6 ms·

Um, but in all seriousness, do we really need even faster speeds on our phones? 5g requires even more fiber junctioned off to boxes that only have, what was it,

Um, but in all seriousness, do we really need even faster speeds on our phones? 5g requires even more fiber junctioned off to boxes that only have, what was it, 500ft radius? So I can do what "faster" on my phone? I get as a home internet replacement. Sure. Maybe offices, as long as it's nothing crazy. But I've seen people argue for it by using Fortnite mobile. Itd take like 30seconds instead of 2 minutes to download. And? Not being an ass, other than the occasional app updates and music sync, what all do you need fiber fast connections on your phone or you might die waiting? Problem I see is the same argument for 6g. Suddenly 5g isn't enough. Suddenly all that infrastructure is going to be a waste. Makes me think that people imagine setting up this stuff is magic and free. New fiber lines. Crews to trench and pull cable. Line crews to go on hundreds of thousands of poles. This isn't cheap both materials and labor. Hell, my buddy and I got a quote about 2 years ago to run a fiber trunk line about 1.5 miles from the interstate to an office we had in Colorado. It roughed out to about 750k. That was with a friend who would do the boring. Easements, code, general feasibility due to existing infrastructure. Shit ain't easy or cheap. And we were in a rural area. I'd imagine an actual city is about two nightmares and a trip to a suicide booth.

