9 ms·

> 5G's main application around the world will be more capacity, a good thing for telcos This is important for consumers. When did you last get 100Mbit+ speeds

by jupp0r 9y ago

> 5G's main application around the world will be more capacity, a good thing for telcos This is important for consumers. When did you last get 100Mbit+ speeds with 4G? In real world scenarios, the number of people in a cell (due to limited spectrum bandwidth) limits 4G speeds, not protocol maximums. My understanding of 5G is that bandwidth can be used much more efficiently (both by being able to allocate less in idle situations and by spatial multiplexing), benefitting telcos and customers both.

Cshelton 9y ago
The lower speed on 4G is mostly due to the number of devices on it. 5G will be no different in that way. At first, the few people with 5G devices and networks will have very fast speeds (mostly), but once everyone in 4G moves to 5G, we’re back to how it is today. I’m also curious what the effect of all the WiFi networks will have in regards to interference with 5G bands.
- vinylkey 9y ago
  > but once everyone in 4G moves to 5G, we’re back to how it is today. Would there be a benefit to split 50:50 between 4G and 5G?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - phinnaeus 9y ago
    Couldn't we just increase 4G capacity in that case?
    - macintux 9y ago
      I would imagine there are fundamental limitations on the available bandwidth that splitting the traffic across multiple frequencies would alleviate...but that's just speculation.
      - jburgess777 9y ago
        LTE Advanced already supports a feature called carrier aggregation where your phone can transfer data on multiple different frequencies at the same time to boost its aggregate throughput: http://www.3gpp.org/technologies/keywords-acronyms/101-carrier-aggregation-explained http://www.3gpp.org/technologies/keywords-acronyms/101-carri... Unfortunately that does not boost the overall capacity available so the higher peaks speeds may not improve the average experience.
- taeric 9y ago
  This doesn't seem to contradict the point. There is a fixed capacity that the network can handle. For 5G, this appears to be a higher capacity than for 4G. So, yes, more devices will mean less speed for everyone. However, there is more speed to go around, so the same number of devices in a 4G setting will get less speed than the same number in a 5G. Or is that not the GP's point?
- okmokmz 9y ago
  >The lower speed on 4G is mostly due to the number of devices on it. Is that the sole reason 5G is faster, or will being able to allocate less in idle situations and utilize spatial multiplexing support faster speeds even with a comparable number of devices?
  - taeric 9y ago
    Allocating less in idle situations sounds dangerous. What do you do when there is a real world event and everyone rushes to their device, pulling them out of idle? (I'm assuming this problem is already considered. Genuinely asking, in case someone has a good link to read on it.)
    - jdietrich 9y ago
      It's straightforward QoS management. Public service users get absolute priority, even if that means kicking everyone else off the network. After that, voice and SMS get priority, because they're important to users and have very low data rates. IP traffic can have whatever's left on a fair queuing basis. Most operators use deep packet inspection and can perform fairly sophisticated traffic shaping.
      - taeric 9y ago
        That makes some sense. But "kicking people off" is a crappy answer. Especially since you are setting up a constant storm of users trying to reconnect. Easy to see how that will not play well with idle connections.
        jdietrich 9y ago
        >Especially since you are setting up a constant storm of users trying to reconnect. The network isn't that dumb. The technical details are far beyond the scope of a HN comment, but the network can gracefully deny service to users. Think about what happens if you run out of data allowance or prepaid credit - your phone doesn't frantically spam the network, it just asks for service and is politely told to try again later. If all else fails, you can just de-register all the devices connected to a given cell site and revert them to emergency calls only.
