4 ms·

Yes

scotty79 8y ago
Why? It's just faster and I already can stream video and play realtime games on 4g. What are other more demanding applications?
- obmelvin 8y ago
  By that logic, why did we need 4g? Depending on your frame of reference 3g was fast enough to stream videos. Point being, there will always be uses for higher bandwidth and lower latency even if you don't need it yourself.
  - scotty79 8y ago
    I love to have more of everything. I just don't get the hype.
  - drb91 8y ago
    We don’t need 4g. Anyone who says otherwise is blatantly lying to themselves.
- abledon 8y ago
  probably enterprise reasons and less personal consumer.
- reshie 8y ago
  progress. is it better to have to much or too little? with more room to grow there is more posibilities.
- Jonnax 8y ago
  There's only one atmosphere around you. Faster means that your download takes up less spectrum. Allowing more users to have a good experience at the same time.
- Nokinside 8y ago
  No. It's not just faster. I understand that US based media and forums like HN are little behind on mobile tech, but how it is that this thing persists even 2019. For starters, There is bandwidth not owned by carriers. You can have your own 5G hubs. Companies can have their own 5G networks in factories. Unlike Wi-Fi, you can have more control of latency and reliability. So for example factory with 5G networking between robots etc. is possibility. Connection density, energy efficiency, area data rate, very low latency, virtual networks etc. allow completely different applications. Say, you have peak utilization of graphics card for gaming around 5%, if you can have the card in the edge servers and play the game by streaming it from nearby servers, it's more efficient use of HW and enables mobile games that phone hardware does not support. South Korea or some Chinese cities might be the first to lead mobile gaming to this direction. ps. Nvidia has already demoed GPU in base station over 5G with 60Hz 16ms lag and promises 3ms in the near future.
  - scotty79 8y ago
    Thank you for this response.
  - jauer 8y ago
    Companies already can have their own 4G networks in factories etc. It's fairly common in mining or oil fields. There have been wireless access platforms with much more control over latency and robustness for well over a decade. Bandwidth not owned by carriers is also not new. LTE-U is a recent example. This all sounds similar to the hype that comes with every other new generation of last-mile access technology.
    - Dylan16807 8y ago
      > Companies already can have their own 4G networks in factories etc. It's fairly common in mining or oil fields. Without getting special permission from a carrier? The ability to set up your own wireless equipment that can supply normal phones is an important use case. > Bandwidth not owned by carriers is also not new. LTE-U is a recent example. Wikipedia says LTE-U died. And as far as I can tell LTE-LAA only speeds up existing LTE connections; it can't work standalone. There's MulteFire? It's only half-developed though.

Yes

Why? It's just faster and I already can stream video and play realtime games on 4g. What are other more demanding applications?

obmelvin 8y ago
By that logic, why did we need 4g? Depending on your frame of reference 3g was fast enough to stream videos. Point being, there will always be uses for higher bandwidth and lower latency even if you don't need it yourself.
- scotty79 8y ago
  I love to have more of everything. I just don't get the hype.
- drb91 8y ago
  We don’t need 4g. Anyone who says otherwise is blatantly lying to themselves.
abledon 8y ago
probably enterprise reasons and less personal consumer.
reshie 8y ago
progress. is it better to have to much or too little? with more room to grow there is more posibilities.
Jonnax 8y ago
There's only one atmosphere around you. Faster means that your download takes up less spectrum. Allowing more users to have a good experience at the same time.
Nokinside 8y ago
No. It's not just faster. I understand that US based media and forums like HN are little behind on mobile tech, but how it is that this thing persists even 2019. For starters, There is bandwidth not owned by carriers. You can have your own 5G hubs. Companies can have their own 5G networks in factories. Unlike Wi-Fi, you can have more control of latency and reliability. So for example factory with 5G networking between robots etc. is possibility. Connection density, energy efficiency, area data rate, very low latency, virtual networks etc. allow completely different applications. Say, you have peak utilization of graphics card for gaming around 5%, if you can have the card in the edge servers and play the game by streaming it from nearby servers, it's more efficient use of HW and enables mobile games that phone hardware does not support. South Korea or some Chinese cities might be the first to lead mobile gaming to this direction. ps. Nvidia has already demoed GPU in base station over 5G with 60Hz 16ms lag and promises 3ms in the near future.
- scotty79 8y ago
  Thank you for this response.
- jauer 8y ago
  Companies already can have their own 4G networks in factories etc. It's fairly common in mining or oil fields. There have been wireless access platforms with much more control over latency and robustness for well over a decade. Bandwidth not owned by carriers is also not new. LTE-U is a recent example. This all sounds similar to the hype that comes with every other new generation of last-mile access technology.
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    > Companies already can have their own 4G networks in factories etc. It's fairly common in mining or oil fields. Without getting special permission from a carrier? The ability to set up your own wireless equipment that can supply normal phones is an important use case. > Bandwidth not owned by carriers is also not new. LTE-U is a recent example. Wikipedia says LTE-U died. And as far as I can tell LTE-LAA only speeds up existing LTE connections; it can't work standalone. There's MulteFire? It's only half-developed though.