pcr910303 7y ago
As for why you need faster connections, I have seen live streams or youtube videos lagging on the 4G network. In South Korea, many people are very excited in 5G as our current 4G LTE-A speed (about 50 ~ 80 Mbps) is considered 'not-enough'. Generally, 4G networks are (at least in Korea) about 1/10 ~ 1/2 of the general WLAN speeds (100Mbps ~ 1Gbps), and I believe that cellular networks have a long way to go to be as fast as WLANs.
- reaperducer 7y ago
  As for why you need faster connections, I have seen live streams or youtube videos lagging on the 4G network. Here's something that people never say anymore: So what? Who cares if YouTube lags on 4G? So what if you have to wait eight seconds for buffering. Does it really matter if you see SD or HD video instead of 4K video on a three-inch cell phone screen? No, it doesn't.
  - pcr910303 7y ago
    Well, I care, my friends care, it's something that many, many, many people care. Literally all of my friends that went to 5G (about ~20 or so?̊̈) all moved partially because of Youtube. (I and my friends hate to see any video in Youtube in 720p or lower.) There are a lot of people unlike you, and please don't assume that they all have the same patience that you can give to Youtube.
    - reaperducer 7y ago
      But you stated "need." What is the need for 4K mobile video? Can the human eye even discern the difference between 720p and 4K on a three-inch screen, or is it all social posturing?
      - reaperducer 7y ago
        Answering my own questions here. I looked it up, and a human eye with perfect vision can't see better than 300dpi. So, no, unless you are an insect, you cannot tell the difference between 720p and 4K on a mobile phone. It's all just showing off for your friends.
      - pcr910303 7y ago
        Why would you use a three-inch screen at all (when you are using 4G or higher)?̊̈ Well, iPhone XS Max is 6.5 inch, Galaxy Note 9 is 6.3 inch, Galaxy S10 Plus is 6.4 inch. Most phones used in South Korea are at least 5 inch or bigger. Korea's 1440x2960 counts 11.68% out of all smartphone users, 1440x2560 counts 19.03%. 1080x1920 counts 29.21%. That's 60% of all smartphone users. Then, there comes the need for 1080p/HDR mobile videos (think Netflix!).
        reaperducer 7y ago
        Most phones used in South Korea are at least 5 inch or bigger. Awesome. But the article is about the United States. Korea's 1440x2960 counts 11.68% out of all smartphone users 2960x1440 on a 6.5-inch phone is 506dpi, which is more than the human eye can see. So you're either a marketing victim, or trying to impress your friends, or both. I stand by my assertion that you don't "need" (your word) 4K on a phone.
jorblumesea 7y ago
If you read the article, it doesn't matter why it's needed, it's about capturing future economic potential. The world is going to 5G. This is a fact. The US saying "we don't need it" is basically signing away hundreds of billions of dollars of economic value and wealth transfer. Whether we think we need it or not, why would we willingly give up the chance to capture value from the next emerging tech?
- reaperducer 7y ago
  The US saying "we don't need it" is basically signing away hundreds of billions of dollars of economic value and wealth transfer. The U.S. isn't saying "we don't need it." The U.S. is saying, "We're a massively large country with a lot of currently underserved areas. How about we concentrate on finishing the 2G, 3G, and 4G rollouts; and we'll do 5G when and where it makes sense?" The United States isn't Luxembourg. We're not going to cover entire nation with a few dozen base stations. You're talking about hundreds of thousands of stations. Plus, how far "behind" can any country be since the first large scale deployment (according to Wikipedia) was only three months ago?
  - corodra 7y ago
    You, this, everything. Upvote. After 50+ years of latest tech advancements, everyone keeps forgetting this about America. It's like people think history has nothing to teach us about future tech.
  - jorblumesea 7y ago
    The US doesn't need to implement 5G everywhere to be a leader in the field or take advantage of the technology. Just about every major city is an obvious candidate. This isn't an all or nothing thing. We can continue 4G roll out in rural areas while 5G gets kicked off. If we wait until the entire US is ready for 5G we'll have lost the race. Which is exactly what the article points out. It's a winner take all game. Look at the current state of the internet. The US is a leader in cloud services, yet many rural areas lack fast internet. One doesn't preclude the other. The argument that the US should cede leadership in the tech space because some places don't need 5G (may never need it, or are not ready for it) is absurd. edit: please read this: https://media.defense.gov/2019/Apr/04/2002109654/-1/-1/0/DIB_5G_STUDY_04.04.19.PDF https://media.defense.gov/2019/Apr/04/2002109654/-1/-1/0/DIB...
hirsin 7y ago
Is there any evidence that consumers are actually pushing for 5g? It's always seemed like it was a buzzword that various telcos and equipment vendors push to ensure spend and churn. The telcos likely get to push for subsidies ("just look at the millions of dollars it'll cost for this thing everyone is talking about - you could pitch in, their your residents...") and equipment vendors, self evident.
- iagovar 7y ago
