I did in fact say that ever sub-6 “5G” would offer improvements, actually, but I used the term “more efficient” rather that you (better) “lower latency” term. But in more typical use — surfing, watching a video, texting, calling — there’s not going to be anything like the kind of speed increases the hype we’re seeing would suggest, and we’re many years away from a level playing field where every gamer has the same low latency you’re (over) emphasizing. That’s my point.
You may be mixing up latency and speed (throughput). 5G's most obvious improvement is latency, so gaming (copr's comment) and other mission critical applications (remote medical procedures, such as surgery, and intelligent transportation, such as cars talking to cars and to infrastructure) would now be possible with even the cheapest 5G phone/modem. And this would happen over existing (legacy) frequencies. I doubt speed would increase much, if any (but I'm not 100% sure).
But mmWave opens you up to far greater speeds vs. legacy frequencies purely by the virtue of much higher operating frequencies. That's where the marketeers are having their fun convincing you to buy 5G phones now (most of which are not mmWave-capable). Unless you meant "wait for mmWave for the speed increases," in which case you are correct.
5G using the existing frequencies does increase the speed if the base station is used at full capacity. A mobile cell is a bit like a cable network, it is a shared medium. So If you have a 4G base station with 100 users connected each at 1 Mbit/s, the same 5G base station will be able to serve 100 users at 3 Mbit/s. This is a bit of a simplification of the reality because the bandwidth a user actually gets depends on a lot of parameters, like e.g. the distance to the base station. Nevertheless the principle remains, the total bandwidth of all connected users of 5G base station will be roughly 3 times that of 4G station
Thanks! I'll do a bit of searching, as you've piqued my interest. The RF side gets all the glamorous articles. The base station/network side - not so much.
I think a good analogy here is Elon Musk's comment earlier in the week that: "Anybody who doesn't buy a (fully electric, self driving) Tesla will feel like they're driving a horse in 3 years"
I think a good analogy here is Elon Musk's comment earlier in the week that: "Anybody who doesn't buy a (fully electric, self driving) Tesla will feel like they're driving a horse in 3 years"
That’s actually a very good comparison; several studies have looked at the environmental impact of electric cars and they’re not as clean as Elon would have as think. Lithium mining is not a great industry and many areas get their electricity from coal fired power plants, meaning the emissions are occurring, they’re just displaced from the car so you don’t see them. To be fair, the total emissions are still lower than many cars, but they’re not in any way close to zero like some would have us believe. Beyond that, do you want to take bets on electric car penetration in 3 years? I signed up to get a Model 3 when they were announced in 2016 but ended up cancelling my order August of last year because I needed a car and Tesla didn’t have one. Musk has great vision, but he’s famously over optimistic.
There is a new technology coming that makes promises about great improvements and is being relentlessly pushed by its advocates who are also glossing over issues and are overly optimistic about the timeline. So, yes. It’s a perfect analogy!
Edit: I think you’re confusing ‘hate’ with ‘tempered realism.’ I don’t oppose 5G, much less hate it; I’ve just been around long enough to know that it’s not going to magically solve all our problems and let us achieve wireless nirvana overnight. The unbridled optimism and similar grandiose promises are made every time some new technology comes to market. Never does the reality match the promises.
I did in fact say that ever sub-6 “5G” would offer improvements, actually, but I used the term “more efficient” rather that you (better) “lower latency” term. But in more typical use — surfing, watching a video, texting, calling — there’s not going to be anything like the kind of speed increases the hype we’re seeing would suggest, and we’re many years away from a level playing field where every gamer has the same low latency you’re (over) emphasizing. That’s my point.
You may be mixing up latency and speed (throughput). 5G's most obvious improvement is latency, so gaming (copr's comment) and other mission critical applications (remote medical procedures, such as surgery, and intelligent transportation, such as cars talking to cars and to infrastructure) would now be possible with even the cheapest 5G phone/modem. And this would happen over existing (legacy) frequencies. I doubt speed would increase much, if any (but I'm not 100% sure).
But mmWave opens you up to far greater speeds vs. legacy frequencies purely by the virtue of much higher operating frequencies. That's where the marketeers are having their fun convincing you to buy 5G phones now (most of which are not mmWave-capable). Unless you meant "wait for mmWave for the speed increases," in which case you are correct.
5G using the existing frequencies does increase the speed if the base station is used at full capacity. A mobile cell is a bit like a cable network, it is a shared medium. So If you have a 4G base station with 100 users connected each at 1 Mbit/s, the same 5G base station will be able to serve 100 users at 3 Mbit/s. This is a bit of a simplification of the reality because the bandwidth a user actually gets depends on a lot of parameters, like e.g. the distance to the base station. Nevertheless the principle remains, the total bandwidth of all connected users of 5G base station will be roughly 3 times that of 4G station
My understanding of 5G is that beyond the increased number of device connections allowed and higher theoretical speeds allowed by higher frequencies, it does a better job of bandwidth distribution across the available spectrum. One question I haven’t found the answer to is whether these benefits will be limited to 5G devices or if 4G devices will also realize them. I’ve spoken to very few people who feel they need additional speed beyond what they get with a *good* LTE connection. Even this far out, there are large areas without a good LTE connectivity, though. It may be that 5G’s true benefit is not what people are touting, but actually giving people what was promised yeas ago when LTE was rolling out.
Anyone remember the HTC Thunderbolt; it was the first 4G device on Verizon. It had terrible battery life (lasted maybe an hour or two on 4G) and it was the most expensive device at the time. It also worked in very limited pockets of major cities where 4G was available at the time. It took Verizon approximately 3.5 years to rollout 4G to the masses. I estimate 5G will take around the same time. It NEVER pays to be an early adopter. I will not recommend anyone purchase a 5G device until at least 2021.
I think a good analogy here is Elon Musk's comment earlier in the week that: "Anybody who doesn't buy a (fully electric, self driving) Tesla will feel like they're driving a horse in 3 years"
....
Edit: I think you’re confusing ‘hate’ with ‘tempered realism.’ I don’t oppose 5G, much less hate it; I’ve just been around long enough to know that it’s not going to magically solve all our problems and let us achieve wireless nirvana overnight. The unbridled optimism and similar grandiose promises are made every time some new technology comes to market. Never does the reality match the promises.
Not a 5G hater? Then why the over the top "it’s not going to magically solve all our problems and let us achieve wireless nirvana overnight."
If your objections were actually based on ‘tempered realism.’ you wouldn't need to resort to such hyperbole.
Comments
I think a good analogy here is Elon Musk's comment earlier in the week that:
"Anybody who doesn't buy a (fully electric, self driving) Tesla will feel like they're driving a horse in 3 years"
There is a new technology coming that makes promises about great improvements and is being relentlessly pushed by its advocates who are also glossing over issues and are overly optimistic about the timeline. So, yes. It’s a perfect analogy!
Edit: I think you’re confusing ‘hate’ with ‘tempered realism.’ I don’t oppose 5G, much less hate it; I’ve just been around long enough to know that it’s not going to magically solve all our problems and let us achieve wireless nirvana overnight. The unbridled optimism and similar grandiose promises are made every time some new technology comes to market. Never does the reality match the promises.
Then why the over the top "it’s not going to magically solve all our problems and let us achieve wireless nirvana overnight."
If your objections were actually based on ‘tempered realism.’ you wouldn't need to resort to such hyperbole.