5G Is On Its Way, But Approaching Slowly 86
New submitter CarlottaHapsburg writes: Ericsson and Nokia are leading the pack when it comes to developing 5G, but there are some major complicating factors: flexible architecture, functioning key standards, the U.S.'s lethargy in expanding mmWave, and even the definition of what 5G is and can do. It'll get here, but not soon: "5G networks are widely expected to start to roll out by 2020, with a few early debuts at such global events as the 2018 Winter Olympics in South Korea. It is an ambitious deadline given what is expected from 5G -- no less than the disruption of the communications market in general, and telecom in particular, as well as related sectors such as test equipment." The FCC's Tom Wheeler says 5G is different for every manufacturer, like a Picasso painting. It should be an exciting five years of further developments and definitions — and, hopefully, American preparedness.
5G is for fast app apping (Score:2)
When you're apping apps with the AIDE app [android-ide.com], 5G helps you get your app up to version control and your QA crew faster.
Faster apps!
Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
The bandwidth caps are so low that at 5G speeds you'd blow through your monthly allotment in seconds.
If the carriers want to impress anyone, then increase capacity enough that you can raise the caps or remove them entirely and offer unlimited wireless internet... at speeds you can handle.
5G? They're not really letting people enjoy 4G as it is.
And on top of that, you have google's announcement that they're going to be offering a Wifi cellphone that connects through the wifi when possible to make phone calls... where only cellular service even costs... ANYTHING. And they're contracting with all the cell phone carriers to provide coverage.
YEARLY fees for some people might drop as low as 5 dollars per YEAR under a system like that.
Now... you like your wireless internet? But how much do you like it? First off, you can't buy most smartphones from most carriers unless you have a data plan. They literally won't let you connect unless you sign up for data as well. And for those that say "well that's just because the data plan pays for the reduced price you paid for the phone."... Nope. Because they won't even let you bring your own phone or buy the phone outright and then not have the data plan. They don't care. You have a smartphone? You must have data.
I've currently got my MONTHLY cell phone bill down to about 8 dollars per month. The price of that was that I do not have data on my phone. Which you would think sucks, only people don't appreciate how ubiquitous free wifi is everywhere. When I want data, I turn on my wifi and connect to any number of free wifi hotspots that are everywhere. The only place it could suck would be on the road but my actual needs to connect to the internet on the freeway are pretty limited. I use a map program on my phone that stores the maps in internal memory. And I have plenty of space left over for music, movies, and games.
Don't get me wrong... internet would be nice... but what am I willing to pay for it? 20 dollars a month? Literally tripling my monthly rate... for that? No. I don't care that much.
I like paying 8 bucks a month. And I look forward to paying 5 bucks a year.
Re: (Score:3)
Wow. This message in a bottle arrived from the 20th century. What a fantastic story of historical life. I really enjoyed reading about it on my smartphone at the beach.
Portable TV is for instant replay (Score:3)
that's like those people that go to football games and then bring a little TV with them so they can sit AT THE GAME and watch the game on a tiny portable tv.
It depends on what kind of football you're talking about. For a stop-and-go sport like baseball or gridiron football, it's helpful to look up and watch the game in real time, and then look down and watch the last play repeated from different angles. But I'll grant that it's not so helpful for a continuous sport like soccer or all but the last two minutes of a basketball game.
Re: (Score:1)
Pure unrefined sadness.
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
In 2008, Rogers introduced a 6GB data plan for $30 as part of the launch of the iPhone 3G.
7 years later, the equivalent 6GB plan costs roughly $10-15 more.
Considering that cellular bandwidth caps have effectively shrunk over the past 7 years, despite speeds increasing by 40x, please explain why I should expect caps to be dramatically higher 5 years from today?
Re: (Score:3)
...because smartphone saturation in wealthy countries has gone from 10% to ~90% in that time? And smartphone owners have dramatically increased their average data usage in that period? When demand spikes and supply lags behind, prices go up.
I have no love of wireless providers, but they've upgraded the capacity of their networks by a couple orders of magnitude, replaced a lot of their equipment several times over and built thousands more towers, which is a painful and time-consuming task in many communities
Re: (Score:2)
Smartphone penetration in Canada (Rogers' territory) was at 55% in 2014, and increased to 68% in 2015. That's still substantial growth, and indicates that we're still a few years away from market saturation. As such, it would be several years before we'd see the effects you forecast, which doesn't leave much time for meaningful reductions in data prices in the next five years.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, that's lower than I expected (I've mostly been seeing reports from the USA and Asia of late) but not as bad as it sounds. 5%-70% is 1300% growth; 70%-100% is ~40% growth. An new frequency band or LTE rollout could easily make that up. Also, growth tends to follow an s-curve; it often flattens out as you get to the last ten or twenty percent. While I'm sure wireless providers will hold onto high monthly fees as long as they can, soon they'll have to start competing more to keep showing growth at sharehol
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Interesting)
You're forgetting that they don't have to lower costs... at least in their minds. They think they're building monopolies.