  Well, I'm not in the US but in Spain, and work for a telco. No one in my office feels any push for that. What we are being pushed though is to replace dying copper lines with 3g/4g in many remote-ish places. Copper is expensive to maintain, and laying fiber is expensive too, so people is asking and asking for this kind of solutions, as they feel abandoned with 1/3/6mbps DSL lines, while people in cities has access to +50mbps over fiber. The problem is that most BTSs have weak links in remote locations, and it will become a problem to manage the increasing density of such devices in this places. I've read that 5g will allow for more divices/bts and larger coverange, but I still don't understand how that will be possible.
  - nyolfen 7y ago
    if i understand correctly, individual 5g stations will be able to support more clients, but the distance covered is dramatically reduced (and more degraded by obstacles in line of site) due to shorter wavelength. it is not viable for rural areas, at least not any time soon. i really think the hype is just pr for subsidies as others have said. edit: some numbers from here https://twitter.com/Gabeuk/status/1099709788676636672 https://twitter.com/Gabeuk/status/1099709788676636672 -- > Challenges of 5G deployment, according to Zhengmao Li, EVP China Mobile (biggest operator on the world). > 1. 5G needs 3 X base stations for same coverage as LTE due to higher frequencies > 2. Power consumption of a 5G base staion is 3 X LTE > 3. 5G base station costs 4 X price of LTE so, 1/3 the coverage at 4x the price
    - mokus 7y ago
      Not all 5g spectrum is shorter wavelength. Opening up the >6GHz range is part of 5G, but it also includes improvements to utilization and additional bands in the existing sub-6GHz range.
deelowe 7y ago
What makes you think 5g is just for phones? Also, what is a "phone" exactly these days? New ford vehicles ship with a wireless hotspot. A lot of laptops come with sim slots. Is a tablet a phone? What about a phone that has a usb-c port that can drive display port (or UltraGig) and supports bluetooth peripherals? Once 5g is ubiquitous, hardwired internet connections will go the way of dedicated sound and video cars. Why would anyone want to deal with cable or dsl when everything already runs over IP anyways and they already have a phone plan?
- sroussey 7y ago
  Maybe they want internet inside the house (or car) where the fast 5G is blocked by walls, windows, etc.
- yyyk 7y ago
  Because wired internet connections are faster and far more reliable - even taking into account 5G?
- gruez 7y ago
  >New ford vehicles ship with a wireless hotspot to be used by... other phones >A lot of laptops come with sim slots really only useful if you're working on a train or something because most stationary places you'd use a laptop at has wifi. >Is a tablet a phone? What about a phone that has a usb-c port that can drive display port (or UltraGig) and supports bluetooth peripherals? Not sure where you're trying to get at here, but everything you've described is already covered by your prior point about laptops. >Why would anyone want to deal with cable or dsl when everything already runs over IP anyways and they already have a phone plan? data caps? I'd take a 1TB data cap on cable/dsl over an "unlimited" 5g plan with some arbitrary FUP.
- kylec 7y ago
  Why would anyone want to deal with cable or dsl when everything already runs over IP anyways and they already have a phone plan? It’s not anything to “deal with”, it’s pretty much “set it and forget it”. But if 5G or whatever is more competitive in terms of price and performance, I’d have no problem switching. I welcome more ISP competition. But $80/month gets me 1TB of transfer at ~150Mbps on Comcast, and I doubt I’ll get a better deal over 5G.
shaggerty 7y ago
I’m not sure if it’s accurate but I’ve heard that 5g (or at least some form of next generation physical infrastructure) will be required for the transition to autonomous vehicles. I think you’re right about media consumption however, I don’t see how most users could justify upgrading to a 5g mobile plan.
jinglebells 7y ago
I've posted this elsewhere but I'll C&P 5G doesn't solve a bandwidth problem, it solves a latency problem. 4G has a latency of ~50ms, 5G is more like 1ms. 50ms is noticeable in areas like remote robot control, video conferencing, remote surgery, IoT, remote control vehicles (not on the roads).
- corodra 7y ago
  Okay, so I was under the impression that 5g paddles were going to also offer about 10 to 15 times the simultaneous phone call throughout. Great for when an event happens and everyone calls at the same time. That's not true or am I misunderstanding something?
- abbe_k 7y ago
  This is simply not true. 5G is both for bandwidth and latency. Your numbers are also very off. 4G can do a lot lower latency than 50ms and 5G will most of the time definitively have higher latency than 1 ms.
  - jinglebells 7y ago
    From https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/media/media-releases/2015/4g-outperforms-3g https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/media/media-rele... "Latency was more consistent than the other measures across the 4G networks tested (an average of 53.1 milliseconds)." I do work for a UK mobile company and was in a presentation about exactly this. 5G means more realtime. Yes, 4G _can_ do lower latency, but in general it doesn't, especially in built up areas, where 5G beamforming outperforms .
taobility 7y ago
Do you need 4G? or is your phone need to connect to internet at all?
Accacin 7y ago
Well, I don't. I got rid of my iPhone 7 Plus and replaced it with a cheap flip phone. Haven't really missed my smart phone at all to be honest (Ok, if I'm really honest I miss Apple Pay!).

