Slashdot Mirror


Europe Agrees To Agree With Everyone Except US What 5G Should Be

itwbennett writes: Following agreements signed by the EU with South Korea in June 2014 and with Japan in May 2015, the EU and China "have agreed to agree by the end of the year on a working definition for 5G," reports Peter Sayer. "About the only point of agreement so far is that 5G is what we'll all be building or buying after 4G, so any consensus between the EU and China could be significant," says Sayer.

164 comments

  1. Of course, this is natural. by burtosis · · Score: 5, Funny

    The United States will accept the standard when the rest of the world ditches that stupid metric system and go back to real units.

    1. Re:Of course, this is natural. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      The United States will accept the standard when the rest of the world ditches that stupid metric system and go back to real units.

      You mean European units?
      Either way, metric or imperial, the units came from Europe. The internationally standardized units are the SI units and the US is signed up to that. It is what engineers of many disciplines use since it's the standard.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    2. Re:Of course, this is natural. by myowntrueself · · Score: 5, Funny

      The United States will accept the standard when the rest of the world ditches that stupid metric system and go back to real units.

      You mean Freedom Units!

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    3. Re:Of course, this is natural. by nytes · · Score: 1, Funny

      If they weren't on the metric system, 5G would be more like 16.4G.

      Just imagine the speed!

      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
    4. Re:Of course, this is natural. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 0

      commenting to undo bad mod.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    5. Re:Of course, this is natural. by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You joke, but what really happens is the US carriers have decided "we'll call it whatever we like for marketing purposes". Which means someone comes along, defines a standard, and then US carriers co-opt the name and say "yup, we have that", when in reality they don't have that.

      This has nothing to do with metric, and everything to do with US corporations saying "Yeah, we totally have 4G", except it's not really 4G, it's some marketing term which has nothing to do with 4G.

      So, you know, stop letting your companies take the name of a specific bit of technology and say they're using it when they aren't. Then you won't have the problem of the US glaringly not running the technology they claim.

      But, apparently, part of corporate free speech is mis-representing your service to your customers.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    6. Re:Of course, this is natural. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Other than the road signs, lumber sizes (2x4s, etc.) and gun calibers, I don't know any real measurements in the US that have not moved to metric. My vehicle's engine is measured in liters, the torque I use to tighten down bolts is newton-meters, Pressure inflating air bag suspension is in PSI and kPa, and so on. Even the bottle of meth-mouth soda-pop is a 2 liter bottle, not a half gallon size.

      The US is going metric... only thing left are just road signs and eventually those will go into both miles and kilometers... hopefully dropping miles for good eventually.

    7. Re:Of course, this is natural. by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      If I were them, I'd just say fuck it and start advertising 6G services. At least that way no standards body can claim that they're wrong or lying.

    8. Re: Of course, this is natural. by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except the two "4G" technologies and marketing that don't meet the 4G standard didn't come from U.S. carriers, they came from European and Asian carriers, who then pressured ITU-R into accepting that marketing as 4G even though it didn't meet the standard.

      So, sorry to spoil your U.S. Americorp conspiracy, but we were late to the party on that bullshit.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    9. Re:Of course, this is natural. by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Gonna be hard when you have five freedoms of road to drive to nearest grocery to get two freedoms of cola.

    10. Re:Of course, this is natural. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where mass is measured in quarter pounders, distance in footlongs and time in TV episodes.

    11. Re:Of course, this is natural. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently 5G is absolutely everything in the same protocol so the US is completely free to build anything and then rubber stamp it as 5G. We all want that Watch Dogs world which some of the parts of the 5G shall provide us.

    12. Re:Of course, this is natural. by slew · · Score: 2

      Other than the road signs, lumber sizes (2x4s, etc.) and gun calibers, I don't know any real measurements in the US that have not moved to metric. My vehicle's engine is measured in liters, the torque I use to tighten down bolts is newton-meters, Pressure inflating air bag suspension is in PSI and kPa, and so on. Even the bottle of meth-mouth soda-pop is a 2 liter bottle, not a half gallon size.