The google concept of wifi calling which is coming will annihilate this business model. I can't wait.
My bill is about 8 dollars a month. I can't wait for it to go to 5 dollars a year.
Re: (Score:2)
The future is unevenly distributed. My carrier offers 4GB for $35.68, up to 40GB for $71.60. Prices are flat across the lower cap-levels because they don't want to sell plans that small, they prefer selling larger chunks of bandwidth hence the cheaper averages. Their prices fall / caps increase fairly fast. We are currently receiving some special promo with a 100% increase in cap for free, it probably won't end as their prices will have dropped by the time they stop doing it.
Anyway, to get back to your orig
Re: (Score:2)
When did I say average transfer was more important than peak rates? Most people have 2GB caps on their phone service, and their 150Mbps phones can blow through that cap in under two minutes. Is that not a bit silly? That your monthly service can only be used for around 107 seconds per month?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you not understand that they are the same thing? Unlimited service = selling by average/constant speed. Limited service = selling by peak speed.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? There hasn't been a truly unlimited service offering in Canada since before the smartphone era...
Re: (Score:2)
What does that have to do with any part of this discussion?
Re: (Score:2)
You tell me, you're the one who brought it up... I made a post complaining that over the past 7 years, transfer caps have gone down while speeds have gone up, and you started on about average speeds.
Re: (Score:2)
What does your question about "in Canada" have to do with the discussion? I get that you don't understand that a cap lower than max capacity is an indication of average speed.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in Canada, I'm observing that over the past 7 years, caps have gone down, prices have gone up. Average speed is meaningless when the ratio between cap and what's theoretically possible is 20,000 to 1.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not meaningless at all. It is exactly the same as saying we sell you this average speed, and we will let you burst your traffic to 20000x that speed when you need it. This is precisely the way that bandwidth used to be sold for connections, as it matches the underlying market. For a long period of time people have tried to sell it differently but it just does't work - if you offer someone an unlimited service then you have to assume they will use it constantly at peak capacity. That doesn't really matc
Re: (Score:2)
A 6GB "Max" plan from Fido (Rogers) costs $80 in Quebec, but it's a voice and data plan. Back in 2008, the 6GB data plan was $30, and then you'd pay another $30 for your voice plan and $10 for your value pack. That's $70. So a new plan is $10 more today than it was in 2008.
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Interesting)
There are a couple companies including google talking about about doing things differently.
Last I checked their concept was this:
1. text messages are free
2. You are only billed for calls made through cell towers. You are able to make them through wifi instead and encouraged to do so. They estimate that roughly 80 percent of calls happen within wifi hotspots.
3. Calls made through wifi are free.
4. You can make calls through cell towers are normal rates and are billed for time used. google specifically wants to contract with ALL GSM providers so that you can use any GSM tower.
That was the concept. There is another company out of New York doing a similar thing though not quite as generous as google.
Here is the thing, the calls all happen through the internet. And the fees that providers are charged by tower operators are not per text or per phone call or even in minutes. They're charged by the kilobit.
Its just data. And once you untethered the data from the towers you can put additional leverage on the tower operators to charge a more reasonable fee.
Most of the time when I get a call, I am at home or at work. Those minutes on that system will be free. I'll only be billed for the minutes when I'm out and about. Think about that.
I don't use my phone much. Most conversations on the phone are over in 30 seconds. I get a lot of texts but so what?
Think about how great this is for a kid as well.
The texts are free. You can buy a phone for the kid, get him by text any time at no cost. And if you need to talk to him, you say "connect to wifi and call me"... again... if you're cost conscious and want what amounts to a free cell phone. Then consider international calling. No need to fuck around with skype. You just connect to the wifi with your phone can make a call. No bullshit international calling fees... no additional accounts. And you can call someone's actual phone number at no charge.
Re: (Score:1)
Mobile phone network operators here in UK are already providing wifi calling apps for smartphones.
I guess they know the situation is coming and are seeking to be the ones in control of it. Here in the UK once you spend enough per month (not a lot of money about the same as decent cable or landline Internet access) you already get a mobile plan with unlimited SMS and voice calling,
So the network operators are
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't say where the plan would fail. You just said that it would. Then you started talking about something in the UK that doesn't necessarily have relevant to the US cellular market.
Please explain why the concept will fail when they get GSM providers?
