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

281–290 of 300 posts

Re: 5G Just Got Weird

#281

Post by knorker »

Wow, those are really cool technologies.

That said, the unlicensed spectrum thing sounds absolutely awful. Sorry your wifi will suck because your local telco decided to beam 5GHz to your neighbor, and your AP understands that as "collision" at best, and "weather radar" at worst.

I thought that was thrown out of the plan, with torches and pitchforks? With DFS wifi is already super crammed, and now "right of way" managed spectrum people want to land grab it for profit? That's so not cool.

Re: 5G Just Got Weird

#282

Post by mrep »

ses1984 wrote: post #72
ksec wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It enables much higher capacity. So theoretically it would work more like wired Internet where you are sold on Bandwidth and not on Data. ( Within Reasonable usage ) Many Countries in Europe are already doing it right now with 4G. Technically it is more much interesting from a Carrier / Backend perspective. Where there are huge unit cost optimisation and ease of management. But for consumers it really is just a faste…

>where you are sold on Bandwidth and not on Data Hahah

Your mileage may vary but verizon 5g home for example does not have a data cap [0].

[0]: https://www.verizon.com/support/5g-home-faqs/

Re: 5G Just Got Weird

#283

Post by rswail »

mdorazio wrote: post #97
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?

Be careful with expectations of "possible" vs. "practical". 5G for IoT devices is a big deal in remote field and some industrial settings where wi-fi is not an option. Two examples for you: I worked on a pilot project with a state government group that wanted remote monitoring of water levels in wetlands and ponds spread across a few hundred square miles of mostly-rural area. wi-fi obviously wasn't an option and gett…

What about tethered balloon base stations?

Re: 5G Just Got Weird

#284

Post by elil17 »

supernova87a wrote: post #249
elil17 wrote: post #2

As I’ve learned more and more about 5G (which is a nebulous term, really, but what I mean specifically is the planned upcoming releases of LTE 16 and 17, as well as the features of LTE 14 and 15 that users have yet to take advantage of) I’ve become convinced that it’s going to transform how so much of the world is designed. 5G technologies allow for more devices to send more data using less power. This is achieved us…

Do we really think that 5G will bring faster connectivity for cheaper (for the consumer)? That's what I want to know amidst all the hype about the technology by headline writers. If it's not going to make things faster and cheaper, I'm not eagerly awaiting its arrival like many would have us believe. Isn't that the point of technology?

Typically, in the US, the big name cell operators (Verizon, TMobile, etc) charge similar rates and give the highest packet priority to their customers, while selling deprioritized bandwidth to virtual network mobile operators (US Mobile, Google Fi, Mint, etc.), who in turn sell it to consumers at a lower price. My guess is that with 5G, VNMOs will be a better option for more people because circumstances where connectivity is limited and priority matters will be much rarer.

That’s just the US market, though. I can’t speak to other countries.

Re: 5G Just Got Weird

#285

Post by hammock »

bdamm wrote: post #27
rsynnott wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last mile for fixed rural wireless broadband seems like the obvious one. Today, this is generally done with either LTE or various proprietary things (or if you’re particularly unlucky, satellite). 5G should allow for greater total bandwidth, reducing the impact of contention. And on the other side, it should be helpful for very dense urban usage. Try using LTE in a large city’s central train station at a busy time an…

Starlink is going to dominate this. Cellular can't economically scale out to meet the vast rural coverage. There are still plenty of towns that don't have basic coverage even now, and to think that suddenly they're going to get 5G equipment... seems unlikely. Meanwhile, the Starlink satellites are up and base stations are in testing. Once they approve and start building out their ground stations, it's SpaceX's busine…

Does Starlink work when it's cloudy or rainy? Because satellite TV doesn't.

Re: 5G Just Got Weird

#286

Post by vardump »

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?

4G phone to tower latency is about 10 ms.

Re: 5G Just Got Weird

#287

Post by supernova87a »

elil17 wrote: post #284
supernova87a wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we really think that 5G will bring faster connectivity for cheaper (for the consumer)? That's what I want to know amidst all the hype about the technology by headline writers. If it's not going to make things faster and cheaper, I'm not eagerly awaiting its arrival like many would have us believe. Isn't that the point of technology?

Typically, in the US, the big name cell operators (Verizon, TMobile, etc) charge similar rates and give the highest packet priority to their customers, while selling deprioritized bandwidth to virtual network mobile operators (US Mobile, Google Fi, Mint, etc.), who in turn sell it to consumers at a lower price. My guess is that with 5G, VNMOs will be a better option for more people because circumstances where connect…

Oh, I didn't know about that at all -- the aspect of selling off lower "grade" bandwidth to others. Are there any stats about that? Does that apply to voice channels as well? Is there somewhere I can read more about this? Thanks!

Re: 5G Just Got Weird

#288

Post by shoguning »

gridlockd wrote: post #260
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?

> 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.

I guess I was thinking of initial webpage load, which might include a bunch of network calls (DNS, CSS, JS resources).

Each individual network call is faster tho, good point.

Re: 5G Just Got Weird

#289

Post by m463 »

d21d3q wrote: post #276
m463 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't lora very low speed?

It is, but if you need to send water level twice a day, then you don't need much speed.

That's true but most of the examples in this article don't play to the strength of lora (extremely long range) and seem to involve its weakness (speed)

Re: 5G Just Got Weird

#290

Post by simonebrunozzi »

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?

> phone-to-tower is maybe 50ms

Maybe 50 microseconds, not 50 milliseconds. 1/1000th of what you assumed.

Towers are typically up to a few miles away in dense areas; they don't work well beyond 15-20 miles from the cell phone.

Waves go 186,000 miles (or 300,000 km) per second. Assuming a 10 miles distance from phone to station, it takes ~25 microseconds to do the trip, which is ~50 roundtrip.

So, in other words: latency is NOT affected by 5G much.

Post reply on HN