Re So What The Heck Does 5G Actually Do? And Is It Worth What The Carriers Are Demanding?

["Dave Farber" <farber () gmail com>]

> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: "Bob Frankston" <Bob19-0501 () bobf frankston com>
> Subject: RE: [IP] So What The Heck Does 5G Actually Do? And Is It Worth What The Carriers Are Demanding?
> Date: July 4, 2018 at 1:07:32 PM GMT+9
> To: dave () farber net, "     'ip'" <ip () listbox com>
>
> Notice the mention of “hetnets” – an attempt to return to the glory days of smart networks and away from the powerful 
> idea of standard packets.. The Internet has freed us from depending on the smarts of network providers. No surprise 
> that a primary goal of 5G is to return to the glory days of the intelligent network. Slicing networks is an example 
> of anti-neutrality in which owners can sell off capacity for preferred access and services.
>  
> From: Dave Farber <farber () gmail com> 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2018 21:42
> To: ip <ip () listbox com>
> Subject: [IP] So What The Heck Does 5G Actually Do? And Is It Worth What The Carriers Are Demanding?
>  
>  
>
>
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >  
> > From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com <mailto:dewayne () warpspeed com>>
> > Subject: [Dewayne-Net] So What The Heck Does 5G Actually Do? And Is It Worth What The Carriers Are Demanding?
> > Date: July 4, 2018 at 10:18:15 AM GMT+9
> > To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net <dewayne-net () warpspeed com <mailto:dewayne-net () warpspeed com>>
> > Reply-To: dewayne-net () warpspeed com <mailto:dewayne-net () warpspeed com>
> >  
> > So What The Heck Does 5G Actually Do? And Is It Worth What The Carriers Are Demanding?
> > By Harold Feld
> > Jun 28 2018
> > <http://www.wetmachine.com/tales-of-the-sausage-factory/so-what-the-heck-does-5g-actually-do-and-is-it-worth-what-the-carriers-are-demanding/
> >  
> > <http://www.wetmachine.com/tales-of-the-sausage-factory/so-what-the-heck-does-5g-actually-do-and-is-it-worth-what-the-carriers-are-demanding/>>
> >
> > It’s become increasingly impossible to talk about spectrum policy without getting into the fight over whether 5G is 
> > a miracle technology that will end poverty, war and disease or an evil marketing scam by wireless carriers to extort 
> > concessions in exchange for magic beans. Mind you, most people never talk about spectrum policy at all — so they are 
> > spared this problem in the first place. But with T-Mobile and Sprint now invoking 5G as a central reason to let them 
> > merge, it’s important for people to understand precisely what 5G actually does. Unfortunately, when you ask most 
> > people in Policyland what 5G actually does and how it works, the discussion looks a lot like the discussion in 
> > Hitchhikers Guide To the Galaxy where Deep Thought announces that the answer to Life the Universe and Everything is 
> > “42.”
> >
> > So while not an engineer, I have spent the last two weeks or so doing a deep dive on what, exactly does 5G actually 
> > do — with a particular emphasis on the recently released 3GPP standard (Release 15) that everyone is celebrating as 
> > the first real industry standard for 5G. My conclusion is that while the Emperor is not naked, that is one Hell of a 
> > skimpy thong he’s got on.
> >
> > More precisely, the bunch of different things that people talk about when they say “5G”: millimeter wave spectrum, 
> > network slicing, and something called (I am not making this up) “flexible numerology” are real. They represent 
> > improvements in existing wireless technology that will enhance overall efficiency and thus add capacity to the 
> > network (and also reduce latency). But, as a number of the more serious commentators (such as Dave Burstien over 
> > here) have pointed out, we can already do these things using existing LTE (plain old 4G). Given the timetable for 
> > development and deployment of new 5G network technology, it will be at least 5 years before we see more than 
> > incremental improvement in function and performance.
> >
> > Put another way, it would be like calling the adoption of a new version of Wi-Fi “5G Wi-Fi.” (Which I am totally 
> > going to do from now on, btw, because why not?)
> >
> > I elaborate more below . . .
> >
> > There are a bunch of important questions to keep in mind when evaluating what we ought to do about 5G as a policy 
> > question. (a) What exactly is 5G? (b) How does it compare to existing LTE? and, (c) How much are we being asked to 
> > pay for it in policy terms?
> >
> > What Exactly Do We Mean By “G?”
> >
> > “G” technically means “generation.” My favorite explanation can be found in this old Best Buy commercial. As a 
> > general rule, we use “G” to indicate a significant shift in capability, architecture and technology. For example, 
> > the shift from analog to digital voice in 2G, or the inclusion of limited data capability as an overlay to voice in 
> > 3G. The shift to 4G was marked by a shift to an all packet-switched data network in which voice is supported as one 
> > feature on the network. In addition, 4G turned out to be fairly homogenous for a variety of reasons I won’t get into 
> > now. Basically, after a brief flirtation by Sprint and a few others with WiMax, all the carriers ended up using LTE.
> >
> > So the switch to 5G ought to mean a major boost in both technology and speed. And it will, eventually. But for now, 
> > it’s not so much a generational shift like the previous shifts but a modest transition over time. By that I don’t 
> > mean simply that we will see 5G networks operating with 4G cores for a long time. That’s always true. Carriers 
> > deployed LTE and still maintained (some to this day) 3G networks in parallel. That is necessary so that people and 
> > businesses can switch legacy equipment at a rational pace. What I mean is that the capabilities that are supposed to 
> > make 5G so awesome are not really that awesome right now, and won’t be for at least 5 more years.
> >
> > What Makes 5G More Awesome?
> >
> > Here is where it gets confusing. You can see a good tutorial on the network architecture here. But this represents a 
> > relatively recent change in how we talk about 5G. Originally, i.e., back in 2015, we were talking about millimeter 
> > wave as 5G, with nothing else going on in the lower frequencies counting as 5G.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/feed/ <http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/feed/>
> > Twitter: https://twitter.com/wa8dzp <https://twitter.com/wa8dzp>
>
>  
> Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now> | Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?> Your 
> Subscription | Unsubscribe Now 
> <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?&&post_id=20180703214144:65FC85C4-7F2B-11E8-89F4-ACF597757C01>       
>  <http://www.listbox.com/>



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915
Unsubscribe Now: 
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-a538de84&post_id=20180704002109:AB6CCAC2-7F41-11E8-9050-88A925AD4B1F
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com