5 ms·
There's a new "G" every ten-ish years. Usually there is a lot of hype in the 2 to 3 years before the next G launches, at which point the early release standards
by g_p 5y ago
There's a new "G" every ten-ish years. Usually there is a lot of hype in the 2 to 3 years before the next G launches, at which point the early release standards are frozen. If equipment has a nominal 5 year replacement span, you deploy early release equipment, then at the half-way point, replace it with newer eqiupment, while looking for the next "G".
The "G"s are driven by marketing and hype - "5G" is better than "4G" and promises a pile of use-cases that haven't materialised. It's pointless even trying to dispel the hype. 1ms latency was heralded, 10 Gbit throughput, etc etc. You can't really do a round-trip measured to the radio (across just the air interface) yet with 1ms latency, let alone 1ms to anywhere meaningful. I'm reminded of Carmack's famous statement [0] about latency.
ARPU (average revenue per user) is not going up, at least in the European markets I'm aware of. Customers were not willing to pay more for 4G or 5G. In fact, I think many are ending up paying less - I negotiated a better deal this time around than last time around (anecdote, n=1, but far from alone) - competition is tight in a 4-operator market.
I don't think patents are necessarily driving the push - the push comes from operators competing to win churn from rivals. This comes from a race to the bottom on price. As soon as someone has "5G", everyone needs it, whether it's really 5G, or just 4G with the string changed on the screen [1]. "Another G" helps drive sales, and coverage helps drive sales. The operators drive the market, as they own the relationship with the customer. Vendors sell whatever operators want, and try to help them make a more compelling differentiated product (which is a dumb pipe now...) - they have fought over "fastest" and "coverage", now they are fighting over "lowest latency" and "best experience" and "most reliable"...
Ultimately, LTE is going nowhere fast, in my view. It varies by market, but will still be the underlying dominant tech for a few more years - unless you are on T Mobile USA or one of a few other carriers, your 5G is "non-standalone" and fully reliant on the 4G network and radios - the 5G cell is carrier-aggregated in as extra capacity. In early systems, uplink was only over 4G, so the only place the 5G radio was used for was downlink. Therefore I'm not convinced it's really patents that drive this, rather marketing and attempts to differentiate and sell to win over others' churn in a reasonably competitive marketplace with limited barriers to switching, and huge cross/up-sell opportunity when you do win a customer.
[0] https://twitter.com/id_aa_carmack/status/193480622533120001 https://twitter.com/id_aa_carmack/status/193480622533120001
[1] https://www.xda-developers.com/att-fake-5ge-icon-added-aosp/ https://www.xda-developers.com/att-fake-5ge-icon-added-aosp/
- secondcoming 5y agoI (UK) use 5G for all my internetting. Great speeds but iffy pings for gaming but this isn't a huge deal for me. I only got it because I had to move house during covid and didn't want to risk having to wait weeks for a connection. However I didn't expect it to be as good as it is. So good that I never bothered with getting fibre. I can also just take my 5G router if I move house again, or use the 5G SIM in my dual SIM phone if I'm travelling.
- g_p 5y agoYeah - of the 3 use cases heralded for 5G, enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB) is the one that has materialised so far. The other two (massive machine to machine communications, and ultra reliable low latency communications) were more intended for buzzword-laden visions of robotic surgery and internet of everything. Neither has really materialised like in the brochure. As you say, the speeds for consumer services are great - likely you'd get similarly good speeds with properly deployed 4G, since it can deliver 1 Gbit in theory with enough carrier aggregation. The new 5G spectrum helps a bit if you're in an urban area. Nobody is going to use 5G to carry out surgery - you'll need real backhaul for any serious distance to get to the place the doctor is (otherwise they could do the surgery directly or using existing robotic equipment in the room), and if you are relying on backhaul, why not just lay fibre to the robot and avoid the risks. You really don't want a latency spike or jamming attack when operating on someone! Many of the benefits claimed from massive machine to machine communications will need standalone 5G to come about - then slicing and other industrial facing features will start to emerge. In the meantime though, you rightly point out that 5G serves as effective competition for fixed line connectivity, and that is no bad thing to stimulate roll-out and give some market price pressure.
- ng55QPSK 5y agoWe (i work at a network vendor) see a lot of (testing) campus networks with local spectrum licenses (EU and especially in DE). ultra-low-latency with edge computing is already something you can buy to get down to 2...5ms latency.