way to slice it.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by clonmult ( 586283 )
      Sure, it takes more power, but not a significant amount.

      I've gone through this on two distinct 3G phones - Nokia N73 and an SE K800i. Switching 3G off on either doesn't make a significant improvement on battery life.

      And the browser on the 770 is painfully slow at times! Still love it as a handy little toy though :)

    • As for battery life, yes, UMTS/HSDPA takes more power. You also spend less time downloading, because it's faster.

      An interesting test would be to have a list of 1,000 websites to visit, then embark with two different phones with similar battery lifespans. Record how many websites on the list you get through before the battery runs completely dead. Even though 3G takes more power, the time you save awaiting downloads probably makes up for it in "real world" usability. But then again, maybe it isn't THAT

  • Arguing backwards (Score:3, Insightful)

    by don.g ( 6394 ) <don&dis,org,nz> on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @06:12AM (#20992979) Homepage
    The iPhone is superior. The iPhone uses EDGE. Therefore, EDGE is superior.

    Which is a load of crap. UMTS does need more power than 2G GSM (don't know about EDGE), and latency isn't wonderful -- but no worse than EDGE.

    Radio protocols designed to run IP (even WiFi) have forward error correction (i.e. ability to cope with noise) to reduce dropped packets and thus keep TCP happy.

    Why are blog posts of people who don't know what they're talking about ending up on the slashdot front page?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by AceJohnny ( 253840 )

      Why are blog posts of people who don't know what they're talking about ending up on the slashdot front page?

      To provoke discussion within the (sometimes) better informed slashdot crowd.

      With these kind of articles, I regularly read up the comments before the article itself, and most of the time I get a better picture of reality through a couple of highly-moderated comments.

      Though for every good +5 comment, I find two crap +5 comments.

      So which one's yours? ;)

    • why are blog posts of people who don't know what they're talking about ending up on the slashdot front page?
      a) because anything about Apple, AT&T and iAnything is guaranteed to create lots of traffic for slashdot
      b) "IF" the story claims are true (doubtful), the findings go against common knowledge, which makes for good conversation
      c) slow news day?
  • Don't 3G phones fall back to 2G (GPRS) when they can't get a 3G signal? Would it not be possible offer EDGE (sometimes refered to as EGPRS) and 3G, and let the user decide on a case-by-case basis (if they want to; don't force them to) which one they want to use.

    I mean, if I want to view a simple webpage, I could use EDGE. If I want to download a song or a video, then 3G would be the better option.

  • Has the author of TFA even used 3G? (Score:4, Informative)

    by MikeyVB ( 787338 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @06:18AM (#20992997)
    Because here in the Netherlands I recently got a 3G phone (Sony Ericsson W880i) and included with my subscription is ~9 channels of televsion. My TV is streamed over the 3G connection, and only buffers for about 3 seconds when I switch channels, with stereo sound too. No artifacts or funny business even with low signal strength, nor switching between cell towers (I only use the TV when travelling to and from work on the train)

    Also in my subscription is a couple of free songs that I can download using the 3G. I have any downloaded song within a minute. Web browsing (on Opera Mini, with HTML and NOT mobile pages) feels nearly as fast as my computer at home. Can EDGE, at only 0.2 Mb do that????

    Of course, maybe it does, as I have never used EDGE, but at least would try BOTH technologies before I claim one is better than the other.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by fsmunoz ( 267297 )
      The article is a post-factum justification for the iPhone, nothing more. If the iPhone uses EDGE, then OMG I'll find some way to make EDGE better! You want TV channels in your phone, as by now common in Europe? I'm sure the guy will say that since the iPhone doesn't have it seeing TV on a phone is actually a Bad Thing that nobody should want, it's actually a "feature": "iPhone: now with No Eye Stress advanced technology, protects the eyes by deflecting rapid changing images in stream form!".

      It's pathetic

  • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Ooh, nice analogy! But of course, you have to include a car reference since this is slashdot. The Ford EDGE outperforms all the other Crossover vehicles in it's segment, even though it has no alliance to AT&T or Apple.

  • Yearly 'better' standard (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @06:39AM (#20993083) Homepage Journal
    Well, i guess it keeps people buying new stuff each year to avoid the fear of having an obsolete brick. Since we all know they cant get us wth genuinely better products.

    If they could build in a 'obsolescence' function where consumer electronics would just self destrcut after so many hours of use they would. The manufacturers are a victim of their own success in cost cutting and reliability.

