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

5G Just Got Weird

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 300 posts

Re: 5G Just Got Weird

#251

Post by luma »

mhh__ wrote: post #39
thinkingkong wrote: post #11

5G doesnt seem like its enabling anything fundamentally new. The talk of any ”killer app” based on having more throughput or on these optimizations always feels like demand generation and slightly inauthentic. Are there any technologies enabled by these techniques that are not possible today?

One thing the Test and Measurement industry is looking forward to, is being able to have extremely high bandwidth (wireless) connections between gear. The idea is that with 5G you can combine your function generate with your oscilloscope to form a basic network analyser with the data travelling wireless between themselves and your computer. The throughput is high enough, and there wouldn't be any wires.

As we have SCPI and the like already available over ethernet, I'd have a hard time with throwing an intentional radiator inside my measurement gear. I have enough noise sources to deal with.

Re: 5G Just Got Weird

#252

Post by menybuvico »

swebs wrote: post #196
tuatoru wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, but Finland considers internet access a human right.

The point is that they were able to meet capacity with 4g towers. I'm not sure how that's related. I guess I should also point out that the population of the city is 600k people, so it may not carry over to something like NYC or Tokyo.

And most of those towers provide comparably low-bandwidth connectivity (at least outside urban areas). It's not like you have decent speeds up here, but the legally mandated 2mbps is available in most places.

Re: 5G Just Got Weird

#253

Post by aaomidi »

elil17 wrote: post #191
aaomidi wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of rural areas have backbone just fine. It's the last mile that's the issue. You can find gigabit business internet basically anywhere.

Right, but many 5G technologies necessitate small cell size, which also creates a last mile issue.

Building towers is far less costly than going to peoples homes.

Re: 5G Just Got Weird

#254

Post by scoot_718 »

thinkingkong wrote: post #11

5G doesnt seem like its enabling anything fundamentally new. The talk of any ”killer app” based on having more throughput or on these optimizations always feels like demand generation and slightly inauthentic. Are there any technologies enabled by these techniques that are not possible today?

It's all about internet of shit.

Re: 5G Just Got Weird

#255

Post by jiggawatts »

krick wrote: post #246
jiggawatts wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An easy way to debunk it is to point out that the RF power spectrum of a typical 5G device is basically the same as a 4G or 3G device. The battery sizes are the same! It's not like suddenly every mobile phone is hooked up to a Tesla battery and got water cooling so that it can put out kilowatts. The difference between 3G, 4G, and 5G is largely the protocol , not the radio power! The reason we can have 5G now, and not…

But it would mean (pretty much by the intention of 5G) many more such devices in proximity of every inhabitant of your downtown area, right (Edit: actually, now that I read it, this seems to be the main point of the "appeal")? Also more of closer-range towers pretty much everywhere, no? > the protocol Physical protocol, so it doesn't really debunk much. Different wavelengths, different modes of sending/receiving. I s…

> Also more of closer-range towers pretty much everywhere

Which generally decreases the required RF transmit power, because of 1/r^2 scaling laws.

> Physical protocol

Not really. If you read through the 5G spec, it's mostly about upping everything. If before there were a few packet sizes, now there are more packet sizes for more efficient packing. If some encoding topped out at, say, QAM64, it goes to QAM1024 now, but only at short range.

Most of the above was constrained by client-side silicon protocol processing, not radio technology.

It's vaguely similar to H.265 vs H.264. They're not fundamentally different. The newer encoding just does... more. More block sizes, more transforms, etc...

> I wouldn't be so fast to dismiss any "dangers of the 5G" activists

You really should be that fast, in the same way that you are fast to dismiss Flat-Earthers. The 5G conspiracy nutjobs have zero interest in evidence, or science, or facts, or any of that stuff.

> I seriously don't know if there can be anything to be worried about

If you have no understanding of the technology or the physics, don't comment.

Seriously.

The hard-core conspiracy theorists are kept going by a surprisingly large group of ignorant people who don't know any better.

Telecoms towers have been burnt to the ground. Staff have been physically assaulted.

This is the same idiocy as the people attacking volunteers distributing vaccines.

If you want to reduce your personal health risk from mobile data technology, then simply stop texting while driving.

If you want to reduce your cancer risk from radiation, use sunscreen.

But please, stop supporting the "concerned Facebook mom" group.

Re: 5G Just Got Weird

#256

Post by jiggawatts »

krick wrote: post #245
jiggawatts wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oddly, the same anti-5G people seem to have no interest in protesting against government inaction related to the unshielded nuclear reactor that causes millions of cases of cancer every year through ionising radiation. Also the same people that are the type to complain vocally about the harmful effects of 5G seem to be the type to complain just as vocally about the fine they get when they're caught texting while driv…

Not every area, not even every country has an unshielded nuclear reactor. I wouldn't expect somebody, who has no exposure to such things to worry about that. I think the closest to me might be on some nuclear submarine, but still likely very far away. I don't know how close to use it would be. And then there are a lot of people (hell, it may well turn out I am one of them!) who might have reasons to be concerned, but…

> Not every area, not even every country has an unshielded nuclear reactor.

