Live data from Hacker News

5G networks meet consumer needs as mobile data growth slows

spectrum.ieee.org

121–130 of 376 posts

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

#121

Someone I know at a mixed-signal company many of whose chips go to 5G deployments said their revenue really slowed down last year due to 5G deployment uptake decreasing significantly.

My understanding was that the economics/range of 5G only really worked in densely populated areas? Or has that changed? If not, once those places are saturated it makes sense that build out would slow.

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

#122
post #119

There is not a single 5G provider with unlimited high-speed access. Not one. Perhaps this has something to do with limited mobile bandwidth? Now imagine we add more bandwidth: what would happen to Comcast and other fiber monopolists if people started replacing fiber with 5G?

In your country.

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

#123
post #120
post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 peo…

Competition drives innovation, but also, we've generally seen that things like municipal broadband are _more_ innovative than an incumbent monopoly carrier. Large chunks of the US don't have much competition at all in wired services, and if we approach that in wireless, we are likely to see the same effects starting where the local monopoly tries to extract maximum dollars out of an aging infrastructure. Lookin' at y…

As you say, "incumbent monopoly carrier" is not competition, so a municipal provider which competes with broadband is a great idea. This article, however, is arguing we don't need more bandwidth, and we need more consolidation of major providers: I'm not convinced.

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

#124

>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.

Who are these "regulators"? Did we vote for them? Were they selected in the process of market competition and attrition?

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

#126
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In downtown Columbus Ohio the only internet provider (Spectrum) maxes out at maybe 5 mbps up (down 50-100x that), it's not just a rural issue, non-competitive ISPs even in urban cities want you to pay for business accounts to get any kind of upload whatsoever

Is it really a technical capacity issue, or just market segmentation? Usually, it's possible to get so-called business service with higher upload bandwidth, even at residential addresses.

That's exactly what he said, they want you to pay for business accounts.

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

#127

>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.

In New Zealand we have a single company that owns all the telecommunications wires. It was broken up in the 90's from a service provider because they were a monopoly and abusing their position in the market. Now we have a ton of options of ISPs, but only one company to deal with if there are line faults. BTW the line company is the best to deal with, the ISPs are shit.

Same for mobile infrastructure would be great as well.

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

#128
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…

If 5G lived up to everything it was touted to do, you could use a 5G hotspot for your home internet would could be a huge positive in areas that only have one ISP available. However, 5G does not live up to the promises, and your traffic is much more heavily shaped than non-wireless ISPs.

I know many households which use 5G hotspots for home internet. They even do cloud-rendered gaming and remote telework on such setups. Consistently get several hundred megabits at pretty decent latency and jitter. I'd say that lives up to many promises.

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

#129
This article misses the forest through the trees.

I can grant that a typical usage of wireless bandwidth doesn't require more than 10Mbps. So, what does "even faster buy you"?

The answer is actually pretty simple, at any given frequency you have a limited amount of data that can be transmitted. The more people you have chatting to a tower, the less available bandwidth there is. By having a transmission standard with theoretical capacities in the GB or 10GB, or more you make it so you can service 10, 100, 1000 more customers their 10Mbps content. It makes it cheaper for the carrier to roll out and gives a better experience for the end users.

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

#130

>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.

It's not that stupid IMO, they could handle it like some places handle electricity — there's a single distributor managing infra but you can select from a number of providers offering different generation rates

Having 5 competing infrastructures trying to blanket the country means that you end up with a ton of waste and the most populated places get priority as they constantly fight each other for the most valuable markets while neglecting the less profitable fringe

Post reply on HN