Verizon can't cover a basketball stadium with 5G

[Donut417]

2 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

there is talk of possibly just using 5G to connect to another tower. instead of wiring everything with cables, its just a mesh network with a couple main stations per "avenue" or something. 

As I said. above. They were looking in to the mesh option. But the mesh approch might not work everywhere. 

[GoldenLag]

8 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

As I said. above. They were looking in to the mesh option.

i read it, and i though you mentioned it, but then i thought id just write it anyways. yeah idk what im doing. 

9 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

But the mesh approch might not work everywhere. 

should work in city streets. irregular streets on the other hand is gonna be a pain. like a slight curve will block signals hard. 

 

no mm5G in old town Europe i guess. 

[Donut417]

31 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

should work in city streets. irregular streets on the other hand is gonna be a pain. like a slight curve will block signals hard.

Where it works is up to local governments and pole owners. Local governments are the ones that issue permits and pole owners expect to be paid rent. 
 

Some utilities are ran under ground. So no utility poles are present. 

[Jito463]

On 10/23/2019 at 2:04 AM, mr moose said:

I don't know about anyone else, but when companies like telstra invest millions in building this stuff they don't do it on a whim that it might pay for itself,  they have heavily researched where they are investing.

Not saying it is a bad investment, but many companies have been known to invest in technology that didn't pay off in the long run, so I wouldn't rely on that as a viable argument.

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, Jito463 said:

Not saying it is a bad investment, but many companies have been known to invest in technology that didn't pay off in the long run, so I wouldn't rely on that as a viable argument.

 

yes, that does happen,  I'm not relying on it being an investment as much as I am pointing out that multiple companies and countries are investing heavily.  It's a major thing not just one company investing in a green toaster or new phone because they ballsed up the consumer survey's or could write it off against inappropriately high profits.

 

 

[mr moose]

Also, I just encountered this on the net, thought it amusingly coincidental.

 

[spartaman64]

27 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Also, I just encountered this on the net, thought it amusingly coincidental.

 

 

also what happened to 3G back in the day it could load a website in a few seconds but now i cant even send a message on discord using it

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

also what happened to 3G back in the day it could load a website in a few seconds but now i cant even send a message on discord using it

 

Discord (like most websites) is probably heavily loaded with much more data and processes than it needs.  If you could setup up an old ICQ account and server it would probably work.

[dalekphalm]

15 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

also what happened to 3G back in the day it could load a website in a few seconds but now i cant even send a message on discord using it

Have you seen websites from 3G days, compared to now? The web has, and continues, to change.

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Have you seen websites from 3G days, compared to now? The web has, and continues, to change.

I remember when 256K adsl was overkill for everyday web surfing,  now you need at least 5Mb/s to not be infuriated with the load time.

 

[dalekphalm]

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I remember when 256K adsl was overkill for everyday web surfing,  now you need at least 5Mb/s to not be infuriated with the load time.

 

Yep.

 

And that's precisely why 5G needs to happen. The evolution of web design waits for no one. If 5G isn't deployed, it'll just mean slower load times for existing 4G users over time.

[mr moose]

22 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Yep.

 

And that's precisely why 5G needs to happen. The evolution of web design waits for no one. If 5G isn't deployed, it'll just mean slower load times for existing 4G users over time.

Especially when we consider the extra data that will be required for essential background tasks such as security.  Photos and video might get smaller but I bet encryption and security methods become time crucial as well as data intense.

[dalekphalm]

For those who are curious, even with Enterprise grade WIFI access points, the rule of thumb is around 30 users max per AP:

https://www.accessagility.com/blog/how-to-estimate-number-of-access-points-needed

 

So a large stadium will have hundreds of AP's anyway, for proper coverage.

[ZacoAttaco]

17 hours ago, mr moose said:

The reason 5G is so controversial is because many just don't understand how technology rolls out.  They think because they understand a small portion of the tech or because some youtuber was pontificating how stupid Verizon is (likely for the clicks), they now believe they understand everything there is to know.