      The US is going metric... only thing left are just road signs and eventually those will go into both miles and kilometers... hopefully dropping miles for good eventually.

      FWIW, the UK has something to say about those pesky road signs...

      We already tried once before ~1975, maybe we in the US should wait to see how it turns out in the UK before trying again...

      Oh yeah, gasoline just dropped under $3/gallon and it's about 65 degrees F here as I type this, so it's a bit too cold to go to the beach. Maybe I should use some frequent flier miles** I got on my last Luftansa fight to go to a real beach in Greece. Yesterday, I threw back a few pints while watching my football team pile on the yards on their opponent. To celebrate the win, we went to a steakhouse and ordered a 16oz steak, sure beats the taste of that quarter-pound burger I had yesterday. I guess it's good to know it was all a dream. Maybe I should borrow a cup of sugar and a few teaspoons of vanilla from my neighbor to make a couple dozen cookies (or even a baker's dozen) so I can sleep better tonight... Maybe I can dream about how they measure bra cup sizes in metric countries? ;^)

      ** or is that knots?

    13. Re:Of course, this is natural. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nuts and bolts, tubing, piping, etc., also seem to be a real issue. Apple has chosen to address this by gluing everything together, though personally, I find that solution lacking.

    14. Re:Of course, this is natural. by mrvan · · Score: 3, Informative

      ** or is that knots?

      My dear Sir, miles are a distance unit and knots a speed unit: a knot is a (nautical) mile per hour.

      Interestingly, while imperial miles originate in a "biometric" (roman miles were 1000 two-pace steps), nautical miles fit very well in the "geometric" spirit of the SI: a nautical mile is one minute of arc measured along any meridian, ie the distance between the poles is 180×60 = 10,800 NM. The meter was originally defined as 1/10,000 of the distance between the equator and the pole, so these definitions are quite close. Although the definition of both the NM and the m have changed a bit as they were standardized, the international definition of 1NM=1852m is pretty darn close to the expected 20,000 / 10,800 = 1851.85m.

      Note that as a European I use metric exclusively: for me, a pound is 500g and an ounce is 100g, and a cup is something I put coffee in. That is, until I step foot on a sailing boat, when suddenly the only units that makes sense are knots and miles. Metric is for landlubbers, I guess :)

    15. Re:Of course, this is natural. by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

      The United States will accept the standard when the rest of the world ditches that stupid metric system and go back to real units.

      You mean Freedom Units!

      Is THAT what we're calling F. U. these days...

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    16. Re:Of course, this is natural. by GrabbaTheButt · · Score: 1

      Can I buy weed from you? Last time I check its 28 grams to an ounce not 100

    17. Re:Of course, this is natural. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I like the Australian carriers who just make up shit to make it sound better even though it isn't.

      Case in point Telstra: 4GX The fastest 4G speeds in Australia. In reality it's just another frequency band added to their spectrum. It's still the same 4G speed.
      Better case Optus: 4G Plus. Also claims they are the fastest. Also just another band, but not to be confused with 4G+ in Korea or 4G+ in Europe which is actually different from 4G and offers double the bandwidth.

      On that note. Why would the thing after 4G be called 5G? As far as I know I already have the thing after 4G, it's called 4G+. Not a lot of phones support it and few countries have LTE-A setup but from what I can see it's faster than 4G, and thus could be considered the next thing after 4G right?

    18. Re: Of course, this is natural. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      slew,

      I applaud you from my 4,800 square foot home that sits on acres* of land.

        * Those acres are the kind derived from the "chain" (66 feet) and are one chain by ten chains thank you very much.

    19. Re: Of course, this is natural. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      penis size, still in imperial...

    20. Re:Of course, this is natural. by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Why don't we just call it 49m/s^2?

