GSM/EDGE-only subscriptions represent the largest share of mobile subscriptions today (over 85% of the world’s population). In developed markets there has been rapid migration to more advanced technologies, resulting in a decline in GSM/EDGE-only subscriptions. Despite this, GSM/EDGE will continue to represent a large share of total mobile subscriptions. This is because new, less affluent users in developing markets will likely choose a low-cost mobile phone and subscription. In addition, it takes time for the installed base of phones to be upgraded. GSM/EDGE networks will also continue to be important in complementing WCDMA/HSPA and LTE coverage in all markets.
I live in one of the richest countries on earth, and supposedly we have 100% coverage for 3G from all three major carriers. The truth is, however, more muddied. The town where I live technically has T-Mobile 3G, but only the very lowest quality, resulting in T-Mobile customers (like me) effectively never having a 3G connection in town. Interestingly enough, the moment I leave town – literally the moment I cross the road that marks the end of town – I magically have a perfectly stable 3G connection all the way to the coast (about 4km away).
Those 4km consists almost exclusively of cow pastures and uninhabited coastal sand dunes.
So please, developers, take 2G into account. Even in developed nations, there are many people who ain’t getting more.
Wow 2G!?! I just spent some time in Hokkaido, Japan where, in the most remote parts, I was only able to get 3g which I found modestly frustrating.
I can’t imagine 2G!
Realistically it would be very difficult to accommodate 2g speeds in any application that makes tangible use of media; this is especially difficult on web based apps because it’s not practical to determine network performance.
Edited 2014-10-13 19:05 UTC
That’s pretty normal, Japan shut down 2G network 5 years ago.
The US is trying to shut down 2G as well. Where I live, they did a mandatory 3G upgrade as part of the move towards shutting down 2G. We were told (by Boost-Mobile) 2G will be gone “soon” here and many other places, and gone everywhere in a few years.
Really? Imagine no signal at all – because that’s what large areas around where I live are like.
Believe it or not, there’s a lot of people still using dialup for internet access too – because DSL and other broadband options just simply aren’t a reality in rural areas.
Yeah, it’s funny, but I have a smart phone for my phone, but DSL for internet. I got rid of my landline service a couple years ago, but still use the line for my DSL. Now if they could just get high-speed DSL to my house…
Cell phone connections are not an option for the internet for most people (yet/at all). They only have 3G around here, and ALL phone plans have ridiculously low limits (most right now are 2 to 2.5 GB per month before they start throttling your speed). There’s not a single “unlimited” plan from any carrier that doesn’t include throttling after you reach 2 to 3 GB in a month. That’s barely an hour of HD video off youtube or netflix… for the ENTIRE MONTH. And many phone connections make tethering (your computer to your phone connection) an option you pay even more for on top of the phone connection.
Lucky you – around here, you can’t have DSL without a landline phone number – it’s part of how the circuits are provisioned and there’s no other choice.
As such, even though I don’t pay AT&T for my DSL, I have to pay for a landline through AT&T in order to have the circuit provisioned to my house.
That sucks… I wasn’t allowed just DSL while Qwest still owned the company, but when they got bought out by CenturyLink, that changed. Actually, what changed is CenturyLink made a deal with Dish Network – Dish customers could bundle DSL through CenturyLink with their Dish account without needing phone service. I’ve had Dish for over a decade, so when they came out with this, I jumped at the chance. I got rid of my $100 dollar a month landline (which Qwest always advertised as $30 a month), got Boost-Mobile to replace it, and got $10 a month off my DSL by bundling it to my Dish account. Net savings: $60 a month at that point, up to $70 a month now as Boost-Mobile drops your monthly charge the longer you’re with them.
Most phone apps don’t need to use “media.” Advertisements should be text. Restaurant reviews don’t need pictures of the food. And I certainly don’t need a minute long video tour.
Just some examples of inappropriate use of media I’ve seen lately.
Inappropriate to you. Personally, I love having pictures of the food as part of reviews. Let’s you see what they’re talking about, helping keep the review shorter. And video tours are great for many businesses – for example, property sales or amusement parks. Limiting “media” to only certain uses is a good way to stifle innovation. Just because you think certain uses now are wasteful doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing and should be curtailed.
It should be optional. I should be able to surf the internet with lynx and get all the text information displayed correctly. Innovation is ok if it is not forced down my throat or it’s not innovation at all, I call it regression instead and rightly so.
That I’ll agree with.
