If you're not sold on the benefits of 5G, Ericsson suggests you keep an eye on gaming, home broadband Folks in the US will see the transformative effects of 5G first in the areas of online gaming and fixed wireless broadband internet connections, Ericsson North America CEO Niklas Heuveldop said on Thursday. "When it comes to new services, look at gaming as one of the sectors that holds promise for 5G. You need the unique …
First of all, those two use cases are the same use case. Cloud-based gaming is just one thing you can do with a fixed internet connection.
And for the vast majority of people, a wired connection is still going to be better than anything 5G can manage. The industry has been trying to sell us cellular home internet since, what, HSPA? And it's been nonsense every time. You can always push more bits faster through a wire than you can through the air; this has been true forever and shows no signs of stopping being true any time soon.
As with every previous attempt at this, 5G fixed wireless will fill a small niche of users in areas that are underserved by wired broadband, and...that will be it. Everyone else will keep on doing their cloud-based gaming and everything else they do with their home internet connection through some sort of cable.
"5G fixed wireless will fill a small niche of users in areas that are underserved by wired broadband"
I'm currently considering 5G fixed wireless as my current cable connection has a much worse price:speed ratio and lower theoretical max speed. However even the 5G provider themselves do not provide this solution to any of their clients reachable by fiber, and only commit to supporting the 5G until they roll out their fiber to wherever the client is, at which point they will switch the cli to fiber.
In other words, it's also probably easier / cheaper for the operators to use wire/fiber than wireless, and they would rather keep their (very expensive) 5G spectrum to service mobile users rather than 'waste' it on home users
Actually it's much much much more cheaper for a $TELCO to put some 5G Antenna on top of a pylon to provide 5G Fixed Wireless, than lay the kilometers of fiber needed to reach your home.
The point is that they only need to lay the fiber to the equipments attached to the pylon and they can serve 5G fixed broadband to 50+ houses... That's one single fiber to lay ( and usually it's already there, it's just an upgrade of the equipment )... instead of 50+ that needs to be put on top of poles or underground.
Now it's clear that if you already have Fiber at hand in your neighbourhood , 5G Fixed Broadband is pointless.
>Actually it's much much much more cheaper for a $TELCO to put some 5G Antenna on top of a pylon to provide 5G Fixed Wireless, than lay the kilometers of fiber needed to reach your home.
Depends on which $TELCO you are talking about given $TELCO's still basically fall into two camps: fixed and mobile...
Also, it is only cheaper whilst there is surplus capacity. Remember the first use of the 3G spectrum (by the established operators) was voice calls, to ease congestion on the 2G spectrum. New network operators like Three offered massive data allowances to drive service takeup, once they had a reasonable number of subscribers the offers became more expensive; I expect similar to happen with 5G.
They are using peoples lack of understanding of the fixed Internet to sell 5G. 'Edge' isn't something unique to mobile networks. I suggest in the real world "rural" environment 'Edge' on (FTTP) fixed network is likely to perform better than 'Edge' on the rural 5G.
> You can always push more bits faster through a wire than you can through the air
AND you are robust to interference.
Place I was in in England had wifi hammered every day for an hour or so routinely ~4pm. Never tracked that one down. Here, if the neighbour across the road fires up his orbital sander, whelp, pick up the laptop and walk into the lounge room and plug myself in -- _nothing's_ getting through.
Major supplier of 5G infrastructure touts 5G as a solution for everything needing data.
It's for mobile in stadiums, racetracks and a subscription alternative to public free WiFi hotspots. The lower bands are better for true mobile and fibre is over 1000 times per Mbit less environmental cost than mobile (cell) masts. Anything fixed should use fibre and in a premises wired ethernet as much as possible leaving free wifi fed by real broaband for phones, tablets and gadgets.
Wireless, no matter which "G" can only replace broadband if every other street lamp is fibre fed and a 5G or 4G cell.
> Wireless, no matter which "G" can only replace broadband if every other street lamp is fibre fed and a 5G or 4G cell.
We will reach that point sooner than you think. That's part of 5G, and that's why there's those factories connected autonomous vehicles tested in factories
In some of the frequencies used the cell size will be very small, and that's the one with the high bandwidth.
5G ( once fullly deployed ) uses several frequency ranges going from the freed analog TV broadcast frequencies ( low bandwidth, but very long range... good for voice calls ), to the microwave oven/radar frequencies ( very high bandwidth, but small range, will require beam forming to optimize the range while keeping the power low enough that it won't fry your brain cells ) and going through the good old 2G/3G/4G frequency ranges ( that stands somewhere in the middle : bandwidth so so and range not that bad )
>"> Wireless, no matter which "G" can only replace broadband if every other street lamp is fibre fed and a 5G or 4G cell.
We will reach that point sooner than you think."
Not in the UK, unless the telco's are buying up existing lamp post installations. Remember with the energy efficiency/climate change/bio-diversity agenda, local authorities are turning off and removing lamp posts.
In my village the only lamp posts now turned on are the one's covering the turning off the main road circa 2 miles away.
Here's my problem witrh the 5G as a dream picture: unless I'm wrong, it'll take a lot of energy to move 60 fps from the cloud to a smartphone and controler data from the smartphone to the cloud with minimal latency. Thus destroying autonomy.
This will seriously limit the appeal, at least on the go. And in a fixed environment, fiber-based wi-fi will probably be much cheaper.
And it's pretty much the same with all the other "5G is not an evolution scenarii" such as automated driving coordination, telemedicine and whatnot.
BTW the console lifecycle is still 5 years.
<blockquote>5G networks [...] as an alternative to wired connections.</blockquote>
Except home internet is a much less profitable product, and cellular providers want to make money... LOTS of money. They're accustomed to making lots of money. They might make decent money in the very few areas where there is good 5th Gen cellular coverage and no wire-line ISPs, but there aren't a lot of places like that. Instead they're going to have to compete with unlimited high speed 50/mo providers on price... and those providers lower their prices when competition arrives.
So cellular providers are going to find their ample cash flow drying up as investors see the profit margin/returns on their services shrinking, despite their bluster about their latest, faster networks.
It is interesting reading the various mobile telco forums, what isn't getting much publicity is the limit mobile telco's place on devices connected to your 4G/5G home router (something to watch out for if using mass market 4G services for office backup connectivity). Remember one of the things about 4G and 5G is the amount of visibility and control it gives the network provider over what router functionality (and network services) is enabled.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
