Idiot author is a kindness. Data rates compared to an obsolete 1970s technology. Author is too old to write articles on the "newfanged internet". IEEE spectrum needs to kick this guy to the curb hard for writting crap and crossposting his book..
5G networks meet consumer needs as mobile data growth slows
181–190 of 376 posts
Re: 5G networks meet consumer needs as mobile data growth slows
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
The answer is yes. But it's not just about speed. The higher speeds drain the battery faster. I say this because we currently use an old 2014 phone as a house phone for the family. It's set to 2G to take calls, and switches to 4g for the actual voice call. We only have to charge it once every 2-3 weeks, if not longer. (Old Samsung phones also had Ultra Power Saving mode which helps with that) 2G is being shutdown tho…
I actually miss the concept of house phones. Instead of exclusively person-to-person communication, families would call other families to catch up and sometimes even pass the phone around to talk to the grandparents, aunts and uncles, etc.
That's a facinating obsevation! I hadn't consider the side effects of calling a common phone and interacting with other people rather than exclusively the one person you wanted to talk/text with. Probably distances you from (or never allows you to know) those adjacent to the person you already know.
Re: 5G networks meet consumer needs as mobile data growth slows
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This creates competition for things like pricing plans If the common carrier is doing all the work, what’s the point of the companies on top? What do they add to the system besides cost? Might as well get rid of them and have a national carrier.
The companies on top provide end user customer support, varied pricing models ("unlimited" data vs pay by the GB, etc), and so on. It allows the common carrier to focus solely on the network hardware.
They also sometimes own the machines in the field closets. So, anyone can rent 1U + a bunch of fiber endpoints for the same price. What you do with the slots is up to you. If there's a problem with the power or actual fiber optics, the common carrier fixes it. (Like a colo, sort of.)
Re: 5G networks meet consumer needs as mobile data growth slows
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
The answer is yes. But it's not just about speed. The higher speeds drain the battery faster. I say this because we currently use an old 2014 phone as a house phone for the family. It's set to 2G to take calls, and switches to 4g for the actual voice call. We only have to charge it once every 2-3 weeks, if not longer. (Old Samsung phones also had Ultra Power Saving mode which helps with that) 2G is being shutdown tho…
There are some more traditional home phones which work on 4/5G networks with a DECT handset which talks to a cellular base station. You might look into switching to that model to replace your "cell phone as a home phone" concept. It makes it a bit easier to add another handset to the DECT network and often means convenient cradles to charge the handsets while the base station stays in a good signal spot with plenty o…
That's not a bad idea, thank you! I always hate having to retire perfectly good working hardware just because a spec requirement change.
Re: 5G networks meet consumer needs as mobile data growth slows
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah? We're getting 30-50 mbit/sec per connection on a good day.
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
Check out Breezeline (previously WOW), they cover nearly the entirety of Columbus and many of the surrounding areas. The minimum plan has 10 up but you can get ~50 up with the standard consumer plans. Bit shitty to deal with though, even for an ISP.
Re: 5G networks meet consumer needs as mobile data growth slows
#186>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 actually works well in most places. Look up the term “common carrier”. The trick is that the entity that owns the wires has to provide/upgrade the network at cost, and anyone has the right to run a telco on top of the network. This creates competition for things like pricing plans, and financial incentives for the companies operating in the space to compete on their ability to build out / upgrade the network (or t…
Your second and third paragraph are contradictory.
Common carriers become the barrier to network upgrades. Always. Without fail. Monopolies are a bad idea, whether state or privately owned.
Let me give you 2 examples.
In australia we had Telstra (Formerly Telecom, Formerly Auspost). Testra would resell carriers ADSL services, and they stank. The carriers couldn't justify price increases to upgrade their networks and the whole thing stagnated.
We had a market review, and Telstra was legislatively forced to sell ULL instead. So the non monopolist is now placing their own hardware in Telstra exchanges, which they can upgrade. Which they did. Once they could sell an upgrade (ADSL2+) they could also price in the cost of upgrading peering and transit. We had a huge increase in network speeds. We later forgot this lesson and created the NBN. NBNCo does not sell ULL, and the pennies that ISPs can charge on top of it are causing stagnation again.
ULL works way better than common carrier. In singapore the government just runs glass. They have competition between carriers to provide faster GPON. 2gig 10gig 100gig whatever. Its just a hardware upgrade away.
10 years from now Australia will realise it screwed up with NBNCo. Again. But they wont as easily be able to go to ULL as they did in the past. NBN's fibre isn't built for it. We will have to tear out splitters and install glass.
The actual result is worse than you suggest. A carrier had to take the government/NBNCo to court to get permission to build residential fibre in apartment buildings over the monopoly. We have NBNCo strategically overbuilding other fibre providers and shutting them down (Its an offence to compete with the NBN on the order of importing a couple million bucks of cocaine). Its an absolute handbrake on competition and network upgrades. Innovation is only happening in the gaps left behind by the common carrier.
Re: 5G networks meet consumer needs as mobile data growth slows
#187Is 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…
5G's trick is MIMO. Basically just using more channel space for more data. In some places that means 3G/4G spectrum + 24GHz + 60GHz. And responding when you close a door and the 60GHz goes away. In some parts of the world where licensing worked out differently, it might just be a couple chunks of old 4G spectrum. Its not a monolith.
Re: 5G networks meet consumer needs as mobile data growth slows
#188Earlier 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?
Internet is treated this way in Germany, and it's slow and expensive. Eastern European countries that put their bets on competition instead of regulation have more bang for the buck in their network infrastructure
How come it's failed to provide cost effective internet in the US then?
Re: 5G networks meet consumer needs as mobile data growth slows
#189>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.
[deleted]
Re: 5G networks meet consumer needs as mobile data growth slows
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You're getting bad 5G. I use 5G for home internet. It's perfect except for pings.
I'm getting bad 5G ~= 5G does not deliver as promised.
to the person that is affected by it, it's not a good thing. we can argue all day about it but you're wrong to whoever you're arguing against at that point.