Jump to content

Millimeter Frequencies Proposed for 5G

Guest 503ducati

By Guest 503ducati
in General Topics

 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest 503ducati

Guest 503ducati

Posted
Posted (edited)

Since this is over my head, anyone believe this could come to fruition?

 

 

 

http://www.dailywire...roposed-for-5g/

 

 

Researchers at Polytechnic Institute of New York University have assembled a consortium of government and business support to develop technology that could potentially increase cell phone capacity by more than 1,000 times. The 5G project hopes to develop the 80 GHz band using smaller, lighter antennas with directional beamforming to bounce signals off of buildings. The uncrowded millimeter-wave spectrum, has 50 to 100 times more user capacity is readily available. Smaller, smarter cells would cooperate rather than compete for spectrum.

Edited by 503ducati
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...
Guest 503ducati

Guest 503ducati

Posted
Posted

More here: http://www.dailywire...over-100-miles/

 

 

DARPA has begun development of a wireless communications link that is capable of 100 gigabits per second over a range of 200 kilometers (124mi), reports Extreme Tech. Officially dubbed “100 Gb/s RF Backbone” (or 100G for short), the program will provide the US military with networks that are around 500 times faster than its current wireless links.

 

“A major challenge to providing 100 Gb/s from an airborne asset to the ground is cloud cover. Free-space optical links won’t propagate through the cloud layer, which means RF is the only option”, says Darpa

 

The Common Data Link (CDL) is a secure wireless protocol that networks together UAVs, aircraft carriers, helicopters, forward operating bases. How exactly, DARPA plans to squeeze out 100 Gbps on a 100 mile link (without lasers) is not clear. Currently the US military’s existing CDL links max out at around 250Mbps.

 

The EHF band at 60-80 GHz can routinely deliver more than 1 Gbps today. There is 12.9 gigahertz of spectrum allocated for commercial use in the 71-95 GHz bands.

 

Wireless gear capable of over 1 Gbps is available from Alcatel, Alvarion, Bridgewave, Ceragon, Cisco, DragonWave, Exalt, LightPointe, Gigabeam, Proxim’s GigaLink, Trango, and Ubiquiti AirFiber among others.

 

Presumably it will use the 70-80 GHz band, lots of MIMO and several Gigs of bandwidth.

 

The 802.11ad standard uses 60 GHz and has some 2 GHz of usable bandwidth. Mark Gradzinsky of Wilocity, a proponent of the 802.11ad standard, told me today that there was lots of room for speed improvements with MIMO and other techniques that could likely take it beyond 10 Gbps.

 

Using 16×16 MIMO-OFDM on a 20 MHz channel delivers 1 Gbps. If you multiply the bandwidth by 100 (2 GHz), you might get 100 Mbps on the 70 GHz band. Easy.

 

Presumably, if enough of these things can get built by the “deadline” next week, their inherent tractor beam could be utilized to steer any doomsday comet away from colliding with Earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WiWavelength Member Level: LTE Advanced

WiWavelength

Posted
Posted

The 80 GHz band can provide over 1 Gbps to each device. And when you hold an 80 GHz phone up to your mouth to make a phone call, it also offers a free dental X-ray.

 

AJ

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WiWavelength Member Level: LTE Advanced

WiWavelength

Posted
Posted

Is there any out-of-pocket co-pay?

 

...only if you are roaming outside of your preferred provider network.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest 503ducati

Guest 503ducati

Posted
Posted

The 80 GHz band can provide over 1 Gbps to each device. And when you hold an 80 GHz phone up to your mouth to make a phone call, it also offers a free dental X-ray.

 

AJ

So they're going to bundle?

 

 

:P

 

 

It will be interesting to see what type of applications they come up with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lynyrd65 Member Level: 4G WiMax

lynyrd65

Posted
Posted
It would be OK for a downlink. Plenty of bandwidth. Uplink, not so much.

 

I'm interested in learning more about this.

What is the ideal amount of higher frequency for downlink to match uplink (or the relation ship of these two)?

 

What is the feasibility of AT&T using WCS for downlink and PCS for uplink?

 

Would this connection behave more like a purely WCS or PCS connection (propagation and speed wise)?