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    21. Re:Of course, this is natural. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... 1/10,000 of the distance between the equator and the pole ...

      It's 10 Km from equator to pole? I think that should be 1/10,000,000 of the distance is 1 metre. While 1/5,400 of the distance is 1 nautical mile. You repeated the error, so the correct calculation is 10,000,000/5,400 = 1,851.85m for an original nautical mile.

      The standard nautical mile is 1,852m and the WGS-84 model states the distance from pole to equator is 10,001,965.57m, not the theoretical 10 million metres. So 10,001,965.57/1,852=5,400.63 nautical miles from equator to pole under the WGS-84 model.

      ... makes sense are knots and miles ...

      Why does a measurement based on human feet make sense on the ocean? A roman mile was 1,473.5m (can't confirm that) which was 'converted' to 8 furlongs with a larger foot length too, resulting in the modern mile of 1,605.12m.

    22. Re:Of course, this is natural. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what about temperature?

    23. Re:Of course, this is natural. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, at it's 10,000,000m between the pole and the equator on the meridian that runs through Paris.

    24. Re:Of course, this is natural. by FirephoxRising · · Score: 2

      PSI is not metric.

    25. Re:Of course, this is natural. by shaitand · · Score: 1

      I'd argue that weed should be sold in troy oz but is more valuable than gold so we round up to about 32g to a weed OZ. Which happens to be what you tend to get if you aren't getting screwed. Bags should always be heavy.

      But in a metric world you would just get 1.1 kilo (extra .1 accounts for scale variation) which you split into 2 550g bags. If you split that into "OZ" you get 17 32g "OZ" with 6g change to smoke while bagging it up. Or you could split that up into 4 "QP" bags, giving 137.5g each which splits again into 4 OZ of 34.375g each.

      So depending on how many levels are in the distribution chain you should be getting OZ's that range from 32g or 34g and 8 or 9g quarters a variation that more or less rounds out with the +/- accuracy rating of the scales. If you aren't then someone pinched your bag. This fact brought to you by the metric system that weed actually uses.

    26. Re:Of course, this is natural. by Eythian · · Score: 1

      Other than the road signs, lumber sizes (2x4s, etc.) and gun calibers

      Even then, I hear the 9mm is pretty popular over there.

    27. Re:Of course, this is natural. by Eythian · · Score: 1

      No. Freedom units are clearly metric units.

      http://object.cato.org/sites/c...

    28. Re:Of course, this is natural. by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Not only that but you'd have the moral high ground when they call their next standard 6G and it doesn't match.

    29. Re: Of course, this is natural. by shaitand · · Score: 1

      You seem to be confused, it was definitely the US. Only one carrier wanted to push real 4G. The others thought there was more value in monetizing smaller increases in bandwidth, the opposition was led by AT&T who is usually first in line to fight bandwidth increases.

    30. Re:Of course, this is natural. by jrumney · · Score: 1

      In some places in UK at least, short distances are indicated in metres, and longer distances in miles. Often both abbreviated to 'm', which makes for some amusing signposts (I recall some along the canal towpaths in central Birmingham: "National Sea Life Centre 150m, Wolverhampton 16m" or something like that)

    31. Re:Of course, this is natural. by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Why would the thing after 4G be called 5G? As far as I know I already have the thing after 4G, it's called 4G+.

      And like 3.5G, it will inevitably be called 5G by marketers anyway once the first competitor launches a real 5G network and others don't want to look like they are behind.

    32. Re:Of course, this is natural. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FWIW, the UK has something to say about those pesky road signs...

      We already tried once before ~1975, maybe we in the US should wait to see how it turns out in the UK before trying again...

      Everyone else also used imperial units once upon a time, but since imperial units are localized it was more practical for everyone to switch into a common system.
      If UK fails to switch it only means that they are the only people too stupid to switch, not that it actually is hard.
      If Belgium managed to switch to metric then so should you.

