5G roadblock: labor

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
21

So the primary benefit of 5G is that it will allow for an increase in asshats not watching where they are going because they are busy staring at their phones?

I suppose there is the advantage then of more dead asshats. At least they will only walk in front of a speeding lorry once and then be dead, thus solving the problem.

Maybe 5G *is* a good thing as it will inherently encourage clean-up of the gene pool. Now if only we could figure out a way to reliably get them out of the gene pool before they reached breading age ...

22

Also, keep in mind that 10 years ago, you didn't know you would want
or
need 25mbits to your phone,

Who needs 25mbits to their phone?

but I'd bet that now you'd have a hard time
living without it.

I already live without it (by a long shot) and am not sure what I'd do
with it if I had it except rack up huge overage bills a week into the
month. Well, not really but that's because I honestly have no use for
that kind of speed to my phone. What am I supposed to do with that?
Go to the park and watch Netflix in 4K on my 2K phone screen?

The irony of such speeds in North America (Canada in particular) are
ludicrous usage limits that we have and how quickly we'd use up our
minuscule data alottemnt with such speeds. But then again, overage
fees are what are paying the bills over at the mobile companies.

b.

23

5g protocol will of course eventually replace LTE simply because it makes better use of the real asset, spectrum.

5G is just a protocol it changes dramatically depending on spectrum.

-Ben

24

The latency argument is what interests me. Supposedly 4G's latency and jitter are tough on voip. If that improves there is just no reason for TDM to phones which is a significant development because cell phones are probably the largest deployment of old style PSTN stuff these days as landlines wither and die. I would think that carriers would embrace that since it would be a cost-down, but I'm sure I'm wrong since that would be admit defeat to IP.

Mike

25

Lord willing about a tenth of what I’m using now; aka retirement.

LQM3

26

Also, keep in mind that 10 years ago, you didn't know you would want
or need 25mbits to your phone,

Who needs 25mbits to their phone?

I can only talk to one party at a time, so there is no need for more than a single bearer channel worth of bandwidth.

27

VoLTE is already essentially VoIP, including packet switched media, with some MAC layer QoS guarantees as I understand it. Now, maybe those MAC layer guarantees essentially amount to a dedicated OFDMA sub-carrier during a voice call. That I cannot speak to as I'm not intimately familiar with the LTE/LTE-A air interface.

I can say that plain ol' best-effort LTE data services are generally sufficient for VoIP in my experience if you have "good coverage". That means what I'd generally consider "toll-grade" quality in terms of latency and, more inmportantly, jitter. SSH is similarly quite usable generally. If you're on the fringe of a cell or have a cell that's overloaded, YMMV.

28

In theory, this is what "Hotspot 2.0" is designed to solve. You authenticate to the ESSID using your mobile carrier credentials, and the resulting connection backhauls over an Internet tunnel to your carrier who can handle the hand-off/roaming transparently for you.

It also includes some provisions for settlement so that Wi-Fi operator can get a kickback from the mobile carrier for offloading their traffic. I'm sure that will be lucrative for mom and pop coffee shops...

Of course, this is also what Mobile IP was intended to solve, and we all know how widely that's deployed.

29

this is the wrong argument to make... or at the least it distracts
from the conversation about: "Why 5g?" because everyone can come up
with a reason for/against N mbps to Xthing. (I think this is sort of
shane's point, actually)

4G/LTE:
  o started the migration/consolidation of voice/video/data to a
single bearer (well, IP anyway).
  o moved the (ideally) IP endpoint closer to the tower base
  o removed some latency, jitter, intermediaries between 'End-User'
and "thing on the network"

5G:
  o supposedly reduces latency 'more' (brings more of the IP
connection and routing closer to the tower/radio?)
  o simplifies management? (maybe?)

keeping speed out of the conversation, the footprint for MANY 5g
deploymetns in the US (and elsewhere) is likely 'hundreds of feet
circles', where 4G is 'miles'.
(yes you can beam-form and make ovals and such...)

