Nokia Creates First 5GTF Connection with Intel

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
54,839
While I am happy that T-Mobile finally has rather good 4G LTE support in and around North Texas, there is no doubt that more bandwidth would be appreciated. Nokia is one of the companies leading the way to bigger and better bandwidth with Intel in tow, but the 5G story is deeper than just bandwidth. This 5G connection test was done back in December, but it deserves another look if you are not up to date. This video gives you a wide overview of 5G goals.

If you want a bit more of a deep dive, you can give the video on this Nokia 5G page a watch.
 
NeoNemesis said:
They keep rolling out faster and faster speeds but the average mobile data cap in Canada is somewhere between 3-6GB a month.

I'd rather have unlimited 3g than capped 5g.
Click to expand...
Well, if you watch the video you will see that this is much more than shear bandwidth.
 
I zoned out about 30 seconds into the video due to buzzword overload.
 
Now secure all that IOT stuff, or 5G is just going to allow botnets to spam us more than they already do.
 
The video on the Nokia page is worth listening to, a bit long, but good vision explained.
 
it's sad I have 40-50MBs on my T-mobile outside of my apartment here in midcities of Dallas/Ft Worth and only 21MBs on my U-verse landline....
 
That video sounded just like the new battery tech advancements. Bullshit vaporware.
 
sirgallium said:
I remember reading that in the past when 3g or 4g came out that it was mostly a marketing strategy, that it was largely the same technology just incrementally advanced to higher and higher speeds as upgrades and cost allowed. But saying new faster 3g doesn't sound as good as 4g, ohhh its 4 its the new one its better. That's what I heard anyway. That increasing the numbers makes it sell better even if the technology isn't actually completely new and different.
Click to expand...

It went something like this. Verizon was rolling out LTE (Long Term Evolution) which is one of the technologies that was dubbed under the 4G brand. They were touting 4G as well as other carriers who were working on a plan to rollout a 4G solution. AT&T wasn't working on rolling out LTE at the time because they had HSPA+ coming down the pipeline. The actual speeds AT&T had on HSPA+ were somewhere in between 3G and 4G and probably closer to what Verizon settled on for LTE, so their marketing department took over and decided to switch out the logo in the corner of iPhones from 3G to "4G" when using HSPA+. But HSPA+ is not a 4G technology where LTE is, so basically it was false advertising on their part because if you had an iPhone on Verizon it would show "4G" if connected to LTE, so AT&T had to cook it to make it look like they had it as well. That mash up is why everyone now has to say 4G LTE instead of just 4G because we could assume it was referring to LTE. I don't think anyone really mentioned specifically the technology they were using behind 2G and 3G networks prior to that. It was just marketed as 2G or 3G because you knew that meant a big increase.

This is an interesting article from about 5 years ago on what the technology looked like then and what they predicted we'd be at now: http://www.androidauthority.com/hspa-vs-lte-which-one-is-better-78120/


Ehren8879 said:
Watched the video and hate to be that guy, but this is really just more bandwidth.
Click to expand...

I haven't really seen anything else that would argue with that point either. If LTE is already IP based and using IPv6, then there really isn't a need for a drastic overhaul on the technology like there was in previous generations. (Data used to not even be packet based when it first rolled out) What 5G is currently, is bandwidth that comes from the millimeter wave band. Because it will be high frequency, it requires LoS and short distance between you and the tower. It's not that far off from saying wifi for cell phones. Because of it's characteristics it can provide a large amount of spectrum at a high data rate making it much denser to deploy than 4G. What remains to be seen is (since it's not even finalized) is how it might handle more rural situations or high speed driving through a dense area. If the cell size is too small, your phone wouldn't be able to hand off fast enough to make it usable if you were moving at a high rate of speed. Likewise you can't deploy MM wave band to an area that might need to cover 10sq miles because the signal won't travel that far. So 5G might only ever exist in densely populated areas or places where you can have large enough antennas to do fixed connections to try to span a larger distance.
 
Last edited:
Looks like some more BS mesh networking that will suck... If it is truly 1gbit what are they going to do about the overloaded backhaul it has to hit fiber at some point!
 
NeoNemesis said:
They keep rolling out faster and faster speeds but the average mobile data cap in Canada is somewhere between 3-6GB a month.

I'd rather have unlimited 3g than capped 5g.
Click to expand...

THIS, A MILLION TIMES THIS. I would personally prefer to pay a flat price (which I already do, for the record) and get unlimited 3G or 4G (doesn't really fucking matter) capped at a specific speed, say about 8 Mbps solid so that's about 1MB/s which is more than enough to do most anything including streaming 720p resolution video, and have no actual limits - the word "unlimited" means without limits and not "we'll add some BS limitation in the fine print at some point..."

The day some carrier offers such a plan for about $40 I'll sign up, until then I'll stick with the T-Mobile $30/month plan I've been using just shy of 5 years now and pray they don't get rid of it.
 
Hmm, watched the video, and all the guy talks about is use cases, not any of the underlying network architecture. Of course since it's an intel ad, they don't power any of the access network equipment, so that's probably why.

As for the Nokia side, a lot of fluff, not a lot of nuts and bolts. Should be interesting but I don't think there's a standard hammered out yet.
 
bman212121 said:
It went something like this. Verizon was rolling out LTE (Long Term Evolution) which is one of the technologies that was dubbed under the 4G brand. They were touting 4G as well as other carriers who were working on a plan to rollout a 4G solution. AT&T wasn't working on rolling out LTE at the time because they had HSPA+ coming down the pipeline. The actual speeds AT&T had on HSPA+ were somewhere in between 3G and 4G and probably closer to what Verizon settled on for LTE, so their marketing department took over and decided to switch out the logo in the corner of iPhones from 3G to "4G" when using HSPA+. But HSPA+ is not a 4G technology where LTE is, so basically it was false advertising on their part because if you had an iPhone on Verizon it would show "4G" if connected to LTE, so AT&T had to cook it to make it look like they had it as well. That mash up is why everyone now has to say 4G LTE instead of just 4G because we could assume it was referring to LTE. I don't think anyone really mentioned specifically the technology they were using behind 2G and 3G networks prior to that. It was just marketed as 2G or 3G because you knew that meant a big increase.

This is an interesting article from about 5 years ago on what the technology looked like then and what they predicted we'd be at now: http://www.androidauthority.com/hspa-vs-lte-which-one-is-better-78120/
.
Click to expand...

While you're on the right track, you missed T-Mobile's role in getting HSPA+ lumped in with 4G. The difference in LTE and HSPA (glorified UMTS) is pretty stark on both the Radio Access and Core networks. 3G had a very similar network architecture to 2G, but LTE does away with nodes on both the RAN and Core side and combines functions of others. A lot to do with ever increasing processing power and size/power reduction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top