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

101–110 of 161 posts

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

#101

Post by barnabee »

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…

I regularly see 150-200 Mbps (testing with fast.com in London on EE) but it can drop to 50-odd even with a good signal (I'm guessing due to contention) and the drop off with a low signal (1/2 bars) is dramatic.

If 5G gives 100+ on two bars and increases capacity enough to keep the speeds up at busy times, it's worth it.

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

#102

Post by paco3346 »

barnabee wrote: post #101
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…

I regularly see 150-200 Mbps (testing with fast.com in London on EE) but it can drop to 50-odd even with a good signal (I'm guessing due to contention) and the drop off with a low signal (1/2 bars) is dramatic. If 5G gives 100+ on two bars and increases capacity enough to keep the speeds up at busy times, it's worth it.

Dang, that's good. I've only ever once seen anything over 100 and that was when LTE was brand new. Now I tend to average between 15-50. (This is in West Michigan)

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

#103

Post by DenisM »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #53
Azerb wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the key. Look at the roadblocks Google Fiber has hit in their own fiber deployments, pivoting to wireless to bypass the resistance they're getting from incumbents.

I'm interested to see how this plays out. When I looked into it, it seemed hard to compete with wired broadband internet. I think wireless has the best chance in areas where people's only option is satellite or dial-up.

Why? TMO is faster than Comcast, they just need more capacity.

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

#104

Post by nightfly »

dbatten wrote: post #43
LyalinDotCom wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why should those of us who don't choose to live in the country have to subsidize the lifestyle choices of those that do choose to live in the country? And, before you go thinking I'm just the radical conservative, recognize that this cuts both ways. I'm also of the opinion that we shouldn't be subsidizing people's high-carbon lifestyles by making roads free, for example.

Rural industries make urban life possible. If some people didn't live in the country you wouldn't be able to live in the city.

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

#105

Post by jlgaddis »

MichailP wrote: post #91

What frequency band will 5G use?

> The primary technologies include: Millimeter wave bands (26, 28, 38, and 60 GHz) offer performance as high as 20 gigabits per second ... "Low-band 5G" and "Mid-band 5G" use frequencies from 600 MHz to 6 GHz, especially 3.5-4.2 GHz. [0]

See also "5G NR frequency bands" [1].

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G_NR_frequency_bands

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

#106

Post by jeffreyrogers »

DenisM wrote: post #103
jeffreyrogers wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm interested to see how this plays out. When I looked into it, it seemed hard to compete with wired broadband internet. I think wireless has the best chance in areas where people's only option is satellite or dial-up.

Why? TMO is faster than Comcast, they just need more capacity.

Because there's only so much wireless spectrum and at some point you saturate the link. Plus interference from other carriers reduces the capacity of the link.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's also not obvious to me that wireless is better in dense areas, especially since the main cost in wired internet is laying the cable in the first place, which is easier to do cost effectively when you have an urban market to offer service to.

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

#107

Post by Nokinside »

It's excepted for South Korea, Japan and China take the lead in adoption and applications. US customers might not be not priority, because US consumers have have very low bandwidth caps, lets wait and see.

I think many people underestimate the ambition of 5G and assume that 5G is just 4G with more bandwidth.

Big advantage of 5G over 4G is that it can _also_ use unlicensed spectrum. This enables more use cases like enhanced mobile broadbands, device-to-device mesh networks, private 5G networks, etc.

5G is designed to use wifi when available. It's more than just new cellular radio interface and antennas (NR part). 5G connection can use 5G/LTE/WiFi simultaneously. Gibabit LTE can be used as an anchor for 5G functionality even when 5G network is not available. In this sense 5G NR is not a priority. 5G NR first arrives in the most congested areas to increase the bandwidth. If you have only LTE, you may not get as much as those with 5G phones in some concerts and crowded events.

Among the first uses of 5G NG are base stations companies build for themselves. Like networks in factories and other locations using unlicensed 60 GHz band. It looks like Chinese are jumping into industrial use of 5G very rapidly. They are already ahead of the schedule. Consumer applications will follow.

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

#108

Post by jeffreyrogers »

kuschku wrote: post #17
wlesieutre wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Context?

During the 2G, 3G and 4G frequency auctions in Germany the prices went extremely high. As result carriers charge massive prices for data, and there’s few carriers in the market.

Hmmm, that's an interesting problem I hadn't thought of with the auctions. People are going to pay for data pretty much regardless of what it costs (within reason), so it's economical to buy part of the spectrum assuming you can pass on the high price to consumers. Typically you think of competition benefiting consumers, but that's obviously not true in this case.

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

#109

Post by LeifCarrotson »

paco3346 wrote: post #102
barnabee wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I regularly see 150-200 Mbps (testing with fast.com in London on EE) but it can drop to 50-odd even with a good signal (I'm guessing due to contention) and the drop off with a low signal (1/2 bars) is dramatic. If 5G gives 100+ on two bars and increases capacity enough to keep the speeds up at busy times, it's worth it.

Dang, that's good. I've only ever once seen anything over 100 and that was when LTE was brand new. Now I tend to average between 15-50. (This is in West Michigan)

Hi fellow Michigander!

I used to have the same on ATT, but recently got T Mobile:

https://photos.app.goo.gl/wngQxpA5nqL27ikI3

112 down, 14 up. Unlimited, for less than 3 GB cost at ATT.

Honestly don't know why I still give Comcast $25/mo.

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

#110

Post by EpicEng »

wlesieutre wrote: post #97
Stratoscope wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a bit like how T-Mobile does it. You get 50GB/month that is always at full speed, and then after that you get deprioritized if you're on a busy tower. So it doesn't depend on time of day, but how many other customers are sharing your tower. https://www.t-mobile.com/customer/mydatausage.html > Data prioritization will only be noticeable when you access a congested tower and have used over 50GB of data in a part…

I'm on an old 5GB then throttled plan from T-mobile, the new ones sound pretty good if they didn't cost more than twice as much.

Crazy that you'd have to pay more for 10x the data and higher speeds...
Post reply on HN