  • Lovely (Score:3, Funny)

    by ArAgost ( 853804 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @06:41AM (#20993095) Homepage
    I like the "High bandwidth radio networks are more error-prone" part. It's so full of evidence, data, and accurate reasoning that you just can't help but agree with it.

  • At least one glaring incorrent point (Score:4, Insightful)

    by marvinglenn ( 195135 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @07:01AM (#20993185)

    FTFA: "Power consumption of any chip increases according to the frequency squared."

    Wrong. The power consumption is proportional to the square of the voltage, not the frequency. If you double the frequency, you only double the current, not quadruple it.

    Other points in TFA may be correct. I don't know.

    IAAEE. (I am an Electrical Engineer.)

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by jm1234567890 ( 888822 )
      But if you double the current don't you quadruple the power? P = I^2 * R

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Andy Dodd ( 701 )
      In addition, the limiting factor in terms of operational (i.e. transferring data) battery life of a phone is almost always not the CPU, but the radio. Regardless of whether the signal processing scheme uses any more power, CDMA-based modulation schemes (such as UMTS - yes, 3G/3.5G GSM uses a CDMA modulation scheme, even though it is not part of Qualcomm's CDMA2000/cdmaOne protocol suite.) require a linear (inefficient) transmit power amplifier, while the GMSK-based modulation scheme used for GSM/EDGE could

  • Some Practical Experience (Score:3, Informative)

    by SwashbucklingCowboy ( 727629 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @07:34AM (#20993365)
    Having used both EDGE and 3G (I'm posting this over an EDGE connection), I can say with great certainty that 3G beats the crap out of EDGE.
  • I have a motorola razor v3xx wich is 3g (the 3.6mbps version) and I can select the networks manually. I get faster speeds on edge then I do on 3g. I don't know why but I do. I think its because att doesnt really care about 3g.
  • What I want out of my mobile "phone" is streaming. Streaming audio/video, mainly audio: Internet radio. For low-latency, the basic voice protocol is what's important. Streaming doesn't need low latency, or any of those other EDGE features - it needs the higher bandwidth of 3G. And though it consumes power, that's consequent of any app that that delivers steady content to my terminal.
    • Correction.

      EDGE doesn't have low latency. EDGE is a high latency protocol. EDGE typically has latencies over 1000 ms when the connection is loaded.

      There is no way in which 3G is inferior to EDGE. This is someone's attempt at implementing the proprietary Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field.

      3G > EDGE, for everything (Voice, Data, Streaming, Interactive, Non-interactive, Downloads, Porn, Whatever).

  • HSDPA is heaven (Score:4, Interesting)

    by wikinerd ( 809585 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @08:27AM (#20993709) Journal

    I have used both EGPRS (2.75G 236kbps) and HSDPA (3.5G 3.6mbps and 1.8mbps), as well as plain GPRS (2.5G 53kbps) and UMTS (3G 384kbps), and according to my personal subjective observations: GPRS sucks big time even for browsing, EGPRS is not very different than UMTS in terms of speed but appears to have lower latency, UMTS really sucks because of too much latency, and HSDPA is heaven, as it has much lower latency than UMTS and much higher bandwidth.

    In plain user's terms, according to my experience: With GPRS I can read some pages specially made for mobile devices (eg WAP) and I actually do use it sometimes to quickly read some BBC or other news on my phone while I'm standing in a bus, etc. But when I get only GPRS signal on my laptop then I cannot really do anything except some SSH. I have used EGPRS only briefly, but I can say it's satisfactory both for browsing and for SSH, but not for downloading or uploading. UMTS is not very satisfactory for SSH (high latency), but downloading is so-so (uploading still not good), and Web browsing is usually ok. HSDPA is perfect, as it is very good at SSH (lower latency than UMTS) and Web browsing, and also very good at downloading and uploading as well: You can actually be in the middle of the sea on a ship and transfer all your server backups or download a GNU/Linux distro and burn it while you are on an island or a mountain - provided there is coverage and you have enough batteries with you in your backpack or trolley. You can even use a 3G router to connect your LAN to the mobile network as a backup in case your DSL fails.

    I actually many times work out of my home office thanks to mobile networks. I pack a laptop and lots of batteries in a backpack or convertible trolley bag, get a ship, and go to explore various islands while working over the 3G connection. I have even mapped the most significant network blackspots in my usual destinations so that I can avoid them. This mobile lifestyle wouldn't be possible without 3G.