Agreed, I've completed a presentation on the basic concepts of 5G and I still only understand small parts. It is a very complicated technology. I remember the OnePlus CEO Pete Lau mentioned how complicated it was from an engineering standpoint.

[LAwLz]

On 10/24/2019 at 11:54 PM, mr moose said:

Especially when we consider the extra data that will be required for essential background tasks such as security.  Photos and video might get smaller but I bet encryption and security methods become time crucial as well as data intense.

Data doesn't generally become larger with encryption. For example AES does not add any size, except possible a few bytes of padding at the end (a few bytes, regardless of how large the data stream is). The process of encrypting the data is not a problem either, since it was designed to be fast and it's implemented in hardware. For example the iPhone's processor can encrypt over 27 gigabits of data each second, and if your server has more than 27 gigabits of data being sent/received each second then you probably has something a little beefier than an iPhone hosting it.

 

What has gotten bigger are websites in general, especially ads. Here is a video of me viewing the dependencies in Chrome when I browse The Verge with adblock on, and then adblock off. Each one of those little dots are external resources being requested. Each little dot is an instance of my computer having to look up a domain, send data, have that data processed, then that data sent back, and so on.

 

 

[TechyBen]

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Data doesn't generally become larger with encryption. For example AES does not add any size, except possible a few bytes of padding at the end (a few bytes, regardless of how large the data stream is). The process of encrypting the data is not a problem either, since it was designed to be fast and it's implemented in hardware. For example the iPhone's processor can encrypt over 27 gigabits of data each second, and if your server has more than 27 gigabits of data being sent/received each second then you probably has something a little beefier than an iPhone hosting it.

 

What has gotten bigger are websites in general, especially ads. Here is a video of me viewing the dependencies in Chrome when I browse The Verge with adblock on, and then adblock off. Each one of those little dots are external resources being requested. Each little dot is an instance of my computer having to look up a domain, send data, have that data processed, then that data sent back, and so on.

 

 

Technically the process of encryption with decryption is harder/larger/etc than without it. But yeah, the overhead these days is nothing to worry about, as it can be a little as a few percentage difference.

[RedRound2]

On 10/25/2019 at 2:57 AM, dalekphalm said:

Yep.

 

And that's precisely why 5G needs to happen. The evolution of web design waits for no one. If 5G isn't deployed, it'll just mean slower load times for existing 4G users over time.

I don't think any website or any web apps would or should need more bandwidth than a 4K video stream per second, the latter of which plays fine on a good 4G signal.

 

Sure faster is better, no one can deny that, but it's coming at a cost. Literally, all you need a stupid bus coming in between you and the tower for your speed to drastically reduce. Buildings, people, trees, anything at this point seems to severely attenuate the mm 5G speed. That would be extremely horrible user experience (I deal with this with 4G in my town occasionally and it's frustrating to say the least)

 

The pure logistics and the upfront cost makes it so obvious that it will take a stupidly long time for 5G antennas to be integrated into every Street lamp in cities, but carriers still like to give out fake promises about how 5G will change the world and it's right around the corner, when it clearly has way too many obstacles to overcome.

 

IMO carriers should be working on making 4G better, and more consistent everywhere, except the super remote areas where they can fall back to 3G. 2G should be scrapped off completely. They should start focusing on improving existing infrastructure and reducing cost for both them and it's customers. And it is possible. Take a look at India, they get 1.5 GB per day with unlimited calling for 3 months $5.6 US dollars.

[dalekphalm]

52 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

I don't think any website or any web apps would or should need more bandwidth than a 4K video stream per second, the latter of which plays fine on a good 4G signal.

For now. Can you guarantee that 4G speeds will be sufficient in 10 years?

52 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

Sure faster is better, no one can deny that, but it's coming at a cost. Literally, all you need a stupid bus coming in between you and the tower for your speed to drastically reduce. Buildings, people, trees, anything at this point seems to severely attenuate the mm 5G speed. That would be extremely horrible user experience (I deal with this with 4G in my town occasionally and it's frustrating to say the least)

Only an issue for mm wave frequencies. 5G NR uses the same frequencies as 4G, and is basically just a straight up upgrade.  
 

