6G Principles Endorsed By US and International Partners (axios.com) 19
The U.S. and several international partners endorsed shared principles for developing 6G wireless communication systems, the White House said Monday. From a report: A battle is underway to influence the standards of 6G amid concerns by Western countries and their allies that authoritarian regimes could gain further control over Internet in their countries. Policies around wireless communications influence economic-growth and national security, fueling the race between the U.S. and China -- which claimed earlier this month that it had launched the world's first satellite "to test 6G architecture," per state media.
The governments of the U.S., Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Japan, South Korea, Sweden and the U.K. released a joint statement saying that by working together, "we can support open, free, global, interoperable, reliable, resilient, and secure connectivity." They laid out principles including using systematic approaches to cybersecurity, being protective of privacy and creating technologies that are widely available and accessible to developing nations.
The governments of the U.S., Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Japan, South Korea, Sweden and the U.K. released a joint statement saying that by working together, "we can support open, free, global, interoperable, reliable, resilient, and secure connectivity." They laid out principles including using systematic approaches to cybersecurity, being protective of privacy and creating technologies that are widely available and accessible to developing nations.
Why don't the carriers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
That's all handled at FCC auctions and not wireless standards. There's not much you can do with a 2.5GHz or higher signal to get around that. But the lower bands like 600MHz don't carry a lot of traffic. You can really only penetrate large buildings with high capacity by putting multiple towers INSIDE the bigger buildings.
Re: (Score:2)
Or to tl;dr a point that I sort of glossed over, speed = capacity. You getting 2Gbps is the same as 2000 people getting 1Mbps. For that, you need a higher carrier frequency that doesn't penetrate well.
Re: Why don't the carriers (Score:4, Insightful)
by putting multiple towers INSIDE the bigger buildings.
And now you have just reinvented WiFi. With suitable repeaters. Something the telecoms hate with a vengance. And have tried to co-opt with their own "WiFi as a paid service" by making a bid to take over ISM bands.
This all has little to do with providing adequate service, for which other RF protocols are more suited. It's about rent-seeking by monopolizing the public airwaves. "Oh puleeeze! Give us more spectrum, so we can improve our service." While they can't even utilize that which they have hoarded.
Re: (Score:2)
And now you have just reinvented WiFi.
No you haven't. Networks matter, as does hand-off between networks. Which is precisely why many companies to run both WiFi and 5G BDAs in their buildings.
Re: (Score:2)
They can't change the laws of physics.
Re: (Score:3)
work on increasing range and penetration into buildings instead of increasing speed? That's all I care about.
Who said speed? What makes you think that they were just working on speed? 5G has had something like 400 enhancements and feature changes to the air-interface. You should learn about the other 399 of them before you think you're being ignored.
Incidentally the previous iteration did just that, implementing various technologies that made 5G receivers more sensitive and more immune to interference. Carriers do not determine the direction of a technology, so your post is as ignorant as it is off-topic in a disc
Re: (Score:3)
Most of the major improvements in 5G were to do with covering dead zones and areas with a lot of devices, i.e. what you want. There are no getting around the laws of physics for propagation, all you can do is add more cells to improve coverage. 5G makes deploying cells easier and cheaper.
Meanwhile (Score:5, Funny)
Verizon is already rolling it out, starting with new cellphones if they are bought on plan. /s
I hope they get 6G right (Score:5, Funny)
I was really stoked to hear that they were trialing 5G implants through the COVID vax. Got mine, and nothing. So disappointing. How am I going to be a free mobile hot spot for my family now?! They need to get the tech right this time.
Re: I hope they get 6G right (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically while the nutjobs in America were linking COVID with 5G, the government policy in Germany was linking it to 3G. Yep you had to show your "3G pass" if you wanted to enter a COVID zone, where that stood for Getested, Geimpft, Genesen (tested, vaccinated, or recovered). The 3G+ variant meant the test had to be a PCR test.
Re: (Score:2)
CDMA (COVID Direct Mind-control Access) is the US 3G version of the German UMTS.
7G (Score:2)
The new standard improves error correction.
"better than nothing g" (Score:3)
Something much more innovative than just "MORE SPEED" would be an internet that is 256KBPS or so, but is available EVERYWHERE.
One you can always count on, even for emergencies.
Accessible to developing nations,really? (Score:2)
And a lot of developing nations are Muslim, closely watching the Israel-Gaza conflict, and no longer trusting anything the West says. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
I want a VirtualG (Score:2)
16G (Score:2)
I'm not upgrading until 16G.