Gigabit Cellular Networks Could Happen, With 24GHz Spectrum

An anonymous reader writes A Notice of Inquiry was issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on Friday that focuses research on higher frequencies for sending gigabit streams of mobile data. The inquiry specifically states that its purpose is to determine "what frequency bands above 24 GHz would be most suitable for mobile services, and to begin developing a record on mobile service rules and a licensing framework for mobile services in those bands". Cellular networks currently use frequencies between 600 MHz to 3 GHz with the most desirable frequencies under 1 GHz being owned by AT&T and Verizon Wireless. The FCC feels, however, that new technology indicates the potential for utilizing higher frequency ranges not necessarily as a replacement but as the implementation necessary to finally usher in 5G wireless technology. The FCC anticipates the advent of 5G commercial offerings within six years.

Comments

Who wants a gigabit cellular network?

[BigButra]

All a gigabit cellular network would do is give you the ability to hit your data limit in less than a minute. I would prefer to take time to savor the precious data I've paid through the nose for and my provider has so thoughtfully allocated to me.

Re:Who wants a gigabit cellular network?

[rudy_wayne]

All a gigabit cellular network would do is give you the ability to hit your data limit in less than a minute.

Exactly. And you'll get the privledge of paying more for the faster speed, too.

Re: Who wants a gigabit cellular network?

[rudy_wayne]

Gotta love unlimited data!

Right.

And after one minute of usage, when you've exceeded your allocation of "unlimited" data, your speed will be throttled. So what's the point.

Re: Who wants a gigabit cellular network?

[AvitarX]

I break 10gb pretty regularly with tmobile .seems pretty unlimited .

Re:Who wants a gigabit cellular network?

[hawguy]

All a gigabit cellular network would do is give you the ability to hit your data limit in less than a minute. I would prefer to take time to savor the precious data I've paid through the nose for and my provider has so thoughtfully allocated to me.

Well. I guess that's one way to take a shit on technology before it even materializes.

And I thought I was a pessimist.

Oh, and by the way, anytime people want to start actually enforcing these things called anti-monopoly laws so you might have a fucking choice in the matter ...

As long as the current duopolies keep feeding legislators with money, there's not going to be any real anti-trust enforcement.

Re:Who wants a gigabit cellular network?

[roccomaglio]

I believe you are missing the point. Verizon and AT&T will not be building out the last mile any more. Supporting the last mile is expensive and they can cover that will cell towers. This will replace the line to your house. This will have implications on Net Neutrality, since in mobile they cap the data and charge companies to not count against the cap.

Water frequency interference

[times05]

When I was in the army my job was Satellite Communications. Long ago I was told that frequencies around 24Ghz are highly susceptible to interference by water such as rain and fog. So those spectra were considered to be too unreliable for communication. I never bothered to to check outside though.

Re:Water frequency interference

[schnell]

You're correct. The wavelength of Ka-band frequencies (26-40 GHz) happens to line up nicely with the size of a raindrop in flight. That leads to more atmospheric signal attenuation, but isn't necessarily a deal-breaker; it just means you need a bigger dish to receive it and a more powerful transmitter for the return channel. (The new generation of high-speed satellite Internet services all use Ka band, despite the "rain fade" issues, because the higher frequency enables higher data rates.) In the past, the satellite industry tended to rely on lower frequency bands (such as Ku and C) to save costs on dish/transmitter size because of this concern.

For a cellular service where you're looking laterally at a tower instead of straight up into the sky, the weather issue should be less of a big deal. However, you should note that any frequency that high up will have a very very hard time penetrating indoors through anything thicker than a single-pane window. So expect that this will be used for fixed home Internet applications where a receiver can be permanently mounted outdoors or near a window, rather than traditional cellphone usage that can happen anywhere you go indoors or outdoors.

too much multi pathing at that frequency

[Obscene_CNN]

There will be too much multi pathing at that frequency. At that high of a frequency the signals bounce off objects instead of penetrating through them. This means that you will need clear line of sight to the cell tower for it to work. Leaves , rain, fog, snow etc will block the signal.

Re:too much multi pathing at that frequency

[Buck Feta]

That was true 5 years ago, but MIMO antennas actually benefit from multipath.

Re:too much multi pathing at that frequency

[__aaltlg1547]

There is no kind of antenna nor any RF signal that is improved by multipath. What MIMO antennas are supposed to do is reduce the detrimental effects of multipath fading.

Range?

[danknight48]

Cellular networks currently use frequencies between 600 MHz to 3 GHz with the most desirable frequencies under 1 GHz

Mostly because the wavelength and potential range at 600-3000MHz(UHF) is greater than those at 24ghz (SHF).

http://patentimages.storage.go...

Longer wavelength, longer range. Rocket science.