Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 93

Thread: 5G Ultra Wideband Speed Test Thread

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,388
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by fyrfyter View Post
    Where’s the punchline? 4 cities for rollout with very spotty coverage... This feels like a cruel joke...

    The reality is, Verizon doesn’t even start selling home internet until Oct 1st, so it will be a few weeks. With little saturation, what it is today vs 2-3 years from now will likely be very different results.
    In 2-3 years they also be using 39 GHz an possibly 24 GHz, 37 GHz and 47 GHz as well as CBRS and 3.7-4.2 GHz possibly 5.9 and 6 GHz. But even in just the 28 GHz range they have as much as 1100 MHz in many cities

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    385
    Feedback Score
    0

    5G Ultra Wideband Speed Test Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hagar View Post
    In 2-3 years they also be using 39 GHz an possibly 24 GHz, 37 GHz and 47 GHz as well as CBRS and 3.7-4.2 GHz possibly 5.9 and 6 GHz. But even in just the 28 GHz range they have as much as 1100 MHz in many cities
    Which is barely enough to make life work. 1100 MHz in mmWave isn’t a lot. You are looking at 56MHz channels, each capable of less than 400Mbps transmission speed. So it will take 3, to get to 1Gbps, and that’s 3 tx & 3 rx. So that 1100, only provides 19x 56MHz channels at 28GHz. So in this setup, max is around 3Gbps, and 28GHz is expensive spectrum.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    1,088
    Feedback Score
    0
    I wonder if they have considered running cable drops from the small cells into people houses?

    They are going to need tons of small cells.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,388
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by fyrfyter View Post
    Which is barely enough to make life work. 1100 MHz in mmWave isn’t a lot. You are looking at 56MHz channels, each capable of less than 400Mbps transmission speed. So it will take 3, to get to 1Gbps, and that’s 3 tx & 3 rx. So that 1100, only provides 19x 56MHz channels at 28GHz. So in this setup, max is around 3Gbps, and 28GHz is expensive spectrum.
    Where do you get that math from?

    Anyway they ALREADY OWN the 28 GHz spectrum what do you think being used in fixed wireless right now? I'm not sure what cost has to do with it since the money is already spent on that spectrum. Might as well use it. Also 3 Gbps is way more throughput that band 13 can do how much did they pend on that? $3.6 bil? How much did they spend on band 66? $10 bil? What the max throughput on that. Not anywhere close to 3 Gbps

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,388
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by techfranz View Post
    I wonder if they have considered running cable drops from the small cells into people houses?

    They are going to need tons of small cells.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Well I hope they read your post so they realize this before deploying it.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,547
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by fyrfyter View Post
    This video is crap, as is the affiliated tweet.

    5G NR is based upon both LTE and WiFi signal processes that already exist, which has helped accelerate its rollout. The first 3GPP 5G standard, is based on using the LTE core.

    This article is explains all of it.

    https://5g.co.uk/guides/what-is-5g-new-radio/

    This really sounds like someone from Qualcomm is butthurt, Verizon opted to buy Ericsson equipment, for 4G improvements and 5G rollout.
    Your info is correct , but currently Verizon isn't using any of the 5G NR tech. It's... Mostly a marketing spiel.. this is just verizon using mmwave on their LTE platform.. this is more of true gigabit speed than anything.. 5G NR will be much faster.. Now att is using true 5GNR tech from what I've seen for their mobile roll out eoy

    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    385
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hagar View Post
    Where do you get that math from?

    Anyway they ALREADY OWN the 28 GHz spectrum what do you think being used in fixed wireless right now? I'm not sure what cost has to do with it since the money is already spent on that spectrum. Might as well use it. Also 3 Gbps is way more throughput that band 13 can do how much did they pend on that? $3.6 bil? How much did they spend on band 66? $10 bil? What the max throughput on that. Not anywhere close to 3 Gbps
    Go look up the frequency shift and width depending upon on spectrum. Once you know how much width you need you can see the speed calculations.

    By price 80GHz would have cost the same, with 5000MHz frequency width, providing 10Gbps. Now explain the sense on spending the same amount to get less?

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    4,324
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by fyrfyter View Post
    Which is barely enough to make life work. 1100 MHz in mmWave isn’t a lot. You are looking at 56MHz channels, each capable of less than 400Mbps transmission speed. So it will take 3, to get to 1Gbps, and that’s 3 tx & 3 rx. So that 1100, only provides 19x 56MHz channels at 28GHz. So in this setup, max is around 3Gbps, and 28GHz is expensive spectrum.
    If your math is correct it still ignores the fact that any sort of typical use does not use Gbps continuously. Web browsing and email are bursty with a lot more time spent idle than using transmitting and receiving. During one users idle time others can get their data use in.

    The worst case for data use is video streaming and that does not use Gbps either. SD video uses 1.5 Mbps, HD uses 3 Mbps, 4K uses 5 (or is it 8?).