- gruez 9y ago
  >once everyone in 4G moves to 5G, we’re back to how it is today. is that why some budget MVNOs only offer 2g/3g access when their parent network has lte?
- jdietrich 9y ago
  The point of the article isn't that 5G won't improve throughput, but that improvements of the existing LTE network will provide similar improvements. This is really a corporate squabblefest over branding, control of standards and intellectual property. There are misaligned incentives between IP holders like Qualcomm, equipment manufacturers and network operators. The networks want the 5G brand so they can sell the image of an "all-new superfast network", but they want to spend as little as possible on new infrastructure. IP holders want to ensure that any future development is tied to licensing their technology. Equipment manufacturers want to sidestep those license costs, either by avoiding new technologies with freshly-minted patents or by moving to technologies with fewer dependencies on proprietary IP. US cable operators want access to millimetre bands to expand their fixed broadband network, while European landline broadband operators don't want new competition. Nobody is being honest about those clashing incentives, so we're seeing huge amounts of babble and FUD from all sides.
  - petra 9y ago
    So what do you think will be the end result of 5G ? same as William Webb says, that most likely, nothing will come out of it - because consumers are happy with current speed, and they're only interest is paying less, which doesn't fit with investing billions in 5G ?
  - antnisp 9y ago
    European landline operators ARE the networks.
ec109685 9y ago
Telecoms have the ability today to add more capacity by increasing tower density.
- KirinDave 9y ago
  They have the capability, but this intersects with local building codes, zoning laws, and safety standards. It also carries increased costs over time. What's being said here is, "We don't foresee any problems with having our current level of capacity provisioning, and we're fine with the level of service we provide."
  - learc83 9y ago
    It's going to be even worse with 5g. 5g is just a spec and the current most likely way to meet that spec is with micro-cells operating at higher frequencies. They will require line of site because higher frequencies can't penetrate obstacles. To get 5g speeds and capacities, you're going to need to put towers everywhere. Smaller towers yes, but many many more of them.
    - jburgess777 9y ago
      This matches what has been said about the planned rollout of 5G in the UK: more use of higher frequency bands and cells sites possibly sited at every road junction (intersection). The impact of land topology is seen as so important that the UK Ordnance Survey have got involved with simulating 5G coverage: http://os.uk/5g http://os.uk/5g https://5g.co.uk/ https://5g.co.uk/
- mdorazio 9y ago
  In many cases it's not that simple. Local governments are often in control of permitting for cell tower sites. The telcos can't just plop down new towers wherever they want and call it a day.
- zanny 9y ago
  And societies have the ability to add more capacity by realizing by having privately owned radio spectrum the advancement and adoption of wireless data transfer has been stunted for decades. Everyone likes to argue that you can't have an all wireless society because there is limited bandwidth available, but as it is we are only using about 10% of the usable spectrum (from about 200MHZ to 8GHZ) for network data connectivity, and even then most of it is still privately controlled - if an area has too many AT&T subscribers and not enough Verizon customers, the Verizon spectrums go to waste while the AT&T ones are oversaturated. There are a few things I could name off the top of my head that would overnight dramatically improve technology, but nationalizing back light for the people to use and then having this entire range opened up to generic data transfer with the same congestion rules and regulations used on currently open bandwidth rings would go a long way to improving most of our lives dramatically.
