Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No “Material Difference Between 5G and LTE”

wirelessone.news

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 161 posts

Re: No “Material Difference Between 5G and LTE”

#21

Post by taeric »

Cshelton wrote: post #13
jupp0r wrote: post #12

> 5G's main application around the world will be more capacity, a good thing for telcos This is important for consumers. When did you last get 100Mbit+ speeds with 4G? In real world scenarios, the number of people in a cell (due to limited spectrum bandwidth) limits 4G speeds, not protocol maximums. My understanding of 5G is that bandwidth can be used much more efficiently (both by being able to allocate less in idle…

The lower speed on 4G is mostly due to the number of devices on it. 5G will be no different in that way. At first, the few people with 5G devices and networks will have very fast speeds (mostly), but once everyone in 4G moves to 5G, we’re back to how it is today. I’m also curious what the effect of all the WiFi networks will have in regards to interference with 5G bands.

This doesn't seem to contradict the point. There is a fixed capacity that the network can handle. For 5G, this appears to be a higher capacity than for 4G.

So, yes, more devices will mean less speed for everyone. However, there is more speed to go around, so the same number of devices in a 4G setting will get less speed than the same number in a 5G.

Or is that not the GP's point?

Re: No “Material Difference Between 5G and LTE”

#22

Post by okmokmz »

Cshelton wrote: post #13
jupp0r wrote: post #12

> 5G's main application around the world will be more capacity, a good thing for telcos This is important for consumers. When did you last get 100Mbit+ speeds with 4G? In real world scenarios, the number of people in a cell (due to limited spectrum bandwidth) limits 4G speeds, not protocol maximums. My understanding of 5G is that bandwidth can be used much more efficiently (both by being able to allocate less in idle…

The lower speed on 4G is mostly due to the number of devices on it. 5G will be no different in that way. At first, the few people with 5G devices and networks will have very fast speeds (mostly), but once everyone in 4G moves to 5G, we’re back to how it is today. I’m also curious what the effect of all the WiFi networks will have in regards to interference with 5G bands.

>The lower speed on 4G is mostly due to the number of devices on it.

Is that the sole reason 5G is faster, or will being able to allocate less in idle situations and utilize spatial multiplexing support faster speeds even with a comparable number of devices?

Re: No “Material Difference Between 5G and LTE”

#23

Post by ec109685 »

jupp0r wrote: post #12

> 5G's main application around the world will be more capacity, a good thing for telcos This is important for consumers. When did you last get 100Mbit+ speeds with 4G? In real world scenarios, the number of people in a cell (due to limited spectrum bandwidth) limits 4G speeds, not protocol maximums. My understanding of 5G is that bandwidth can be used much more efficiently (both by being able to allocate less in idle…

Telecoms have the ability today to add more capacity by increasing tower density.

Re: No “Material Difference Between 5G and LTE”

#24

Post by qwz4233 »

a_imho wrote: post #18
joezydeco wrote: post #2

5G's main application around the world will be more capacity, a good thing for telcos Or companies that want to break the residential broadband monopoly in a local area. Personally, I'm counting on TMO to kick Comcast's ass in my town. 5G would be a complete success if that happens.

I'm counting on TMO to kick Comcast's ass in my town Is Comcast really that bad? In my admittedly European experience all the service providers are (dis)functional and greedy pretty much to the same degree, none of them are good guys.

I live in a Cox area. They offer fine service, but they are monopolistic and keep increasing prices.

Re: No “Material Difference Between 5G and LTE”

#25

Post by godzillabrennus »

a_imho wrote: post #18
joezydeco wrote: post #2

5G's main application around the world will be more capacity, a good thing for telcos Or companies that want to break the residential broadband monopoly in a local area. Personally, I'm counting on TMO to kick Comcast's ass in my town. 5G would be a complete success if that happens.

I'm counting on TMO to kick Comcast's ass in my town Is Comcast really that bad? In my admittedly European experience all the service providers are (dis)functional and greedy pretty much to the same degree, none of them are good guys.

Comcast and Countrywide were in the running for the Consumerists 2008 worst company of the year. Countrywide won but had to help nuke the economy. Comcast had a real shot at winning for being such a malignant organization.

The rebrand to Xfinity is a joke.

Re: No “Material Difference Between 5G and LTE”

#26

Post by taeric »

okmokmz wrote: post #22
Cshelton wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lower speed on 4G is mostly due to the number of devices on it. 5G will be no different in that way. At first, the few people with 5G devices and networks will have very fast speeds (mostly), but once everyone in 4G moves to 5G, we’re back to how it is today. I’m also curious what the effect of all the WiFi networks will have in regards to interference with 5G bands.

>The lower speed on 4G is mostly due to the number of devices on it. Is that the sole reason 5G is faster, or will being able to allocate less in idle situations and utilize spatial multiplexing support faster speeds even with a comparable number of devices?

Allocating less in idle situations sounds dangerous. What do you do when there is a real world event and everyone rushes to their device, pulling them out of idle?

(I'm assuming this problem is already considered. Genuinely asking, in case someone has a good link to read on it.)

Re: No “Material Difference Between 5G and LTE”

#28

Post by rootusrootus »

a_imho wrote: post #18
joezydeco wrote: post #2

5G's main application around the world will be more capacity, a good thing for telcos Or companies that want to break the residential broadband monopoly in a local area. Personally, I'm counting on TMO to kick Comcast's ass in my town. 5G would be a complete success if that happens.

I'm counting on TMO to kick Comcast's ass in my town Is Comcast really that bad? In my admittedly European experience all the service providers are (dis)functional and greedy pretty much to the same degree, none of them are good guys.

It can be. I've so far had only good experiences. My service is fast and reliable, and the other day when I called them up to activate a new modem, they cut my cost to $35/month as a customer appreciation move with barely any strings attached (only that I commit to staying with them a year ... I've been with them for 6 already and there is no viable competitor here).

There are plenty of horror stories, however. I may just be lucky so far.

Re: No “Material Difference Between 5G and LTE”

#29

Post by superkuh »

dgllghr wrote: post #4

I've heard that 5G will be especially beneficial to rural areas, where it will have the bandwidth, speed, and coverage capability to replace broadband, DSL, and satellite. Can someone with industry knowledge confirm whether this is true?

It's not true. Wireless spectrum can only be used once. Wires and fiber optics can use the same spectrum over and over and over.

Additionally, wireless telcos have already gotten used to not providing real internet access to their customers. Instead they provide a proxied, nat'd, no-ports, almost web only service.

Re: No “Material Difference Between 5G and LTE”

#30

Post by LyalinDotCom »

dgllghr wrote: post #4

I've heard that 5G will be especially beneficial to rural areas, where it will have the bandwidth, speed, and coverage capability to replace broadband, DSL, and satellite. Can someone with industry knowledge confirm whether this is true?

I am ashamed of my country (America) that we as a nation, federally speaking, don't provide the funding needed to empower everyone in rural areas with high speed internet as a right. The Internet powers so many important things today and if we're talking about "thousands of dollars per household" it is totally doable.
Post reply on HN