Don’t expect 5G mm wave on every corner (unless you’re maybe downtown in a big city). 

 

5G NR actually helps improve congestion, etc, with the same number of users per tower compared to 4G. 

52 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

The pure logistics and the upfront cost makes it so obvious that it will take a stupidly long time for 5G antennas to be integrated into every Street lamp in cities, but carriers still like to give out fake promises about how 5G will change the world and it's right around the corner, when it clearly has way too many obstacles to overcome.

Too many to overcome? That’s pure nonsense and not based on anything in reality. 
 

That would only be the case if carriers were strictly deploying 5G mm wave everywhere even in situations where it makes more sense to use 5G NR. 
 

Fortunately that’s not the case, and the vast majority of 5G deployments will be NR, with mm wave being used in very people dense situations like stadiums and convention halls, etc. 

52 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

IMO carriers should be working on making 4G better, and more consistent everywhere, except the super remote areas where they can fall back to 3G. 2G should be scrapped off completely. They should start focusing on improving existing infrastructure and reducing cost for both them and it's customers. And it is possible. Take a look at India, they get 1.5 GB per day with unlimited calling for 3 months $5.6 US dollars.

Why would they waste money on 4G infrastructure upgrades when they can deploy 5G NR instead to areas lacking good 4G coverage?

 

There comes a point where it makes more sense to simply deploy the new tech (since you’re going to be deploying something anyway, and the radio itself isn’t that big of a cost compared to building the tower or all of the other associated costs). 

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Data doesn't generally become larger with encryption. For example AES does not add any size, except possible a few bytes of padding at the end (a few bytes, regardless of how large the data stream is). The process of encrypting the data is not a problem either, since it was designed to be fast and it's implemented in hardware. For example the iPhone's processor can encrypt over 27 gigabits of data each second, and if your server has more than 27 gigabits of data being sent/received each second then you probably has something a little beefier than an iPhone hosting it.

 

What has gotten bigger are websites in general, especially ads. Here is a video of me viewing the dependencies in Chrome when I browse The Verge with adblock on, and then adblock off. Each one of those little dots are external resources being requested. Each little dot is an instance of my computer having to look up a domain, send data, have that data processed, then that data sent back, and so on.

 

 

When I said encryption might become time crucial, I meant that literally,  there might become a time dependency for responses from a client in order verify them along with other methods of security like two factor etc.   If such a measure were to be included then congestion causing latency issues might become a problem.    It was speculation on the unknown future requirements of technology as we move forward.  We know security will not remain the same and it will constantly need to improve.

 

EDIT: good point about websites though, and the frustration of ads etc on data, time etc.

[LAwLz]

4 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

IMO carriers should be working on making 4G better, and more consistent everywhere, except the super remote areas where they can fall back to 3G. 2G should be scrapped off completely. They should start focusing on improving existing infrastructure and reducing cost for both them and it's customers. And it is possible. Take a look at India, they get 1.5 GB per day with unlimited calling for 3 months $5.6 US dollars.

5G are several different technologies bundled together. The one you see all the hype about is called mmWave and it has terrible range and penetration power. What you do not see a lot of marketing for though is "Frequency Range 1" which is 5G but at more traditional frequencies. It will have range similar to 4G but still be faster.

 

It doesn't make sense to keep deploying 4G radios when we have something that is just straight up better with basically no drawbacks.

 

If 5G was just mmWave then I would agree. That would be stupid and we would need to keep improving 4G towers as well. However, that is not the case. 5G will be able to replace 4G even in remote areas where mmWave is unfeasible and makes no sense (which is in most areas that aren't heavily crowded cities).

 

 

3 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Only an issue for mm wave frequencies. 5G NR uses the same frequencies as 4G, and is basically just a straight up upgrade.  

Small nitpick.

5G NR is a collective term for both the low and high frequency 5G. What you should be calling it is 5G FR1.