I hate to load a page, only to have it prioritize pictures and/or videos, making you wait perhaps a few minutes before you can even tell what the page is about! Text should ALWAYS come first, with the option to stop loading at that point.
My previous post was just not to rule out pictures or videos altogether simply because some folks think it isn’t needed. Pictures, videos, and music can really enhance some things, and we don’t know what until someone tries. Some will fail, and others will be wonderful. But optional should ALWAYS be an option… no pun intended.
One just needs to travel around the continent to see the signal reception switching all the time between 2G, UMTS and HSDPA.
Every now and then an LTE signal might appear for a few seconds, then back to the three old friends.
Depends on where you are in Europe. I know I can get a fairly consistent 4G signal across most of southern England. Very useful when your tethered mobile ‘phone is 3x faster than the hotel WiFi.
Depends on where you are in southern England. In Cambridgeshire around six months ago, there were areas where I couldn’t even get a 2G signal that was usable for data. London and the South-East are very well served by 4G – I’ll grant you that. But elsewhere in England, 3G coverage is much spottier than the networks’ figures make them out to be. The village where I live (in the North) supposedly has 100% 3G coverage, but the only place anyone can get a decent signal is in the woods by the river.
I live on the edge of Bristol, fairly well out in the sticks, and get 4G coverage at home. I admit, that’s M4 Corridor, but it’s not limited to London & the South East as much as people think.
LTE over 800Mhz has pretty muchg killed 2G where I live.
Before, problem with LTE was that you needed tons of masts to cover a place, low frequency LTE fixes that.
I never understood why all developed nations don’t kill their 2G networks to use the frequencies for 4G. And instead choose to have said low, well-propagating frequencies occupied by 2G.
Whoever is responsible (carriers or governments), you are really doing a favor to the 5%-ers who keep their beloved brick with the “4-line display” ’till it claps out.
For the rest of the population who have to drop to 2G when they enter the ground-floor of a building though, not so much of a favor (3G doesn’t always reach the ground-floor of buildings if it’s also deployed on high-frequencies).
Edited 2014-10-13 21:20 UTC
You are calling them 5% while the article says 85%. Please explain yourself
I said developed countries. Developing countries should not end 2G service.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10000872396390443687504577567…
For example, only 12% of AT&T’s customers are 2G-only. If they give incentives to upgrade for those customers, they could easily bring it down to 5% or so, and then end 2G service. Bang! AT&T just got new low-frequency spectrum for 4G without having to actually buy new spectrum.
PS: And for whatever customers don’t take the incentives… Sorry dudes and gals, your phone is going the way of VCRs and analog-only TVs.
Edited 2014-10-14 08:58 UTC
Most of the lower cost Android phones sold in Australia are 3G only.
For voice of course. Making calls is the primary reason of existence for 2G. Offering voice on 2G is for a telecom operator 10 times cheaper in capex and opex than offering voice on 3G
And not everybody want is very happy with the very expensive data roaming tariffs when one goes abroad. If a foreigner with a 2G phone subscription only visits your country, the operator wants to be able to offer a service. The foreigner is likely to make calls and to do some texting to his home land, which is a very lucrative business for the operator
Edited 2014-10-14 08:33 UTC
Try setting your phone to 2G only and then measure battery life.
It is not a small difference, it is 4-5x times as long. Even a modern smart phone can if 3G and 4G is disabled last almost a week.
The amount of data that some apps use is a sin. Just grab what you absolutely need, when you need it from the network. I’m looking at you local radio app. Real Audio was better than you are.
To date myself, I should say that I did code applications that were transmitting data at a minimum speed of 2400 baud. The storage media were 8 k. And we liked it!
Actually no, it sucked, but occasionally did work with out many errors. POTS suck.
“I live in one of the richest countries on earth, and supposedly we have 100% coverage for 3G from all three major carriers. The truth is, however, more muddied. The town where I live technically has T-Mobile 3G, but only the very lowest quality, resulting in T-Mobile customers (like me) effectively never having a 3G connection in town. Interestingly enough, the moment I leave town – literally the moment I cross the road that marks the end of town – I magically have a perfectly stable 3G connection all the way to the coast (about 4km away).”
Yeah, and I get 4G basically everywhere I go, because I have Verizon – ya know, the company you berated for charging too much compared to European carriers.
You get what you pay for.
Jesus. It’s assholes like you that really drive home the point of why the rest of the world hate us so much.
Who’s being a profane belligerent here? If you’ve got an intelligent critique, please provide it.
I am making a point about a previous article where Thom criticized a major US provider for high rates compared to European providers. My point being that those rates are high because they provide a high level a service, a level of service apparently not available to Thom in Europe. He’s getting what he’s paying for.
