The final 5G technical performance specs have been set The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) has published a draft of what it expected to become the final 5G specification. The significance of “Draft new Report ITU-R M.[IMT-2020.TECH PERF REQ] - Minimum requirements related to technical performance for IMT-2020 radio interface(s)” is that “IMT-2020” is the offical name …
1 million devices per 1km2? Yeah, right, for what situation? Mecca.
For the people that think this is the "holy grail", we no longer need pure Fibre rollout, understand that every 5G Mobile Masts needs/uses a fibre backhaul/microware link to Fibre backhaul, and you need a lot of 5G masts to get that sort of throughput to that many devices.
5G is the standard used between the mobile device and the mast. Pure Fibre rollout FTTP would make much of the cost of this, especially rurally, a lot cheaper to implement per customer.
London? Any major city.
A single tall office block could have several tens of thousands of devices in it, and occupy, what? 200m x 200m footprint?
And mobile wireless is NOWHERE NEAR capable of replacing hard-cabled connections, and likely won't be.
A fibre can do 100Gb today, now. Wireless radio technology of any kind can't even get close to that. Entirely different use cases, point-to-point versus multi-point time-sliced broadcast.
Even if it worked for now, it will be obsolete before you can mention it.
Even the USO is now 30Mbps instead of 10Mbps, and we never even got to the point where everyone had 10Mbps. The goalposts will keep moving, and radio technologies will always lag. Especially as, past a certain point, using radio waves of any frequency just aren't practical - we're already struggling with the frequency/wavelength -> signal penetration trade-off.
Peak is a meaningless metric.
As is "up to".
4G or 3G can easily be "up to" 20Mbps, or even 100Mbps for 4G. It's meaningless.
You'd need ten times mast density to achieve these specs, non-LOS, at which point 3G or 4G would deliver it.
Where do you find 100MHz per channel (minimum 300MHz cellular) below 3GHz (above 2.6GHz is no use for mobile outside an office), especially with regulators wanting to sell to multiple operators instead of a RAN?
This will make almost no difference in the real world, because in the real world the mast density and having a single wholesale operator for mobile is more important than which "G" it is.
The 5G is more usefully about infrastructure and backend. Obviously, though the driving factor is desire of infrastructure companies to sell upgrades and regulators to sell more spectrum. No more spectrum is needed. Mobile has a disproportional amount already scheduled. The 800, 900, 1800, 2100, 2500 are already misused and could deliver 20x more speed and capacity on average by a combination of more masts and a single wholesale operator per land mass.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
