If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Phys Org2)   UK planning to go from 4G to 5G, leaving us all wondering what the hell exactly is a G anyway?   (phys.org) divider line 72
    More: Spiffy, Ofcom, telecommunications, logical possibility, governors  
•       •       •

2873 clicks; posted to Geek » on 17 Nov 2012 at 10:30 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



72 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-17 02:18:04 PM
Does this mean that they'll get higher than 8kbps through the voice channel when making a call? Because that would be something I could completely get behind. It's annoying as all hell that my phone can download a 3 minute youtube video in 30 seconds, but when I call someone, I still have to stop and ask them to repeat what they were saying because the voice system is the same one that's been in place since the 1990's.

Seriously, talk to someone for a few minutes on a cell phone, and then call them landline-to-landline. It's like going from 1950's b&w TV to 1080i... or at least 720p
 
2012-11-17 02:20:02 PM

rolladuck: Does this mean that they'll get higher than 8kbps through the voice channel when making a call? Because that would be something I could completely get behind. It's annoying as all hell that my phone can download a 3 minute youtube video in 30 seconds, but when I call someone, I still have to stop and ask them to repeat what they were saying because the voice system is the same one that's been in place since the 1990's.

Seriously, talk to someone for a few minutes on a cell phone, and then call them landline-to-landline. It's like going from 1950's b&w TV to 1080i... or at least 720p


Switch to VoIP, homie.
 
2012-11-17 02:38:46 PM

madgonad: count chocula: Increase capacity (more towers) to match increased demand.

Capacity is far more closely related to spectrum, not towers. More towers allows either more coverage area or more tightly packed towers using higher frequencies. While adding towers has its uses, acquiring more and more useful spectrum is the only tried and true way of increasing a network's capacity.


Maybe I'm having some difficulty understanding the technical aspects of the technology, but why wouldn't adding more towers ease the congestion?Assuming the available frequencies are fixed, associating fewer users to a specific tower means the available bandwidth (which is limited by the fixed availability of frequency) is being shared by fewer users. Each user therefore gets better speeds.

I think the barriers to this lie in the business model, not the technology.
 
2012-11-17 03:20:48 PM

dready zim: INeedAName: As someone who is quickly becoming furious with the poor signal from his wireless hotspot, I'm getting a kick....

Seriously, north of Baltimore I was doing all of my internet usage through it. Now I've moved to DC and I'm lucky to not lose connection every 5 mins. Either the signal interference around here is worse, or they've instituted some shadowy data cap.

/My plan is supposedly unlimited...

first check how many other wifi signals you can pick up with your laptop or whatever you use then try changing your wifi channel to one that is less used (trial and error) Then see if your hotspot can be put on a windowsill or somewhere without a wall between it and outside. If that doesn`t work get a friend to come round with theirs and see if different hardware gets different results using your connection and finally see if someone elses wifi hotspot connection on a different carrier gets better reception in your home. If none of those things work, move.

I`m assuming you are using a mobile WIFI hotspot not a wired connection to your ISP.


I've played around with a bit. I can figure out how to change which channel I'm sending out, but not which channels I'm picking up on. Is that even possible?

Also, both places I use it are large cinder block buildings with small windows... I'm sure it's not helping, but even when I put it up in the window, it doesn't work much better.
 
2012-11-17 03:27:37 PM
It's a Gauss.
 
2012-11-17 03:38:02 PM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: Dead for Tax Reasons: TwistedIvory: 9.8m/s^2?

That's g not G

Right, G is ~6.674*10^-11 N(m/kg)^2


....aaaand we're done

/ what was the article about, again?
 
2012-11-17 03:38:55 PM

Peter von Nostrand: So you can reach your data limit even faster


As funny as this post is, I suspect they're right. What's the point of having LTE when your cap is 2gigs? The Telcoms will never make the proportion of speed to appropriate caps here in America for a long time, if ever.

Partly that's the reason I stay with the iPhone and AT&T. I've been grandfathered for so long on unlimited data that I'm loathe to give it up. When they do drop it, and they will eventually, I'll probably reassess carriers and even platforms.
 
2012-11-17 03:52:03 PM

Vaneshi: madgonad: I don't think that would work out. Home broadband companies already have a tiered service structure - I pay for 20/5 and generally only get 12/1.

That because you aren't paying for 20/5. You're paying for (and if you check the literature you'll see I'm right) "upto 20/5". I have zero idea who your ISP is but I'm going to bet that buried in the small print the TOS say that so long as THEY say the connection is active they can bill you... beyond that not their problem.

And frankly that shiat has got to stop, if I were on your ISP and actually getting 20/5 then I'm good... why should you have to pay for 20/5 and not even get a sniff of it... ever? Your bill should be reduced to reflect the reduced capacity provided as it's their limitation not yours.


I've had Verizon FiOS since they started in my area 5+years ago. I'm paying $39.99/mo for 5/2 service and every time I check speedtest.net I see 5 down and 4.5 up. I don't know where the extra 2.5 upload speed comes from but I'll take it. I checked the upgrade page, and found out I'm paying a lot less than what the same service would cost if I got it today. The 3/1 service is now 20 dollars more than what I'm paying for my 5/2.
 
