MediaG3 (MDGC)

[Fishing at Surfside]

Fleshing out what constitutes a 3G versus a 4G wireless technology is like trying to objectively quantify whether Coke or Pepsi is the superior beverage -- but for what it's worth, the UN's ITU is widely recognized as the closest thing we have to a final word (on the Gs, that is, not the colas).

They've just issued a press release stating that of six technologies nominated for IMT-Advanced (the formal name for 4G) certification, just two have emerged victorious: 802.16m WiMAX 2 -- also known as WirelessMAN-Advanced -- and LTE-Advanced. That would leave Sprint, Verizon, and everyone else currently deploying WiMAX and LTE technically false in advertising their latest-generation services as "4G," though with so many technologies crowding the 3G space, we can't necessarily blame them; heck, even EDGE and CDMA2000 without EV-DO technically qualify as 3G in the eyes of the ITU, so yeah, the situation is really just as muddled as ever.

For what it's worth, neither 802.16m nor LTE-Advanced are live anywhere in the world -- and they aren't expected to be for some time -- so whether you like it or not, the UN says you're still living a 3G existence no matter where you're located. So close!


http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/21/itu-lays-down-law-wimax-2-lte-advanced-are-4g-everyone-else-i/?asid=7aaab36a