Boris Johnson taken decision about 5G

Otis11 · January 27, 2020

On 1/21/2020 at 7:19 PM, Marcin2 said:

What US should do ?

- Technology embargos cannot be announced 13 months in advance. Their success depends on element of surprise and accross the board application to whole technology sector. Now Chinese are acting in line with worst case scenario, no element of surprise.

- US should from Day 1 support both Nokia and Ericcson with substantial R&D grants, lets say 30 billion dollars for each company to be spent in 10 years time. Furthermore companies should be awarded substantial grants to expand manufacturing base in US. Additionally subsidies and tax exemptions should be provided for companies that want to use Nordic telecom equipment. In short: US should be prepared to spend in total 200 billion dollars starting from 2018 to compete with Huawei.

With the prospects of reliable supply of 5G equipment by Ericcson/Nokia at competitive prices it would be much easier to convince all allies to not use Huawei equipment.

And last but not least: US should create conditions for fast domestic 5G deployment: these frequencies around 3.5 GHz should be made available in 2018, 2019 the latest and not in 2022

This was very pro-American comment in my opinion.

And why, pray tell, should the US be the ones doing all this?

At very least the EU should be contributing to this effort.

Even better, IMO, if the US and EU both say they're not going to use Huawei in advance (aka, announce immediately) - then there's a large market for Nokia and Ericcson to grow into, so investors will pony up the cash, make the investments in R&D and manufacturing capacities, and make the proper risk-adjusted returns for such an investment... all at no cost to the taxpayers of any nation. (Actually, some benefit from the economic growth).

(Otherwise I generally agree with you...)

On 1/22/2020 at 1:13 AM, Douglas Buckland said:

Here’s a question for you (keep in mind that I am NOT a computer/IT guy at all!).

Does your average consumer actually need, or require, this 5G stuff? What does it actually provide your regular citizens that 4G does not?

Is it like saying that you could opt for a Ferrari over a Ford....even though you will NEVER utilize the 700 horsepower available?

No, you're right, 95%+ people will not use 5G speeds for the foreseeable future. The benefit to the consumer is that it uses less spectrum-time than 4G to transfer the same data, so it makes the network less congested. Less network congestion means faster average speeds for the customer, and higher data allowances (or, conversely, lower data charges - lack of carrier motivation anyone?).

On 1/22/2020 at 6:23 PM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Your first 2 points are blatantly false. Download speed and latency are unchanged compared to current 4G+. When ppl post their 5G rubbish they are comparing against 4G and not the INSTALLED 4G+ which is what everyone is already using.

Your last point is the only true reason. 5G has nothing to do with the end user. Has everything to do with the backbone.

That depends - if you're comparing low band 5G to 4G+, you are correct, but if you are looking at mid-band, Rob is correct. (If you look at high-band 5G, it can be as high as 70X the data rate in real world - albeit pretty ideal - tests.)

On 1/24/2020 at 3:47 AM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Not opinion, fact. Fact; 4G+ is faster than 5G currently by a very substantial margin. Ping is based on # of users and then vast majority is the backbone and has not single thing to do with latency between you and the tower. Download speed is based entirely on bandwidth available x theoretical which is directly proportional to frequency range. So, if $$$ is no issue then theoretically 5G can be faster by a tiny amount.

Do cell phone companies not care about $$$? Duh. They are going to optimize the bandwidth to # of users. 5G allows cell phone companies to install FEWER base stations for same number of people giving same amount of bandwidth. Assuming the station in question is tied to a large enough backbone......

Reality: 5G means theoretically Internet to your phone will be cheaper. Not faster.

Now that definitely could happen - instead of providing more overall bandwidth, they could just cut back on the number of towers to provide the same overall service...

But the technology itself transfers more data over the same spectrum in the same amount of time - hence what most people would call faster.

On 1/24/2020 at 3:28 PM, Marcin2 said:

think I know what you are talking about, or in what context what you say could be true. In the situation of significant number of users in the area served by given base station 5G in low-band (working at 600 MHz, T-Mobile in US) would be slower than 4G (at 1.9 GHz). This is right. With high density of users low-band 5G has given test results of 34 Mbit/s in T-Mobile network. In such environment in 4G you easily get 100+ Mbit/s with dense base stations.

I gave you purple trophy for mentioning about the backbone, optical fiber backbone. This is the most important factor in succesful 5G deployment not directly related to basic 5G wireless infrastructure.

Speaking about speed, I do not know how it is in US, but here in Warsaw, I have 300 Mbit optical fiber connection a bundle with cable TV, and sales guy is trying to convince me in a polite way that I should stop being dinosaur and upgrade to 1 Gbit.

But I Thnk we do not need it, can watch movies in HD etc. 300 Mbit, is it fast or is it slow ?

