3 ms·

1. No it won't reduce costs, but it offers a lot more bandwidth which is a consumer demand/necessity. If that need isn't met, people will jump carriers. Take Bo

1. No it won't reduce costs, but it offers a lot more bandwidth which is a consumer demand/necessity. If that need isn't met, people will jump carriers. Take Boston, SF, NYC or Chicago, where you can place femtocells, say, on the top of a building on every other street at every 3rd ave -- even with Siemens markup for the gear, plus city permits, plus installation and maintenance costs -- you're looking at 10-15k a base station (Verizon probably gets bulk discounts, I'm just going by old BS11 Siemens list MSRPs) then double it for the labor/permits/etc listed above along with annoying 'last mile' problems. (Alternatively, I'd imagine they could just offer the city X amount of dollars to mount them directly to municipal poles). 2. Consumers won't be paying more for wireless. You'll still be paying your $200 for an iPhone + $100/mo for internet with a 24 month lock-in. Those ~2k you pay over the course of your contract is what funds these upgrades. The functionality will be bundled with your iPhone $n+1 when the phone-renewal-cycle comes up. You'll have a 4G transceiver + pre-existing wifi tranceiver re-appropriated as Verizon-branded wifi as they negotiate their bluray content to transfer through their femtocells. 3. Internet of Things via mesh might be okay for torrents where latency doesn't matter, but no way for comms. re: your 4g question (I'm assuming you're referring to LTE-A) - No. 4g is limited by spectrally very heavily re: the amount of content you can fit into each hz. Where Verizon is running into problems (NYC, SF, after sports events when everyones taking drunken selfies, etc) they're at saturation. In large cities, I'd imagine Verizon can't just do the ol' "drop more base stations in" because they'll just be spilling tones into their own, over-saturated chunk they bought from the FCC for a few billion. (In the case of 4G LTE-A, these operate at half-duplex within a 6 mhz band for tx and another 6 mhz band for rx, placed up or down 40mhz).

petra 10y ago
Interesring points. Lets see: 3. IoT has other non-mesh protocols like Lora which will work well. 1. Since spectrum efficiency is similar to 4G, to offer more bandwidth,you'll need to use mmWaves. But those don't penetrate buildings, and won't be everywhere and people like their cellular communications to be everywhere. Also I read that base stations will be much more expensive, and it makes sense - the technology is harder to build. Also with mmWaves there will be a lot of unlicensed spectrum and the way you buy spectrum will may be different - so and that could create a lot of business models that threaten carriers. 2. I didn't get the part about Verizon branded with, could you please explain?
- iheartmemcache 10y ago
  In order of your responses: ``3'' : "Work well" for what? I was specifically addressing comms, as that's where the problem currently exists. There are too many concurrent protocols/specs for me to keep up with LoRA (I'm only familiar with the 3GPP standards i.e. the NarrowBand IOT analog to LoRA, for obvious reasons), but I did some reading[1]. It has some awesome features like low-power consumption that allows long range, but again, you're not going to be streaming Youtube videos via that protocol. Their site officially says[2] their solution "is a network ideal for Internet of Things (IoT), metering, security, asset tracking, and machine-to-machine (M2M) applications." So while a great solution for, say, plopping down a few thousand soil hydrometers, it's not going to help with the over-saturation of the 4G networks. ``1'': Spectrum efficiency varies as a function of carrier wave length[3 for a brief overview] There's an information theory limit as to how much data you can effectively transport (throughput, not latency) limited by the Shannon-Hartley limit. (Or maybe the Nyquist something-something...forgive my ignorance on the topic, I really should have went to grad school or at least taken more physics classes.) To offer more bandwidth you can do plenty of things without resorting to mmWave, i.e. picking up rights to a carrier wave when Auction 73 occurred, or use OFDM amongst the ISM bands Which brings me to (``2''- at least, as I understand it). What providers are trying to do is use the standard UWB/OFDM that already has well established, cheap commodity hardware behind it (think: a Cisco Aironet equivalent). The poster at the start of the thread said >> 2. Users have shown they aren't willing to pay more wireless. And for most things consumers do like VR and 360 video etc, wifi is fine and cheaper. I was simply saying that any new technology will be bundled into the next revision of phones. It's not going to cost the consumer any more than usual, because (at least in the US) the 24-month sign+subsidized phone practice is commonplace enough that the next-gen technologies will be bundled in at the same rate. I'm right there with you on mmWave - if you're looking to replace 4G with that, well, probably not viable at the moment as people still tune transmission lines using machined components (expensive, can't really use powdered metal bulk solutions when you need .1 thou tolerances..) that are designed filter cavities like this[4] in one offs (even more expensive without economies of scale) by generally those with graduate degrees. I haven't heard any ballpark quotes for 5G pricing from the usual suppliers.. who's quoting what, and from where? [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lp-wan/current/pdfbVG486gGVD.pdf https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lp-wan/current/pdfbVG4... [2] http://www.semtech.com/wireless-rf/lora.html http://www.semtech.com/wireless-rf/lora.html [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_capacity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_capacity [4] http://www.rfsworld.com/stayconnected/userfiles/stayconnected/issueimages/bilder/0308/WiMAX-filter_1_RZ.jpg http://www.rfsworld.com/stayconnected/userfiles/stayconnecte...