staplers 9y ago
When did you last get 100Mbit+ speeds with 4G? In a real world scenario, I would max out my data cap in 5 minutes.. Telcos will never give up their guaranteed profits by throttling speeds even with unlimited speed/capacity.
- wyldfire 9y ago
  The cap that they set is a function of their capacity. If we use spectrum more efficiently, prices can drop or caps can go up.
  - jhayward 9y ago
    This is an unsupported assertion. Most caps are not sensitive to the environment they are consumed in, whether bandwidth tight or bandwidth plenty.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > I would max out my data cap in 5 minutes Counterargument: there are fundamental reasons for data caps. To provide service at a high speed to lots of people at a reasonable price, edge-case data users must be throttled. Increasing capacity reduces the number of users who must be throttled.
  - metalliqaz 9y ago
    That might make sense IF the caps only applied during times of congestion.
  - wlesieutre 9y ago
    Then they should apply caps or throttling during hours when capacity is a concern and let me download 100 GB of games from Steam between 4 and 7 AM when the Netflix watchers have gone to bed.
    - Analemma_ 9y ago
      They do, or at least T-Mobile does: their unlimited plan throttles you once you exceed X gigabytes in a month (I believe X is 25), but only when the cell is congested.
gcbw2 9y ago
isn't it capacity as in more devices to the same transmitter. The problem today is already too many devices for the transmitter internet pipe. 5G will make this worse (or better, if you are a Telco overselling data without consequences)
- jupp0r 9y ago
  It's not that easy. 5G uses spatial multiplexing so multiple devices can send/receive on the same frequency bands at the same time without interfering with each other (4G also supports this to a lesser extent already).
zkms 9y ago
> When did you last get 100Mbit+ speeds with 4G? Any time I'm not over the 5GB data limit on my plan, really. I can speed test and get values like 102 Mbps down / 35Mbps up on TMobile US, on an old device (iPhone 6). Newer devices have better radios/basebands that support fancier air interface features and thus get even faster speeds.
barnabee 9y ago
I regularly see 150-200 Mbps (testing with fast.com in London on EE) but it can drop to 50-odd even with a good signal (I'm guessing due to contention) and the drop off with a low signal (1/2 bars) is dramatic. If 5G gives 100+ on two bars and increases capacity enough to keep the speeds up at busy times, it's worth it.
- paco3346 9y ago
  Dang, that's good. I've only ever once seen anything over 100 and that was when LTE was brand new. Now I tend to average between 15-50. (This is in West Michigan)
  - LeifCarrotson 9y ago
    Hi fellow Michigander! I used to have the same on ATT, but recently got T Mobile: https://photos.app.goo.gl/wngQxpA5nqL27ikI3 https://photos.app.goo.gl/wngQxpA5nqL27ikI3 112 down, 14 up. Unlimited, for less than 3 GB cost at ATT. Honestly don't know why I still give Comcast $25/mo.
    - lunchables 9y ago
      Because of the bandwidth limit on your "unlimited" cell service. https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/19/16334690/t-mobile-unlimited-data-cap-increase-32gb-50gb-deprioritization https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/19/16334690/t-mobile-unlimit...
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
trisimix 9y ago
Except theyll charge a fuckton
daveburstein 9y ago
Author here. Actually, the LTE being installed today will give 100-300 megabits to most users, except at the edge of the cell or behind a building, etc. The "usually less than 100 megabits" is equipment from more than a year ago. The right comparison is 2019 equipment against 2019 equipment.

