Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 38 of 38

Thread: 5G - Will Technology Kill Technology

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    683
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 214 Times in 136 Posts
    Rep Power
    213
    Reputation
    2078

    Default

    I remember attending a seminar in the late 90's about the growth of personal computing, and the issues around IP addresses. As I recall the presenter was a visiting British professor, and he was taking us through the changes since the 50's and into the future. In the early days we started with one computer serving many people. This had gradually got to the stage of one computer to one person where it had stalled for several years. His thesis was that this is a very powerful model when the user has ownership of all facets (ie the equipment & the data). He then expounded the theory that there would be a rapid growth in the one person to many devices situation (which has proved to be the case).

    The major concern for us network professionals was the looming loss of available IP addresses and the way to move to IPv6. This was before the advent of private IP addressing which has largely paused the necessity. My observation is that we have really just started the one user to many devices, one or two of which are mobile. However as we enter the next phase, we will see many more network connected devices, the majority of which will be statically located. The challenge for carriers is the way to handle this. Can you imagine a scenario where you have 20 or more devices in a home (whitegoods, entertainment, light & power etc), all having their own 5G connection? This would not be on anyone's radar, as the preferred situation would be one or two devices tethering to the carrier.

    There are several main issues for network providers, centered around speed, capacity and PRICING. IF the NBN had been implemented PROPERLY, the phone networks would have to be pricing their offerings better than what the OP wished. Even at those rates, a proper fixed network could undercut them by at least 50% and STILL make a profit. This is because for the fixed network, the vast majority of the fixed costs have passed, and they are basically only paying for maintenance. Wireless costs increase massively with EVERY upgrade. Physics dictate that as you increase speed or bandwidth, more base stations have to be provided. End user equipment has to be changed (not just upgraded - try getting 5G on your 5 year old phone). The telcos have been hoodwinking end users for years into changing their handset far more often than necessary. Most of the marketing focuses on the NEW features on the LATEST device, where the real reason is that the telcos require users to keep spending to pay for their (the telcos) network changes. Going back to my earlier thread, this provides a major problem for the telcos. How can they profit from all the statically located devices using their networks? Offering a new phone every year with upgraded features doesn't work for a refrigerator that typically lasts for 10 or more years. If they can't offset their costs with the sale of end user devices, how do they recover them?

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jgm For This Useful Post:

    OSIRUS (06-05-20),Tiny (04-05-20)



  • #22
    Crazy Diamond
    Tiny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Tasmania
    Age
    60
    Posts
    6,124
    Thanks
    10,272
    Thanked 4,986 Times in 2,498 Posts
    Rep Power
    1920
    Reputation
    80057

    Default

    Yes, the handset renewal issue is annoying & they have cemented it for us now with just about every new handset having a non-replaceable battery.
    Cheers, Tiny
    "You can lead a person to knowledge, but you can't make them think? If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
    The information is out there; you just have to let it in."

  • #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    683
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 214 Times in 136 Posts
    Rep Power
    213
    Reputation
    2078

    Default

    Yes. The great majority of users don't take advantage of the technology upgrades. That's really reserved for the nerds who make up the top 5%.

  • #24
    Premium Member
    wotnot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    659
    Thanks
    208
    Thanked 434 Times in 273 Posts
    Rep Power
    201
    Reputation
    8690

    Default


  • The Following User Says Thank You to wotnot For This Useful Post:

    Tiny (21-05-20)

  • #25
    LSemmens
    lsemmens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Rural South OZ
    Posts
    8,823
    Thanks
    8,720
    Thanked 5,461 Times in 2,632 Posts
    Rep Power
    2406
    Reputation
    100480

    Default

    I've had too much to drink. What the f*** are we talking about? ( you don't want to know what the cr*p posted before ZZZZZZZZZZI corrected iot looks likr!) P:P)
    I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message...

