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

Will there be a 7G?

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 199 posts

Re: Will there be a 7G?

#111

Post by askvictor »

_ink_ wrote: post #68
ksec wrote: post #49

It needs to work backwards, much like Video Codec and ask what do the stakeholders really want or need? We are closing in to rolling out the last / final phase of 5G. And yet none of the Massive MIMO on FDD is happening. We are still stuck on 32T32R, hardly that impressive considering we have that in LTE already. Not to mention the insane complexity increase from 4G to 5G. And judging from the previews of 6G that see…

In Germany I notice a massive difference in 4G and 5G. If I see 4G on my phone and know I can put it away again if it's not some kind of an emergency because it's basically unusable. I am not sure what is going on here, probably the telcos that are limiting the bandwidth.

Interesting; in Australia I'm using exclusively 4G with no problems

Re: Will there be a 7G?

#112

Post by mytailorisrich »

walrus01 wrote: post #78
mytailorisrich wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it is not. 2G->3G->4G->5G refer to real changes in technology and system architecture, as detailed in the Wikipedia page you linked to. 3GPP releases are more fine-grained than that. E.g. rel. 99 introduced 3G/WCDMA, rel. 8 introduced 4G/LTE, etc. Other releases only add features. In the industry Gs are used all the time to refer to the technology/architecture, then releases are used to refer to specific features,…

Tell that to the cellular industry marketing people who decided to put "4.5G" on things. Also not everything that is marketed "5G" is equal in capability, there's a myriad of different bands in different regulatory regimes in the world, some of which go through material like brick/concrete much better than others. You'll see "5G" connections that have speed tests in an urban area that top out at 50 Mbps downstream an…

Gs may be used and possibly overused in marketing but that doesn't mean that they are meaningless terms and "mostly marketing" as per my previous comment. Again, the terms are heavily used in the industry in technical and engineering circles.

"Even within a category such as "4G" there have been significant advances in some radio capabilities since it was introduced".

Yes but this is as I explained in my previous comment. There have been new features and new capabilities but on the same technology and system architecture. Think of improving internal combustion engines over time vs. switching to electric motors. That's how Gs broadly work on the technical side.

Perhaps the issue is marketing overusing a technical term that does not lend itself to it super well, especially when comparing 4G and 5G, from a smartphone consumer standpoint.

Re: Will there be a 7G?

#113

Post by black3r »

BlackRabbit1 wrote: post #6

5G SA isn't still available for the broad masses yet.. and they are talking of 7G? I had the chance to test it in Germany with Telefonica as it can be activated for free. It saves a lot of battery compared to 5G NSA. But they still had smaller problems with hand-overs to LTE and GSM. Colleagues told me that the 5G NSA battery consumption problem is pretty much a solved problem with other basebands and only Pixels are…

I'm in Slovakia. We have 4 networks here and they basically have hidden non-compete agreements where no-one launches new tech for masses without at least one other providing it launching it too, sometimes they even coordinate the launch so that all 4 of them launch at the same time...

This same shit happened with launches of 5G NSA, eSIM, Apple Watch eSIM, RCS, and lots of other telco technologies...

At this point all the operators have 5G SA networks up and running for parts of Slovakia (Telekom even claims it covers 99% of Slovak population with 5G SA), but it's only available for business customers in private networks...

They all claim the same stupid reason for this - "most customer phones don't support it, and there are additional benefits for businesses"...

And there are rumors from all of them that they plan to launch it for regular customers by the end of this year...

I mean come on... In a fair market competition the first one to upgrade its network would launch first and heavily claim that they're the fastest innovator in marketing...

And when the network is up and running, why not open it up to regular people? And why it's always the same bullshit type of excuse that's basically trying to say "people don't want/need this"?

Re: Will there be a 7G?

#114

Post by devilbunny »

jayd16 wrote: post #72
ksec wrote: post #49

It needs to work backwards, much like Video Codec and ask what do the stakeholders really want or need? We are closing in to rolling out the last / final phase of 5G. And yet none of the Massive MIMO on FDD is happening. We are still stuck on 32T32R, hardly that impressive considering we have that in LTE already. Not to mention the insane complexity increase from 4G to 5G. And judging from the previews of 6G that see…

Something I've noticed is that a phone is actually usable at a stadium or concert when 3g or 4g felt essentially useless at that density.

I've seen an interesting corollary: 4G on an airplane at the gate is much faster than the 5G microcells inside the terminal.

If I'm downloading podcasts for a flight, I do it on WiFi beforehand or on 4G on the plane. 5G in the terminal is really useful at getting you some service, but it's slow.

Probably a side effect of not enough backhaul speed.

Re: Will there be a 7G?