And please explain why the UK market is relevant to the US market in this context.
Thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm happy paying 12-15 bucks a month (depending whether I send any texts that month, or I've been spammed with any, which is annoying but not the end of the world), for which I get the ability to use data when I need to (which is infrequently but not never). I enjoy that ability enough that I would not be willing to sacrifice it to save 7 bucks a month. Having data anywhere your phone works, is super nice. I get it down that low because I don't use *much* not-wifi data, because there is *often* wifi availab
Re: (Score:2)
thanks for the heads up on ting. I'm currently paying about 100 dollars per year. I don't get data but as I said, I don't miss it.
Re: (Score:1)
You and this guy [theonion.com] would probably get along well.
Re: (Score:1)
nah, he says he wants to do something useful. I said I wanted to play video games.
Anyway... haters gonna hate. Can't stop you from being a spiteful cunt. So I'm not going to try. :)
Re: (Score:2)
The bandwidth caps are so low that at 5G speeds you'd blow through your monthly allotment in seconds.
If the carriers want to impress anyone, then increase capacity enough that you can raise the caps or remove them entirely and offer unlimited wireless internet... at speeds you can handle.
Thi$ i$ a good po$t.
Obviou$ly the rea$on for the cap$ on mobile data is a lack of capacity to $ervice moden $mart phone u$age. I'm $ure, once infa$tructure i$ built out, we will $ee a return of unlimited data plan$, and at $peed$ of at lea$t 3G for all u$er$.
Re: (Score:2)
I just downloaded a 10 gigabyte movie in my phone and watched it last night. I don't have a cap with T-Mobile. :3
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
T-Mobile has just fine coverage everywhere I've ever been.
The people that bitch the most about coverage seem to be people living in new york or something. The coverage area isn't the issue. You have to punch the signal through buildings and subways and all sorts of shit.
Now, in Los Angeles, we don't have that problem. It is one of the pros of the Sprawl... nothing really blocks signal.
Re: (Score:2)
...bullshit... a ten gig movie? What fucking format was that in? Blueray? What kind of crazy person downloads a blueray ISO onto their cellphone?
How much internal memory do you even have on that thing?
You download a compressed AVI or MKV or something... max size is going to be less than 2 gigs and that is for 1080p which is meaningless on a phone's tiny screen. 720p is the most you'd even bother with and that is frankly extravagant on that formfactor. And that brings your total file size down to something b
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah it was bluray. T-Moble has an unlimited bandwidth plan, but not unlimited tethering. So when I download I have to disconnect from my computer. That would be great since I also have a hotspot for the computer, but I lent that out to an indigent friend who is in a hospital that lacks wifi in his wing. So I actually have to not use my computer on the internet when I'm downloading. Also in this area, it switches from LTE to 4G when I'm on the phone and slows way down. I've only seen it do LTE when tal
Re: (Score:2)
... okay but why download a blueray iso at all? Again... 2gigs for 1080p in MKV format.
Es muy better, no?
The only reason I can think to download a blueray ISO is because you want to burn it to blueray. And... I have yet to meet anyone that actually ever does that.
Back in the day, burning things to cds/dvds made some sense. But at this point... who needs these fucking plastic discs? I have a 3 terabyte external and I keep all my movies etc on that thing. So much more civilized.
Re: (Score:2)
It was a 10 gig mkv.
Kind of badly encoded too, I can't seek in it in a few players.
Well luck of the draw on torrent. No I didn't torrent in my phone I used ftp from another computer that torrented it.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a plan with no data cap as long as you're not tethering!
Great! (Score:1)
Why are they already promising us 5G? Wouldn't it be a good idea to actually work on roll out of a real 4G standard first? No, not the abomination that they are calling 4G now! I mean an offering that is real 4G according to the standard.
4G Lite (Score:2)
They're not calling it 4G; they're calling it 4G Lite. Unfortunately, the announcer keeps forgetting the i.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand your point, but just because some industry organization wants to redefine the terminology for marketing reasons to be based on speed instead of generations of technology, doesn't make it so.
That last quote is all you need to know (Score:1)
The FCC's Tom Wheeler says 5G is different for every manufacturer, like a Picasso painting.
I hope you liked vendor-locked phones before...
Re: (Score:1)
why does my tv say its a 42" when its only 41.5" really wtf? is this just a us thing?
Re: (Score:3)
Measuring in inches?
Yes. That's largely only an American thing.
Re: (Score:2)
so are tvs advertised as 107cm actually only 105.73cm where you live or do you actually get what you pay for?