It'd be nice to see what benefits 5g really has for carriers and
consumers/users... It looks, to me, like a bunch of the 5g hype is
really: "uhm, we need to sell these carriers on the G++ ... spin up
the hype machine about speed!" never mind the cost to deploy, range of
deployment, changes in handset/radio gear / etc... more $ to the
vendors!

-chris

30

Oh, I didn't know that. Seems like it's a relatively new thing. Seems like they went to a lot of trouble to essentially do what voip does. Or maybe not? I've been poking around trying figure out what's going on under the hood with wifi calling, and it seems like they're just tunneling PSTN bits over the internet. If true, that's certainly a quick and dirty hack. Maybe they're doing something similar for volte?

Mostly what I want in the future is a dollop of EF QoS bits and let me determine how to use them...

Mike

31

Oh, I didn't know that. Seems like it's a relatively new thing. Seems like they went to a lot of trouble to essentially do what voip does. Or maybe not? I've been poking around trying figure out what's going on under the hood with wifi calling, and it seems like they're just tunneling PSTN bits over the internet. If true, that's certainly a quick and dirty hack. Maybe they're doing something similar for volte?

My understanding is that VoLTE is signaled using SIP. I don't know how the media moves. I think they tried to avoid re-inventing the wheel. Most of the "phone" guys are slinging a lot of inter-network calls via IP these days, anyway.

Mostly what I want in the future is a dollop of EF QoS bits and let me determine how to use them...

Believe it or not, several of the major wireless and even wireline carriers seem to do this to some degree, though my evidence is anecdotal. They don't seem to drop when you exceed your dollop, though, but rather re-mark.

32

You know that there is a massive amount of hype going on when they tie IoT to why it's definitely most certainly needed the mostest. I mean, your average IoT gadget is going to consume exactly how much bandwidth? And why on earth would I want to deploy using cellular when my router can have a zigby port and send it using my home connection?

Mike

33

The reason IoT comes into play with 5G is desification. A 4G base station can support X number of UE (User Equipment - phones, mifis, CatM IoT modems, etc) based on the LTE protocol. 5G allows X times N number of UE’s per base station, which will allows the network to support the planned proliferation of IoT devices OUTSIDE of the home or office. Think every parking meter, street light, etc independently addressable via 5G. In home devices are not the real target.

34

Yeah, maybe it really is RTP because iirc, VoLTE can use different codecs. That would make some sense since a lot of those voice bits are going to end up as RTP at some point. I can understand the wifi hack since they may not have had the ability to directly deal with customer facing RTP from the phones 5 years ago.

Maybe my google-foo is really bad, but it's not been easy to get an overview of what's going on under the hood for these. And I'd prefer to avoid the 3GPP tar pit.

Mike

35

Also, keep in mind that 10 years ago, you didn’t know you would want
or
need 25mbits to your phone,

Who needs 25mbits to their phone?

this is the wrong argument to make… or at the least it distracts
from the conversation about: “Why 5g?” because everyone can come up
with a reason for/against N mbps to Xthing. (I think this is sort of
shane’s point, actually)

4G/LTE:
o started the migration/consolidation of voice/video/data to a
single bearer (well, IP anyway).
o moved the (ideally) IP endpoint closer to the tower base
o removed some latency, jitter, intermediaries between ‘End-User’
and “thing on the network”

5G:
o supposedly reduces latency ‘more’ (brings more of the IP
connection and routing closer to the tower/radio?)

Latency to what? Latency between your handset and a front-end web server at Google or AWS is likely unchanged. Physic did not change for 5G.

Just random samples of what people post online…

Vzw 5g 19 ms

https://twitter.com/donnymac/status/1164491035503976448

Att 5ge 34ms
https://twitter.com/joelouis77/status/1196651360185462784

Sprint , this guy shows 27ms on LTE vs 34ms on 5g
https://twitter.com/robpegoraro/status/1202705075535257600

o simplifies management? (maybe?)

Hahahaha. No. Because 5g does not replace anything. It is yet another thing.

keeping speed out of the conversation, the footprint for MANY 5g
deploymetns in the US (and elsewhere) is likely ‘hundreds of feet
circles’, where 4G is ‘miles’.
(yes you can beam-form and make ovals and such…)

This is still a physics thing. Most purest will says 5G = new radio (NR). NR can run in any band. And, the distance is a function of the band. Tmobile is big on 600mhz NR, Sprint is big on 2500mhz NR and VZW has 28ghz NR.

There is an relation between the available spectrum bandwidth and the mhz. Meaning, there is only little 600mhz but there is a lot of 28ghz mmwave. That said, 600mhz can drive for miles, while 28ghz needs line of sight.

Horses for courses. No silver bullet. All the best mid-band spectrum , balanced volume and propagation, got deployed in the 90s as pcs / gsm, and re-deployed in the 10s as umts and LTE. Low band is great for penetration and coverage with a few cells, mmwave is great with line of sight… midband is the sweet spot in the middle.

The future requires all tools available.

It’d be nice to see what benefits 5g really has for carriers and
consumers/users… It looks, to me, like a bunch of the 5g hype is
really: “uhm, we need to sell these carriers on the G++ … spin up
the hype machine about speed!” never mind the cost to deploy, range of
deployment, changes in handset/radio gear / etc… more $ to the
vendors!

-chris

NR does operationalize more spectrum and allows bigger aggregate pools (like LACP) The new mmwave spectrum is the last to come to market because it’s value is limited in the general case.

36

I had thought the 'benefit' of LTE (specific to Voice) was a SIP UA
was implemented at the handset for all 'voice' over the LTE network.
(voice calls through your carrier - VoLTE)
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_over_LTE

There are, or were when I last got told what's what... some problems
at the GRX with VoLTE when roaming... like: "The traffic appears as
handset data not handset calls" on the GRX.

For a long time in the start of the LTE network deployments handsets
just kept on using 3g (or less) for voice, because the radios existed,
the cell towers were equiped and 'VoLTE is scary still!"

37

Shane Ronan

> Other 5G benefits: Beam forming, network slicing, reduced latency
> and support for UE desification, just to name a few.

Mildly funny thing: I just spent ten minutes trying to figure out what
"desification" was, before realising it was "densification" misspelled.

Was not helped by Google insisting I must have meant "desertification",
the fact that it's a really common misspelling, and the fact that
"desification" does actually mean something...

Regards, K.

38

I finally found something and it is indeed SIP/RTP over a LTE with some extra qos secret sauce. I have no idea what's going on differently in the MAC.

So we're definitely almost there. And that's a good thing.

Mike

39

Oh good :slight_smile: someone coaxed cameron out of the holiday keg :slight_smile:

>
> >
> > Also, keep in mind that 10 years ago, you didn't know you would want
> > or
> > need 25mbits to your phone,
>
> Who needs 25mbits to their phone?
>

this is the wrong argument to make... or at the least it distracts
from the conversation about: "Why 5g?" because everyone can come up
with a reason for/against N mbps to Xthing. (I think this is sort of
shane's point, actually)

4G/LTE:
  o started the migration/consolidation of voice/video/data to a
single bearer (well, IP anyway).
  o moved the (ideally) IP endpoint closer to the tower base
  o removed some latency, jitter, intermediaries between 'End-User'
and "thing on the network"

5G:
  o supposedly reduces latency 'more' (brings more of the IP
connection and routing closer to the tower/radio?)

Latency to what? Latency between your handset and a front-end web server at Google or AWS is likely unchanged. Physic did not change for 5G.

good question... I think for any IP flow in previous deployments the
point where my ip packet went from 'radio' to 'ip networking' could
have been a fair distance away (super cell in 2g/3g worlds) from my,
bending my IP path significantly from me to the thing I'm talking to.
(introducing latency and other pokery from the carrier side swapping
around from radio/3gpp/etc to "ip on ethernet").

