Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Ellemshaye t1_j1zntzv wrote

5G in my area is painfully slow, it would be super to get that up to speed first.

96

xal1124 t1_j1zou5k wrote

If that’s consistent you could try setting your phone to LTE only. Is it slow only when the symbol shows 5G UW?

19

kazr99 t1_j20fdhe wrote

LTE is slow now too :/

15

xal1124 t1_j20fk4d wrote

Strange. I consistently get over 100Mbps on LTE in the city. Maybe there is bad coverage on your carrier where you are. Check Open Signal to see if you’re in the ideal carrier. Are you on an MVNO like Metro or Cricket?

8

ben7337 t1_j212b9u wrote

It's more likely they just lack either spectrum and/or backhaul to the tower where they are. For example, TMobile in many areas has only 1gbps to many towers despite sharing that spectrum across 3 or even 4 sets of panels. Where I am, the spectrum itself could easily support 1.5-2Gbps or more per sector on the tower, but they'd need at least 10Gbps to allow each sector to max out the deployed spectrum.

4

xal1124 t1_j215sti wrote

That’s true. Time of day is a huge factor.

2

drmcsinister t1_j2196mt wrote

FYI, not all 5G is the same. AT&T is among the worst. I switched carriers and noticed a huge improvement. Plus, by it's nature, you get better 5G performance in urban settings with multiple signal paths and in areas not buried under/behind concrete.

7

xal1124 t1_j21nim6 wrote

I think each carrier has regions with better throughput than the others.

1

North-One8187 t1_j22isws wrote

I’m using tmobiles 5G UC and am almost always getting over 200 mbps

2

SparkStormrider t1_j23uvm7 wrote

I know right? Doesn't matter what new wireless speed they pursue, if the connections are over saturated or they have a small pipe back hauling to the internet people are going to get craptastic speeds. She should be addressing the over saturated connections and any bottlenecks in back hauls so that when 6G or whatever new wireless speeds are implemented that it's a better experience for anyone and everyone connected.

2

alpacagrenade t1_j1ztmrb wrote

I’m in this field. This might have been novel a decade and a half ago. This particular research group also has a history of sending grad students/postdocs to U.S. universities to scoop ongoing research, crudely duplicate it in China, and publish it first (at a lower quality).

53

Matt_Tress t1_j20j8ys wrote

Which research group is this?

5

alpacagrenade t1_j20qw5h wrote

Specifically Southeast Nanjing's metamaterials group. Anything affiliated with them I scrutinize more. Which is not to say their work should be automatically dismissed, but diligence is required. The book Spy Schools has an entire chapter on one of their most infamous examples, which happened ~2006-2007-ish.

23

Matt_Tress t1_j25qnpz wrote

Would you mind if I DM you? Wanna know more about this

1

yeehah t1_j1zw943 wrote

I'm sorry but I can't get past the title. "Novel" means "new in an interesting way," so it's saying a new, new antenna. That is repetitive and rendundant.

27

GoldWallpaper t1_j200kmc wrote

Ditto. No decent writer would put those words together.

And for those who don't understand writing and are happy with high-school-level journalism like /u/SirRockalotTDS: Part of proper stylistic writing is concision; the word "new" in the title is extraneous and, yes, redundant.

And if your headline is that poor, what kind of illiterate would continue reading? I guess we've found out!

10

SirRockalotTDS t1_j25kzmk wrote

Personal insults aside, how do you read any reddit posts at all with standards like that?

Refering to anything outside of implemented infrastructure as novel and discribing this particular example as new because it's new is completely out of the question? There is absolutely no place for that in the English lauage? So dispicable that any self respecting person wouldnt even be caught in the comment section?

1

SirRockalotTDS t1_j1zyte0 wrote

Poor darling. Webster's 2nd definition is "original or striking in concept or style" doesn't use the word new! Semantic crisis that never happend is over! Now you should be able to get past the title and read the article now.

−5

yeehah t1_j206hti wrote

Update: I took your sage advice and read the article, only to find that the rest of it is also poorly written. It's mostly technobabble that reads like a sales brochure for potential investors.

3

SirRockalotTDS t1_j25llch wrote

Welcome to reddit. The forum where well written technical articles are as common as pots of gold under rainbows, titles are made up, and the points don't matter.

2

PrandialSpork t1_j20vrhh wrote

Now you should be able to get past the title and read the article now.

I can see why the tautology isn't a problem for you

2

ersatzgiraffe t1_j1yvuui wrote

What if I told you they can add a number in front of the G any time they want to sell you slightly different shit?

26

itsme10082005 t1_j1zngts wrote

What if I told you that they make slightly different shit all the time and adding a new number to the G generally means it’s a significant change and not “slightly different shit”?

15

dZeppETH t1_j1zritu wrote

What if I told you that you have no idea what you’re talking about?

9

dZeppETH t1_j20idgn wrote

ATT did 5Ge which is not the same as 5G. Did it confuse consumers? Yes. Does all tech confuse consumers? Also, yes.

2

joeyjiggle t1_j1ywo65 wrote

Marketing people will, and have done so. Engineers won’t. I fail to see any point to your comment.

