5G - is it worth the premium?
-
@kluurs said in 5G - is it worth the premium?:
I'm curious if there's a best strategy to be at the front of the line for procuring one.
Have Horace put in a good word for you?
@jon-nyc said in 5G - is it worth the premium?:
@kluurs said in 5G - is it worth the premium?:
I'm curious if there's a best strategy to be at the front of the line for procuring one.
Have Horace put in a good word for you?
-
If you still live in a big city, you will be more likely to be able to benefit from real 5G speeds sooner (e.g., Verizon already has mmWave 5G infrastructure in Chicago). But the further away you are from big cities, the longer you will have to wait to get real 5G service. It will take a while for true 5G to reach most of the nation.
AT&T's "5GE" is merely a marketing label for a revision of 4G/LTE that Verizon and T-Mobile also have. T-Mobile's advertising claim about its 5G signals going miles and miles is also misleading in that by the time the signals go the distance you can no longer sustain the higher 5G speeds and have to tall back to 4G/LTE speeds anyway. Verizon's mmWave 5G will use very high frequencies that require different antenna module/design, and it will also be rather limited in range; but when it works, the speed will be very fast. I suspect it's this mmWave stuff that's requiring extra/different hardware that add substantial costs to the baseline iPhone.
@Axtremus any improvements in latency with 5G?
I also wonder whether the extremely short wave lengths (millimeters) enable new forms of antennas. I imagine that highly directional antennas, together with a rotation mechanism for the antenna, might be possible within a cell phone body. That could in part offset the shorter ranges of mm waves.
-
@Axtremus any improvements in latency with 5G?
I also wonder whether the extremely short wave lengths (millimeters) enable new forms of antennas. I imagine that highly directional antennas, together with a rotation mechanism for the antenna, might be possible within a cell phone body. That could in part offset the shorter ranges of mm waves.
@Klaus said in 5G - is it worth the premium?:
@Axtremus any improvements in latency with 5G?
I also wonder whether the extremely short wave lengths (millimeters) enable new forms of antennas. I imagine that highly directional antennas, together with a rotation mechanism for the antenna, might be possible within a cell phone body. That could in part offset the shorter ranges of mm waves.
Generally (at least in theory), there can be one order of magnitude's reduction in latency going from 4G to 5G air interface. In practice, apart from air interface technology, there are a lot in the wired parts of the overall network that contribute to latency. So how the service provider architect the overall network will significantly impact the latency actually experienced by the end users.
As a matter of design, antenna dimension is always influenced by wavelengths. So yes, the significantly shorter wavelengths will allow designs that would not have been as effective for the longer wavelengths. Directional antenna is also a useful concept. Though I don't think mechanically rotated antennae will be in the cards inside consumer cellphones. Most likely it will be limited to DSP shaped "rotation" a la "beam forming" rather than mechanical rotation of the physical antennae.
-
@Klaus said in 5G - is it worth the premium?:
@Axtremus any improvements in latency with 5G?
I also wonder whether the extremely short wave lengths (millimeters) enable new forms of antennas. I imagine that highly directional antennas, together with a rotation mechanism for the antenna, might be possible within a cell phone body. That could in part offset the shorter ranges of mm waves.
Generally (at least in theory), there can be one order of magnitude's reduction in latency going from 4G to 5G air interface. In practice, apart from air interface technology, there are a lot in the wired parts of the overall network that contribute to latency. So how the service provider architect the overall network will significantly impact the latency actually experienced by the end users.
As a matter of design, antenna dimension is always influenced by wavelengths. So yes, the significantly shorter wavelengths will allow designs that would not have been as effective for the longer wavelengths. Directional antenna is also a useful concept. Though I don't think mechanically rotated antennae will be in the cards inside consumer cellphones. Most likely it will be limited to DSP shaped "rotation" a la "beam forming" rather than mechanical rotation of the physical antennae.
@Axtremus thanks. I know a little about radio waves (former ham radio operator). Wouldn't even the smallest barriers, such as walls, block mm waves?
If phones could hook into external antennas, it would be cool to consider long wave communication, too. It would be nice if a cell phone would still work inside a submarine underwater.
-
Yes, shorter waves are more easily blocked, then you have to resort to reflections, which adds distance (further path loss) and multi path complications. Many transmittal disadvantages to short waves. The advantage is that there is typically more bandwidth with short waves.
Suppose you say let’s cap the frequencies you use to below the 1 MHz, then the bandwidth you get to exploit will also be no more than 1 MHz.
