Comments Locked

20 Comments

Back to Article

  • Dragonstongue - Monday, July 23, 2018 - link

    more radiation, higher cost, and likely to not have the ability to use it in most cities for all ^.^
  • shabby - Monday, July 23, 2018 - link

    I would like to see some power usage tests done on modems, these things are such power hogs that need to be scrutinized more.
  • deil - Monday, July 23, 2018 - link

    I wish any way of expanding the range on existing ones would exists. We have everything on USB. Why not expanded antenna for quality call in wildness.
  • sing_electric - Monday, July 23, 2018 - link

    Well, it does, kind of: Higher-frequency networks can theoretically deliver more bandwidth, but are also shorter range and more likely to be blocked by people/buildings/trees. (A rough, though imperfect analogy is that FM stations are higher-quality but shorter range than lower-frequency AM stations.)

    The past few years have seen a lot of carriers expand their lower-frequency offerings: Most 2/3G networks started in around ~800MHz.

    700MHz rolled out a few years ago, and 600MHz is becoming more common - in the US, T-Mobile has invested a lot of money in 600MHz spectrum and bandwidth, though only a handful of devices (and no iPhones) support it at the moment. Those lower-frequency waves travel much farther than higher-frequency, and are more likely to make it through trees or buildings. The downside is that they have a limit on how fast they can be, which, on top of everything else, limits the number of users you can have on a given tower.
  • 0ldman79 - Monday, July 23, 2018 - link

    This has been much discussed in the WISP circles.

    The frequencies used have huge liabilities.

    We can't even use similar bands on dedicated point to point shots with high gain antennas for any real distance. The bands are essentially useless unless you're almost literally within a stone's throw of the tower.

    We're talking WIFI range, only if you turn the wrong direction your body will attenuate the signal.

    I'm seriously interested to see the details of the tech, but you can't beat physics. The only way I see this working is if the various bands have massive reflections from concrete and wood. Even still I don't see any small to medium sized cities (like almost any in the state of Alabama) working with these bands at all.

    My best guess is we're only going to see these bands in wide use in big cities and two or three tiny spots in medium sized cities. I'd be surprised if they even bothered to install the radios on towers in most places.
  • sing_electric - Monday, July 23, 2018 - link

    When T-Mo and Sprint said "we need to merge or die for 5G," I'm sure part of it was just gamemanship, but the physics of mmWave means that installation heavily favors big players with deep pockets that can afford to install and maintain many, many towers.

    The physics of the signal also mean that the tech isn't even a good option for "Cells on Wheels" trucks that you see by large events, since the bodies of the crowd would likely block the signals.

    I'm really wondering what the target use case is for these things - you need line of sight, which is difficult in dense urban environments (and indoors), proximity, which is difficult in non-urban environments. Maybe the plan is to mesh mini-cell sites together, so you don't have to install infrastructure at every spot? Of course, then you're cutting down on available bandwidth, and it really seems like even moderate rain would be enough to make these signals unworkable...
  • p1esk - Monday, July 23, 2018 - link

    Exactly my thoughts. I need cell tech that would provide connectivity in places where my 3G/4G signal fails. 20GHz+ does not seem like a solution to that problem. 200MHz ranges would probably be, even if only good to send a text.
  • MrSpadge - Tuesday, July 24, 2018 - link

    With modern audio compression I could imagine we can get away with a few 100 MHz below 800 MHz and still have enough bandwidth for calls.
  • iwod - Monday, July 23, 2018 - link

    I wonder what sort of die size will for Modem will it be.
  • iwod - Monday, July 23, 2018 - link

    I mean the combined 4G and 5G modem. The 5G modem X50 alone is quite big, is a 7nm die shrink enough for it to be fitted inside phone. At what cost?
  • MTEK - Monday, July 23, 2018 - link

    I'm holding out for a new Samsung Galaxy S phone for another year, but if its major new feature is 5G support, I'm going to roll my eyes.

    Actually, I can already imagine the S10 reviews... PROS: 5G works well in three major launch cities; CONS: enabling 5G support decreases battery life noticeably. More expensive than S9. Bixby still sucks.
  • agoyal - Monday, July 23, 2018 - link

    Apple will likely stay clear of this till 5G become practically useful
  • SydneyBlue120d - Tuesday, July 24, 2018 - link

    Intel doesn't have 5G modem available, it is around 1 year behind Qualcomm in 5G development.
  • peevee - Monday, July 23, 2018 - link

    mm waves? 30 to 300GHz? They are not going far, while draining batteries extremely quickly. Pure marketing thing, with high theoretical/lab numbers which stay purely theoretical for 100% of customers.
  • peevee - Monday, July 23, 2018 - link

    Just for reference:
    http://thesuntoday.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-cont...

    I'd like to see about 10GHz (3cm) wavelength with narrow beam-forming (yes, phased arrays) communicating directly with low-flying satellites. Anywhere in the world, without any local licenses.
  • wrkingclass_hero - Tuesday, July 24, 2018 - link

    2/3rds of independent peer reviewed studies have shown a link between cellphone radiation and cancer, meanwhile the FCC has explicitly taken away the state's power to halt radio tower deployment based on health concerns.
    We are living in one of those moments that people will look back at and wonder how people could be so stupid, like when cigarettes were advertised as a cure for throat infections, or when pesticides were going to make you stronger, etc.
  • JoeDuarte - Tuesday, July 24, 2018 - link

    I'm having trouble understanding the hype around 5G given its range and LOS limitations. What are the use cases?

    Ryan, by the way, "principle" should be "principal" in the following passage: "...as it doesn’t include band n258 (24.25 to 27.5GHz) which is one of the principle bands for Europe and China."
  • philehidiot - Monday, July 30, 2018 - link

    I'm baffled also. I could understand using this kind of tech to connect cell towers together where you have LOS and can provide the oomph to get the required range but the number of antennae and limitations make this useless for smartphones and hence widespread deployment.
  • HappyTechKnow - Tuesday, July 31, 2018 - link

    Power useage of it, I would like to see
  • HappyTechKnow - Tuesday, July 31, 2018 - link

    Impressive to know
    https://happytechknow.com/cheap-smartphones/

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now