  • The Following User Says Thank You to lsemmens For This Useful Post:

    wotnot (20-05-20)

  • #26
    Premium Member
    wotnot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    659
    Thanks
    208
    Thanked 434 Times in 273 Posts
    Rep Power
    201
    Reputation
    8690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lsemmens View Post
    I've had too much to drink. What the f*** are we talking about? ( you don't want to know what the cr*p posted before ZZZZZZZZZZI corrected iot looks likr!) P:P)
    LOL...topic ... I just have a peculiar way of interpreting some topic headings =) Electroboom is just peculiar anyhow, so it all meshes together like a stream of bat's piss =)

  • The Following User Says Thank You to wotnot For This Useful Post:

    lsemmens (20-05-20)

  • #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    683
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 214 Times in 136 Posts
    Rep Power
    213
    Reputation
    2078

    Default

    There are some really ignorant clowns on the net. This idiot doesn't have a clue. 300Ghz is right at the lowest of the infrared range. We are exposed to far higher levels of this from the sun than could ever be produced by a telephone antenna. The problems with 5G are not on your physical body, but rather on your hip pocket.

  • The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to jgm For This Useful Post:

    hinekadon (21-05-20),Tiny (21-05-20),william10 (21-05-20)

  • #28
    Senior Member
    Uncle Fester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Commonly found in a pantry or the bottom of a fridge, searching for grains, fermented or distilled
    Posts
    5,018
    Thanks
    1,614
    Thanked 3,146 Times in 1,827 Posts
    Rep Power
    1446
    Reputation
    56418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jgm View Post
    I remember attending a seminar in the late 90's about the growth of personal computing, and the issues around IP addresses. As I recall the presenter was a visiting British professor, and he was taking us through the changes since the 50's and into the future. In the early days we started with one computer serving many people. This had gradually got to the stage of one computer to one person where it had stalled for several years. His thesis was that this is a very powerful model when the user has ownership of all facets (ie the equipment & the data). He then expounded the theory that there would be a rapid growth in the one person to many devices situation (which has proved to be the case).

    The major concern for us network professionals was the looming loss of available IP addresses and the way to move to IPv6. This was before the advent of private IP addressing which has largely paused the necessity. My observation is that we have really just started the one user to many devices, one or two of which are mobile. However as we enter the next phase, we will see many more network connected devices, the majority of which will be statically located. The challenge for carriers is the way to handle this. Can you imagine a scenario where you have 20 or more devices in a home (whitegoods, entertainment, light & power etc), all having their own 5G connection? This would not be on anyone's radar, as the preferred situation would be one or two devices tethering to the carrier.

    There are several main issues for network providers, centered around speed, capacity and PRICING. IF the NBN had been implemented PROPERLY, the phone networks would have to be pricing their offerings better than what the OP wished. Even at those rates, a proper fixed network could undercut them by at least 50% and STILL make a profit. This is because for the fixed network, the vast majority of the fixed costs have passed, and they are basically only paying for maintenance. Wireless costs increase massively with EVERY upgrade. Physics dictate that as you increase speed or bandwidth, more base stations have to be provided. End user equipment has to be changed (not just upgraded - try getting 5G on your 5 year old phone). The telcos have been hoodwinking end users for years into changing their handset far more often than necessary. Most of the marketing focuses on the NEW features on the LATEST device, where the real reason is that the telcos require users to keep spending to pay for their (the telcos) network changes. Going back to my earlier thread, this provides a major problem for the telcos. How can they profit from all the statically located devices using their networks? Offering a new phone every year with upgraded features doesn't work for a refrigerator that typically lasts for 10 or more years. If they can't offset their costs with the sale of end user devices, how do they recover them?

    I can't quite follow where there is such a big problem.
    The telcos transitioned to 3G then 4G pretty well when they had to build new base stations. I also don't see why there needs to be more base stations either, as the 5G protocol means they work on much higher frequencies and that automatically allows a much higher bandwidth and data throughput. On the contrary less base stations could be required compared to 4G and cost including maintenance could be saved, once large scale production and installation procedures have been established.
    Every change involves cost but this will always be a gradual process while supply meets demand and in 2 -3 years the majority will have swapped their devices when, as mentioned above, the batteries have crapped out. However apart from 5G, new features on phones are becoming rather subtle lately.

