Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

nycdevil t1_iqmmgzl wrote

JC was one of the first, which is why we got millimeter wave coverage, which is super fast but doesn't go through buildings. Look at a lot of the DTJC streets, for instance.

Later phases use mid-band spectrum, which isn't quite as fast but has much more range.

16

jerseyboiii t1_iqmp7il wrote

Great explanation but that seems like a basically useless technology

8

nycdevil t1_iqmpm9n wrote

Getting a 2-gigabit connection on the streets of dense urban areas and in large stadiums and arenas is useful.

5

HappyArtichoke7729 t1_iqmx7ng wrote

Useful for what exactly? Streaming 63 high def videos at the same time while you're walking on the sidewalk?

12

nycdevil t1_iqn2mbz wrote

Useful for much right now other than general speed and responsiveness? Probably not. But you don't build new network infrastructure for today's needs, you do it for tomorrow's.

3

HappyArtichoke7729 t1_iqn4f2i wrote

I agree, but most needs are tied to a building, not sidewalk or roadway use.

I absolutely agree with you, and think we need MUNICIPAL GIGABIT FIBER that competes with private cable companies. And landlords aren't allowed to disallow tenants from choosing their wired internet utility provider (for cable company kickbacks).

3

nycdevil t1_iqn5fxm wrote

I mean, streaming bidirectional AR content running on edge servers would be a good mobile use case that would probably need that sort of latency and bandwidth eventually in a mobile environment.

−1

HappyArtichoke7729 t1_iqn8bt1 wrote

5G doesn't get better latency than 4G --- only better bandwidth, at the expense of worse / weaker signal.

2

nycdevil t1_iqna5rq wrote

Doesn't get better latency currently; theoretically, it can cut latency to single-digit milliseconds to the edge.

1

gearheadsub92 t1_iqmq2zb wrote

Are they still touting 5G hotspot connections for home internet use though? Because learning this makes those seem like competing goals.

2

nycdevil t1_iqmr09i wrote

Probably more of a good idea for suburban environments to prevent them from having to wire fiber to each house. Running a fiber cable to a dense 400-unit building is a lot more cost-effective.

That said, there have been millimeter-wave high-speed point-to-point internet services at commercial buildings in NY and Chicago for years. Just need to put the antenna on a tall building and point it at other buildings.

3

KustyTheKlown t1_iqmuzwq wrote

especially since most poeple will be on wifi in their homes or place of work

1

pixel_of_moral_decay t1_iqpjmkz wrote

Well for one, it's terrible going through structure. It's bad at getting through thin wood framed construction, way worse with steel/glass and masonry which is common in JC. So even if they put the infrastructure in, and they'd have to put way more per square mile here than anywhere else, most people still can't use it unless they stand outside.

Secondly: Internet speeds are mostly a thing to make it easier for sales people to get gullible people to spend more money. Most CDN's limit anyone's connection to websites and services they host to 100Mbps by default, 500Mbps for a few premium services (and I can think of only a handful of things that actually do that). That's not just to control cost, it's the most rudimentary DDoS protection. Nobody needs more than that, so why bother even trying. 95% of what most people do in a day goes through one of the top 10 CDN's.

The highest bitrate 4k stream is about 50Mbps. For commercial services you can just freely subscribe to with a credit card it's 20Mbps (Disney+ I believe is the highest right now with 4k HDR). Even if a dozen people streamed in 4k @ 50Mbps, you're talking 600Mbps + 25% overhead for fun is still 725Mbps.. You're not even at a gigabit, and realistically no household is doing that.

Beyond that, services like Kaleidescape download passively overnight, but I'd bet nobody who's got Kaleidescape is using residential broadband, they've got business service with a proper SLA. So even on the high end: you don't need more than 500Mbps.

But sales people at every ISP now ask how many devices you own, and greater than 5-6 is going to recommend gigabit minimum.

That's where the money is. Convincing people who don't math good to spend more than they need. Do that over a few million customers, and you've got a perfectly legal high margin business.

There's no law requiring them to help you not overspend. These sales tactics are 100% legal and by the books.

1

Xciv t1_iqn13ol wrote

Oh is this why I can't get a phone signal when I'm in JC Medical Center?

2

mmmmyah OP t1_iqn5j74 wrote

u/nycdevil Yeah it's kinda disappointing to see JC as a 5G UW desert compared to Bayonne, Harrison and Newark

Either mid band or mmWave would be great.. I'll take midband until they get around mmWave..

----- From the Verizon 5G FAQ ---------------------------------------------------------------

Can all 5G devices work in 5G Ultra Wideband areas shown on the map?

5G Ultra Wideband uses two types of 5G spectrum (high-band and mid-band). Not all 5G devices are compatible with both high-band and mid-band and some devices may require software updates to be fully compatible. Check your device’s network compatibility.

The technical specs are as follows: devices supporting n77 (C-band), and n260 and n261 (mmWave) bands will have access to all of our 5G Ultra Wideband network.

---

1

nycdevil t1_iqn64he wrote

It's not a desert, there's mm wave all over DTJC, it just doesn't look like it on the map because the range is so limited around tall buildings.

1

mmmmyah OP t1_iqndk0r wrote

Yeah urban canyon effect plus mmWave - but I don't see the same issue with their Manhattan coverage... we should at least have their C-band coverage everywhere if not mmWave

1