Jump to content

A journey on the evolution of the G


kckid
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm glad this infographic actually mentioned the fact that 4G vs 3G is a move from a switched network to an all-IP one, which is one of the biggest, real broad changes between generations (along with increases in spectral efficiency, etc.). Sadly, it falls in to the "numbers" trap, quoting the (often touted and completely, utterly arbitrary) "100 Mbps" number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad this infographic actually mentioned the fact that 4G vs 3G is a move from a switched network to an all-IP one, which is one of the biggest, real broad changes between generations (along with increases in spectral efficiency, etc.). Sadly, it falls in to the "numbers" trap, quoting the (often touted and completely, utterly arbitrary) "100 Mbps" number.

 

Well, the speed benchmark is kind of arbitrary, but when they were writing the standard, a line had to be drawn somewhere. At the end of the day, speed (and ping) is what effects the experience of using data on a phone, and users don't know or care whether the data is circuit or packet-switched. If an "all-IP" network only ended up being capable of 4 Mbps instead of 3G Ev-DO rA's 2 Mbps, I wouldn't really consider that to be enough of a technological advancement to be worthy of being considered a new "generation."

 

I figured with the spectrum that Sprint now has on band 41, it'd be possible with TD-LTE-A

 

Yes, a single 20 MHz TDD carrier is I believe capable of 90 Mbps downstream, so two of those aggregated together should get the job done. I'm pretty sure Sprint has at least 40 MHz of Clearwire spectrum in every market, although unfortunately it's not usually contiguous. Once battery life limitations are overcome (carrier aggregation apparently draws a lot of power), I can see Sprint deploying additional TDD carriers pretty quickly, along with whatever firmware upgrades are needed to update from LTE r9 to r10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the speed benchmark is kind of arbitrary, but when they were writing the standard, a line had to be drawn somewhere. At the end of the day, speed (and ping) is what effects the experience of using data on a phone, and users don't know or care whether the data is circuit or packet-switched. If an "all-IP" network only ended up being capable of 4 Mbps instead of 3G Ev-DO rA's 2 Mbps, I wouldn't really consider that to be enough of a technological advancement to be worthy of being considered a new "generation."

It's completely artbitrary, because it depends on the amount of spectrum you're using and the spectral efficiency of your technology. The first depends entirely on licensing schemes, and has nothing to do with technology. The second involves new engineering, and is indicative of a new generation. Are you seeing the problem? By assigning an arbitrary speed cap, an arbitrary assumption of (iirc) 67 MHz (for 1 Gbps fixed) worth of spectrum being the minimum to run a network was put in place. Having more spectrum to use doesn't make your technology new, it just means... you have more spectrum. Spectral efficiency? Yes, that matters, a lot. It also is something end users don't know a thing about and don't care about. Engineering standards should not be measured by how an end user perceives it. That's dumb and silly and we should stop. Providing a good user experience is a worthwhile goal, but that's not what my first post was about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something to think about. I am on a 20mb fiber connection at 7ms ping and can do all I want to with hd video and all, so why is it everyone with a phone wants to have 100mb connection knowing that there phone doesn't have the capabilities there normal comnputer have? It makes no sense?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's completely artbitrary, because it depends on the amount of spectrum you're using and the spectral efficiency of your technology. The first depends entirely on licensing schemes, and has nothing to do with technology. The second involves new engineering, and is indicative of a new generation. Are you seeing the problem? By assigning an arbitrary speed cap, an arbitrary assumption of (iirc) 67 MHz (for 1 Gbps fixed) worth of spectrum being the minimum to run a network was put in place. Having more spectrum to use doesn't make your technology new, it just means... you have more spectrum. Spectral efficiency? Yes, that matters, a lot. It also is something end users don't know a thing about and don't care about. Engineering standards should not be measured by how an end user perceives it. That's dumb and silly and we should stop. Providing a good user experience is a worthwhile goal, but that's not what my first post was about.

 

100Mbps/1Gbps is a speed floor (for theoretical peak speeds) not a cap. If it takes 67 MHz of spectrum to deploy a true 4G network, then that's what it takes. I agree with you that spectral efficiency matters more than raw throughput (as long as that throughput noticeably exceeds the top speed of the previous generation), but that's not how the ITU chose to define it. They own the trademark to the "4G" moniker, so they can define it however they like. I found it frustrating to see private industry abuse the term and defining it however they wanted to, which led to consumer confusion as each "faux-G" network performed very differently.

 

Hopefully the ITU has learned from that debacle and will be a bit more realistic about constraints on spectrum availability when writing the next set of IMT standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

100Mbps/1Gbps is a speed floor (for theoretical peak speeds) not a cap. If it takes 67 MHz of spectrum to deploy a true 4G network, then that's what it takes. I agree with you that spectral efficiency matters more than raw throughput (as long as that throughput noticeably exceeds the top speed of the previous generation), but that's not how the ITU chose to define it. They own the trademark to the "4G" moniker, so they can define it however they like. I found it frustrating to see private industry abuse the term and defining it however they wanted to, which led to consumer confusion as each "faux-G" network performed very differently.

 

Hopefully the ITU has learned from that debacle and will be a bit more realistic about constraints on spectrum availability when writing the next set of IMT standards.

Whoops, misspoke. Meant speed floor.

 

I'm glad you agree that the ITU requirements are a little ridiculous, and as "they can define it however the like", that you agree that it's completely arbitrary.

 

My point is, when it comes down to it - "faux G" or no... It's one thing entirely to say "your technology must have a minimum peak downlink spectral efficiency of 15 bits/s/Hz" (to quote Wikipedia), and another thing altogether to say, as I've heard so many tech afficionados and media sites say, "ITS NOT REAL FOUR GEE UNTIL I GET A HUNDRED DOWN!!!1111". The first is a real technological advancement, the second is a dick waving contest, and has nothing to do with generational advancement.

  • Like 2
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

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • I have added T-Mobile eNB 879366, a Sprint convert site, to the list of gig+ sites, as I was able to break the 800 Mbps ceiling with it. I'm still trying to understand the DAS mess at LGA and locate them, but the bad thing about it is inside the terminals I can occasionally pick up the macros inside. It anchors 5G, which is great for a speed boost, but occasionally data hangs because my device is having a handoff frenzy trying to pick the best macro and/or band for the 5G connection.   I have spotted 2 more Dish sites, one on the corner of Church Avenue and East 16th (photo below), and the other is an in progress site co-located with Verizon eNB 81069.   At Verizon eNB 81069, the ports on the Dish panel weren't connected yet, brand new racks were being used on the roof Verizon is on, and it looks like Sprint's equip is still up on the building next door.
    • Neat!  Thanks.  Most of my issues at the moment are from inexperience.  I've never used AT commands and I'm bad at Python.  I'm not really sure what the best way is to send AT commands to the modem; socat seems to work, and there are Python libraries that should do it, but I don't really know what I'm doing.  - Trip
    • If you need any assistance, firmware or drivers with the radio; I am involved in Quectel's US based sales and field application engineer programs. I am working on the x62 reference RM520/N right now. They are a really fun product to work with.  
    • Thanks for the locations, I will try them sometime in the next week or so. 
    • life in the fast lane: 100,000 customers.  breakeven under a year per building.  Could run out of cash in 6 months. https://www.lightreading.com/broadband/fixed-wireless-access-(fwa)/starry-seeks-paths-to-bridge-its-funding-gap/d/d-id/779574?
  • Recently Browsing

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