4 ms·

When "4G" was initially commercialized, one could have claimed it has No "Material Difference Between 3G and 4G". HSPA(+) was just faster 3G, already reaching l

When "4G" was initially commercialized, one could have claimed it has No "Material Difference Between 3G and 4G". HSPA(+) was just faster 3G, already reaching lower end of 4G bandwidth requirement, minimally qualifiable as 4G. But has 4G/LTE eventually turned out to be "one generation" better than 3G? Hell yeah. Same thing here for 4G-5G transition. The real deal is when milimeter wave got massively deployed and commercialized.

tracker1 8y ago
Is the coverage/range and rate of speed at range much better for 5G vs. 4G/LTE? I don't think most people need (much) more speed over wireless so much as better/more coverage and better speed at lower signal. Also, it's about relative cost... what about data caps? If they intend to compete with wired in home connections for things like set top (online streaming), they'll need a compelling story, and not running out of your allotment or being throttled after watching a couple 4K movies in the evening less than a week into your billing cycle.
- fredliu 8y ago
  The coverage/range of 5G depends on the scale of deployment, and the environment of the deployment (e.g. urban with lots of tall buildings, vs rural), assuming we are talking about mmw type of 5G not LTE+ type of 5G. Due to higher frequency, 5G might actually have a disadvantage in range for a single tower, in dense urban environment due to weaker penetration. But it could be compensated by deploying more towers, at more strategic locations. The value proposition is that the gain in speed and delay would be well worth it. Weak penetration is still a problem for long range open field 5G communication, but due to different factors like fog, weather conditions, etc. Regarding data caps, I view it as more of a business model question, less related to the technical capabilities of 4G vs 5G.
ysleepy 8y ago
There is a material difference between UMTS and LTE, UMTS is using CDMA which comes with some practically unfortunate tradeoffs like the "breathing cell" and inheriting the old GSM style slow system design.
- fredliu 8y ago
  Sure, CDMA vs OFDM, definitely they can be regarded as "material difference" But that's not the logic/argument the original article made. They only used bandwidth and delay to quantify "material difference". Following their logic, they can make the same argument for 3G vs 4G back in the day.
Zigurd 8y ago
LTE is materially different from 3G, because the protocols are different AND the radios are different. For example, you can make an all-IP network with LTE. You can't do that with 3G. Ironically, though, most phone calls, even on LTE networks, are still 3G circuit-switched phone calls. Also, this article is correct that there is no similar difference in "5G." There is really no such thing, outside of carrier marketing, as "5G." One could try retrofitting meaning to "5G," like "OK now we'll really do packet switched phone calls" or something like that. But almost all the technologies that come under the heading 5G were foreseen and often standardized when LTE standards were first written. LTE stands for Long Term Evolution. It's meant to be a durable, evolving set of standards for wireless communication.
- topranks 8y ago
  Haha yeah I suspected that. Wouldn't have been much of a thought out framework for "long-term evolution" if it was scrapped within 10 years!

tracker1 8y ago

Is the coverage/range and rate of speed at range much better for 5G vs. 4G/LTE? I don't think most people need (much) more speed over wireless so much as better/more coverage and better speed at lower signal. Also, it's about relative cost... what about data caps? If they intend to compete with wired in home connections for things like set top (online streaming), they'll need a compelling story, and not running out of your allotment or being throttled after watching a couple 4K movies in the evening less than a week into your billing cycle.

fredliu 8y ago
The coverage/range of 5G depends on the scale of deployment, and the environment of the deployment (e.g. urban with lots of tall buildings, vs rural), assuming we are talking about mmw type of 5G not LTE+ type of 5G. Due to higher frequency, 5G might actually have a disadvantage in range for a single tower, in dense urban environment due to weaker penetration. But it could be compensated by deploying more towers, at more strategic locations. The value proposition is that the gain in speed and delay would be well worth it. Weak penetration is still a problem for long range open field 5G communication, but due to different factors like fog, weather conditions, etc. Regarding data caps, I view it as more of a business model question, less related to the technical capabilities of 4G vs 5G.

ysleepy 8y ago

There is a material difference between UMTS and LTE, UMTS is using CDMA which comes with some practically unfortunate tradeoffs like the "breathing cell" and inheriting the old GSM style slow system design.

fredliu 8y ago
Sure, CDMA vs OFDM, definitely they can be regarded as "material difference" But that's not the logic/argument the original article made. They only used bandwidth and delay to quantify "material difference". Following their logic, they can make the same argument for 3G vs 4G back in the day.

Zigurd 8y ago

LTE is materially different from 3G, because the protocols are different AND the radios are different. For example, you can make an all-IP network with LTE. You can't do that with 3G. Ironically, though, most phone calls, even on LTE networks, are still 3G circuit-switched phone calls. Also, this article is correct that there is no similar difference in "5G." There is really no such thing, outside of carrier marketing, as "5G." One could try retrofitting meaning to "5G," like "OK now we'll really do packet switched phone calls" or something like that. But almost all the technologies that come under the heading 5G were foreseen and often standardized when LTE standards were first written. LTE stands for Long Term Evolution. It's meant to be a durable, evolving set of standards for wireless communication.

topranks 8y ago
Haha yeah I suspected that. Wouldn't have been much of a thought out framework for "long-term evolution" if it was scrapped within 10 years!