3G - what it really stands for : Simon Perry: Schemes, dreams & trivia

It's for bashing the dust out of the mattress. (Jack Tweed)

3G - what it really stands for

4th April 2003 by Simon

I heard the other week what 3G really stands for — Girls, Goals and Games. To clarify — it’s the type of content that teleco’s are hoping will be successful.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

Possibly

Posted in Toys, Wireless, Trivia, Irreverent, Gaming | Word count 30 Post ID 212 | 1,117 Views |

(No Ratings Yet)

Loading ...

4 Responses to “3G - what it really stands for”

on 04 Apr 2003 at 11:23 am Simon Perry

I’m with you on the scepticism on 3G and I found it pretty telling that the only things that are being touted as possible successes were those 3G’s.

The only G I differ with you on is the Girls. When people get the urge, they will use anything as a prop to help themselves on the way to their bliss. I also think the porn industry will adapt their content for the format - they’re pretty smart.

I agree that WiFi is a threat to 3G, this was amplified by the Microsoft announcement on a CE-based VoIP solution.
on 04 Apr 2003 at 11:24 am realradix

I’ve heard this said, but I remain sceptical if these are what will drive 3G.

Girls - if you get your kicks from PDA sized screens…

Goals - if you are a real fan you would be at the game or at least in the pub. If you are really stuck, GPRS offers enough bandwidth to download or stream video clips. And don’t mention WiFi hotspots…

Games - PDAs/high end mobiles will use the same OS and hardware as the 3G phones. How will the games be better?

I’m not knocking 3G (no doubt I will get a 3G enabled phone at some point) but the pull will have to come from somewhere else: seamless net lifestyle? location based services? broadband TV on demand?

I haven’t worked that part out yet, but it looks like I’m not alone here.
on 05 Apr 2003 at 1:02 pm realradix

Okay, I will concede slightly on “Girls”. However, this again is a telecoms industry cop out, since they are leaving it the porn business to figure out.

VoIP + WiFi could be an interesting feature, when covered by a GSM fallback connection, for both at home and in towns. Time to throw away your landline phone?
on 05 Apr 2003 at 4:23 pm Simon Perry

I went to SXSW a few weeks back and interestingly there was lots of talk about getting disparate wireless protocols working together to achieve the kind of hand-off between them, without loss of connection, that you’re talking about. I think wires, be they copper or fibre, as a means of distribution to fixed points will continue to make sense, but the need to tether devices to that fixed point will be minimised.

I imagine we’ll get to a point where you connect to different wireless devices (2.5G, 3G, WiFi, etc) operating on different protocols via your PAN (Bluetooth, ZigBee, and faster, yet to be invented ones). These different bits of kit may eventually morph into a single expandable device that handles all of your communications.

High speed everything will be available, but it will cost. So, economics will dictate the need for self-defined profiles which specify your network usage preferences depending on the type of traffic being carried (need for urgency, QoS, etc).

Clearly one of the big problems with mobile WiFi is the huge amount of power that the clients current use. Hopefully this will improve as chipsets develop. This is when the bottom will fall out of the traditional voice-telecom market.