Your original comment seem to be emotive so you got an emotive response. I think (but correct me if I am wrong) that most people tend to disagree with being charged too much for a service.
In the US there is often not much choice, so it is more a case of being locked into high charges or no internet.
While in the UK, for example, there is quite a bit of choice, although charges are still arguably too high.
In what way was my comment emotive? Did I swear? Did I conduct a personal attack? I compared my experience on a high cost US carrier (one that Thom publicly took to task) to Thom’s experience on his economical European provider, and noted, correctly, that you get what you pay for.
And no, in the US you are perfectly able to select low cost provider that have spotty, slow networks.
Q: In what way was my comment emotive?
A: It was very sarcastic but lacked the irony normally present with sarcasm.
Q: Did I swear?
A: No, but people swear, it something to get used to.
Q: Did I conduct a personal attack?
A: Not in this instance.
S: And no, in the US you are perfectly able to select low cost provider that have spotty, slow networks.
R: It is this type of statement that people are disagreeing with. It should be cost effective and a good service, not cost effective or a good service.
You might get 4G everywhere you go but what about the cost?
What about all those ‘extras’ that the US Carriers are so fond of adding to your bills. Is there one called
‘4G Facility Enablement’ ?
(only guessing)
That might mean that you are paying to 4G despite not living where it is available, using ir if it is available or having a phone that is capable of using it.
My US Colleagues are always bitching about how much more 4G is costing them that 3G whereas I get 4G at no extra charge whatsoever and that includes roaming in the US.
Well, that was kind of my point, this is one of the reasons Verizon costs more. And I have literally never been anyplace where there wasn’t good 4G coverage, not for lack of trying. Rural PA, rural WI – 4G. Every inch of every highway or rural route I’ve driven on – 4G.
Im on O2 which is a major provider in the UK, most of the time i fall back to 2G because there is no 3G signal. A lot of the time i don’t even get that. It’s amazing for such a small island, i had hoped that 3G would have been far more widespread and that we were a lot more ready for 4G, at the moment i would be happy with better 3G coverage.
Iv’e been told that 3G and LTE mobile bases only carry data so unless your phone has VOLTE normal calls go over the 2G base anyway
LTE can only carry data. 3G does both.
http://www.rcrwireless.com/20120925/network-infrastructure/lte-netw…
I have consistent 3g and 4g signal where I live, unless I go very far in the countryside, in the desertic region where nobody lives, I always have a very strong signal. I have unlimited 4G data plan. You know what? I almost only use 2G. I have 3G switched off and my phone doesn’t do 4G. I don’t need it. My battery life is more important to me than my bandwidth. I don’t care for watching movies online, I download them at home. I’m posting this comment from my phone in 2G. I read my emails in 2G. I don’t understand the point of 4G. More bandwidth is good but not at the cost of battery life. Until they do something about it, it all look like marketing crap like the megapixels on camera to me. It’s just useless to me.
Edited 2014-10-14 08:14 UTC
I live 15 miles outside and commute in to Cambridge. You know, one of the fastest growing areas in the UK. Cambridge University. ARM. Cambridge Silicon Radio. Microsoft. Samsung.
I have 3G in my market town, just. As soon as I leave town I’m down to GPRS for most of the bus ride in to work. I say GPRS, there are two bars but the connection doesn’t work. Even fetching email times out.
The bus has does have free WiFi. But it’s on Vodafone like my phone so it’s equally useless. Or in fact worse as ‘WiFi’ means ‘open the floodgates’ as far as the apps on my phone are concerned.
I only turn on 3G when I’m actually using it. Otherwise the phone stays on 2G/EDGE. I also enjoy my 5+ days of battery life and much better reception.
Amazingly, there are also people who have no need for mobile Internet (mostly older people, like my parents), why should they have to suffer all the drawbacks of 3G with zero benefits?
In india(i live here :p) Most(90-95%) people use 2G.
3G is unreliable and costly, all use 2G prepaid.
Even my broadband is 1 mbps. A 5mb connection feels like Haven, i think in 2050 we will get 100mbps.
1 Gigabit as symettric FTTH in Paris for 29 Euros per month. Unlimited download/upload. In 2014.
Welcome to the technology gap.
Your town might be full of 2G repeaters that have strong signals and your phone connects. Those repeaters are dangerous because they are not encrypted.
By for real….have you tried shutting off 2g networks on your phone to see if you will connect to a weaker 3g signal?