They do the same thing here. The basic internet is 400 Mbps in my area and they were trying to get me to pay to upgrade to gigabit. I rarely go over 30 Mbps in every day use (unless I'm just trying to speed test). Every TV in the house streaming a different show - and on the computers and phones would only get me to... 80 Mpbs or so?

Problem is network congestion during key times... not actual bandwidth.

@Ward Smith - hopefully that's all accurate enough...? (I used to speak this language, but it's been years.)

Ward Smith · January 27, 2020

22 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

They do the same thing here. The basic internet is 400 Mbps in my area and they were trying to get me to pay to upgrade to gigabit. I rarely go over 30 Mbps in every day use (unless I'm just trying to speed test). Every TV in the house streaming a different show - and on the computers and phones would only get me to... 80 Mpbs or so?

Problem is network congestion during key times... not actual bandwidth.

All very accurate Otis. Even speed tests are gamed because the content is coming from the nearest Akamai servers, and the data isn't really traversing anything. Even when you're watching shows, it's all been pre-fetched by the servers. Like you, it's been years for me since I had to do this for a living. Collect the big stock rewards and next thing ya know, ya just don't care as much as ya used to.

What is likely to change with 5G deployment will be locally produced content getting consumed locally. For instance, traffic conditions down to the centimeter by ubiquitous embedded devices. GPS coordinates are useful for general areas but useless for tight driving conditions. Add in camera view sharing via an as yet unidentified new standard and drivers' vehicles can be seamlessly networking cooperatively in a dynamically changing system that's less than 100 meters in diameter. Studies have shown something as simple as that driver in front of you tapping their brake on the freeway, followed by you tapping your brake causes a counter flow wave that propagates behind you to stop and go conditions a mile back from the brake tap. All because of humans with slow reflexes and slower thinking.

25 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

hopefully that's all accurate enough...? (I used to speak this language, but it's been years.)

🤓

footeab@yahoo.com · January 27, 2020

29 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

But the technology itself transfers more data over the same spectrum in the same amount of time - hence what most people would call faster.

Well, no 5G does not send more data over same spectrum. 5G massively expands the spectrum used. Frequency spectrum which cannot pass through things like... glass for instance and why if you wish to use 5G in your home, YOU&I, all 7Billion of us, now have to buy/install expensive repeaters in your home and often more than one. Another for every single car, and every building on multiple sides. So, ~7Billion new phones and 28 Billion repeaters. The owners of the network, will enjoy 5G and selling all this new equipment, but the end user? Will see no difference or not enough to notice other than much more expensive overall service.

Otis11 · January 27, 2020

31 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Well, no 5G does not send more data over same spectrum. 5G massively expands the spectrum used. Frequency spectrum which cannot pass through things like... glass for instance and why if you wish to use 5G in your home, YOU&I, all 7Billion of us, now have to buy/install expensive repeaters in your home and often more than one. Another for every single car, and every building on multiple sides. So, ~7Billion new phones and 28 Billion repeaters. The owners of the network, will enjoy 5G and selling all this new equipment, but the end user? Will see no difference or not enough to notice other than much more expensive overall service.

So 4G typically uses the 1-2 Ghz range and 5G is being proposed for the 2-6 Ghz range depending on area, but there is nothing inherent about 4G or 5G that requires them to be on those frequencies to my knowledge. If you take just the 3.5-3.6 Ghz spectrum and put both 4G and 5G on that spectrum (all other things held constant) the 5G signal will transfer more data in the same amount of time.

The frequency spectrum you're referencing that has trouble penetrating glass is called the 5G high-band . This can get substantially faster data speeds, but distance is so drastically limited it only makes sense in very limited situations.

When 5G comes to Mid-band (which is what @Marcin is referencing so much) we get very good speeds (faster than 4G) and good distance (similar to 4G), but the US has limited bandwidth in this spectrum because it's all used - much of it by 4G and other telecom signals - in the US.

If there was no benefit to the end user, why would the Telecom companies pay for these upgrades? Sure, you can fool some consumers with the branding, but overall if people don't see a difference in service quality, they'll go with the less expensive service. Companies know this. To maximize profit they either provide a 'good enough' service at a low price, or a 'better' service at a higher price.

footeab@yahoo.com · January 27, 2020

Otis: Bandwidth(ability to transfer data) is proportional to spectrum(frequency + frequency range).

1Ghz +/-1Mhz has half the bandwidth of 2Ghz +/-1Mhz

If initial spectrum is +/- 0.5Ghz and new is +/-2Ghz, bandwidth is quadrupled

All of the 5G claims for bandwidth, are baloney because they are just increasing the spectrum.

So, as you state, said spectrum is already used... More spectrum does not magically appear.

Marcin2 · January 28, 2020

An interesting observation.