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

5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

5g.systemsapproach.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 113 posts

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#101

Post by gsich »

tboyd47 wrote: post #65
mytailorisrich wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most data are consumed indoor anyway, so mmwave will likely be used through indoor micro cells. mmwave also allows to boost capacity. As already written in my previous comment, 5G is not just about faster internet. Other use-cases are as important, if not more. Operators know they can't charge consumers extra.

Right, so far we've learned: 1) 5G improves wireless internet - though it only works over short-range and can't go through walls. 2) 5G needs a massive deployment of new devices to reach consumers - though most consumers are not willing to pay even $1 more for 5G. 3) 5G is a prerequisite for amazing new tech like IoT and self-driving cars - many of which already exist and will continue to use existing 3G and 4G bands…

>3) 5G is a prerequisite for amazing new tech like IoT and self-driving cars - many of which already exist and will continue to use existing 3G and 4G bands

That sounds like marketing hype from an ISP.

A self-driving car that is dependent on a radio network to operate is by defonition, not self-driving.

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#102

Post by mercutio2 »

missosoup wrote: post #73
mercutio2 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All EM waves can interact with molecules in our bodies, that’s true. But all of the interaction is thermal , not ionizing. And the energy levels are so tiny that the thermal impact is much less than the thermal impact of opening or closing a window on a warm day. Microwave ovens have thermal interactions with the food inside them, because the microwave runs at tens of thousands of times higher power than is used for…

Restricting the harm window to ionising radiation is a red herring. We know that magnetic fields alone have very apparent interactions with humans and other living organisms[1]. The only mitigating factor here is the TRP, but at the FCC limit of 500 watts ERP per channel, that's actually not too far off from microwave ovens. I doubt it'll hurt humans unless they happen to live in the immediate path of an eNodeB, but…

I will not dispute that if you are less than a meter from a transmitting cell tower, you might be uncomfortable.

But the induced magnetic fields from this level of power, dispersed at an inverse square rate, which isn’t penetrating far past the skin, just doesn’t seem reasonable to fear.

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#103

Post by 4D1 »

tboyd47 wrote: post #25
bkovacev wrote: post #14

As someone new to the 5G world I'm hearing a lot about health concerns. Can someone please explain to me the actual health concerns? My GF has been talking about it for a while now, but when I looked up health related studies of 5G on google scholar - I didn't get any meaningful hits. Is it a tin foil thing or are there really some concerns?

Theoretically, 5G will use a higher frequency band of radiation (24Ghz-86Ghz). This band has a harder time penetrating obstacles, so you will need many more transmitters at a higher power level to cover an area. Opponents are uncomfortable with the enthusiasm of the telecom companies over 5G without sufficient (they feel) long-term research on the health effects of saturating entire neighborhoods with millimeter-wave…

Its a tin foil hat thing. The mmWave frequencies are only going to be used in high population dense areas and will run at a lower power. Other than this, 5G will operate much like LTE with a few additions like beamforming antenna arrays. Frequency has very little to do with health risk until you get into MUCH higher frequencies than what we operate in. Its about output power, and this is federally regulated by most countries.

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#104

Post by missosoup »

gsich wrote: post #97
missosoup wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please explain the mechanism for the 2.45Mhz microwave oven cooking food and how that rules out the possibility of the 5g band having unintended interactions with molecules found in living organisms. You can settle this debate for the EU and save them a few million bucks worth of studies.

power in a microwave oven: 1000 watt power from your phone: 0.2 watt in case of LTE. reveived power from a basestation: around -40 to -120 dbm.

ERP of base station: up to 500W per channel.

You are 100% sure that will have absolutely no impact on insects or birds in close proximity to it?

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#105

Post by rjzzleep »

deepnotderp wrote: post #76
rjzzleep wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny I would call it almost the same. It's 4g plus channel coding, massive mimo, beamforming and more ML which influences the spectrum choices. The vastly different is a marketing term.

There is "5G" with mmWave and "5G" without mmWave, you've described the latter.

No, actually I described mmave. Just google the words I put in my post and see where it leads you.

The problem is that most of the industry, when they think of 5G, just want to send as many 4k streams as possible everywhere.

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#106

Post by dzhiurgis »

0xDEEPFAC wrote: post #85
vorpalhex wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've never been in an expo hall with 10k people all trying to post an instagram photo, have you?

So the solution is the radiate the entire group of people for instagram?

It's already radiated, but now with less power.

5G is safer than previous tech (3-5 orders safer than radio that has been around for something like 2 centuries).

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#107

Post by merpnderp »

superkuh wrote: post #96
maffydub wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5G doesn't need masts every 200-300m. There are multiple different frequency bands you can use. The lowest frequencies are around the same as 4G, so you should need similar numbers of masts to get reasonable coverage. The highest are around 60GHz - these are pretty much line-of-sight and are likely to be used for shorter-range (but super-high-bandwidth) applications.

What he means is that 5G offers only a ~15-20% increase in thoroughput with it's new set of modulation schemes given the same frequency span using 4G. So the increase in performance has to come from new frequency use. They'll steal half of C-band from satellite uplink but then all that's left is millimeter wave to truly get more thoroughput. And that does have the problem about the propagation characteristics.

Throughout isn’t the biggest advantage, it’s the vastly smaller time slicing allowing far more active connections.

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#108

Post by tzs »

bkovacev wrote: post #14

As someone new to the 5G world I'm hearing a lot about health concerns. Can someone please explain to me the actual health concerns? My GF has been talking about it for a while now, but when I looked up health related studies of 5G on google scholar - I didn't get any meaningful hits. Is it a tin foil thing or are there really some concerns?

A big part of it is Russia. RT has been pushing 5G scare videos for a while, and a lot of blogs have picked up the claims and mention them without citing the source. Here's a comment from a couple months ago with links to several of the RT videos if you are curious [1].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20788559

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#109

Post by gsich »

missosoup wrote: post #104
gsich wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

power in a microwave oven: 1000 watt power from your phone: 0.2 watt in case of LTE. reveived power from a basestation: around -40 to -120 dbm.

ERP of base station: up to 500W per channel. You are 100% sure that will have absolutely no impact on insects or birds in close proximity to it?

More like 200W with LTE.

But even if it would be 500W, no haven't heared of it. Which does not mean that it could happen. But then again the question was not a) insects or birds or b) close proximity (which is what, close then 1m?)

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#110

Post by maffydub »

superkuh wrote: post #96
maffydub wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5G doesn't need masts every 200-300m. There are multiple different frequency bands you can use. The lowest frequencies are around the same as 4G, so you should need similar numbers of masts to get reasonable coverage. The highest are around 60GHz - these are pretty much line-of-sight and are likely to be used for shorter-range (but super-high-bandwidth) applications.

What he means is that 5G offers only a ~15-20% increase in thoroughput with it's new set of modulation schemes given the same frequency span using 4G. So the increase in performance has to come from new frequency use. They'll steal half of C-band from satellite uplink but then all that's left is millimeter wave to truly get more thoroughput. And that does have the problem about the propagation characteristics.

5G isn't just about bandwidth, though.

There's quite a useful diagram at the bottom of https://techblog.comsoc.org/2017/03/02/itu-r-agrees-on-key-p... showing the three key use cases.

As well as "Enhanced Mobile Broadband" (which does focus on increased bandwidth), there's also

* "Massive IoT", which focuses on reducing power requirements and increasing the number of devices that can be served in a single cell (assuming they all transmit very little data)

* "Low Latency", which focuses on better scheduling and quality of service.

Post reply on HN