  • From the post...

    But the question left unasked as been, "Does 3G really improve the user experience dramatically?" Most pundits would reply...

    Well, given that the author seems to have little or no experience with day to day 3G use I'd say this might be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

    Yes, wireless is as much about latency as it is bandwidth. Broadband wireless latency is not as good as it should be.

    Here are some general real world metrics for 3G: latency ~ 300ms Download: 800 - 900 Kb/s Upload: 20

    • video is out of the question (although you tube has been able to decimate their clips enough for iPhone use).
      Well, which is it then? You can't say it isn't possible, then qualify that with saying it is possible as long as it is crappy. For the record, YouTube videos look better on the iPhone, because the limited resolution hides the massive amounts of artificats present on a 20" (and bigger) screens.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Zebra_X ( 13249 )
        I didn't say that it wasn't possible. It is - but the end user experience is not that good. I was lumping streaming audio and video together.

        YouTube is more of a file download than "streaming" in the truest sense of the word.
    • I think you may even be underselling 3G.

      Here, with either my EVDO Rev0 phone, or EVDO RevA USB card, I get latencies between 50-150 ms. Downloads easily in the 1500 kbps, and uploads in the 1000 kbps range.

      In downtown chicago, both go nearer to 600 kbps; but the latency is still excellent, and everything is vastly, vastly better than EDGE.
  • The problem with cellular data technologies is that a lot depends on the implementation. There are so many factors involved in the reliability, latency and bandwidth available (not least of which is interference on particular wavelengths) that unless you're doing a controlled laboratory test with your own controlled equipment, then quite frankly the results you get are going to be incredibly varied.

    My suspicion is that the author of the article tested in a location where interference on the EDGE "channels"
  • I refuse to buy a phone that's locked in to one carrier. If it doesn't support SIM cards and let me use it wherever I go, I'm not getting it. If a carrier doesn't support GSM, then I don't support them.

  • The title of this is wrong (Score:5, Informative)

    by cdhowe ( 738664 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @09:36AM (#20994475)
    I'm the author of the original article on Blackfriars Marketing, and the title of this thread is misrepresenting that article. The original title is "Why EDGE versus 3G matters less than you think.", not why EDGE is getter than 3G. I've posted a followup to the article today here [blackfriarsinc.com]. It's not nearly as inflammatory as implied here.
  • I switch from being a longtime EDGE user to basic 3G (just plain UMTS, no HSDPA) on a Nokia N75 device. I'm able to switch back and forth at will for testing. The bottom line is that UMTS gives me double the bandwidth and less than half the latency. Better all over. I haven't tried HSDPA, perhaps that in particular is the problem. It has much higher transfer rates than plain UMTS and EDGE, and I have no idea what the CPU usage or latency is like. Mostly, I use EDGE/UMTS for four things:

    1) Very rarely,
  • Latency?

    Has the author _EVER_ used an EDGE network?

    Latencies over 1000 ms are not uncommon. On EVDO RevA, Latencies under 100 ms are expected.
    3G Wins

    Battery Drain?

    For any given quantity of data, EDGE will take an order of magnitude longer to transfer it. As such, the radio is transmitting/receiving 10x as long. Also, he's assuming some sort of theoretical, 100% efficient (per information theory) protocol is being used on EDGE, which is far from the case. Newer protocols are actually more efficient, not less
  • Ever tried using high speed internet over a line that has a lot of noise in it? Up until I replaced the wiring in my house, there were many times I saw my 6 Mbps DSL line drop to speeds painfuly slower than dialup. Remember back with analog cell phones, how awful the quality was? Okay, different technology, but I am trying to go somewhere. You got static, you got echos, it was awful. Digital cell phones have dramatically improved quality, but have you ever talked to someone while they were driving or someth
  • Haven't followed the latest EDGE specifications closely, but AFAIR GPRS and EDGE are limited to either sending and receiving data, or having an active voice connection. So no looking at an incoming mail or at some document while you're talking. UMTS allows both data transmission and voice circuits to be active concurrently.

    I don't have practical experience with EDGE, but latency on GPRS just blows, compared to UMTS.
  • i could have sworn that i recently read about a enhanced EDGE system from ericsson.

Slashdot Top Deals

I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"

Close