I should have added a /s to make the satire more obvious.

I'm fairly certain that every country bathes in the cancer-causing, ionising radiation of the Sun.

The nearest star is literally an unshielded nuclear reactor, putting out kilowatts of deadly radiation per square meter. You can feel it on your skin. It warms you up so much that that you can outright die from the excess heat in minutes. The radiation burns it causes are so bad that it leaves painful blistering after less than an hour of unprotected exposure.

Yet, the same people blathering on about the milliwatts of 5G radiation -- which you can't feel and has never burnt anyone -- will cheerfully go to the beach and get a sunburn until they're bright red like a lobster. They'll take their kids too and neglect to put sunscreen on them.

Cancer, apparently, is just fine as long as it's natural.

Re: 5G Just Got Weird

#257

Post by krick »

jiggawatts wrote: post #255
krick wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it would mean (pretty much by the intention of 5G) many more such devices in proximity of every inhabitant of your downtown area, right (Edit: actually, now that I read it, this seems to be the main point of the "appeal")? Also more of closer-range towers pretty much everywhere, no? > the protocol Physical protocol, so it doesn't really debunk much. Different wavelengths, different modes of sending/receiving. I s…

> Also more of closer-range towers pretty much everywhere Which generally decreases the required RF transmit power, because of 1/r^2 scaling laws. > Physical protocol Not really . If you read through the 5G spec, it's mostly about upping everything. If before there were a few packet sizes, now there are more packet sizes for more efficient packing. If some encoding topped out at, say, QAM64, it goes to QAM1024 now, b…

I'd seriously rather support them, than people like you: individuals, who have basically nothing to support their claims that "everything will be ok", but sincerely believe that everybody around must be a "conspiracy nutjob" and must be wrong by default. Just because I like to err on the safe side, and people like you are more dangerous for society than these nutjobs (simply by virtue of being paranoid).

Re: 5G Just Got Weird

#258

Post by jiggawatts »

krick wrote: post #257
jiggawatts wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also more of closer-range towers pretty much everywhere Which generally decreases the required RF transmit power, because of 1/r^2 scaling laws. > Physical protocol Not really . If you read through the 5G spec, it's mostly about upping everything. If before there were a few packet sizes, now there are more packet sizes for more efficient packing. If some encoding topped out at, say, QAM64, it goes to QAM1024 now, b…

I'd seriously rather support them, than people like you: individuals, who have basically nothing to support their claims that "everything will be ok", but sincerely believe that everybody around must be a "conspiracy nutjob" and must be wrong by default. Just because I like to err on the safe side, and people like you are more dangerous for society than these nutjobs (simply by virtue of being paranoid).

Don't take international flights then, you might fall off the edge of the Earth.

> basically nothing to support their claims

I studied physics and I read the 5G standards manual.

Have any of the 5G conspiracy theorists done either?

Have you?

Re: 5G Just Got Weird

#259

Post by ignoramous »

markalexander wrote: post #217
shoguning wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The latency is only reduced from tower to phone right? The tower still has to ping the rest of the network to find the service you were requesting to in the first place. If total latency ~ 500 ms, phone-to-tower is maybe 50ms of that in 4G. Even if it's down to ~1ms, total latency is only down 10%. Not a networking expert so maybe I'm missing something here. Perhaps better use of CDNs could make this much faster?

Computing is getting closer and closer to the edge. One example, as you said, is putting it at the CDN PoPs, but even beyond that you can put your compute into the CSP locations. E.g. https://aws.amazon.com/wavelength/ , but if you’re big enough I’m sure you can make more interesting deals.

https://vapor.io/ might be building out the edge network faster than Amazon. Cloudflare is a customer.

Re: 5G Just Got Weird

#260

Post by gridlockd »

shoguning wrote: post #216
cromwellian wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Around 2000, I was working at OracleMobile, attened 3GPP/Mobile Congress/etc meetings, and there was a similar discussion around 3g. People were like "what's the killer app"? At the time, most phones were WML/WAP and Blackberry-like SMS/MMS/Email experiences. People speculated "maybe music or video", but it was all very vague, no one imagined the smartphone revolution that brought all of these services, like Uber. I'…

The latency is only reduced from tower to phone right? The tower still has to ping the rest of the network to find the service you were requesting to in the first place. If total latency ~ 500 ms, phone-to-tower is maybe 50ms of that in 4G. Even if it's down to ~1ms, total latency is only down 10%. Not a networking expert so maybe I'm missing something here. Perhaps better use of CDNs could make this much faster?

> If total latency ~ 500 ms, phone-to-tower is maybe 50ms of that in 4G. Even if it's down to ~1ms, total latency is only down 10%.

How did you come up with 500ms for comparison? A fast-paced videogame with that sort of latency would be unplayable. 100ms is still considered bad and 50ms is considered acceptable.

Post reply on HN