    I am not aware of any household IoT devices that need their own 5G or even 4G connection apart from cellular security cams, if that is still considered a household appliance. They are all happily tethered to a wifi hotspot or router. Why an earth would anybody want to change that. Different with non household and remote applications of course but then there are generally no high user density issues.
    Last edited by Uncle Fester; 23-05-20 at 09:07 PM.
    This era of thoughtless consumption must end so we can encourage a world of creative geniuses rather than consumer idiots.


  • #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    683
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 214 Times in 136 Posts
    Rep Power
    213
    Reputation
    2078

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Fester View Post
    I can't quite follow where there is such a big problem.
    The telcos transitioned to 3G then 4G pretty well when they had to build new base stations. I also don't see why there needs to be more base stations either, as the 5G protocol means they work on much higher frequencies and that automatically allows a much higher bandwidth and data throughput. On the contrary less base stations could be required compared to 4G and cost including maintenance could be saved, once large scale production and installation procedures have been established.
    Every change involves cost but this will always be a gradual process while supply meets demand and in 2 -3 years the majority will have swapped their devices when, as mentioned above, the batteries have crapped out. However apart from 5G, new features on phones are becoming rather subtle lately.
    The higher the frequency the greater the losses through absorption and obstructions in the path, and the shorter the range. Test have shown that for mm wavelengths, the range of a base station is around 500m. You can see this sort of effect with WiFi - the 2.4GHz band has far greater range than the 5Ghz band. The specification allows for mini base stations and in-building stations. This is the penalty for increased bandwdith. The other issue that never seems to occur to those looking for 5G to replace fixed networks, is the requirement for the backbone network connecting base stations. Typically, the backbone network needs to be at least an order of magnitude greater than the distribution network. For a Gbps 5G network, that suggests a backbone of > 10Gbps. Furthermore, this SHOULD be by at least 2 separate paths for reliability. The only viable way to acheive this is by bi-directional fiber connections to each node ie the NBN or equivalent.

    I am not aware of any household IoT devices that need their own 5G or even 4G connection apart from cellular security cams, if that is still considered a household appliance. They are all happily tethered to a wifi hotspot or router. Why an earth would anybody want to change that. Different with non household and remote applications of course but then there are generally no high user density issues.
    You seem to have forgotten about 4K TV.

  • #30
    Senior Member
    Uncle Fester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Commonly found in a pantry or the bottom of a fridge, searching for grains, fermented or distilled
    Posts
    5,018
    Thanks
    1,614
    Thanked 3,146 Times in 1,827 Posts
    Rep Power
    1446
    Reputation
    56418

    Default

    500m? Not talking about 5GHz but up to 39GHz for the 1 Gb/s I mentioned, yes a bit of trouble through walls there but there are other 5G lower bands that go much further.
    Maybe you should have a read:





    4K TV in a mobile phone, I don't think so.

    All our smart TVs connect through wifi. If everybody decided to tether their 65" TV though a mobile connection then that could be a problem but also a massive phone bill.
    AFAIK currently so called unlimited mobile data plans are capped at certain speeds that would not allow 4K after that data cap is achieved. 1K probably still OK.
    Last edited by Uncle Fester; 23-05-20 at 11:47 PM.
    This era of thoughtless consumption must end so we can encourage a world of creative geniuses rather than consumer idiots.


  • #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    683
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 214 Times in 136 Posts
    Rep Power
    213
    Reputation
    2078

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Fester View Post
    500m? Not talking about 5GHz but up to 39GHz for the 1 Gb/s I mentioned, yes a bit of trouble through walls there but there are other 5G lower bands that go much further.
    Maybe you should have a read:
    You need to update your reading. 5G on the current 4G bands which is where the CURRENT 5G offerings are at, achieve very little bandwidth improvement over 4G. Their main advantage is lower latency, but this is still an order of magnitude higher than can be achieved with fibre.



