5 ms·

I live in Brussels, internet over 4G works great and nobody complains about it being slow. I am willing to change my mind if somebody proves why we need to upg

by xchip 8y ago

I live in Brussels, internet over 4G works great and nobody complains about it being slow. I am willing to change my mind if somebody proves why we need to upgrade but (and as much as I love new tech) "if ain't broken dont touch it", if anything just make it cheaper.

shrewduser 8y ago
5g would make it cheaper eventually.
oneowl 8y ago
Its a good point plus upgrading to 5g will require purchasing new smartphones so it can be quite a costly affair for the consumer.
- tapland 8y ago
  They will discontinue all the older networks? I can run my new device from this year old good old 2G if I want to. I don't think you are correct in this.
  - wtallis 8y ago
    Who still operates 2G networks? It's not at all profitable to use such spectrum-inefficient tech in any area that has enough density of customers to warrant running a cell tower in the first place. 3G networks are starting to be phased out already, because upgrading radios is cheaper than acquiring spectrum that's currently allocated to incumbent non-cellular uses—and holdouts running obsolete phones aren't numerous enough to worry carriers.
    - lstodd 8y ago
      Many new deployments in Africa, Asia and Oceania as we speak. 4G sucks at coverage and handset count is nowhere near enough to justify 4G hardware and power consumption in most places. 3G yes, it sort of fell through between 2G and 4G - smaller coverage compared to 2G, smaller data throughput compared to 4G.
  - oneowl 8y ago
    Yes. Telephone companies can do this. You are correct about it. I don't have an answer to your question so I'm just speculating over here and it's quite possible that I'm wrong I think as soon as that happens (someone shuts off a network) someone else will set up new networks to provide the old service. Open source technologies exist to set up base stations right now [1] I think we're headed towards an open spectrum future. Soon most communication could take place on unliscenced networks [2]. Or more and more networks could become unliscenced. The G networks are not the only way to communicate. It is also important to note that the G networks are now simply internet enablers. I don't have any data on this but I'd love a comparision of telephony and data services on use today. How much data people use in calling vs using Facebook for example? Also consider that all telephony comapnies are betting big on IOT.How many IOT devices works on a G network? If you have a modern device all you need is WiFi. That however does not mean that telephone companies would cease to exist. Someone still has to provide infrastructure. They just won't have to spend so much on acquiring liscence s. Which also means more competition from unliscenced providers. Device manufacturers would be able to work on a common network technology stack. By the way I don't have anything against 5g. I also don't quite understand health implications so I'm unqalified to talk about it. But I don't like having to buy a new device just to use a new network. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBTS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBTS [2]https://www.weforum.org/projects/internet-for-all https://www.weforum.org/projects/internet-for-all
    - ignoramous 8y ago
      I do not quite grasp the telecom technology/infrastructure yet, but in terms of OpenBTS (which provides software-based base station) and Osmocomm (open source baseband), where does https://www.opennetworking.org https://www.opennetworking.org and https://telecominfraproject.com https://telecominfraproject.com stand in terms of open source infrastructure for 5G?
- zamadatix 8y ago
  It took over 15 years from first 3G phone to the start of shut down of 3G. It's looking even longer for 4G which may easily last 2 decades. I'm not sure which consumers you're worried about here but it's likely not any real consumers.
marios 8y ago
4G, just like 3G before it will get slower over time. The spectrum is still shared, and the more devices are connected on the 4G bands, the less bandwith there is for each device. IMHO, 5G is not so much about speed as it is about latency and better handling of devices in high density areas. Regarding the speed aspect, keep in mind that most smartphones (which are the primary 4G connected devices) are not equipped with modems that can reach the speed limits of 4G. They certainly could, but that would kill battery life. I expect something similar with 5G (although one the promises of 5G is lower power consumption). VoIP over 3G is often terrible. It's better on 4G, but, in my experience, it's often hit and miss. Having improved latency and speed means VoIP (and video calls) are, theoretically, less of a gamble. (My experience with 3G/4G is a single datapoint and should not be taken too seriously, evidently) However, cheap 4G is a good option for areas that have decent cell coverage but poor broadband (I refer to the usual copper lines for DSL). 5G can make the situation better, if only by making 4G cheaper. Deploying 5G means that an operator may have to upgrade their backbone ... which is good for 4G users too.
- oneowl 8y ago
  > 4G, just like 3G before it will get slower over time. You are correct but that will happen again with 5G and then with 6G and so on. After a period all networks will saturate. I'm not sure if I'm right about this, but I think one solution could be to increase the network density with the deployment of small cell networks that provide a better local coverage and bandwitdh. A few companies like nokia [1] and ericsson [2] are taking that route.That also requires upgradation on hardware form the operator but at least spares the customer from buying a new equipment. [1] https://networks.nokia.com/products/small-cells https://networks.nokia.com/products/small-cells [2]https://www.ericsson.com/en/networks/offerings/small-cells/outdoor-small-cells https://www.ericsson.com/en/networks/offerings/small-cells/o...
  - kalleboo 8y ago
    One of the features of 5G is support for high-frequency (30 GHz+), high-bandwidth, small cell networks. Most(?) of the 5G deployments are planned to be of this type.
thefounder 8y ago
Once 8k streaming becomes popular 5G will be a must.
- AnssiH 8y ago
  The highest 4G speed tiers around here go up to 600Mbps, which should be enough for 8k. https://elisa.fi/kauppa/#!/nettiliittymat/mobiililaajakaista https://elisa.fi/kauppa/#!/nettiliittymat/mobiililaajakaista (Finnish) Edit: looks like DNA's 4G Max plans go up to at least 880Mbps based on users' speedtest results: https://bbs.io-tech.fi/threads/nettiliittymaesi-taemaenhetkinen-nopeus-keskustelua.2994/page-40 https://bbs.io-tech.fi/threads/nettiliittymaesi-taemaenhetki... (Finnish - the 15ms+ ones are from 4G)
- chii 8y ago
  > Once 8k streaming 8k on a mobile device doesn't seem all that logical imho. 720p or 1080p is already pretty good on a tiny screen.
  - wongarsu 8y ago
    Many people hold their phone much closer to their face than a TV or regular monitor. Screen size is irrelvant, what's important is how much of your field of vision is taken up by the screen. I would argue phones are even the device where 4k and 8k make the most sense because of how close you can get to them without effort.
    - Wowfunhappy 8y ago
      > Many people hold their phone much closer to their face than a TV or regular monitor. Screen size is irrelvant, what's important is how much of your field of vision is taken up by the screen. This makes logical sense, but isn't the case in my experience. Many games look noticeably better on my Switch's 720p screen than on my larger 1080p monitor, despite running at native resolution (720p handheld vs 1080p docked) on each.