FR1 = 450 - 7,125 MHz

FR 2 = 24,250 - 52,600 MHz

 

 

 

18 minutes ago, mr moose said:

When I said encryption might become time crucial, I meant that literally,  there might become a time dependency for responses from a client in order verify them along with other methods of security like two factor etc.   If such a measure were to be included then congestion causing latency issues might become a problem.    It was speculation on the unknown future requirements of technology as we move forward.  We know security will not remain the same and it will constantly need to improve.

 

EDIT: good point about websites though, and the frustration of ads etc on data, time etc.

Oh I see.

Yeah encryption does add some time overhead, but I am not too worried. It's already low latency enough to be used for voice and video conferencing.

Cellular transmissions such as phone calls have been doing encryption of voice data since the 80's.

For hardware accelerated AES we're maybe talking 1ms, if even that. The slow part is the initial key exchange but after that it's blazing fast.

[Donut417]

6 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

FR1 = 450 - 7,125 MHz

FR 2 = 24,250 - 52,600 MHz

 

Most of the bands Ive seen wireless compnies use fall in to FR1. Have any of the higher frequeinces been allocated to any one? I know T Mobile was talking about using low, mid, and high bands to achive 5G coverage. With low and mid having the better range of course. Which is why they bought 600 Mhz when it come up for auction. I figured "High band" ment something in the 2 or 3 Ghz range. 

 

 

[Zodiark1593]

On 10/24/2019 at 4:54 AM, GoldenLag said:

i read it, and i though you mentioned it, but then i thought id just write it anyways. yeah idk what im doing. 

should work in city streets. irregular streets on the other hand is gonna be a pain. like a slight curve will block signals hard. 

 

no mm5G in old town Europe i guess. 

Wonder what kind of distance can be achieved with mm 5G using directional antenna?  

[spartaman64]

7 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

For now. Can you guarantee that 4G speeds will be sufficient in 10 years?

 

theres no guarantee but considering that home internet speeds are not getting much faster and it is getting worse in some respects in that ISPs are now adding data limits to home internet also. i dont think web devs would be interested in making their websites more demanding than 4K video streaming

[LAwLz]

11 hours ago, Donut417 said:

Most of the bands Ive seen wireless compnies use fall in to FR1.

FR1 is the only thing we have had up until now. 4G topped out at what's considered the 5G "mid band" (which is the upper end of FR1).

 

11 hours ago, Donut417 said:

I figured "High band" ment something in the 2 or 3 Ghz range. 

Nah, that's still in the mid bands in the world of 5G.

 

Low bands = Below 1GHz.

Mid bands = 1GHz to 6GHz.

High bands = 24GHz to 40GHz.

 

4G operates can operate at 450MHz to 5900MHz, but the actual frequencies used varies by region.

For example the US only uses 700MHz to 2500MHz for 4G.

 

 

 

9 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

theres no guarantee but considering that home internet speeds are not getting much faster and it is getting worse in some respects in that ISPs are now adding data limits to home internet also. i dont think web devs would be interested in making their websites more demanding than 4K video streaming

You have to remember that wireless is a shared medium.

Can our current 4G towers handle a 4K video? Absolutely. Can it handle 50 people all trying to load a 4K video? Nope...

Will it be able to handle 50 people trying to stream 4K videos, plus self-driving cars, plus a bunch of other connected devices in the future? Most likely not.

 

Even if 4G is capable of high speeds today, once you load a base station with lots of users the speed for each individual one quickly drops.

 

If your home WiFi can handle a 4K stream when you're alone, then it will only be able to handle delivering you a 720p video stream if you got 16 devices connected and trying to watch videos. It's the same with cellular.

 

We don't need 5G because we need higher peak throughput. We need it to maintain high throughput while we keep adding more and more devices. 

[Donut417]

9 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

are now adding data limits

This is not due to capacity necessarily. Data limits are due to the fact TV revenue is drying up and the Cable co doesn’t know what to do. So they impose limits to force you to buy TV from them. 
 

Speeds have been getting better. Many ISPs at least in the US can offer at least 1Gbps down. Upload rates are shit most of the time, but Fiber and Coax providers can’t offer the speeds. xDSL, is just dead at this point.