Slashdot Mirror
5G Network Speed Defined As 20 Gbps By the International Telecommunication Union
An anonymous reader writes with a report at Mobipicker (linking to a Korea Times story) that a 12-member committee from the International Telecommunication Union has hashed out a formal definition of the speed requirements for 5G mobile networking; the result has been designated IMT-2020, and it specifies that 5G networks should provide data speeds of up to 20Gbps -- 20 times faster than 4G. From the Korea Times story: The 5G network will also have a capacity to provide more than 100 megabits-per-second average data transmission to over one million Internet of Things devices within 1 square kilometer. Video content services, including ones that use holography technology, will also be available thanks to the expanded data transmit capacity, the ministry said. ... The union also decided to target commercializing the 5G network worldwide by 2020. To do so, it will start receiving applications for technology which can be candidates to become the standard for the new network. Consequently, the 2018 PyeongChang Winter Olympic Games will be the world's first international event to showcase and demonstrate 5G technology.
so, fast enough to exhaust my data plan in 100ms.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
5g will actually be around 2-3Gbps in every day use then. I wonder when companies in the USA will pull their heads outta their asses and we will have an infrastructure nearly as good as the top half of developed countries.
Lies, damn lies and marketing
Exciting technology, but whenever I read these stories part of me also thinks it will be interesting to see if any notable increases in cancers start showing up with the tremendous increase in very high-powered RF that this will see deployed en-masse to support this. Especially as previous stories have noted the proposed use of millimeter-wave bands or other 'very high power' spectrum. Sure, we think it's safe now, but people thought smoking was safe for many years until we knew that it wasn't.
I just get so sick of marketing speak. "Up to" could mean anything here -- setting an upper limit of 20gbps is useless. Tell me what the average speed I can expect will be, at least then I can have some idea what I'll actually get.
"Up To" is a weasel word/expression. It doesn't actually mean anything, or at least nothing useful to the consumer. It means marketing can claim pretty much whatever they like. I can have a store with thousands of items, with a single item that is 90% off, and I can truthfully say that my products are "up to 90% off." A carrier can offer terrible data speed accept for a customer standing right next to one of their towers and marketing can still truthfully say "up to 20 Gbps." It's only meaningful/useful if it's "At Least..." instead of "Up To..."
But then a competitor would only have to find one place, anywhere, just on the outer edge of a carrier's range, where the data connection is intermittent, dipping under 20 Gbps, then the competitor could show that the carrier does not offer at least 20 Gbps.
5G as accelerating at 19.0303 metres per second per second
My 4G only delivers about 3-5Mbps, if and when it works at all.
My 3G fallback is less than 1Mbps.
5G... Yea, right. For only $20 more per month!
Cell company cap causes you to run on overcharge before you can pull your finger out of your own ass.
ITU jumped way too far with 4G, speccing out 1Gbit down and 500Gbit up at a time when 4Mbps down and 2Mbps up was pretty good. So this is more of the same... we're in the 50Mbps down and 20Mbps up range so they jump to 20 Gbps. I did just do a speedtest in Austin on Verizon LTE and got 18 Mbps down and 4 Mbps up, but I'm indoors and don't have great signal.
I don't think anyone other than technical press cares about what ITU thinks any more. The carriers certainly don't. Their 5G will probably something in the range of 200-500 Mbps down and 100-200 Mbps up, which I'm totally fine with them calling 5G. An order of magnitude bump easily gets a G moniker in my world.
Well, it's not a fucking requirement then, is it? A standard needs to specify a MINIMUM.
So what protocols at this point are even candidates?
enables all kinds of cool theora to be applied.
I'd prefer cooler vp8 or even cooler vp9 because they soundly beat theora in rate/distortion.
(Did you mean "theorems"?)
I rather suspect that the "up to 20 Gbps" is not for one user, but for all users served by a single cell tower. At that, it may be oversubscribed – the Internet of Things example they give would require 100,000 Gbps bandwidth (for the IoT devices alone) if all of the IoT devices simultaneously demanded the 100 Mbps "average". If the total bandwidth is 20 Gbps and only 1 in 5000 (or fewer) IoT devices are talking at one time, it starts to make more sense.
Simple maths, really.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Bwahahahaaha no freaking way they get this figured out in 5 years. my entire town only has about 2gbps of backhaul to it
the fiber isp here offering 50/50mbps service only has a 500mbps link to the net
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
Being that you can already stream 4k video in under 20Mbps per second (1000x slower than 5g). Maybe they should be concentrating more on the fact that people are paying $10 per gig of data per month.
Hope the standard doesn't cave to pressure as when 4G was deployed.
Let's not do this again with 5G
I am perfectly fine with someone defining minimum speeds for certain tiers of service. Not that any of them have to be constant, but at least don't sell me a line of BS about what typical occurs vs what rarely if ever occurs. Cellular data seems to be the most at blame for promising speeds and not delivering. Cable broadband is fairly good at providing decent advertised speeds even in peak times. They don't over promise based on technology they don't have. 3G was terrible, 4G was good but sporadic coverage for some time. Mainly in big cities, its more widespread now. 5G will no doubt be another milestone but again will take time to be everywhere.
I personally think a network has to provide at least 75% network coverage to claim a certain speed. Otherwise you must define it as limited coverage.
How many bloody G's are there?
It doesn't matter WHAT the spec is. Companies will just release whatever the hell they want, with whatever branding they want, and the spec will just be changed to match what the companies are selling. Just go and check the early history of 4G "spec", what the carriers listed as "4G" (because it had to be a number higher than 3G, regardless of what the spec said), and then the spec organization backpedaled to match what the carriers where using in their BS marking.
video on my phone can be 240p and it looks fine. 480p looks like high def to me (I'm old, sue me). Compressed 480p video with 128kbps audio is generally 5 megabytes a minute. What I"m getting at is that these networks are looking like they'll have the capacity to do away with caps. Now if we can just get enough people to believe that and demand their government do something about that. Not sure about Europe but here in America there's so much anti-gov't sentiment that might never happen :(.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
This doesn't pass the smell test. 20Gbps seems way too fast for wireless when wired (or fibered) 10Gpbs switch ports and NICs are so expensive. For example, this 10Gbps NIC is over $400: http://www.newegg.com/Product/...
I must be missing something here...
What is with the latest trends to require such massive jumps in new standards? Didn't we have a similar problem with 4G and then companies not being able to meet the standard?
This is wireless. More speed in the same bandwidth is a really difficult problem to solve. More bandwidth is a really expensive problem to solve in existing frequencies. Different frequencies is a really difficult problem to solve.
Why not have 5G be twice 4G, or even 4x 4G? Why the huge jump?
That will mean that Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and U.S. Cellular will all tout to having 5G* without modifying their networks at all.
(Hey, it says "up to" not "minimum" 20Gbps.
Don't worry, they'll be sure to either quietly reduce this requirement, or to approve a 5G-USA spec that will allow telecoms to provide terrible speeds.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
and get 3G working properly...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
capacity to provide more than 100 megabits-per-second average data transmission to over one million Internet of Things devices within 1 square kilometer
gotta keep the distances short
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars