This thread has devolved into "Why 5G"?
A lot of folks are missing the bigger picture.
5G is not for better voice calls. AFAICT, it won't help voice at all.
5G is not for better integration with WiFi or IP data. 5G is to
*replace* WiFi, and FTTH, and ISPs, and WISPs, and bring all data back to
the telco. ATT really misses owning the network monopoly.
5G is also about upstaging Amazon and Google and other data center
providers. Read up on "Edge Computing". The "edge" isn't in your network
or your customers' internal networks. The edge is a telco data center.
That's what they mean by "reducing latency": moving your data processing
into a telco data center means it is topologically closer to a cell tower.
5G is mostly about getting more unregulated data-related fees.
Given the deployment of Wi-Fi into so many different applications - your statement that 5G is to "replace" WiFi seems overly ambitious. Perhaps preventing WiFi from further penetration is a better way to look at it?
Given the deployment of Wi-Fi into so many different applications
- your statement that 5G is to "replace" WiFi seems overly ambitious
We might think that but it is serious. They want to own it all
and there is a small cabal of operators owning the spectrum so
little room for new competitors.
Here's a project we did exploring some of the ambition
Previously we avoided the old Telco CDNs by sticking to regular
Internet CDNs and building our own but edge compute (mobile CDN
but a better name to compete with AWS) is more insidious as you
may not be able to get the same result from CDNs out on the net.
Either the content providers or the external CDNs they use will
have to pay to use the mobile CDN. How they will scale that at all
those sites will be interesting to see.
Perhaps preventing WiFi from further penetration is a better way
to look at it?
If the mobile companies are providing the WiFi routers they can
control it (see LTE WiFi attempt) and one day replace it with
5G or 6G in all the things. If they make a better job of it than
everyones devices fighting for 5GHz then they may succeed.
brandon
Given the deployment of Wi-Fi into so many different applications
- your statement that 5G is to "replace" WiFi seems overly ambitious
We might think that but it is serious. They want to own it all
and there is a small cabal of operators owning the spectrum so
little room for new competitors.
Deployed WiFi '5' (ac) and WiFi '6' (ax) already outperform mobile 5G.
If this were actually about performance, the standards would have
converged. And there wouldn't need to be so many additional patents.
The primary purpose seems to be barriers to entry and competition.
[...]
Perhaps preventing WiFi from further penetration is a better way
to look at it?
If the mobile companies are providing the WiFi routers they can
control it (see LTE WiFi attempt) and one day replace it with
5G or 6G in all the things. If they make a better job of it than
everyones devices fighting for 5GHz then they may succeed.
Agreed. In my previous job, having spent considerable time talking to
various standards' body participants, "replace" was the word used.
I know there are a couple companies doing it, but compute at the tower isn’t going to go anywhere. It makes very little sense to put it at the tower when you can put it in one location per metro area.
I’ve always pondered the difference between compute in the tower over compute in a well-connected metro data center. Yet to find it for any use case except the 5G x86 supporting infrastructure.
Justin
I know there are a couple companies doing it, but compute at the tower
isn't going to go anywhere. It makes very little sense to put it at the
tower when you can put it in one location per metro area.
The bottom of a tower is a fantastically expensive piece of real estate
to collocate something in. If you're financing the development of such
realestate it may sound great, but if you're leasing, it is sort of
outlandish, especially if you want .5KW per ru along with it.
If you set your latency budget artificially at 1ms, at .7 C photons
travel around 210km. If you draw a circle around the base of the tower
at 75KM it's quite feasible to achieve that assuming for the sake of
argument that it's necessary.
I tend to agree, we’re putting our own compute under 1ms from every cell tower in every metro.
What that means is 3 or 6 DCs in a big metro area, but not usually compute in towers. Other edge compute is interesting tho. And the towers themselves are changing.
We still have macro sites, but we will more than double the cell site count (400k to 1.2m) in the next 5 years and it will be small cells/DAS mostly. Those aren’t towers in the conventional sense.
-Ben.
The primary purpose seems to be barriers to entry and competition.
I could have told you that when I started a pirate FM radio station at 10. About limiting reach. There are valid RF safety concerns, but that could be solved via other less draconian regulatory procedures.
That said, 10 watts vs 100mw. It’s laughable. 5G/LTE is in another class from WiFi, not so much technically (but yes technically speaking as well) but from a regulatory perspective alone it’s a no brainer.
A future hypothetical protocol could solve a lot of WiFi’s roaming capacity dead spot and penetration issues. However the laws of physics will make even 2.4 and especially 5Ghz behave more like light than “radio” we are familiar with from lower frequency transmission.
Well, the kids don't want to pay for data. Heck, neither do I.
On that basis alone, Any-G won't kill wi-fi :-).
Mark.
Wi-fi is only growing.
With all the fibre going into homes, businesses, shops and restaurants,
wi-fi is up-and-to-the-right.
Mark.
The main issue is the artificial concept of "buying data" so you can get
online.
I don't see any legacy MNO's selling you unlimited access to their radio
network. So wi-fi hooked up to some kind of unlimited terrestrial wire
(fibre, copper, wireless, e.t.c.) is what will discourage the kids from
relying on MNO's to provide all of their connectivity needs, especially
in fixed settings such as homes and such.
Mark.
Agreed. Especially because when power outages start to hit, base
stations are notoriously difficult to keep alive.
Even if you're conservative and limit your metro area to 100km, you can
maintain 1ms access within the backbone to/from your content. The weak
link will be the radio network down to your customers.
Mark.
Williams comment seems somewhat market specific and perhaps even
overly negative. Mostly 5G is about better radio performance in dense
metro installations, uninteresting metric for many markets. Some
markets already do +20GB/month _average_ on 4G subscription with
+50Mbps datarates, lower than DSL latency and <20EUR MRC. In these
markets many opt not to have any other data connection but 4G, the
benefits are compelling, cheaper, faster, lower latency, shorter MTTR
and easier to switch to competition compared to DSL.
If your market can offer 50Mbps of 4G for EUR20/month with a 20GB data
cap, chances are there is fibre nearby, either for your office, or your
home, or both. If there isn't, something is smelling...
In Africa, most folk don't buy that much data, never mind for that
cheap, even if they'd love it. Many markets on our continent are seeing
data sales mostly in the MB's, and not the GB's, and it's still pricier
than you might think. I hazard a guess that some specific markets in
parts of Europe, Asia-Pac and Latin America might also be similarly
affected.
I can get 50Mbps easily on 4G/LTE either mobile network that I subscribe
to here in South Africa. I get about 2GB/month for about EUR100/month
for my personal one, and 20GB/month for about EUR200/month for my work
one. I have a 3rd 4G line which I use to connect my car to the Internet,
and I pay EUR2/month for 100MB/month. As my Ghanian friend would say,
"That is not a steal".
I have an unlimited FTTH connection to my home. I don't know how much
data my house generates. I have a neighbor who, last year, went from a
50GB/month data cap for his FTTH service to an unlimited option, and his
house now generates 1TB of data per month. I asked him, "Why do you even
bother counting?"
It's the kids... it's Fortnite... it's Instagram... it's Youtube... it's
the kids.
Mark.
Yes markets differ, and this is not 4G/5G question, only thing 5G does
is help markets which struggle to provide sufficient service in dense
metro installations.
Which brings us full circle - what's the cost of hooking those dense
cities up to 5G in 2020 vs. running fibre to an 802.11ac|ax access point
to serve its residents and visitors, in 2020?
And more interestingly, if that city's residents and visitors had the
option of connecting to active 5G or wi-fi, what do we think they'd choose?
Mark.
Verizon is already offering fixed access 5G service with unlimited data for $50.00/month in five cities.
Not to mention manufacturers are finally focusing on the in-home WiFi that is usually the worst part of someone’s Internet experience due to a lack of adequate coverage, interference, etc.
Obviously if the technology is available, works well, and is reasonably priced, 5G it up. However, if you’re adding small cells every 500’, tripling the amount of “towers” you have… does it matter much if it’s LTE or NR? You’re adding hundreds of megs if not gigs of capacity with LTE.