by xchip 8y ago

shrewduser 8y ago

5g would make it cheaper eventually.

oneowl 8y ago

Its a good point plus upgrading to 5g will require purchasing new smartphones so it can be quite a costly affair for the consumer.

tapland 8y ago
They will discontinue all the older networks? I can run my new device from this year old good old 2G if I want to. I don't think you are correct in this.
- wtallis 8y ago
  Who still operates 2G networks? It's not at all profitable to use such spectrum-inefficient tech in any area that has enough density of customers to warrant running a cell tower in the first place. 3G networks are starting to be phased out already, because upgrading radios is cheaper than acquiring spectrum that's currently allocated to incumbent non-cellular uses—and holdouts running obsolete phones aren't numerous enough to worry carriers.
  - lstodd 8y ago
    Many new deployments in Africa, Asia and Oceania as we speak. 4G sucks at coverage and handset count is nowhere near enough to justify 4G hardware and power consumption in most places. 3G yes, it sort of fell through between 2G and 4G - smaller coverage compared to 2G, smaller data throughput compared to 4G.
- oneowl 8y ago
  Yes. Telephone companies can do this. You are correct about it. I don't have an answer to your question so I'm just speculating over here and it's quite possible that I'm wrong I think as soon as that happens (someone shuts off a network) someone else will set up new networks to provide the old service. Open source technologies exist to set up base stations right now [1] I think we're headed towards an open spectrum future. Soon most communication could take place on unliscenced networks [2]. Or more and more networks could become unliscenced. The G networks are not the only way to communicate. It is also important to note that the G networks are now simply internet enablers. I don't have any data on this but I'd love a comparision of telephony and data services on use today. How much data people use in calling vs using Facebook for example? Also consider that all telephony comapnies are betting big on IOT.How many IOT devices works on a G network? If you have a modern device all you need is WiFi. That however does not mean that telephone companies would cease to exist. Someone still has to provide infrastructure. They just won't have to spend so much on acquiring liscence s. Which also means more competition from unliscenced providers. Device manufacturers would be able to work on a common network technology stack. By the way I don't have anything against 5g. I also don't quite understand health implications so I'm unqalified to talk about it. But I don't like having to buy a new device just to use a new network. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBTS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBTS [2]https://www.weforum.org/projects/internet-for-all https://www.weforum.org/projects/internet-for-all
  - ignoramous 8y ago
    I do not quite grasp the telecom technology/infrastructure yet, but in terms of OpenBTS (which provides software-based base station) and Osmocomm (open source baseband), where does https://www.opennetworking.org https://www.opennetworking.org and https://telecominfraproject.com https://telecominfraproject.com stand in terms of open source infrastructure for 5G?
zamadatix 8y ago
It took over 15 years from first 3G phone to the start of shut down of 3G. It's looking even longer for 4G which may easily last 2 decades. I'm not sure which consumers you're worried about here but it's likely not any real consumers.