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bigsnake49 Member Level: LTE Advanced

bigsnake49

Posted
Posted

I'm interested in learning more about this.

What is the ideal amount of higher frequency for downlink to match uplink (or the relation ship of these two)?

 

What is the feasibility of AT&T using WCS for downlink and PCS for uplink?

 

Would this connection behave more like a purely WCS or PCS connection (propagation and speed wise)?

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

I would have to see statistics on what is the current demand for uplink vs downlink. With Carrier aggregation technology, they can use WCS for downlink. Of course they will have to get the approval of FCC with respect to interference with adjacent bands.

 

However I'm not sold on 80GHz as a point to multipoint tech yet. Point to point, yes. I would like to see the fruits of this research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • dkyeager
      Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread

      By dkyeager · Posted

      T-Mobile has saved its 28Mhz mmWave licenses by using the point to point method to do environment monitoring inside its cabinets. The attachment below shows the antennas used: https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/ApplicationSearch/applAdmin.jsp;JSESSIONID_APPSEARCH=LxvbnJuvusmIklPhKy6gVK7f9uwylrZ8LiNf3BqIKlDp3_5GxoBr!300973589!225089709?applID=14787154#   Here are the sites for Franklin county OH: https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsEntry/attachments/attachmentViewRD.jsp?applType=search&fileKey=66518254&attachmentKey=21989782&attachmentInd=applAttach
    • wispiANt
      Network Vision/LTE - New York City Market

      By wispiANt · Posted

      Yep, there is a label on the side of the box but it doesn't provide any useful info that the city doesn't already provide (Crown Castle Solutions is the franchisee). You can see my graphical interpretation of the city's dataset here.
    • dkyeager
      Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread

      By dkyeager · Posted

      T-Mobile UScellular agreement links from SEC filings: https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/821130/000110465924065665/tm2415626d2_8k.htm Look inside for main link. Credit mdav-dos1 on reddit
    • chamb
      Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread

      By chamb · Posted

      Totally agree.  In my county and surrounding counties, TM did not place n-41 on every site.  When I look at the sites in question, I probably would have not placed it there either.  I can find just a few with n-71 only and in most of those cases if you live there and know the probable usage of the residents, you would not do a full upgrade on those sites.  One site in particular is set up to force feed n-71 through a long tunnel on the Turnpike.  No stopping allowed in the tunnel. No stores, movie theaters, bathrooms, so n41 would be a waste.    n25 is not really needed either, so it is not there.  The tunnel is going through & under a mountain with more black bears than people.  TM was smart.  Get good coverage in the tunnel but do not waste many many thousands of dollars with extra unused spectrum. I also see sites with only n71 & n25.  Again this makes sense to me.  Depending on what county we are talking about, they moved much of their b25 from LTE to nr.  Some counties have more n25 than a neighboring county, but luckily, it is plenty everywhere.   When you are in a very rural area, n41 can run up the bills and then be barely used.  I am NOT finding sites that should have had n41 but TM failed to provide it.  They may have to come back later in a few years and upgrade the site to n41.  However, we just may eventually see the last little piece on Band 25 leave LTE and move to n25. I am not sure if the satellite to phone service is using band 25 G block as LTE or nr. We also can possibly have at least some AWS move from LTE to nr at some point.  Yes, everybody wants n41. it is not justified in some cases.  When I travel, I desire some decent service along the entire route but it does not have to be 1 or 2 gig download.   If I can get 50/5 on a speedtest with data that will flow and not stutter, I am very happy. Yes, they will swap out the USC gear.  TM needs to match their existing network. The USCC equipment did the job for years, but it is time to retire it.
    • chamb
      Network Vision/LTE - New York City Market

      By chamb · Posted

      Lots of time if you can get close to the pole, you will see a sticky label on the box that is low enough to read. Most of the time it warns of RF exposure but also it may have a toll free number to call if there is an issue. Sometimes there is a power company meter with the name of the user. I would be surprised if there was nothing there to help identify it.  Thinking further, if this is multi-Tenant oDAS, then maybe you might only see some name like Crown Castle or maybe even a department in the city government.   An app on your phone may show the carrier(s)

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...