#115

Post by kulahan »

ksec wrote: post #49

It needs to work backwards, much like Video Codec and ask what do the stakeholders really want or need? We are closing in to rolling out the last / final phase of 5G. And yet none of the Massive MIMO on FDD is happening. We are still stuck on 32T32R, hardly that impressive considering we have that in LTE already. Not to mention the insane complexity increase from 4G to 5G. And judging from the previews of 6G that see…

I’m not in the industry, so I can’t speak intelligently on this, but as a user, literally the only change I’ve actually noticed in my day-to-day is that when they removed 3G, I lost a shitload of connectivity. I live probably half a mile from the capital building in a greater metro region of over a million people and I still get shit connection at home on TMo. Maybe physics is the problem, but why waste time making things insanely fast in a lab setting? Work on making it fucking usable in the real world, like in a neighborhood with trees.

I do not give a shit if I can download at 500mbps while resting my phone on a wireless router. I need to be able to USE it.

Re: Will there be a 7G?

#116

Post by Gigachad »

_ink_ wrote: post #68
ksec wrote: post #49

It needs to work backwards, much like Video Codec and ask what do the stakeholders really want or need? We are closing in to rolling out the last / final phase of 5G. And yet none of the Massive MIMO on FDD is happening. We are still stuck on 32T32R, hardly that impressive considering we have that in LTE already. Not to mention the insane complexity increase from 4G to 5G. And judging from the previews of 6G that see…

In Germany I notice a massive difference in 4G and 5G. If I see 4G on my phone and know I can put it away again if it's not some kind of an emergency because it's basically unusable. I am not sure what is going on here, probably the telcos that are limiting the bandwidth.

I’d you have a 5G phone and plan but see 4G, that usually means you are at the very edge of coverage. Thats not the experience 4G was or still is if you are in a well covered area (which would have 5G available as well)

Re: Will there be a 7G?

#117

Post by dakolli »

ksec wrote: post #49

It needs to work backwards, much like Video Codec and ask what do the stakeholders really want or need? We are closing in to rolling out the last / final phase of 5G. And yet none of the Massive MIMO on FDD is happening. We are still stuck on 32T32R, hardly that impressive considering we have that in LTE already. Not to mention the insane complexity increase from 4G to 5G. And judging from the previews of 6G that see…

Ive never heard a single person say they don't see a difference between 4G and 5G, atleast in the USA.

Ive switched my entire home internet setup to 5G and haven't had an outtage in two years. Whereas it was once a week with fiber. I also can fallback with duel sims.

5G has legitimately changed my quality of (digital) life.

Re: Will there be a 7G?

#118

Post by prmoustache »

wolvoleo wrote: post #29
VorpalWay wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5G seems pretty widly available here in Sweden in my experience, even in the countryside. Not that the speeds are actually better than 4G, but the indicator say 5G as I'm writing this in a tent in the middle of nowhere. :) I guess other countries are further behind?

Don't just look at the indicator on your phone though. Providers are free to scheme with those. Some honestly show the icon when you are on 5G. Others use the option of showing it when you are on 4G (not even 5G NSA) but the network offers 5G on the cell. The marketing guys got involved with this indicator and completely ruined its trustworthiness.

Isn't the icon decided by the operating system?

Re: Will there be a 7G?

#119

Post by dakolli »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #85
nemomarx wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sure but is anyone deploying mmwave outside of maybe sports stadiums? I'm not exactly going to get it on my commuter train or at work.

I get 5G mmWave in my home and around my neighborhood in Seattle. In fact sometimes at home I’ll turn off WiFi on my phone just because I’m sitting in a WiFi dead zone but the mmWave still works great. This is on Mint Mobile, a budget MVNO now owned by T-Mobile. I pay $20/month for 15GB data.

You're ripping yourself off, you can get 1TB of 5G from tmobile for $50-60

Re: Will there be a 7G?

#120

Post by majormajor »

MisterMunchkin wrote: post #100
Atotalnoob wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Net neutrality would have prevented this kind of pay to win

[flagged]

ISP's spent $$$$$ against net-neutrality cause they wanted to get paid twice (Google already was paying for their side of the bandwidth as the source).

When you add the second line---pretending that that nobody funding all the anti-net-neutrality let-big-ISPs-do-what-they-want stories that pro-legacy-company Republicans ate up---it makes me think this is some astroturfing, since it goes from "maybe this person fell for the ISP claims" to straight-up dishonest intentionally-misleading-fallacy.

Google was obviously on the side of "don't get charged twice" but ultimately net-neutrality was a tech enthusiast consumer position that came out of a desire to avoid getting charged more on the basis of what sites you did or didn't want to watch, and ISP's trying to influence where you visited by cutting deals to get paid to prioritize A vs B.

(Hell, ISPs were already getting paid "twice" for the bandwidth in some ways, e.g. when your "100Mb" plan only works at that speeds if your neighbors aren't using it much. That's a different sort of incomplete-advertising trickery that helped create the whole "too many people using Youtube are saturating the network!" "problem" in the first place.)

(And high-bandwidth publishers already were making private peering/colo-of-servers deals with ISPs and CDNs that I don't believe would've been prohibited by net neutrality, so the 'protection racket' aspect of the ISP's game was maybe more arguably wanting to be paid thrice? Or wanting to be paid without providing that colo service?)

Post reply on HN