5

xal1124 t1_j1zm2il wrote

What is the slight difference between 4G and 5G?

4

Jyith t1_j208pld wrote

Literally just different frequencies. Multiple different frequencies from "both ends" and the "middle". We've been utilizing these frequencies for other things previously, but with 5G they've specifically started utilizing them for mobile networks.

The low-band 5G is close to 4G in every aspect - including speeds.

Mid-band 5G offers faster speeds in the hundreds of Mb's but has various downsides, like crappy range and getting blocked by thick walls etc.

High-band 5G or "the gigabit internet" is like mid-band on crack. Extremely high speeds, but absolutely lousy range and penetration. The idea on the implementation is more like high-range WiFi than an actual cellular network: antennas on top of every house in dense urban areas.

6G would likely utilize same frequencies as high-band 5G and then up from there, which makes one question how they are going to make it viable. The whole article seems to me like an excerpt from some 10-year-old's sci-fi book, with terms like "space-time coding" and "sideband-free metasurface antenna", but I'm not an expert so I'm not going beyond anything but healthy skepticism.

5

xal1124 t1_j20bk72 wrote

5G only adds different frequencies?

0

Jyith t1_j20d6kb wrote

Well, it's a simplification, but yes. All different generations are just different frequencies. And the borders between them are mostly arbitrary.

The G after the number just means "generation", by the way (5G being the 5th generation of telecommunication networks).

There are international groups that declare the "official" criteria for every generation, and seems that usually they are just expansions on the frequencies of the previous generation - with some speed, latency, bandwidth and coverage requirements tacked on top.

2

xal1124 t1_j20f02z wrote

Why are there huge changes to the core network and to the physical layer between 4G and 5G then? Aside from some changes to support millimeter wave, the difference should be minimal, if you are correct.

1

Jyith t1_j20iiws wrote

Because of the frequency? Obviously, if the range of even the mid-band 5G is a fraction of 4G, you need to build a lot more cell towers. And you know where that 4G, 5G and future 6G data travels the majority of the time? In the same fiber-optic cables as everything else. Operators need to build the cables all the way up to the 5G towers. And as far as I'm aware, the 5G towers don't generally communicate with each other.

Also, the core network needs to be fast enough to accommodate increased traffic. More undersea cables between continents, more underground cables within countries.

So no, the difference in infrastructure is obviously not minimal.

There are probably tons more nuances. Like I said, I'm not an expert.

1

nicuramar t1_j21l7nt wrote

No. There are other changes as well.

0

xal1124 t1_j21m983 wrote

It was more rhetorical. But I think marketing has really created jaded consumers.

0

nicuramar t1_j21l4be wrote

> Literally just different frequencies.

There are many more changes than that. But it’s true that 5G NR uses the same overall modulation scheme as LTE.

0

Jyith t1_j21mgv7 wrote

Yes, changes that were required due to the different frequencies mainly.

1

nicuramar t1_j21mrul wrote

No, in general 5G NR is an evolution of LTE, with improvements in many areas (such as latency and flexibility). Most are just too technical to make sense in marketing.

2

Jyith t1_j21n6hu wrote

I said mainly, not completely.

1

xal1124 t1_j21ndhz wrote

The changes were required for decreased latency, less time required on the network for power saving, bandwidth agility to support less capable power-conscious devices, and increased performance by making more efficient use of the available bandwidth. Many improvements were made to support higher frequencies of course, and the ability for the core network to effectively load-balance is essential for supporting the throughput requirements of the higher bandwidths.

1

ersatzgiraffe t1_j1zuz58 wrote

In my experience a minor speed improvement for a major range reduction. Speed was already good enough.

4

xal1124 t1_j1zvuik wrote

Yeah, LTE speed is very good, but it’s not easily expandable. To get very high speeds you have to connect to several towers or be very close to one with a high bandwidth. And, with increased bandwidth, higher resolution video, and more downloads and uploads will be supported. There are new applications that would saturate LTE infrastructure. Also, 5G is used for home internet service, which requires much more data volume than mobile devices do.

Edit: Additionally, 5G deployed in current LTE bands will only show a minor speed improvement, especially when only connected to one cell. It’s still confined to the limits of physics.

6

desertsardine t1_j1zydsi wrote

Latency, throughput etc… actually loads of improvements but the major benefits are to enterprises not consumers at the moment

2

xal1124 t1_j1zz928 wrote

I wouldn’t really consider the difference to be slight. That said, it’s easy to get lost in the hype, which can easily overshadow the important parts.

1

charlieebe t1_j204cny wrote

But 5G still sucks lol maybe let’s work on that for a bit?

6

xal1124 t1_j206s2w wrote

It’s definitely still being worked on. New generation development starts 10 years in advance.

4

pixelwarB t1_j1zmz9k wrote

Gonne need to reintroduce a new virus by then so that they can implant us with 6G

5

theStaircaseProject t1_j1znmei wrote

Crunch time for all the devs working COVID-20.

7

Jyith t1_j209i17 wrote

Well, they are way past due date, as 2020 came and went. It'd have to be COVID-23 by this point.