marios 8y ago

4G, just like 3G before it will get slower over time. The spectrum is still shared, and the more devices are connected on the 4G bands, the less bandwith there is for each device. IMHO, 5G is not so much about speed as it is about latency and better handling of devices in high density areas. Regarding the speed aspect, keep in mind that most smartphones (which are the primary 4G connected devices) are not equipped with modems that can reach the speed limits of 4G. They certainly could, but that would kill battery life. I expect something similar with 5G (although one the promises of 5G is lower power consumption). VoIP over 3G is often terrible. It's better on 4G, but, in my experience, it's often hit and miss. Having improved latency and speed means VoIP (and video calls) are, theoretically, less of a gamble. (My experience with 3G/4G is a single datapoint and should not be taken too seriously, evidently) However, cheap 4G is a good option for areas that have decent cell coverage but poor broadband (I refer to the usual copper lines for DSL). 5G can make the situation better, if only by making 4G cheaper. Deploying 5G means that an operator may have to upgrade their backbone ... which is good for 4G users too.

oneowl 8y ago
> 4G, just like 3G before it will get slower over time. You are correct but that will happen again with 5G and then with 6G and so on. After a period all networks will saturate. I'm not sure if I'm right about this, but I think one solution could be to increase the network density with the deployment of small cell networks that provide a better local coverage and bandwitdh. A few companies like nokia [1] and ericsson [2] are taking that route.That also requires upgradation on hardware form the operator but at least spares the customer from buying a new equipment. [1] https://networks.nokia.com/products/small-cells https://networks.nokia.com/products/small-cells [2]https://www.ericsson.com/en/networks/offerings/small-cells/outdoor-small-cells https://www.ericsson.com/en/networks/offerings/small-cells/o...
- kalleboo 8y ago
  One of the features of 5G is support for high-frequency (30 GHz+), high-bandwidth, small cell networks. Most(?) of the 5G deployments are planned to be of this type.

thefounder 8y ago

Once 8k streaming becomes popular 5G will be a must.

AnssiH 8y ago
The highest 4G speed tiers around here go up to 600Mbps, which should be enough for 8k. https://elisa.fi/kauppa/#!/nettiliittymat/mobiililaajakaista https://elisa.fi/kauppa/#!/nettiliittymat/mobiililaajakaista (Finnish) Edit: looks like DNA's 4G Max plans go up to at least 880Mbps based on users' speedtest results: https://bbs.io-tech.fi/threads/nettiliittymaesi-taemaenhetkinen-nopeus-keskustelua.2994/page-40 https://bbs.io-tech.fi/threads/nettiliittymaesi-taemaenhetki... (Finnish - the 15ms+ ones are from 4G)
chii 8y ago
> Once 8k streaming 8k on a mobile device doesn't seem all that logical imho. 720p or 1080p is already pretty good on a tiny screen.
- wongarsu 8y ago
  Many people hold their phone much closer to their face than a TV or regular monitor. Screen size is irrelvant, what's important is how much of your field of vision is taken up by the screen. I would argue phones are even the device where 4k and 8k make the most sense because of how close you can get to them without effort.
  - Wowfunhappy 8y ago
    > Many people hold their phone much closer to their face than a TV or regular monitor. Screen size is irrelvant, what's important is how much of your field of vision is taken up by the screen. This makes logical sense, but isn't the case in my experience. Many games look noticeably better on my Switch's 720p screen than on my larger 1080p monitor, despite running at native resolution (720p handheld vs 1080p docked) on each.