5 ms·
Frankly I'm wondering if 5G will ever take off. One problem with 5G is that it uses higher frequencies, which carry more bandwidth, but don't go through obstacl
by gene-h 9y ago
Frankly I'm wondering if 5G will ever take off. One problem with 5G is that it uses higher frequencies, which carry more bandwidth, but don't go through obstacles so well. So you need much more hotspots, which A is creating zoning nightmares and B is an expensive proposition. Really performance is similar to that of wifi. So the question is why not just use wifi? There's a bunch of wifi hardware already installed, we can assume in the future that more will be installed, and that wifi will continue to improve. Really the big problems with building a wifi based cellular network are incentives, software, and ISPs. We need a way to incentivize people to open up their routers so that strangers can use them and software so that the people using these routers aren't getting snooped on by the people who own the routers. Software and incentives aren't that hard to fix and could be an interesting startup opportunity. However, ISPs could quash any company that tries to do this.
[0]https://www.fastcompany.com/40468468/the-debate-over-neighborhood-zoning-could-hold-up-fast-5g-wireless-for-years-to-come https://www.fastcompany.com/40468468/the-debate-over-neighbo...
- kalleboo 9y agoBecause WiFi sucks. If I'm riding a tram and leave WiFi on, the continuous connection and disconnection of networks (I pay for a WiFi service with a bunch of hotspots) makes my internet useless. If it wasn't for iOS's restrictions on some types of data usage I would never turn on WiFi on my phone. > we can assume in the future [...] that wifi will continue to improve WiFi has gotten faster over the years but none of the fundamental problems have been solved. Heck, WiFi routers still hijack your DNS and HTTP connections just to show a ToS or let you log in! Why is this not an adopted part of the standard?
- TomMarius 9y agoWasn't RADIUS supposed to allow this?
- kalleboo 9y agoThere are lots of standards I'm sure, but one problem with WiFi is the implementations are usually complete crap. With 3G/4G stuff, at least the operators have some minimum QA standards that force the manufacturers to up their game, but for WiFi anything goes.
- Nokinside 9y ago> So the question is why not just use wifi? 5G is designed to use wifi when available. It's more than just new cellular radio interface and antennas. 5G connection can use 5G/LTE/WiFi simultaneously. Gibabit LTE can be used as an anchor for 5G functionality even when 5G networks is not available. I think many people underestimate the ambition of 5G and assume that 5G is just 4G with vastly bandwidth.
- wffurr 9y agoAren't some ISPs and MVNOs already doing this though? Like Republic Wireless, Project Fi, Comcast's mobile service, etc. They eagerly prefer WiFi hotspots and give you access to a network of them with a cellular network in place as a fallback.
- the_mitsuhiko 9y agoIt tears down the connections though.
- andimm 9y agoOur cable provider has such an initiative. You can opt-in to open your internet connection (separate bandwidth of iirc 2Mbit and separate network) for other customers. You can only use it, when you share as well. It is sometimes nice if a neighbor has it open and your own modem is not working properly. Also neat, I could use it in two countries so far (Poland & Switzerland) The initial outcry of users was quite high, as of course nobody wanted to lose bandwidth and have other on "their" network.
- msh 9y agoA big advantage is that 5G is running on licensed spectrum, so not just anybody can send signals in the spectrum, this should give much less interference. Public WIFI is also really bad from a security perspective.
- Nokinside 9y agoAnother big advantage of 5G over 4G is that it can _also_ run over unlicensed spectrum. This enables more use cases like enhanced mobile broadbands, device-to-device mesh networks, private 5G networks, etc.
- martinald 9y agoI sort of agree. Vodafone in UK very rarely bothers deploying LTE2600 unless it is a super busy place like a train station. They rely mostly on LTE800, they've started doing LTE2100 as 800 is getting so congested. But they're not even bothering with the high frequency bandwidth they already have; so I really can't see them bothering with even higher and more expensive to deploy spectrum (again, unless it is super crowded places, but LTE2600 with micro/pico cells can handle this really well now). I also noticed the same in the US when I was roaming, even in lower manhattan there was a load of LTE700 and only sporadic higher spectrum LTE1700/2100. I think LTE with loads of carrier aggregation will work just fine, I can't see this being much of a step. Apart from maybe better handoff between networks; but it isn't suddenly going to enable a new load of applications/devices like it is being hyped up for.