petra 10y ago

Interesring points. Lets see: 3. IoT has other non-mesh protocols like Lora which will work well. 1. Since spectrum efficiency is similar to 4G, to offer more bandwidth,you'll need to use mmWaves. But those don't penetrate buildings, and won't be everywhere and people like their cellular communications to be everywhere. Also I read that base stations will be much more expensive, and it makes sense - the technology is harder to build. Also with mmWaves there will be a lot of unlicensed spectrum and the way you buy spectrum will may be different - so and that could create a lot of business models that threaten carriers. 2. I didn't get the part about Verizon branded with, could you please explain?

iheartmemcache 10y ago
In order of your responses: ``3'' : "Work well" for what? I was specifically addressing comms, as that's where the problem currently exists. There are too many concurrent protocols/specs for me to keep up with LoRA (I'm only familiar with the 3GPP standards i.e. the NarrowBand IOT analog to LoRA, for obvious reasons), but I did some reading[1]. It has some awesome features like low-power consumption that allows long range, but again, you're not going to be streaming Youtube videos via that protocol. Their site officially says[2] their solution "is a network ideal for Internet of Things (IoT), metering, security, asset tracking, and machine-to-machine (M2M) applications." So while a great solution for, say, plopping down a few thousand soil hydrometers, it's not going to help with the over-saturation of the 4G networks. ``1'': Spectrum efficiency varies as a function of carrier wave length[3 for a brief overview] There's an information theory limit as to how much data you can effectively transport (throughput, not latency) limited by the Shannon-Hartley limit. (Or maybe the Nyquist something-something...forgive my ignorance on the topic, I really should have went to grad school or at least taken more physics classes.) To offer more bandwidth you can do plenty of things without resorting to mmWave, i.e. picking up rights to a carrier wave when Auction 73 occurred, or use OFDM amongst the ISM bands Which brings me to (``2''- at least, as I understand it). What providers are trying to do is use the standard UWB/OFDM that already has well established, cheap commodity hardware behind it (think: a Cisco Aironet equivalent). The poster at the start of the thread said >> 2. Users have shown they aren't willing to pay more wireless. And for most things consumers do like VR and 360 video etc, wifi is fine and cheaper. I was simply saying that any new technology will be bundled into the next revision of phones. It's not going to cost the consumer any more than usual, because (at least in the US) the 24-month sign+subsidized phone practice is commonplace enough that the next-gen technologies will be bundled in at the same rate. I'm right there with you on mmWave - if you're looking to replace 4G with that, well, probably not viable at the moment as people still tune transmission lines using machined components (expensive, can't really use powdered metal bulk solutions when you need .1 thou tolerances..) that are designed filter cavities like this[4] in one offs (even more expensive without economies of scale) by generally those with graduate degrees. I haven't heard any ballpark quotes for 5G pricing from the usual suppliers.. who's quoting what, and from where? [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lp-wan/current/pdfbVG486gGVD.pdf https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lp-wan/current/pdfbVG4... [2] http://www.semtech.com/wireless-rf/lora.html http://www.semtech.com/wireless-rf/lora.html [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_capacity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_capacity [4] http://www.rfsworld.com/stayconnected/userfiles/stayconnected/issueimages/bilder/0308/WiMAX-filter_1_RZ.jpg http://www.rfsworld.com/stayconnected/userfiles/stayconnecte...