|
||||||||
5g ! |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 652
|
5g !
Quote;
New 5G networks are expected to provide speeds at least 10 times and maybe 100 times faster than today's 4G networks, giving the potential to connect at least 100 billion devices with download speeds that can reach 10 gigabits per second. http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-at-t-5g-idUKKBN14O1J4 http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...300385196.html Forum wouldn't let me use a capital G in the title. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 133
|
Not without serious backhaul it won't
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,294
|
Fairly bland press release from AT&T really that states the obvious evolution of its network. Not much point in posting it.
Main points for 5G so far are : - Seamless with 4G with smooth evolution from one to the other over time. - Low Latency (under 10ms at first transitioning to 1-2ms eventually) - High Reliability (completely seamless and reliable for all applications from autonomous cars to IoT clothing) - High throughput (lots of video on the go etc all that you want on that front although probably not for home broadband in most areas of the UK) Needed for 5G: - Ultra dense network to support spectrum in the 28GHz range mostly. (5G NR may be deployed at any band but that's the big one for 5G along potentially with 3.5Ghz but that could still be used for 4G). By Ultra Dense I mean Ultra Dense. 20m intervals potentially in the busiest of areas and in indoor scenarios like in airports / rail stations one at every gate or platform. - Fibre deployments to cities to front/backhaul the masts. This is quite tricky to explain but the topology of the network will likely drastically change, a lot of it will be virtualised on a big server / node in the city and then linked by fibre to a RRU on a mast in the city. - Range of device support ranging from those that do 64kbps for IoT to phones/tablets/MBB devices which are capable of multi-gig connections. How it will appear to the user is actually fairly different to the engineering behind it. It'll be fairly transparent to the user whether they're on 4G or 5G or whether they're on a small cell or the macro etc, it should "just work" with near 100% reliability but the complexity behind it is incredible on the network front. What I think we'll notice is a lot of ground laying work of the next few years that'll be fun. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,606
|
Sounds like it'll need rather a lot of investment and planning. Not happening here then
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,294
|
Quote:
Sounds like it'll need rather a lot of investment and planning. Not happening here then
The main hope for financing is that there will be lots of new revenue opportunities with 5G (IoT/Tablets etc/M2M). So if the infrastructure is in place for everything to be connected at low cost (T-Mobile USA announced their IoT pricing yesterday - $20-25/device/year ) then things will prosper. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,541
|
Quote:
Not without serious backhaul it won't
![]() Also backhaul is improving massively now right, 10 Gigabit connections are easily available and surely this can be further improved over the years. Realistically nobody is going to max out even a 1Gb/s connection as anything you stream would only really use < 20Mb/s even downloads would only take a few seconds if they did reach high speeds. I think the networks have contracted for the backhaul that they needed for 3G and 4G because they knew they could only shift < 1 Gigabit per second per mast / site, but we know backhaul isn't the bottleneck for fixed broadband as they can deliver much more to local cabinets. Once the wireless technology is capable of many Gb/s the backhaul should be do-able. We may not even increase data consumption by that much of a margin, but what we access will be very low latency and very fast to download or begin streaming or loading, it'll essentially be the same things we do, the only reason why it would use more data is because of higher quality streams or quicker to download or load things therefore the user isn't waiting and they're on to the next download or thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Nailsworth, Gloucestershire
Posts: 10,402
|
Quote:
- Fibre deployments to cities to front/backhaul the masts. This is quite tricky to explain but the topology of the network will likely drastically change, a lot of it will be virtualised on a big server / node in the city and then linked by fibre to a RRU on a mast in the city.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,541
|
Quote:
The likes of Vodafone have had a fibre backhaul to the masts for years, I'm not sure why this would be an issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,633
|
Quote:
The likes of Vodafone have had a fibre backhaul to the masts for years, I'm not sure why this would be an issue.
That or it's using a microwave link from about 1991. I'm convinced that they plugged in a 3G basestation and connected it to the existing 2G backhaul. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 22,785
|
Quote:
The likes of Vodafone have had a fibre backhaul to the masts for years, I'm not sure why this would be an issue.
I do not have 4G yet, so it will be years before I get 5G even if it we was going to get soon. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,294
|
Quote:
I think most networks have prefered fibre to sites where available and presumably other technologies are getting faster too, 5G spec may even allow for backhaul over 5G, so you get a really beefy fibre link to a big site and then send that to other sites wirelessly and still active really fast speeds, I think it is just too early to say though we'll have to wait a couple of years to see how plans develop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,294
|
Quote:
The likes of Vodafone have had a fibre backhaul to the masts for years, I'm not sure why this would be an issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,294
|
Quote:
If Vodafone have had fibre to my local cell site for years, it must have been carrying only a single crappy E1 given how rubbish the performance has been. Even when it finally got 3G (around the time Ofcom threatened to punish them for not meeting targets... hmm).
That or it's using a microwave link from about 1991. I'm convinced that they plugged in a 3G basestation and connected it to the existing 2G backhaul. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Nailsworth, Gloucestershire
Posts: 10,402
|
Quote:
Different ball game entirely, That's fibre to a few sites that are in good locations, this is talking about mass fibre in a city to masts every 20m supporting gigabytes of traffic. Voda themselves have said their target is 90% of urban masts having fibre by 2020 and they've said that's going to be a massive challenge. The challenge of 5G backhaul cannot be underestimated, according to most in the industry.
Yes, there will be challenges installing the necessary infrastructure but the hardware with the traffic capacity required for the backhaul network really isn't an issue, it is available today. 200 Gbit/s per channel DWDM is pretty much standard now, an 80 channel system gives an awful lot of capacity, and 400 Gbit/ per channel is just being rolled out by many operators. |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,633
|
Quote:
You've mentioned before but probably not too far off from the truth, was it during the period when Ofcom were going to fine them unless they double timed it?
Coverage is actually pretty good (it must be 900MHz), but the performance is/was crap, you'd think you were still on GPRS. I haven't tried Vodafone in a while so I don't know if they've improved it, switched 4G on, etc Even O2's nearby 2100MHz site was giving 10Mbps+, but the coverage is rubbish |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 634
|
Quote:
...
Needed for 5G: - Ultra dense network to support spectrum in the 28GHz range mostly. (5G NR may be deployed at any band but that's the big one for 5G along potentially with 3.5Ghz but that could still be used for 4G). By Ultra Dense I mean Ultra Dense. 20m intervals potentially in the busiest of areas and in indoor scenarios like in airports / rail stations one at every gate or platform. ... |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:46.