    4K TV in a mobile phone, I don't think so.

    All our smart TVs connect through wifi. If everybody decided to tether their 65" TV though a mobile connection then that could be a problem but also a massive phone bill.
    AFAIK currently so called unlimited mobile data plans are capped at certain speeds that would not allow 4K after that data cap is achieved. 1K probably still OK.
    This thread is all about 5G killing the NBN. You seem to be confusing wifi and 5G. There has to be an underlying network to facilitate wifi networks. The telcos are not providing their own public wifi networks. Telstra Air for example uses it's CUSTOMER's home network to provide the coverage. Those customers still have to connect to a broadband network (eg NBN or phone network).

    5G CAN provide the bandwidth and latency required for 4K TV on the current 4G bands, as long as the number of connections is low. To compete with a properly designed NBN, 5G will need the mm wavelength bands to be deployed for the vast majority of users, and have similar pricing for the same data/speed as the current NBN to compete, let alone put it out of business. Personally I can't see this happening, or the (privatised) NBN not investing much less than the telcos to give them their continued advantage. IMHO the telcos are not really trying to compete with the NBN. They are more about competition between themselves.

  • #32
    Senior Member
    Uncle Fester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Commonly found in a pantry or the bottom of a fridge, searching for grains, fermented or distilled
    Posts
    5,018
    Thanks
    1,614
    Thanked 3,146 Times in 1,827 Posts
    Rep Power
    1446
    Reputation
    56418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jgm View Post

    This thread is all about 5G killing the NBN. You seem to be confusing wifi and 5G. There has to be an underlying network to facilitate wifi networks. The telcos are not providing their own public wifi networks. Telstra Air for example uses it's CUSTOMER's home network to provide the coverage. Those customers still have to connect to a broadband network (eg NBN or phone network).

    Not confusing anything. You seem to imply earlier that our 4K TVs use a cellular connection and I dismissed that by saying they use a Wifi connection.
    That means either via NBN or tethered to wireless 4/5G. I thought that was clear from my earlier post when I said the IoT devices mostly use wifi from a modem or tethered wireless.
    I didn't say anything about public wifi.

    My stand is 5G will not kill NBN it will supplement it.
    Because, lets say 50% use NBN and the other 50% use wireless I don't expect any major problems here.
    Last edited by Uncle Fester; 24-05-20 at 06:13 PM.
    This era of thoughtless consumption must end so we can encourage a world of creative geniuses rather than consumer idiots.


  • #33
    Premium Member
    ol' boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    17,644
    Thanks
    8,124
    Thanked 10,436 Times in 5,187 Posts
    Rep Power
    4414
    Reputation
    183792

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jgm View Post

    5G CAN provide the bandwidth and latency required for 4K TV on the current 4G bands,
    I can watch 4K on 3G, no buffering.
    Average of 25 to 30Mbs on Optus 3G. And how old is 3G now???
    The Missus gets 90Mbs a sec all day long on her Optus 4G, with a 4 year old phone (Samsung S7)
    And her Optus 4G Home Internet Solution (500Gb) runs at around 57-68Mps down and 30+ up

    That is the trouble though, the Provider will clearly throttle the Mobile Internet connection so they dont kill off thier other products
    And/or take too much of thier overall bandwidth

    Years ago and i mean years!!! ago, i used to suffer from speed throttle when the tower was loaded with users.
    But whatever they have done, now there can be 25,000 people in town (normally its 900) and speeds don't change much

    In fact, the ONLY speed changes i've experienced in the last 5 years, have been Provider dictated

    Would i rather a NBN connection, sure
    Will an NBN connection allow me these speeds while driving, camping, being in other houses i stay in or while at work?? Nope.

