@aangoveplumb provides some info on the upcoming 5G network:
@aangoveplumb provides some info on the upcoming 5G network:
I note that the article talked about 10 Gb speeds of 5G (it’s capability) vs the NBN speed plans rather than NBN capability. Fibre has the capability of about 3.2 Tb/s transfer of data currently single strand. Sure FTTC G.Fast is capable of about 1 Gbps but this is the poor man’s best option of when FTTP is not being provided. Singapore already has 10 Gbps plans over fibre from $189.00 per month with their 2 Gbps plans costing around in their dollar currency $69.90 per month and 1 Gbps at $54.90 per month. Korea, Japan and others are moving in the same direction.
The article then says that the 10 Gbps won’t be expected for some time nor may it ever get to that speed. The article perhaps appears tilted in 5G favour and while it will provide very welcome relief to those suffering the poorer NBN options we have been given, the underlying strength of fibre was somewhat missed.
Just as an added note Singtel (our Optus owner) also provide with their any of their Singtel fibre plans 500 MB of 4G data a month, 2 Wifi Mesh devices for the home, 10% off mobile plans (but if you join as a family under their Circle plan 30% off a month on mobile plans)…where’s mine I ask
I’m sure I’ve stated this elsewhere in discussions about ‘mobile taking over’, but you canna break the laws of physics, Jim.
A physical connection will always be able to carry more data than airwaves, especially when you consider all the limitations of the latter (some wavelengths are stopped by buildings or windows, most are already used for other purposes, as soon as you get a few users connecting to the same station they are competing for the bandwidth etc.).
5G will have a place, but cannot compete with a decent fibre-optic solution. Oh, wait - we don’t have that either!
WA farmers are fed up with waiting for fibre or wireless so are doing something themselves.
A US telco states the obvious:
This article asks some significant questions about 5G.
“If 5G Is So Important, Why Isn’t It Secure?”
… 5G cellular relays will have to be installed inside buildings and on every city block, at least. Cell relays mounted on thirteen million utility poles, for example, will deliver 5G speeds to just over half of the American population, and cost around four hundred billion dollars …
Paired with facial recognition and artificial intelligence, the data streams and location capabilities of 5G will make anonymity a historical artifact.
In China, which has installed three hundred and fifty thousand 5G relays—…—enhanced geolocation coupled with an expansive network of surveillance cameras, each equipped with facial-recognition technology, have enabled authorities to track and subordinate the country’s eleven million Uighur Muslims.
Given the source, a grain of salt (or several) might be in order. The 5G apocalypse is upon us, it seems:
And, of course, there are downsides to needing so many cells:
So… isn’t that just part of capitalism? You pay for the land that you’re using. They’re supposed to pay for access to the bandwidth, why not the land?
One would have thought that electricity companies would similarly be paying market rates for the crown land upon which their poles are sited. The whole point of privatisation is ‘the market does stuff better’ - so why are taxpayers effectively subsidising these companies?
Looks like a money grab to me. I wont ever be able to afford 5G and whats more, I probably wont want to.
A system in transition?
Once upon a time,
All our services and utilities were public owned assets. They ran across, through and under crown land, down roads, under footpaths and through our properties. Generally the crown has reserved rights to dig up, cross or plant stuff where ever it needs or chooses.
Goldilocks came along full of enterprise and ambition. Governments divested ownership of most of these responsibilities to corporations, some public listed, some government corporations pretending to be private entities.
So what was once publicly owned and made use of public land (as well as private land at zero cost - EG easements) is now profit making.
Access rights will only become more complex.
It’s a slippery slope thinking of charging any utility or essential service provider for their piece of dirt. Even it is assessed only on where the service breaks the surface the rent due for every sewer access, electricity pad mount substation, etc will make the lease costs for each 5G small cell site trivial in comparison?
It’s no surprise there was a successful legal challenge to the Qld State Govt attempt to apply commercial market rates to leases of crown land used for mobile communications towers.
In transition to what? We had systems that worked. Then some treacherous manics decided to “fix” them.
But… but the private sector is always much more efficient! That’s what all the Chicago-school economists have been preaching for the last 50 years.
5G might not make fibre obsolete, but it could interfere with other things. Another reminder that spectrum is a limited resource.
We answer some 5G FAQs:
OOKLA offer some insights into 5G and how it is changing the Mobile Broadband landscape:
Would it be better to promote 5G in respect of total capacity per cell (GB/s) vs typical consumption per user.
While the absolute maximum connected data rates simplify marketing, the real outcome depends on the number of simultaneous connected users, the demands they are making, and the congestion or not users experience.
5G with a much smaller footprint can be much more effective in serving the customers within the cell range. That is when compared to the much greater range of 3G and 4G cells.
Apparently it works fine, if you’re near a window.
Or with a small external mounted aerial feeding a more traditional household wireless router. The latter is how most of us already access internet, even on our mobile devices. Both Telstra and Optus have offered the ability to connect mobile calls through the household network (unreliably from our past Optus experience).
The big question concerns the customer density required to make a 5G cell competitive. Perhaps if there was a fibre backbone running down every street, 5G cells could connect where ever needed. But so too could every household in the street connect to the same fibre!