pcr910303 7y ago

As for why you need faster connections, I have seen live streams or youtube videos lagging on the 4G network. In South Korea, many people are very excited in 5G as our current 4G LTE-A speed (about 50 ~ 80 Mbps) is considered 'not-enough'. Generally, 4G networks are (at least in Korea) about 1/10 ~ 1/2 of the general WLAN speeds (100Mbps ~ 1Gbps), and I believe that cellular networks have a long way to go to be as fast as WLANs.

reaperducer 7y ago
As for why you need faster connections, I have seen live streams or youtube videos lagging on the 4G network. Here's something that people never say anymore: So what? Who cares if YouTube lags on 4G? So what if you have to wait eight seconds for buffering. Does it really matter if you see SD or HD video instead of 4K video on a three-inch cell phone screen? No, it doesn't.
- pcr910303 7y ago
  Well, I care, my friends care, it's something that many, many, many people care. Literally all of my friends that went to 5G (about ~20 or so?̊̈) all moved partially because of Youtube. (I and my friends hate to see any video in Youtube in 720p or lower.) There are a lot of people unlike you, and please don't assume that they all have the same patience that you can give to Youtube.
  - reaperducer 7y ago
    But you stated "need." What is the need for 4K mobile video? Can the human eye even discern the difference between 720p and 4K on a three-inch screen, or is it all social posturing?
    - reaperducer 7y ago
      Answering my own questions here. I looked it up, and a human eye with perfect vision can't see better than 300dpi. So, no, unless you are an insect, you cannot tell the difference between 720p and 4K on a mobile phone. It's all just showing off for your friends.
    - pcr910303 7y ago
      Why would you use a three-inch screen at all (when you are using 4G or higher)?̊̈ Well, iPhone XS Max is 6.5 inch, Galaxy Note 9 is 6.3 inch, Galaxy S10 Plus is 6.4 inch. Most phones used in South Korea are at least 5 inch or bigger. Korea's 1440x2960 counts 11.68% out of all smartphone users, 1440x2560 counts 19.03%. 1080x1920 counts 29.21%. That's 60% of all smartphone users. Then, there comes the need for 1080p/HDR mobile videos (think Netflix!).
      - reaperducer 7y ago
        Most phones used in South Korea are at least 5 inch or bigger. Awesome. But the article is about the United States. Korea's 1440x2960 counts 11.68% out of all smartphone users 2960x1440 on a 6.5-inch phone is 506dpi, which is more than the human eye can see. So you're either a marketing victim, or trying to impress your friends, or both. I stand by my assertion that you don't "need" (your word) 4K on a phone.

jorblumesea 7y ago

If you read the article, it doesn't matter why it's needed, it's about capturing future economic potential. The world is going to 5G. This is a fact. The US saying "we don't need it" is basically signing away hundreds of billions of dollars of economic value and wealth transfer. Whether we think we need it or not, why would we willingly give up the chance to capture value from the next emerging tech?

reaperducer 7y ago
The US saying "we don't need it" is basically signing away hundreds of billions of dollars of economic value and wealth transfer. The U.S. isn't saying "we don't need it." The U.S. is saying, "We're a massively large country with a lot of currently underserved areas. How about we concentrate on finishing the 2G, 3G, and 4G rollouts; and we'll do 5G when and where it makes sense?" The United States isn't Luxembourg. We're not going to cover entire nation with a few dozen base stations. You're talking about hundreds of thousands of stations. Plus, how far "behind" can any country be since the first large scale deployment (according to Wikipedia) was only three months ago?
- corodra 7y ago
  You, this, everything. Upvote. After 50+ years of latest tech advancements, everyone keeps forgetting this about America. It's like people think history has nothing to teach us about future tech.
- jorblumesea 7y ago
  The US doesn't need to implement 5G everywhere to be a leader in the field or take advantage of the technology. Just about every major city is an obvious candidate. This isn't an all or nothing thing. We can continue 4G roll out in rural areas while 5G gets kicked off. If we wait until the entire US is ready for 5G we'll have lost the race. Which is exactly what the article points out. It's a winner take all game. Look at the current state of the internet. The US is a leader in cloud services, yet many rural areas lack fast internet. One doesn't preclude the other. The argument that the US should cede leadership in the tech space because some places don't need 5G (may never need it, or are not ready for it) is absurd. edit: please read this: https://media.defense.gov/2019/Apr/04/2002109654/-1/-1/0/DIB_5G_STUDY_04.04.19.PDF https://media.defense.gov/2019/Apr/04/2002109654/-1/-1/0/DIB...

hirsin 7y ago

Is there any evidence that consumers are actually pushing for 5g? It's always seemed like it was a buzzword that various telcos and equipment vendors push to ensure spend and churn. The telcos likely get to push for subsidies ("just look at the millions of dollars it'll cost for this thing everyone is talking about - you could pitch in, their your residents...") and equipment vendors, self evident.

iagovar 7y ago
Well, I'm not in the US but in Spain, and work for a telco. No one in my office feels any push for that. What we are being pushed though is to replace dying copper lines with 3g/4g in many remote-ish places. Copper is expensive to maintain, and laying fiber is expensive too, so people is asking and asking for this kind of solutions, as they feel abandoned with 1/3/6mbps DSL lines, while people in cities has access to +50mbps over fiber. The problem is that most BTSs have weak links in remote locations, and it will become a problem to manage the increasing density of such devices in this places. I've read that 5g will allow for more divices/bts and larger coverange, but I still don't understand how that will be possible.
- nyolfen 7y ago
  if i understand correctly, individual 5g stations will be able to support more clients, but the distance covered is dramatically reduced (and more degraded by obstacles in line of site) due to shorter wavelength. it is not viable for rural areas, at least not any time soon. i really think the hype is just pr for subsidies as others have said. edit: some numbers from here https://twitter.com/Gabeuk/status/1099709788676636672 https://twitter.com/Gabeuk/status/1099709788676636672 -- > Challenges of 5G deployment, according to Zhengmao Li, EVP China Mobile (biggest operator on the world). > 1. 5G needs 3 X base stations for same coverage as LTE due to higher frequencies > 2. Power consumption of a 5G base staion is 3 X LTE > 3. 5G base station costs 4 X price of LTE so, 1/3 the coverage at 4x the price
  - mokus 7y ago
    Not all 5g spectrum is shorter wavelength. Opening up the >6GHz range is part of 5G, but it also includes improvements to utilization and additional bands in the existing sub-6GHz range.