    There is plenty of capacity in 1.1 GHz of mm-wave bandwidth to service many customers. I expect the carriers will have TOS and/or QOS provisions to prevent one or a handful of users from hogging all the capacity.

    Gbps data is a marketing buzzword. Hardly anyone has any actual need for it.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    385
    Feedback Score
    0
    You guys can read everything I’ve read. It’s all out there. There is also the notion that 28GHz is not viable on a global level, making the US the odd man out.

    http://www.ni.com/white-paper/53096/en/

    https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8305376/

    http://www.winncom.com/images/storie...Comparison.pdf

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    4,324
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by fyrfyter View Post
    You guys can read everything I’ve read. It’s all out there. There is also the notion that 28GHz is not viable on a global level, making the US the odd man out.

    http://www.ni.com/white-paper/53096/en/

    https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8305376/

    http://www.winncom.com/images/storie...Comparison.pdf
    Interesting reads, thanks. The IEEE one is not free except for the summary.

    The Wincom one with the graph of throughput vs frequency vs modulation technique is something I have been looking for for a while. QAM256 looks good. What is it's disadvantage? More susceptible to noise?

    The info about 28 GHz not being recommended for use around the world is new to me. Ok, that's what is going to be used in the U.S. first. My read is that most of it will be used for fixed wireless so I don't see this as being a big problem with world compatibility. Mm-wave and 5G will have little to do with how we can use our handsets for longer than the average lifespan of handsets. Visitors from other countries will still be able to use their phones with LTE for a considerable time.

    I don't give a flying fig about Gbps speed for now. It's not going to make my phone conversations any more interesting or make my HD video streams look any better. Speed testing is not my hobby.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,388
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by fyrfyter View Post
    Go look up the frequency shift and width depending upon on spectrum. Once you know how much width you need you can see the speed calculations.

    By price 80GHz would have cost the same, with 5000MHz frequency width, providing 10Gbps. Now explain the sense on spending the same amount to get less?
    There is no extra expense they already bought the spectrum as well as a ton of 39 GHz. you are suggesting they don't use it Where is the sense in that? I'm not sure what point you are even trying to make. You think t-Mobile's 5G over 600 MHz is going to be more spectral efficient?

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,388
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by bobdevnul View Post
    I don't give a flying fig about Gbps speed for now. It's not going to make my phone conversations any more interesting or make my HD video streams look any better. Speed testing is not my hobby.
    It's not really about speed it's about capacity.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    4,324
    Feedback Score
    0
    It's starting. I just saw a Verizon ad on TV for 5G Ultra Wide. Vz wants us to know that they are the first to 5G, and so they should.

    Being first means nothing to me. Being the best value and available in my neighborhood will mean something. Vz is unlikely to go 5G Ultra Wide here since they have FIOS here and it is not a major metro area even in town. Will see what AT&T and T-Mo do for fixed wireless in the coming months. I sure would like to kick Cox cable to the curb.

    Where is Sprint? Hello, hello, hello, Bueller, Bueller, Bueller? I will answer my own question. Sprint is circling the bowl about to be flushed. Too bad. I like Sprint.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    4,324
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hagar View Post
    It's not really about speed it's about capacity.
    Exactly! I should have said as well that I care a lot about capacity. I want to see fixed wireless become common all around the country and they can't do that without capacity. I want competition to put a big hurt on the cable companies for their decades of arrogance and price gouging.

    It would also be nice if my Verizon data didn't slow to a crawl during what I guess is congestion.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    385
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hagar View Post
    There is no extra expense they already bought the spectrum as well as a ton of 39 GHz. you are suggesting they don't use it Where is the sense in that? I'm not sure what point you are even trying to make. You think t-Mobile's 5G over 600 MHz is going to be more spectral efficient?
    I think they really should have evaluated what they were getting at said price, before jumping on board. Always a good idea to step back and look at the larger picture.

    5G has the same issues LTE had when it came out. Everyone on different frequencies means no antenna or device sharing. 3x as much equipment needed everywhere. That has to be solved first.

    It reminds me so much of LTE vs WiMax, when all that went on. Different technology on different frequencies.

    The 600MHz, will at least have better range and building penetration. It will be interesting to see how they plan to compensate the channel width and spacing, since it seems incapable of providing actual 5G speeds.

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Aug/SEPT 3G Speed Test Thread
    By ROLLTIDE in forum AT&T
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 09-23-2008, 10:13 PM
  2. June ATT Speed Test thread
    By ROLLTIDE in forum AT&T
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 08-28-2008, 11:27 PM
  3. Alltel June speed test thread
    By ROLLTIDE in forum ALLTEL
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 07-29-2008, 09:00 AM
  4. Alltel Speed Test thread for May
    By ROLLTIDE in forum ALLTEL
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 05-30-2008, 06:22 PM

Bookmarks