by jupp0r 9y ago

Cshelton 9y ago

The lower speed on 4G is mostly due to the number of devices on it. 5G will be no different in that way. At first, the few people with 5G devices and networks will have very fast speeds (mostly), but once everyone in 4G moves to 5G, we’re back to how it is today. I’m also curious what the effect of all the WiFi networks will have in regards to interference with 5G bands.

vinylkey 9y ago
> but once everyone in 4G moves to 5G, we’re back to how it is today. Would there be a benefit to split 50:50 between 4G and 5G?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- phinnaeus 9y ago
  Couldn't we just increase 4G capacity in that case?
  - macintux 9y ago
    I would imagine there are fundamental limitations on the available bandwidth that splitting the traffic across multiple frequencies would alleviate...but that's just speculation.
    - jburgess777 9y ago
      LTE Advanced already supports a feature called carrier aggregation where your phone can transfer data on multiple different frequencies at the same time to boost its aggregate throughput: http://www.3gpp.org/technologies/keywords-acronyms/101-carrier-aggregation-explained http://www.3gpp.org/technologies/keywords-acronyms/101-carri... Unfortunately that does not boost the overall capacity available so the higher peaks speeds may not improve the average experience.
taeric 9y ago
This doesn't seem to contradict the point. There is a fixed capacity that the network can handle. For 5G, this appears to be a higher capacity than for 4G. So, yes, more devices will mean less speed for everyone. However, there is more speed to go around, so the same number of devices in a 4G setting will get less speed than the same number in a 5G. Or is that not the GP's point?
okmokmz 9y ago
>The lower speed on 4G is mostly due to the number of devices on it. Is that the sole reason 5G is faster, or will being able to allocate less in idle situations and utilize spatial multiplexing support faster speeds even with a comparable number of devices?
- taeric 9y ago
  Allocating less in idle situations sounds dangerous. What do you do when there is a real world event and everyone rushes to their device, pulling them out of idle? (I'm assuming this problem is already considered. Genuinely asking, in case someone has a good link to read on it.)
  - jdietrich 9y ago
    It's straightforward QoS management. Public service users get absolute priority, even if that means kicking everyone else off the network. After that, voice and SMS get priority, because they're important to users and have very low data rates. IP traffic can have whatever's left on a fair queuing basis. Most operators use deep packet inspection and can perform fairly sophisticated traffic shaping.
    - taeric 9y ago
      That makes some sense. But "kicking people off" is a crappy answer. Especially since you are setting up a constant storm of users trying to reconnect. Easy to see how that will not play well with idle connections.
      - jdietrich 9y ago
        >Especially since you are setting up a constant storm of users trying to reconnect. The network isn't that dumb. The technical details are far beyond the scope of a HN comment, but the network can gracefully deny service to users. Think about what happens if you run out of data allowance or prepaid credit - your phone doesn't frantically spam the network, it just asks for service and is politely told to try again later. If all else fails, you can just de-register all the devices connected to a given cell site and revert them to emergency calls only.
gruez 9y ago
>once everyone in 4G moves to 5G, we’re back to how it is today. is that why some budget MVNOs only offer 2g/3g access when their parent network has lte?
jdietrich 9y ago
The point of the article isn't that 5G won't improve throughput, but that improvements of the existing LTE network will provide similar improvements. This is really a corporate squabblefest over branding, control of standards and intellectual property. There are misaligned incentives between IP holders like Qualcomm, equipment manufacturers and network operators. The networks want the 5G brand so they can sell the image of an "all-new superfast network", but they want to spend as little as possible on new infrastructure. IP holders want to ensure that any future development is tied to licensing their technology. Equipment manufacturers want to sidestep those license costs, either by avoiding new technologies with freshly-minted patents or by moving to technologies with fewer dependencies on proprietary IP. US cable operators want access to millimetre bands to expand their fixed broadband network, while European landline broadband operators don't want new competition. Nobody is being honest about those clashing incentives, so we're seeing huge amounts of babble and FUD from all sides.
- petra 9y ago
  So what do you think will be the end result of 5G ? same as William Webb says, that most likely, nothing will come out of it - because consumers are happy with current speed, and they're only interest is paying less, which doesn't fit with investing billions in 5G ?
- antnisp 9y ago
  European landline operators ARE the networks.

ec109685 9y ago

Telecoms have the ability today to add more capacity by increasing tower density.

KirinDave 9y ago
They have the capability, but this intersects with local building codes, zoning laws, and safety standards. It also carries increased costs over time. What's being said here is, "We don't foresee any problems with having our current level of capacity provisioning, and we're fine with the level of service we provide."
- learc83 9y ago
  It's going to be even worse with 5g. 5g is just a spec and the current most likely way to meet that spec is with micro-cells operating at higher frequencies. They will require line of site because higher frequencies can't penetrate obstacles. To get 5g speeds and capacities, you're going to need to put towers everywhere. Smaller towers yes, but many many more of them.
  - jburgess777 9y ago
    This matches what has been said about the planned rollout of 5G in the UK: more use of higher frequency bands and cells sites possibly sited at every road junction (intersection). The impact of land topology is seen as so important that the UK Ordnance Survey have got involved with simulating 5G coverage: http://os.uk/5g http://os.uk/5g https://5g.co.uk/ https://5g.co.uk/
mdorazio 9y ago
In many cases it's not that simple. Local governments are often in control of permitting for cell tower sites. The telcos can't just plop down new towers wherever they want and call it a day.
zanny 9y ago
And societies have the ability to add more capacity by realizing by having privately owned radio spectrum the advancement and adoption of wireless data transfer has been stunted for decades. Everyone likes to argue that you can't have an all wireless society because there is limited bandwidth available, but as it is we are only using about 10% of the usable spectrum (from about 200MHZ to 8GHZ) for network data connectivity, and even then most of it is still privately controlled - if an area has too many AT&T subscribers and not enough Verizon customers, the Verizon spectrums go to waste while the AT&T ones are oversaturated. There are a few things I could name off the top of my head that would overnight dramatically improve technology, but nationalizing back light for the people to use and then having this entire range opened up to generic data transfer with the same congestion rules and regulations used on currently open bandwidth rings would go a long way to improving most of our lives dramatically.