In the LTE world it's POSSIBLE that that transition could happen at
the tower base (unlikely, but possible, theoretically). So, given some
regional network and aggregation / etc my IP packet's path COULD be
'better'. That should enable better latency/jitter/etc. In practice
the 3g ~300ms to send a packet from 'reston virginia' to 'ashburn
virginia' has become ~20-40ms.

Note, I'm not super interested in point-to-point measurements, but the
general path being 'better' for user packets.

Just random samples of what people post online....

Vzw 5g 19 ms

https://twitter.com/donnymac/status/1164491035503976448

19ms from 'georgetown' to <unknown> so I can't really tell what the
uplift on a straight ping from (for example) georgetown university
campus -> <thing> might be.
either way... maybe it's 12-14 ms (since the test seems to talk about
Annapolis which ought not be more than 3-4 ms from DC proper on fiber)
that's not so bad really.

Att 5ge 34ms
https://twitter.com/joelouis77/status/1196651360185462784

yea.... no endpoints specified so: "testing that the internet is on fire" :frowning:

Sprint , this guy shows 27ms on LTE vs 34ms on 5g
https://twitter.com/robpegoraro/status/1202705075535257600

i'm guessing he means: "north arlington virginia" to "washington
dc"... 34ms is 'long' :frowning: much more uplift on that than I'd expect.

  o simplifies management? (maybe?)

Hahahaha. No. Because 5g does not replace anything. It is yet another thing.

:slight_smile: "long term, when you decom 3g and 4g for 5g! you know, when 6g arrives..." :slight_smile:
It's amazing to me that there's not a unified management system to
offer network management across radio technologies? and some
requirement from the carriers to push the vendors to provide a
standards based interface to keep that management system in play long
term? Maybe there is and it's running YANG/OpenConfig/etc ? Maybe it's
silly to want that though because the radio world is 'so very
different' from the plain-jim IP world? and/or there's enough
difference between 3/4/5g that using a single management system just
isn't practical?

keeping speed out of the conversation, the footprint for MANY 5g
deploymetns in the US (and elsewhere) is likely 'hundreds of feet
circles', where 4G is 'miles'.
(yes you can beam-form and make ovals and such...)

This is still a physics thing. Most purest will says 5G = new radio (NR). NR can run in any band. And, the distance is a function of the band. Tmobile is big on 600mhz NR, Sprint is big on 2500mhz NR and VZW has 28ghz NR.

oh sure, who gets the 'right' spectrum is going to drive what each
carrier can 'do' with the 5g.
but generally speaking, particular carriers aside... "5g is beneficial
to users because?" (again, aside from speed increases).

"Lower cost, because more people on less equipment and lower
management costs" (pass that on to the users, right?)
"more reach into places where cell coverage is spotty?"
"new tech options over the network provided?"

There is an relation between the available spectrum bandwidth and the mhz. Meaning, there is only little 600mhz but there is a lot of 28ghz mmwave. That said, 600mhz can drive for miles, while 28ghz needs line of sight.

Horses for courses. No silver bullet. All the best mid-band spectrum , balanced volume and propagation, got deployed in the 90s as pcs / gsm, and re-deployed in the 10s as umts and LTE. Low band is great for penetration and coverage with a few cells, mmwave is great with line of sight... midband is the sweet spot in the middle.

The future requires all tools available.

It'd be nice to see what benefits 5g really has for carriers and
consumers/users... It looks, to me, like a bunch of the 5g hype is
really: "uhm, we need to sell these carriers on the G++ ... spin up
the hype machine about speed!" never mind the cost to deploy, range of
deployment, changes in handset/radio gear / etc... more $ to the
vendors!

-chris

NR does operationalize more spectrum and allows bigger aggregate pools (like LACP) The new mmwave spectrum is the last to come to market because it’s value is limited in the general case.

thanks!
-chris

40

Oh, for sure it’s driven by equipment manufacturers.