    33. Re:Of course, this is natural. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can I buy weed from you? Last time I check its 28 grams to an ounce not 100

      Imperial units are local, there might very well be a country that had a 100 grams to an ounce.
      Typically the weed pricing will be in grams there so you are out of luck if you try to use your own units.

    34. Re:Of course, this is natural. by Baki · · Score: 1

      Parent is probably dutch:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... says: In 1820, the Dutch redefined their ounce (in Dutch, ons) as 100 grams.[7][8] Dutch amendments to the metric system, such as an ons or 100 grams, has been inherited, adopted, and taught in Indonesia beginning in elementary school. It is also listed as standard usage in Indonesia's national dictionary, the Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia, and the government's official elementaryschool curriculum.[9]

      I think nowhere else in europe an "ons" is used for 100g. But in the Netherlands, it is in daily use as such.

    35. Re: Of course, this is natural. by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Except the two "4G" technologies and marketing that don't meet the 4G standard didn't come from U.S. carriers, they came from European and Asian carriers, who then pressured ITU-R into accepting that marketing as 4G even though it didn't meet the standard.

      So, sorry to spoil your U.S. Americorp conspiracy, but we were late to the party on that bullshit.

      Nope. The technology comes from Europe, but in Europe it was called 3.5G, only in the US was it marketed at 4G.

    36. Re:Of course, this is natural. by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      You joke, but what really happens is the US carriers have decided "we'll call it whatever we like for marketing purposes".

      What's even worse is that with 4G, the US managed to force the ITU to redefine the 4G standard to allow the US's not-really-4G to be called 4G anyway.

    37. Re:Of course, this is natural. by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      You joke, but what really happens is the US carriers have decided "we'll call it whatever we like for marketing purposes". Which means someone comes along, defines a standard, and then US carriers co-opt the name and say "yup, we have that", when in reality they don't have that.

      This has nothing to do with metric, and everything to do with US corporations saying "Yeah, we totally have 4G", except it's not really 4G, it's some marketing term which has nothing to do with 4G.

      So, you know, stop letting your companies take the name of a specific bit of technology and say they're using it when they aren't. Then you won't have the problem of the US glaringly not running the technology they claim.

      But, apparently, part of corporate free speech is mis-representing your service to your customers.

      4G just means 4th Generation and is not a specific technology. So whatever technology a company puts in place to replace 3G, that is 4G.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    38. Re:Of course, this is natural. by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      You forgot weather measurements. Barometric pressure KiloPascals, Wind or other speed Km/h and temperature in Celcius.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    39. Re:Of course, this is natural. by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      There are some other vestiges of non-metric units. Notably, many products in the US and intended mostly for the domestic market are still built with non-metric hardware. Things made for export generally are not.

    40. Re:Of course, this is natural. by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      A 100g "ounce" is much larger than the American ounce. The actual number is 28g, but your "pound" is also larger so a 30g "ounce" might make more sense and would be a rounder number.

    41. Re:Of course, this is natural. by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      Well, approximately. That was the original idea but of course it's not a practical standard, so for a while the official standard was the distance between two marks on an official standard bar. As our ability to measure the earth improved we discovered that the size of the standard meter was a bit off from the actual size of the Earth, but the existing standard was retained. Since then, it has been redefined in various light-based ways; first as a relationship to the wavelength to emissions lines from atoms, and currently as a relationship to the speed of light.

      The inch, foot, mile, etc.? There have been no primary standards for those units since 1959. The current definition of a yard is that it is 0.9144 meters, and the other units are defined in relation to that. Before that the US and UK had their own standard yards, different from each other and from the current standard.

    42. Re:Of course, this is natural. by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      There is an old riddle: "Which is heavier, a pound of feathers or a pound of gold?" The answer you are supposed to give is that they are both the same weight because they are both a pound. But that is incorrect, because feathers (like most things) would be weighed in avoirdupois ounces and pounds, but gold is weighed in troy ounces and pounds. So an ounce of gold is heavier than an ounce of feathers (troy ounces are larger), but a pound of gold is lighter than a pound of feathers (there are only 12 troy ounces to a troy pound so the troy pound is lighter).