staplers 9y ago

When did you last get 100Mbit+ speeds with 4G? In a real world scenario, I would max out my data cap in 5 minutes.. Telcos will never give up their guaranteed profits by throttling speeds even with unlimited speed/capacity.

wyldfire 9y ago
The cap that they set is a function of their capacity. If we use spectrum more efficiently, prices can drop or caps can go up.
- jhayward 9y ago
  This is an unsupported assertion. Most caps are not sensitive to the environment they are consumed in, whether bandwidth tight or bandwidth plenty.
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> I would max out my data cap in 5 minutes Counterargument: there are fundamental reasons for data caps. To provide service at a high speed to lots of people at a reasonable price, edge-case data users must be throttled. Increasing capacity reduces the number of users who must be throttled.
- metalliqaz 9y ago
  That might make sense IF the caps only applied during times of congestion.
- wlesieutre 9y ago
  Then they should apply caps or throttling during hours when capacity is a concern and let me download 100 GB of games from Steam between 4 and 7 AM when the Netflix watchers have gone to bed.
  - Analemma_ 9y ago
    They do, or at least T-Mobile does: their unlimited plan throttles you once you exceed X gigabytes in a month (I believe X is 25), but only when the cell is congested.

gcbw2 9y ago

isn't it capacity as in more devices to the same transmitter. The problem today is already too many devices for the transmitter internet pipe. 5G will make this worse (or better, if you are a Telco overselling data without consequences)

jupp0r 9y ago
It's not that easy. 5G uses spatial multiplexing so multiple devices can send/receive on the same frequency bands at the same time without interfering with each other (4G also supports this to a lesser extent already).

zkms 9y ago

> When did you last get 100Mbit+ speeds with 4G? Any time I'm not over the 5GB data limit on my plan, really. I can speed test and get values like 102 Mbps down / 35Mbps up on TMobile US, on an old device (iPhone 6). Newer devices have better radios/basebands that support fancier air interface features and thus get even faster speeds.

barnabee 9y ago

I regularly see 150-200 Mbps (testing with fast.com in London on EE) but it can drop to 50-odd even with a good signal (I'm guessing due to contention) and the drop off with a low signal (1/2 bars) is dramatic. If 5G gives 100+ on two bars and increases capacity enough to keep the speeds up at busy times, it's worth it.

paco3346 9y ago
Dang, that's good. I've only ever once seen anything over 100 and that was when LTE was brand new. Now I tend to average between 15-50. (This is in West Michigan)
- LeifCarrotson 9y ago
  Hi fellow Michigander! I used to have the same on ATT, but recently got T Mobile: https://photos.app.goo.gl/wngQxpA5nqL27ikI3 https://photos.app.goo.gl/wngQxpA5nqL27ikI3 112 down, 14 up. Unlimited, for less than 3 GB cost at ATT. Honestly don't know why I still give Comcast $25/mo.
  - lunchables 9y ago
    Because of the bandwidth limit on your "unlimited" cell service. https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/19/16334690/t-mobile-unlimited-data-cap-increase-32gb-50gb-deprioritization https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/19/16334690/t-mobile-unlimit...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

trisimix 9y ago

Except theyll charge a fuckton

daveburstein 9y ago

Author here. Actually, the LTE being installed today will give 100-300 megabits to most users, except at the edge of the cell or behind a building, etc. The "usually less than 100 megabits" is equipment from more than a year ago. The right comparison is 2019 equipment against 2019 equipment.