Take Wi-Fi, for example, in the 2.4GHz band, Wi-Fi is allowed to take advantage of up to 40 MHz bandwidth for a channel. At the 5GHz band, Wi-Fi is allowed to use up to 160MHz for a channel — all without crowding out TV/radio broadcasting or cellular communications.
Cellular 5G’s mmWave specifications go beyond 6GHz, more room to play with wider channels to allow higher bandwidth. The trade offs are shorter distance and weaker penetration. Wi-Fi’s 802.11ax extends also to 6GHz and faces similar tradeoffs as a matter of physics. 802.11ad/ay pushes Wi-Fi into the 60GHz territory with 2GHz channel bandwidth. The speed vs. range tradeoffs there will be even more acute.
-
Yes, shorter waves are more easily blocked, then you have to resort to reflections, which adds distance (further path loss) and multi path complications. Many transmittal disadvantages to short waves. The advantage is that there is typically more bandwidth with short waves.
Suppose you say let’s cap the frequencies you use to below the 1 MHz, then the bandwidth you get to exploit will also be no more than 1 MHz.
Take Wi-Fi, for example, in the 2.4GHz band, Wi-Fi is allowed to take advantage of up to 40 MHz bandwidth for a channel. At the 5GHz band, Wi-Fi is allowed to use up to 160MHz for a channel — all without crowding out TV/radio broadcasting or cellular communications.
Cellular 5G’s mmWave specifications go beyond 6GHz, more room to play with wider channels to allow higher bandwidth. The trade offs are shorter distance and weaker penetration. Wi-Fi’s 802.11ax extends also to 6GHz and faces similar tradeoffs as a matter of physics. 802.11ad/ay pushes Wi-Fi into the 60GHz territory with 2GHz channel bandwidth. The speed vs. range tradeoffs there will be even more acute.
@Axtremus said in 5G - is it worth the premium?:
Wi-Fi’s 802.11ax
You just made that up, didn't you?
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
Yes, shorter waves are more easily blocked, then you have to resort to reflections, which adds distance (further path loss) and multi path complications. Many transmittal disadvantages to short waves. The advantage is that there is typically more bandwidth with short waves.
Suppose you say let’s cap the frequencies you use to below the 1 MHz, then the bandwidth you get to exploit will also be no more than 1 MHz.
Take Wi-Fi, for example, in the 2.4GHz band, Wi-Fi is allowed to take advantage of up to 40 MHz bandwidth for a channel. At the 5GHz band, Wi-Fi is allowed to use up to 160MHz for a channel — all without crowding out TV/radio broadcasting or cellular communications.
Cellular 5G’s mmWave specifications go beyond 6GHz, more room to play with wider channels to allow higher bandwidth. The trade offs are shorter distance and weaker penetration. Wi-Fi’s 802.11ax extends also to 6GHz and faces similar tradeoffs as a matter of physics. 802.11ad/ay pushes Wi-Fi into the 60GHz territory with 2GHz channel bandwidth. The speed vs. range tradeoffs there will be even more acute.
-
@Axtremus said in 5G - is it worth the premium?:
Wi-Fi’s 802.11ax
You just made that up, didn't you?
@George-K said in 5G - is it worth the premium?:
@Axtremus said in 5G - is it worth the premium?:
Wi-Fi’s 802.11ax
You just made that up, didn't you?
Marketed as “Wi-Fi 6”, 802.11ax is already present in the latest iPad Pro, and you can buy “W-Fi 6” routers from the typical consumer electronics outlets today. Your new iPhone and future new Macs will have it too. There is no escaping it, 802.11ax will take over the world.
-
@George-K said in 5G - is it worth the premium?:
@Axtremus said in 5G - is it worth the premium?:
Wi-Fi’s 802.11ax
You just made that up, didn't you?
Marketed as “Wi-Fi 6”, 802.11ax is already present in the latest iPad Pro, and you can buy “W-Fi 6” routers from the typical consumer electronics outlets today. Your new iPhone and future new Macs will have it too. There is no escaping it, 802.11ax will take over the world.
@Axtremus said in 5G - is it worth the premium?:
@George-K said in 5G - is it worth the premium?:
@Axtremus said in 5G - is it worth the premium?:
Wi-Fi’s 802.11ax
You just made that up, didn't you?
Marketed as “Wi-Fi 6”, 802.11ax is already present in the latest iPad Pro, and you can buy “W-Fi 6” routers from the typical consumer electronics outlets today. Your new iPhone and future new Macs will have it too. There is no escaping it, 802.11ax will take over the world.
