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

311–320 of 376 posts

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

#311

Post by lambdaone »

rsynnott wrote: post #291
gerdesj wrote: post #214

OK so someone has noticed that you "only" need 15MBs-1 for a 4K stream. Jolly good. Now let's address latency - that entire article only mentioned the word once and it looks like it was by accident. Latency isn't cool but it is why your Teams/Zoom/whatevs call sounds a bit odd. You are probably used to the weird over-talking episodes you get when a sound stream goes somewhat async. You put up with it but you really s…

5G is (at least on paper) _very_ low latency; couple of ms.

It is until you congest it. Then, like all other network technologies, performance collapses. You can still force traffic through with EDC, buffering, and re-tries, but at massive cost to overall network performance.

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

#312

Post by lambdaone »

ahartmetz wrote: post #270
JasserInicide wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Barring some revolutionary new material where we can get EM waves to travel orders of magnitude faster through it over current stuff, I don't think we're ever getting around the latency problem.

It's usually not a speed of light problem. It's a problem of everyone optimizing for bandwidth, not latency, because that is the number that products are advertised with. Speed of light is 200'000-300'000 km/s in the media used, that should not be very noticeable when talking to someone in the same country.

See my comments about L4S.

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

#313

Post by sidewndr46 »

iamcalledrob wrote: post #294
repeekad wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, I’m saying it’s not a rural issue to have bad upload, often it’s just a way to charge more money even in a major US city (particularly one with limited ISP competition) In San Francisco monkeybrains is the best ISP I’ve ever used to date; symmetric up/down, great ping and cheaper than any other provider

As a (former) long-time monkeybrains customer, it's a mixed bag. For a casual home internet connection they're great. For WFH where you need something reliable, perhaps not. If you're lucky and get pointed at a good site, you can get great speeds. I was getting 500Mbps up/down. If you're unlucky, you might only get 50Mbps. There's always some jitter and packet loss on the connection too -- much more than a wired conn…

were they using WiFi as the wireless layer?

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

#314

Post by sidewndr46 »

squeaky-clean wrote: post #206
ai-christianson wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah? We're getting 30-50 mbit/sec per connection on a good day.

I'm in NYC, Spectrum is my ISP. 500mb/s down, 10mb/s up. I used to live in a building with symmetric 1G fiber from Verizon, but they don't serve my building.

I'm at 300/10. Actual upload is a bit higher I think, it seems they try and account for IPv4 header overhead or something. If I pay some absolutely bananas monthly fee I can get 30mbps up advertised. That isn't really fast enough for me to notice the difference and the service is unreliable anyways.

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

#315

Post by sidewndr46 »

ai-christianson wrote: post #211
squeaky-clean wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in NYC, Spectrum is my ISP. 500mb/s down, 10mb/s up. I used to live in a building with symmetric 1G fiber from Verizon, but they don't serve my building.

Maybe once download gets so fast people have a hard time figuring out what to do with it (2-10g+) they'll start finally increasing upload.

That seems unlikely, as it is just more bandwidth they'd have to pay for.

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

#316

Post by consp »

linsomniac wrote: post #102
tliltocatl wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 confe…

That works if you control all the radios. If there is some other device screaming into the void you are screwed either way. (been there)

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

#317

Post by rsynnott »

Garvi wrote: post #307
rsynnott wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vast majority of those were not destroyed or damaged. I think some of the tabloids may have conflated "any vandalism or attempted vandalism" with "actually damaged", but, well, that's tabloids for you. > I see you're down to 5 damaged. Good for you. Who's 'you' in this context?

That's not really ambiguous. So it didn't happen, because it was *obviously* made up? The problem with such reasoning is, it does not require substantiation. You should find 20 people that also believe it(shouldn't have a problem on this platform) and you can start a religion.

I mean, I'm unsure why you're so excited about it. Whether it happened or not feels almost irrelevant to me (it'd be far from the worst behviour by loonies during the pandemic), but there seems to be very little evidence that it actually did happen in significant numbers.

Like, even if it had been 80 masts destroyed, the ongoing impact would be nil; they'd just have been replaced and 80 masts is in any case a trivial number (it's difficult to get numbers on how many exist because the ONS data counts nano cells, but there seem to be over 60,000 'real' masts in the UK, anyway.)

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

#318

Post by _Algernon_ »

throwaway314155 wrote: post #251
gerdesj wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry mate, an old habit. Perhaps we should insist on more from formatting from above. That's probably a post processing thing for ... gAI 8)

Old habit from where? Is this a personal preference or a lesser known convention?

Used that a bunch in physics class in school. Makes it much easier to calculate with units since you simply add up the exponents of the units instead of having to consider the notation around the units.

Doesn't work well in pure text mediums.

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

#319

Post by ksec »

rsynnott wrote: post #291
gerdesj wrote: post #214

OK so someone has noticed that you "only" need 15MBs-1 for a 4K stream. Jolly good. Now let's address latency - that entire article only mentioned the word once and it looks like it was by accident. Latency isn't cool but it is why your Teams/Zoom/whatevs call sounds a bit odd. You are probably used to the weird over-talking episodes you get when a sound stream goes somewhat async. You put up with it but you really s…

5G is (at least on paper) _very_ low latency; couple of ms.

It is not on paper. Couple of ms ( 4ms ) is real, except it is not normal 5G but specific superset / version of 5G.

Your network needs to be End to End running on 5G-A ( 3GPP Rel 18 ) with full SA ( Stand Alone ) using NR ( New Radio ) only. Right now AFAIK only Mobile networks in China has managed to run that. ( Along with turning on VoNR ) Most other network are still behind in deployment and switching.

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

#320

Post by kjellsbells »

aaplok wrote: post #239
kjellsbells wrote: post #236

I follow what the operators tell Wall St, because the executives have large personal financial stakes in getting it right (modulo fraud, but lets trust for now). For example, at the last investor day that AT&T held, they indicated [0:pdf] that their growth plans are in broadband fiber, not building more 5G capacity to serve a surge in traffic. Reading their charts and knowing how AT&T traditionally worked, I believe…

My understanding is that 6G is expected to make use of a good decentralised fibre network, with small radio units at the end points of this network providing the wireless contact point. With interoperability being on the books for 6G, whoever controls the fibre network is in for a lot of money (unless the article we're commenting on is right). So it might make sense for operators to focus on developing fibre regardle…

Yes, this distributed radio idea is a feature of both 5G and 6G. You stick the dumbest, dullest parts of the radio electronics up on the tower and trunk them all back over fiber to an aggregation/control point a few kms away, and then trunk the agg points back to the packet core a few hundreds of km away. That needs a lot of fiber to carry the backhaul. I dont know if operators are thinking of using this fiber to also incidentally deliver broadband service, but today that doesnt happen: for one, oftentimes the mobile operator doesnt own the fiber, they just lease it.
Post reply on HN