    Point is, if shitty Optus Network 4G has been getting us 90Mbs for ages now
    What will 5G bring, going on jgm's prediction of double 4G, we'll be more than happy with 180Mbs..... Although from hoe's tests, 400+ Mbs has been the real world test results

    We all know providers will throttle the tits out of this for non mobile use (aka Home Internet), but the fact remains... its possible and has already been proven to deliver those speeds.
    Last edited by ol' boy; 24-05-20 at 02:45 PM.
    If u want to go on an expedition get a Land Rover, if u want to come home from an expedition get a Landcruiser!

  • #34
    Premium Member
    ol' boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    17,644
    Thanks
    8,124
    Thanked 10,436 Times in 5,187 Posts
    Rep Power
    4414
    Reputation
    183792

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Fester View Post
    My stand is 5G will not kill NBN it will supplement it.
    Well, that is the idea put forward by Telcos, almost word for word.
    But that statement in itself tells me it will take 50% of it hey

    I also remember people saying mobile phones will never replace the landline phone
    Can't say i've had a landline number or connections for at least 18 years
    Last edited by ol' boy; 24-05-20 at 03:04 PM.
    If u want to go on an expedition get a Land Rover, if u want to come home from an expedition get a Landcruiser!

  • #35
    Premium Member
    ol' boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    17,644
    Thanks
    8,124
    Thanked 10,436 Times in 5,187 Posts
    Rep Power
    4414
    Reputation
    183792

    Default

    Some interesting reading:

    Real world performance could be more varied. For example, Optus says its 5G wireless broadband customers are currently experiencing average speeds of 164Mbps at peak times, with speeds reaching as high as 400Mbps during less busy periods.
    In our testing so far, we've achieved real-world 5G speeds of between 100Mbps and 600Mbps in Telstra 5G coverage areas in Sydney. We expect these to improve as work on the network continues.
    If u want to go on an expedition get a Land Rover, if u want to come home from an expedition get a Landcruiser!

  • #36
    Premium Member
    ol' boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    17,644
    Thanks
    8,124
    Thanked 10,436 Times in 5,187 Posts
    Rep Power
    4414
    Reputation
    183792

    Default

    The next anomaly for myself and those near me...

    1.2km from Fibre Node.
    27 joins in the copper pair between Node and my House...

    The NBN installer I often work with has already expressed I won't get great speeds because of these joins....

    Sure I can get unlimited NBN for $70pm
    But those joins will never go away.
    If u want to go on an expedition get a Land Rover, if u want to come home from an expedition get a Landcruiser!

  • #37
    Senior Member
    Uncle Fester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Commonly found in a pantry or the bottom of a fridge, searching for grains, fermented or distilled
    Posts
    5,018
    Thanks
    1,614
    Thanked 3,146 Times in 1,827 Posts
    Rep Power
    1446
    Reputation
    56418

    Default

    27 joins, there you go. If anything Turnbull and his experts are the reason NBN could be killed. Some of us were plain lucky so NBN won't die yet.
    5G's success will be based in the failure of the LNP to implement proper NBN.
    After this major stuff up it might best to replace all the fibre connected nodes with 5G hardware but then comes 6G, blah blah.
    Oh so simple had we just ran a bit more fibre with a 'one for all' system that mass produced would have been sooo much cheaper and 100% future proof.
    Last edited by Uncle Fester; 24-05-20 at 07:19 PM.
    This era of thoughtless consumption must end so we can encourage a world of creative geniuses rather than consumer idiots.


  • #38
    Premium Member
    ol' boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    17,644
    Thanks
    8,124
    Thanked 10,436 Times in 5,187 Posts
    Rep Power
    4414
    Reputation
    183792

    Default

    You're not wrong...

    I lost count how many "special" NBN conduits I had to run into new properties...
    Only for them to remain empty
    If u want to go on an expedition get a Land Rover, if u want to come home from an expedition get a Landcruiser!

  • Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •