13 ms·

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

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 8y 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 8y ago
  [deleted]
- phinnaeus 8y ago
  Couldn't we just increase 4G capacity in that case?
  - macintux 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y ago
  European landline operators ARE the networks.

vinylkey 8y 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 8y ago
[deleted]
phinnaeus 8y ago
Couldn't we just increase 4G capacity in that case?
- macintux 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y ago
European landline operators ARE the networks.