2012-11-17 03:52:44 PM
UK: "F*** Everything, We're Doing Five Gs"
 
2012-11-17 03:55:22 PM
farm4.staticflickr.com

My mellow Shock G.
 
2012-11-17 04:31:00 PM

ArcadianRefugee: And here in the US we are still running on 3.5G.


THIS.

I want to kick the jaws of the marketing farks who misused 4G. It's supposed to be gigabit service while stationary and 100 megabit service on the go. They won't even admit to what the service averages on the LTE networks.

So now the real 4G networks are going to have to be 5G, which should have been full fledged telepathy. And 6G will never happen because it looks like sixty six.
 
2012-11-17 04:38:20 PM
It's a gas, gas, gas.
 
2012-11-17 05:34:20 PM
All I know is that you can't bank at that speed, Jimmy.

Jimmmmmyyyyyyyyy!!!!!
 
2012-11-17 07:18:34 PM
Generation

Ghz frequencies

Gigabit data rates

Stuff like that?
 
2012-11-17 07:35:45 PM
If a G is $1000, are 4G and 5G what the phone companies expect to get out of your contract?
 
2012-11-17 11:16:15 PM
What I want to know is why the old 2G/Edge stuf became useless. With my first iPhone it was a little slow, but would download and work fine on Edge considering that's all it could do. Then 3G became the new thing and edge service started to slow down even more. Now with a newer phone that is running 3G if I drop off to Edge, which is often when on the road, nothing wants to work. Pages won't load, pandora quits working, data quits flowing.

Is this because the focus is on the newer systems so they've let the old ones degrade? Or is it because they haven upgraded the old systems that now are supporting more traffic? No matter what I wish they would work on generating usable coverage over magical speeds that never work out.
 
2012-11-18 01:14:34 AM

drjekel_mrhyde: Didn't they just start major rollouts of 4G


4G is a marketing term on this side of the Atlantic (USA.) There are clearly defined 4G standards, but these are not really implemented in America, so the cell companies just call anything faster than 3G "4G."
 
2012-11-18 06:01:13 AM

count chocula: madgonad: count chocula: Increase capacity (more towers) to match increased demand.

Capacity is far more closely related to spectrum, not towers. More towers allows either more coverage area or more tightly packed towers using higher frequencies. While adding towers has its uses, acquiring more and more useful spectrum is the only tried and true way of increasing a network's capacity.

Maybe I'm having some difficulty understanding the technical aspects of the technology, but why wouldn't adding more towers ease the congestion?Assuming the available frequencies are fixed, associating fewer users to a specific tower means the available bandwidth (which is limited by the fixed availability of frequency) is being shared by fewer users. Each user therefore gets better speeds.

I think the barriers to this lie in the business model, not the technology.


Yip. Yes spectrum will limit your bandwidth but have lower lower antennae and more and antennae. More antennae cost a lot more money with right of ways, roof space rental, fibre access to these new antennae. The of building an actual tower is also a pain in the ass since it is expensive, a bunch of red tape for air clearance, land use, blah blah blah.
Same idea when deploying wifi, add more APs to get much better service with more speed, redundancy but with added costs of the LAN drops and AP cost.
 
2012-11-18 11:14:13 AM
 
2012-11-18 02:57:27 PM
Geometry!
s9.postimage.org
 
2012-11-19 01:34:49 AM

Needlessly Complicated: Ed Finnerty: A "G" is one metric gram of internet.

[www.comedy.co.uk image 180x200]

The internet doesn't weigh anything!
LasersHurt: madgonad: There really won't be a 5g. An application to utilize it hasn't even been dreamed up. 4g standards go well over 100mbs with extremely low latency. Because wireless devices are generally personal (vs a home connection that might be supplying a dozen connected devices at a time) there just isn't the need for fiberlike speeds over radio waves. We are currently in a phase in which speed is not the limiting factor - you can stream two-way 1080p video with HD audio over current LTE. Capacity is the limiting factor. LTE can wring almost 400mbs out of a 10mhz chunk of spectrum. I know it is boring, but getting that number up is the next challenge.

A.) Those LTE speeds are on paper, but real world? Not yet.
B.) "Never"? We'll "never" progress past 4G/LTE? wut

LasersHurt: madgonad: There really won't be a 5g. An application to utilize it hasn't even been dreamed up. 4g standards go well over 100mbs with extremely low latency. Because wireless devices are generally personal (vs a home connection that might be supplying a dozen connected devices at a time) there just isn't the need for fiberlike speeds over radio waves. We are currently in a phase in which speed is not the limiting factor - you can stream two-way 1080p video with HD audio over current LTE. Capacity is the limiting factor. LTE can wring almost 400mbs out of a 10mhz chunk of spectrum. I know it is boring, but getting that number up is the next challenge.

A.) Those LTE speeds are on paper, but real world? Not yet.
B.) "Never"? We'll "never" progress past 4G/LTE? wut

/hhhhotlinked



I've seen up to 80Mbit DL in Sweden, so yes, those speeds are there.
 
2012-11-19 10:37:43 PM
Everyone came close but did quite articulate it. A "G" is a unit of marketing. 5G = one additional G of marketing than 4G.
 
Displayed 22 of 72 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report