4

theStaircaseProject t1_j20ey7q wrote

They’re using the Madden-style namespace? I’m not sure what exactly that explains, but I feel like that explains a lot.

1

Jyith t1_j20f79m wrote

COVID-19 was named after the year it was found, which was 2019. Even though it took until 2020 to become an actual pandemic.

2

OddConsideration2210 t1_j1zbo2j wrote

How about try to improve the 4G infrastructure.

4

xal1124 t1_j1zm170 wrote

That’s what 5G is doing.

3

Cryptolution t1_j1zqy5z wrote

Not really. It's a different band with a wider spectrum but less bandwidth over distance.

So it's adding additional layers on top of 4g but not improving it. 4g improvement means more 4g hardware deployment.

4

xal1124 t1_j1zrr5c wrote

That’s a very simplistic way of looking at it. The entire network architecture has been changed with 5G. Aside from the millimeter wave bands, most of the rest are compatible with LTE. 5G also brings many enhancements like power saving, decreased latency, and support for massive IoT.

4

Cryptolution t1_j1zs49z wrote

Yes most future tech has legacy bridges built in, so I suppose you would be correct in the sense that 5g deployment brings additional 4g coverage.

−1

xal1124 t1_j1zt6zw wrote

There are evolutionary cellular technologies. The intention is to shift away from 4G over the next 5-10 years. The same thing happened with 3G. You should think in terms of overall cellular coverage. As it is, a 5G-capable phone can simultaneously transmit and receive on 4G and 5G cells, so it’s literally an expansion of current 4G service.

1

whyreadthis2035 t1_j21lnec wrote

We haven’t even seen 5Gs magic…. Hey look! 6G!

4

xal1124 t1_j21npvj wrote

6G is just in the research phase at the moment. It takes a very long time to come to consensus on what the next technology should look like. You’re talking about every cellular provider, every base station manufacturer, every government, and every cell phone and cell phone chipset manufacturer agreeing. It’s intense.

1

whyreadthis2035 t1_j21o3w2 wrote

Yes. I’m and I wasn’t really fair. This is r/technology. So I should have just scrolled on. I’m aware of all those hurdles, by have no interest in 6G. I’m 56. Based on the 3G - almost 5G timeline, I’ll be retired before 6G is a thing.

1

xal1124 t1_j21oxli wrote

Haha. And I’m familiar with the field and I still set my phone to LTE only sometimes. Growing pains are real.

2

itstommygun t1_j1zz3kk wrote

FYI, novel = new.

Edit: oh wow, that was what the article was titled. Terrible editing then.

3

Next-Engine2148 t1_j21njvf wrote

I still don't see a big difference from 4g to 5g in the LA area.

3

kkirv t1_j20584i wrote

We just got 5g. Can we wait for a few years at least?

1

xal1124 t1_j206ukc wrote

New generation development starts 10 years in advance. 5G is still being worked on.

2

kkirv t1_j20cg8z wrote

Ah, okay. I like 10 years.

1

mikess314 t1_j20nrwp wrote

And Reddit gifs still won’t play unless I’m on Wi-Fi.

1

porkchop_d_clown t1_j20y6h8 wrote

“A new novel antenna”? That headline was written by the department of redundancy department.

1

sids99 t1_j21lisq wrote

Will 6G need an antenna every two feet? What a joke.

1

Paradox68 t1_j220idj wrote

Can’t wait for our kids to be using 42G

1

asked2manyquestions t1_j22b0v2 wrote

Geesh, just as I was starting to be really disappointed in 5G, now I’m going to have to upgrade so I can get another technology disappointment.

1

themagicbong t1_j22dj01 wrote

Lol where I live, I'm still excited when my phone somehow manages to pick up a 3g signal and I go from just having g two bars of zero g to 3g and maybe could even listen to a song, maybe.

1

wesg89 t1_j22jp1h wrote

Man I just want 5g that don’t suck ass

1

geekaustin_777 t1_j22ksr2 wrote

Great, I need a COVID-20 vaccine now.

1

ansaonapostcard t1_j22r4r8 wrote

Prepare for the crazies losing their shit!

1

CastleNugget t1_j22utos wrote

The jumps between generations allow for more bandwidth by multiplying existing space to send more data at once. This allows finer tuning of signals to increase available channels to send data.

1

lovejo1 t1_j230w2o wrote

It's made of meta atoms...

1

DBDude t1_j24nev5 wrote

>new novel antenna

Department of redundancy department calling.

1

C_IsForCookie t1_j20i8c5 wrote

6G? Don’t wake me up for anything less than 8G.

0

sonic1992 t1_j21jll6 wrote

5G is shit.

I have way slower speeds and more spinning wheels than LTE.

WTF?

0

Okioter t1_j21ppf2 wrote

Still waiting for 4G to come out in Texas lol

−1

phantomjm t1_j20bqsr wrote

How the hell has Trump not yet fled the country?

−3

monchota t1_j20bloo wrote

Its not going to matter unless carriers actually invest in it. Your 5G is slow because they were not allowed to use Huawei equipment, that was half the cost. They had a choice, keep going and put more into it or keep the numbers promised to the investors. They chose investors and stopped talking about 5G for awhile.

−4