Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Networking Wireless Networking

Gigabit Cellular Networks Could Happen, With 24GHz Spectrum 52

Posted by timothy from the who-needs-a-cord dept.
An anonymous reader writes A Notice of Inquiry was issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on Friday that focuses research on higher frequencies for sending gigabit streams of mobile data. The inquiry specifically states that its purpose is to determine "what frequency bands above 24 GHz would be most suitable for mobile services, and to begin developing a record on mobile service rules and a licensing framework for mobile services in those bands". Cellular networks currently use frequencies between 600 MHz to 3 GHz with the most desirable frequencies under 1 GHz being owned by AT&T and Verizon Wireless. The FCC feels, however, that new technology indicates the potential for utilizing higher frequency ranges not necessarily as a replacement but as the implementation necessary to finally usher in 5G wireless technology. The FCC anticipates the advent of 5G commercial offerings within six years.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gigabit Cellular Networks Could Happen, With 24GHz Spectrum More

Gigabit Cellular Networks Could Happen, With 24GHz Spectrum

Comments Filter:

  • Who wants a gigabit cellular network? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BigButra ( 3884325 ) on Sunday October 19, 2014 @06:16PM (#48182277)
    All a gigabit cellular network would do is give you the ability to hit your data limit in less than a minute. I would prefer to take time to savor the precious data I've paid through the nose for and my provider has so thoughtfully allocated to me.

    • Re:Who wants a gigabit cellular network? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by rudy_wayne ( 414635 ) on Sunday October 19, 2014 @06:26PM (#48182331)

      All a gigabit cellular network would do is give you the ability to hit your data limit in less than a minute.

      Exactly. And you'll get the privledge of paying more for the faster speed, too.

    • I believe you are missing the point. Verizon and AT&T will not be building out the last mile any more. Supporting the last mile is expensive and they can cover that will cell towers. This will replace the line to your house. This will have implications on Net Neutrality, since in mobile they cap the data and charge companies to not count against the cap.

    • I want a gigabit cellular network so that I can buy a megabit plan. The caps will go up notably if the capacity rises dramatically, and then I can switch to cellular to replace my WISP which sucks nuts, and not erotically

  • The FCCâ(TM)s notice talks about frequencies as high as 90GHz. Anything over 30GHz is classified as âoemillimeter wave frequencies,â which are blocked by walls. Indoor coverage is going to be tough.

    âoe[W]hatever licensing regimes we adopt should take into account the fact that signals from carriersâ(TM) outdoor base stations will rarely be able to penetrate into the interiors of buildings, where around 75 percent of cellular data usage occurs today,â the FCC wrote. âoeReaching such spaces will almost certainly require the deployment of indoor base stations.â

    The original concept for the cellular network was a series of big outdoor towers which talked to indoor base stations.
    Of course, building owners didn't want the expense of (retro)fitting small indoor cells, which led to a lot more outdoor towers than envisioned.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by haruchai ( 17472 )

      Let's hope pCell is viable - it's supposed to be LTE compatible

      http://mobile.slashdot.org/sto... [slashdot.org]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by swb ( 14022 )

      Some providers used to or maybe still do make them available to people with coverage problems. I looked into them a couple of years ago with the idea that I could pick one up and use it at various client locations where i had good internet access but no cellular coverage. Information was kind of scarce, but supposedly they needed GPS signaling (to control power output/frequency based on real cell towers?) and buy-in from your cell provider to manage it. And it also isn't clear if they do or ever will mak

  • Water frequency interference (Score:4, Interesting)

    by times05 ( 1683662 ) on Sunday October 19, 2014 @06:45PM (#48182397)

    When I was in the army my job was Satellite Communications. Long ago I was told that frequencies around 24Ghz are highly susceptible to interference by water such as rain and fog. So those spectra were considered to be too unreliable for communication. I never bothered to to check outside though.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by ArtFart ( 578813 )
      Not a problem. The cellular companies will lobby the US government to make it stop raining.

    • Re:Water frequency interference (Score:5, Informative)

      by schnell ( 163007 ) <me AT schnell DOT net> on Sunday October 19, 2014 @08:20PM (#48182899) Homepage

      You're correct. The wavelength of Ka-band [wikipedia.org] frequencies (26-40 GHz) happens to line up nicely with the size of a raindrop in flight. That leads to more atmospheric signal attenuation, but isn't necessarily a deal-breaker; it just means you need a bigger dish to receive it and a more powerful transmitter for the return channel. (The new generation of high-speed satellite Internet services [engadget.com] all use Ka band, despite the "rain fade" issues, because the higher frequency enables higher data rates.) In the past, the satellite industry tended to rely on lower frequency bands (such as Ku and C) to save costs on dish/transmitter size because of this concern.

      For a cellular service where you're looking laterally at a tower instead of straight up into the sky, the weather issue should be less of a big deal. However, you should note that any frequency that high up will have a very very hard time penetrating indoors through anything thicker than a single-pane window. So expect that this will be used for fixed home Internet applications where a receiver can be permanently mounted outdoors or near a window, rather than traditional cellphone usage that can happen anywhere you go indoors or outdoors.

  • There will be too much multi pathing at that frequency. At that high of a frequency the signals bounce off objects instead of penetrating through them. This means that you will need clear line of sight to the cell tower for it to work. Leaves , rain, fog, snow etc will block the signal.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Buck Feta ( 3531099 )
      That was true 5 years ago, but MIMO antennas actually benefit from multipath.
      • The laws of physics are the same as they were 5 years ago. The farther you multipath the more you multipath. The more you multipath the more multipath fading sets in. Each reflection causes a loss in signal strength. Unless they want to set up cell towers every 100 meters its not going to work.
        • This is made for small cells indeed. Any time you see 5G with gigabit speed, it's only for high density areas covered with small cells. 4G will still be there for larger cells (coverage layer in high density areas, and less dense areas).

          Also, there are ways to fight multipath. The primary one used in this scheme is beam-forming with a pretty dense array --- what I've seen on pre-5G tests typically use between 64 to 256 antennas. You then get a very narrow beam, and a primary path that is well above second

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by __aaltlg1547 ( 2541114 )

        There is no kind of antenna nor any RF signal that is improved by multipath. What MIMO antennas are supposed to do is reduce the detrimental effects of multipath fading.

  • And the signal will be blocked by several pieces of paper.

  • Seriously? What are they gonna do, put towers on every street corner?

    • Well, one obvious use case is high-bandwidth connection using upper cellular bands when you're outside and using WiFi when you're inside, with low-bandwidth connection using lower cellular bands as a fallback. That may or may not be useful to everyone, but for me, that would be enough.

    • Makes me thinks of femtocells. Farm out coverage to your customers. Also I can see this used in very high density areas : mall, town's main square, stadium, conference center, even ad hoc deployment for events. The effective bandwith for one device may then suck but the shit ton of spectrum may make the connection possible at all.

  • Range? (Score:3)

    by Dan Askme ( 2895283 ) on Monday October 20, 2014 @05:45AM (#48184817) Homepage

    Cellular networks currently use frequencies between 600 MHz to 3 GHz with the most desirable frequencies under 1 GHz

    Mostly because the wavelength and potential range at 600-3000MHz(UHF) is greater than those at 24ghz (SHF).

    http://patentimages.storage.go... [googleapis.com]

    Longer wavelength, longer range. Rocket science.

  • "Dial Tone". Sprint announced that in 20-25 years you will be able to move 'data' on the network too. Speeds are estimated to be 100 bits per second.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."

Close