Re: (Score:2)
They're measured using the CEO's penis
Re:PLEASE make it the same globally (Score:4, Informative)
It's not possible for a single phone to support every possible LTE band simultaneously (read: no such cellular radio exists). As such, manufacturers have to pick the most common bands in a given region. It's not due to lack of standardization.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. "Real" 4G was supposed to provide mobile download speeds up to 100 Mb/sec, and none of the US cellular providers have come close to actually providing that speed.
Enough with the 'G' already (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
The network hardware suppliers (Ericsson et. al.) tried to move away from the Gs with LTE, but the carrier marketing departments named it 4G so we are stuck with the nomenclature.
In other words... (Score:3)
...there's nothing new here.
"5G networks are widely expected to start to roll out by 2020, with a few early debuts at such global events as the 2018 Winter Olympics"
Which means that there won't be consumer equipment able to use it in 2018. What's the point?
"The FCC's Tom Wheeler says 5G is different for every manufacturer"
Facepalm. Hell, double facepalm.
Re: (Score:3)
Aren't these the two Android holdouts? Who uses these things?
"Android holdouts" as in "not making Android phones"?
Ericsson doesn't make any phones. They used to, but put that into a joint venture with Sony, and that's now just Sony Mobile, who make Android phones. What they do make is infrastructure hardware for telephony, including mobile telephony.
Nokia doesn't make any phones, either. They used to, but they sold that to some company in the Seattle area, Microsomethingorother if I remember correctly. What they do make is infrastructure for mobile telephony.
Re: (Score:2)
Nokia do make mobile phones. At the moment they don't make small tablet computers with a GSM/CDMA voice stage like the Lumias, Samsung Androids or iPhones. They're called featurephones. You'll find them for sale in out-of-the-way stores like Amazon with options like dual-SIM, basic social networking support and the like for twenty or thirty bucks, no contract.
Re: (Score:2)
Nokia do make mobile phones.
By this, do you mean "the corporation named Nokia manufactures, in addition to mobile telephony infrastructure equipment, mobile phones", or "there are mobile phones that happen to be sold by Nokia", or "the corporation named Nokia makes mobile phones that they sell"?
If the former, are you referring to the phones made by Nokia's Indian manufacturing facilities? Those were one of the parts of the Devices and Services business not sold to Microsoft, as part of the deal selling most of that business to Micr [nokia.com]
Re: (Score:2)
There are the Asha model Nokia phones which are intended for the Indian market but there are also other cheap featurephones like the 105, 120 etc. which are sold here in the UK from Amazon and other sources either SIM-free or locked to carriers as PAYG. They are branded Nokia and, I presume, built by them.
The Lumia smartphones are being rebranded as MS devices with the Nokia name being deprecated although a lot of sales listings still refers to them as Nokia Lumia.
The rumours suggest Nokia want to get (back
Re: (Score:2)
There are the Asha model Nokia phones which are intended for the Indian market but there are also other cheap featurephones like the 105, 120 etc. which are sold here in the UK from Amazon and other sources either SIM-free or locked to carriers as PAYG. They are branded Nokia and, I presume, built by them.
"Sold here in the UK" does not necessarily imply "not built in India". The current 105 is another fine Microsoft product [microsoft.com]. I suspect it's built by Nokia at the aforementioned Indian facility; if not, it's probably built by Microsoft at one of the factories that Nokia did sell them.
instead of 5G (Score:3, Insightful)
Ps are more important than Gs (Score:2)
http://www.penny-arcade.com/co... [penny-arcade.com]
4g lte IS my only internet connection (Score:2)
It's fast, I get unlimited bandwidth (when I'm not tethering). I download high def movies with it.
Since we just got 4G LTE in the US and it's awesome enough, I don't expect to see a 5g rollout for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
I think they're a step past HSPA+ - that was their 4g not their 4g lte. I'm getting peak download rates of 30 or 40 Mbps, usually more like 20 Mbps. But when the phone switches to 4g it's more like 0.8Mbps.
Re: (Score:1)
Update, after more researching, it appears that there was some strong-arming over the ITU by American national carriers forcing them to redefine 4G to allow crappy 3G-bastardized product to claim to be 4G, while not even coming close to the required 100Mb/s speeds. The closest they came was 90Mb/S when only a single phone was using the tower.
Pure vaporware (Score:4, Informative)
the wikipedia article makes it clear that 5g is pure vaporware. It's not even a specific technology it's the expectation that new technologies will be invented.
FCC should mandate interoperability (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't know if they have the authority, but the FCC should mandate carrier level interoperability.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I'm paranoid, but since the WHO has declared even non-ionizing radiation as a "possible human carcinogen"...
Here's your problem. The WHO declaring something doesn't make it true.
Also, the WHO thing you're looking at doesn't say what you think it does.