deelowe 7y ago

What makes you think 5g is just for phones? Also, what is a "phone" exactly these days? New ford vehicles ship with a wireless hotspot. A lot of laptops come with sim slots. Is a tablet a phone? What about a phone that has a usb-c port that can drive display port (or UltraGig) and supports bluetooth peripherals? Once 5g is ubiquitous, hardwired internet connections will go the way of dedicated sound and video cars. Why would anyone want to deal with cable or dsl when everything already runs over IP anyways and they already have a phone plan?

sroussey 7y ago
Maybe they want internet inside the house (or car) where the fast 5G is blocked by walls, windows, etc.
yyyk 7y ago
Because wired internet connections are faster and far more reliable - even taking into account 5G?
gruez 7y ago
>New ford vehicles ship with a wireless hotspot to be used by... other phones >A lot of laptops come with sim slots really only useful if you're working on a train or something because most stationary places you'd use a laptop at has wifi. >Is a tablet a phone? What about a phone that has a usb-c port that can drive display port (or UltraGig) and supports bluetooth peripherals? Not sure where you're trying to get at here, but everything you've described is already covered by your prior point about laptops. >Why would anyone want to deal with cable or dsl when everything already runs over IP anyways and they already have a phone plan? data caps? I'd take a 1TB data cap on cable/dsl over an "unlimited" 5g plan with some arbitrary FUP.
kylec 7y ago
Why would anyone want to deal with cable or dsl when everything already runs over IP anyways and they already have a phone plan? It’s not anything to “deal with”, it’s pretty much “set it and forget it”. But if 5G or whatever is more competitive in terms of price and performance, I’d have no problem switching. I welcome more ISP competition. But $80/month gets me 1TB of transfer at ~150Mbps on Comcast, and I doubt I’ll get a better deal over 5G.

shaggerty 7y ago

I’m not sure if it’s accurate but I’ve heard that 5g (or at least some form of next generation physical infrastructure) will be required for the transition to autonomous vehicles. I think you’re right about media consumption however, I don’t see how most users could justify upgrading to a 5g mobile plan.

jinglebells 7y ago

I've posted this elsewhere but I'll C&P 5G doesn't solve a bandwidth problem, it solves a latency problem. 4G has a latency of ~50ms, 5G is more like 1ms. 50ms is noticeable in areas like remote robot control, video conferencing, remote surgery, IoT, remote control vehicles (not on the roads).

corodra 7y ago
Okay, so I was under the impression that 5g paddles were going to also offer about 10 to 15 times the simultaneous phone call throughout. Great for when an event happens and everyone calls at the same time. That's not true or am I misunderstanding something?
abbe_k 7y ago
This is simply not true. 5G is both for bandwidth and latency. Your numbers are also very off. 4G can do a lot lower latency than 50ms and 5G will most of the time definitively have higher latency than 1 ms.
- jinglebells 7y ago
  From https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/media/media-releases/2015/4g-outperforms-3g https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/media/media-rele... "Latency was more consistent than the other measures across the 4G networks tested (an average of 53.1 milliseconds)." I do work for a UK mobile company and was in a presentation about exactly this. 5G means more realtime. Yes, 4G _can_ do lower latency, but in general it doesn't, especially in built up areas, where 5G beamforming outperforms .

taobility 7y ago

Do you need 4G? or is your phone need to connect to internet at all?

Accacin 7y ago

Well, I don't. I got rid of my iPhone 7 Plus and replaced it with a cheap flip phone. Haven't really missed my smart phone at all to be honest (Ok, if I'm really honest I miss Apple Pay!).