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

5G networks meet consumer needs as mobile data growth slows

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 376 posts

Re: 5G networks meet consumer needs as mobile data growth slows

#101

Post by cogman10 »

daedrdev wrote: post #95
suddenlybananas wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that it should be run as a public service like utilities and should be as cheap as humanly possible. Why not?

My public utility is bad at its job because it has literally zero incentive to be cheap, and thus my utilities are expensive

> it has literally zero incentive to be cheap

Do private utilities have any incentive to be cheap?

The reason we have utility regulations in the first place is because utilities are natural monopolies with literally zero incentive to be cheap. On the contrary, they are highly incentivized to push up prices as much as possible because they have their customers over a barrel.

Re: 5G networks meet consumer needs as mobile data growth slows

#102

Post by linsomniac »

tliltocatl wrote: post #78
AkshayGenius wrote: post #69

Is there a reason we keep trying to use higher frequencies in every new wireless standard (Wi-Fi, 5G, now 6G) instead of trying to increase the maximum possible bitrate per second into lower frequencies? Have we already reached the physical limits of the amount of data the can be encoded at a particular frequency? Lower frequencies have the advantage of longer distances and permeating through obstructions better. I s…

> Have we already reached the physical limits of the amount of data the can be encoded at a particular frequency? Basically, yes (if you take into account other consideration like radiated power, transmitter consumed power, multipath tolerance, Doppler shift tolerance and so on). Everything is a tradeoff. We could e. g. use higher-order modulation, but that would result in higher peak-to-average power ratio, meaning…

>Longer distance and penetration is not always an advantage

Exactly. When I was running WiFi for PyCon, I kept the radios lower (on tables) and the power levels at the lower end (especially for 2.4GHz, which a lot of devices still were limited to at the time). Human bodies do a good job of limiting the cell size and interference between adjacent APs in that model. I could count on at least a couple people every conference to track me down and tell me I needed to increase the power on the APs. ;-)

Re: 5G networks meet consumer needs as mobile data growth slows

#103

Post by refulgentis »

BenjiWiebe wrote: post #55
refulgentis wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is blatantly false. I will bet many $$$ that no one in this thread has ever gotten 1ms. If you search "5g latency", Google's AI answer says 1 ms, followed by another quote lift from Thales Group™ saying 4G was 20 ms and 5G is 1ms. Once you scroll past the automated attempts, you start getting real info. Actual data is in the "SpeedTest Award Report" PDF, retrieved from https://www.speedtest.net/awards/united_sta…

Latency to where? Speedtest servers or cell towers?

I assume Speedtest servers, as they wouldn't have a way to get measurements for individual cell towers at scale.

(at least, I don't recall being able to get that sort of info from iOS APIs, nor have I ever seen data that would have required being derived that way)

Re: 5G networks meet consumer needs as mobile data growth slows

#104

Post by cogman10 »

suddenlybananas wrote: post #94
pr337h4m wrote: post #88

>Regulators may also have to consider whether fewer operators may be better for a country, with perhaps only a single underlying fixed and mobile network in many places—just as utilities for electricity, water, gas, and the like are often structured around single (or a limited set of) operators. There are no words to describe how stupid this is.

I think that it should be run as a public service like utilities and should be as cheap as humanly possible. Why not?

I personally like the notion of a common public infrastructure that subleases access. We already sort of do that with mobile carriers where the big 3 provide all access and all the other "carriers" (like google fi) are simply leasing access.

Make it easy for a new wireless company to spawn while maintaining the infrastructure everyone needs.

Re: 5G networks meet consumer needs as mobile data growth slows

#106

Post by natebc »

daedrdev wrote: post #95
suddenlybananas wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that it should be run as a public service like utilities and should be as cheap as humanly possible. Why not?

My public utility is bad at its job because it has literally zero incentive to be cheap, and thus my utilities are expensive

I believe the idea is that you shouldn't have a corporation provide the utility if there's only going to be one.

"public utility" implies it's owned by the public not a profit seeking group of shareholders.

Re: 5G networks meet consumer needs as mobile data growth slows

#107

Post by Marsymars »

pr337h4m wrote: post #88

>Regulators may also have to consider whether fewer operators may be better for a country, with perhaps only a single underlying fixed and mobile network in many places—just as utilities for electricity, water, gas, and the like are often structured around single (or a limited set of) operators. There are no words to describe how stupid this is.

I dunno, it makes conceptual sense. Networks infrastructure is largely commodity utilities where duplication is effectively a waste of resources. e.g. you wouldn't expect your home to have multiple natural gas connections from competing companies.

Regulators have other ways to incentivize quality/pricing and can mandate competition at levels of the stack other than the underlying infrastructure.

I wouldn't expect that "only a single network" is the right model for all locations, but it will be for some locations, so you need a regulatory framework that ensures quality/cost in the case of a single network anyway.

Re: 5G networks meet consumer needs as mobile data growth slows

#108

Post by Marsymars »

throw0101c wrote: post #96
James_K wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last bit is just stuff I wanted to whine about. I obviously know it is faster, you don't need to explain that concept. I have just never had need of any significant internet speed on my phone. I don't download things, and only sometimes stream video. Most of the time I am just checking emails, or calendars, or something trivial like that. Unless I do some kind of benchmark, I can't notice the difference between 4…

> I have just never had need of any significant internet speed on my phone. I don't download things, and only sometimes stream video. But other people do. And the main resource that is limited with cell service is air time: there are only so many frequencies, and only so many people can send/receive at the same time. So if someone wants to watch a video video, and a particular segment is (say) 100M, then if a device…

You'd figure that would incentivize cell operators not to market segment higher speeds behind higher prices.

It's like I'm paying them extra for the privilege of increasing their network efficiency.

Re: 5G networks meet consumer needs as mobile data growth slows

#109

Post by javier2 »

pr337h4m wrote: post #88

>Regulators may also have to consider whether fewer operators may be better for a country, with perhaps only a single underlying fixed and mobile network in many places—just as utilities for electricity, water, gas, and the like are often structured around single (or a limited set of) operators. There are no words to describe how stupid this is.

Maybe it is. Building multiple networks for smaller populations comes at enormous cost though. In my country there have been a tradition for this kind of network sharing, where operators are required to allow alternative operators on their physical network for a fee set by government.

Re: 5G networks meet consumer needs as mobile data growth slows

#110

Post by fny »

suddenlybananas wrote: post #94
pr337h4m wrote: post #88

>Regulators may also have to consider whether fewer operators may be better for a country, with perhaps only a single underlying fixed and mobile network in many places—just as utilities for electricity, water, gas, and the like are often structured around single (or a limited set of) operators. There are no words to describe how stupid this is.

I think that it should be run as a public service like utilities and should be as cheap as humanly possible. Why not?

Because competition drives innovation. 5G exists as widely as it does because carriers were driven to meet the standard and provide faster service to their customers.

This article is essentially arguing innovation is dead in this space and there is no need for bandwidth-related improvements. At the same time, there is no 5G provider without a high-speed cap or throttling for hot spots. What would happen if enough people switched to 5G boxes over cable? Maybe T-Mobile can compete with Comcast?

Post reply on HN