      Metric is much simpler. A kilogram of feathers and a kilogram of gold have exactly the same weight (or for the pedants, the same mass).

    43. Re:Of course, this is natural. by MercTech · · Score: 1

      Amen. So many people don't realize the U.S. never got 4G. The best the U.S. got was 3g+ which they renamed 4GLTE for 4G light.

      I guess they want to call real 4G by the 5G name to make people think they can get the same speed service as Europe.

      --
      NRRPT/RCT
    44. Re:Of course, this is natural. by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      And, it's a whole other G that those guys don't have!

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    45. Re:Of course, this is natural. by edittard · · Score: 1

      It depends on whether you interpret lighter as having less mass or having less weight.

      For an equal mass, the feathers will have a larger volume and therefore more buoyancy, so the [net/apparent] weight will be less.

      --
      At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
    46. Re:Of course, this is natural. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      For an equal mass, the feathers will have a larger volume and therefore more buoyancy, so the [net/apparent] weight will be less

      That only works if you're comparing figures measured suspended in different fluids, or in fluids which have differing diffusion rates into the materials you're weighing. for example, if I'm comparing the weight of an object suspended in air with the weight of the same object suspended in a fluid of density 8.33 pounds per gallon (US) (which happens to be the density of normal salinity sea-water at 70 deg F, though why such an insane collection of fucked-up units is the norm in my business is just a deranged accident of history), then I'd get a buoyancy force which is density dependent. But if I'm comparing the weights of two objects of the same density (say, feathers and 1mm nylon filament) suspended in the same fluid, then the correction made for buoyant forces is the same in both cases. (If the bulk density of the keratin that comprises feathers is the same as that of nylon, which I don't know for sure, but it probably isn't far off.

      If you have a medium of changing density - e.g. air that is warming over time - then you get lots of complicated issues of the permeability of the stationary medium with respect to the fluid medium and a whole crapload of other non-equilibrium effects.

      Buoyancy forces per se have almost nothing to do with the volume occupied by a bag of a medium (e.g. the bag of feathers you seem to be thinking of) because that bag is a mixed medium - it contains feathers and trapped air. Unless you're taking steps to prevent the air from being displaced by your new fluid medium (e;g; a waterproof bag) then when things equilibrate, you'll be back to considering buoyancy forces controlled by the relative bulk density of the materials involved.

      Perhaps considering a less extremely misleading example might help to clarify matters. I'm at sea (8.33 pounds per gallon [ppg]) above an oil well filled with drilling fluid of 10.2ppg density. If I assemble a string of tools made out of steel (density 7.something tonnes per cubic metre - I'd have to look it up, because steels vary) then they'd weigh something in air, something different if I lowered them into the seawater (as if I were starting the well, but had nothing in place to hold my denser drilling fluid in place - what we call "spudding the well"), and something different again if I had a container attached to the rock of the seabed, which I'd filled with my 10.2ppg drilling fluid.

      Now replace those drilling tools with titanium ones at a density of 3.something tonnes per cubic metre. Again I'd get 3 different weights in air, sea-water and my current density of drilling fluid. And those buoyancy forces are going to severely affect the amount of force I can exert on the bottom of the hole using the buoyed weight of those tools. What we call the available weight on bit. Which is a major constraint on our speed of drilling. And which is something I've just had to be double-checking for our next assembly of drilling tools.

      You're confusing the complicating effects of surface trapped air with the actual buoyant forces involved. Not good physics.

      By the way, if you ever worked with precision scales, you'd know that you have to - absolutely have to - take into account the buoyancy of air when you get to the 5th significant digit of your measurement - and you really ought to be doing it at the 4th significant digit. You're already well into the territory where you need to be drying your reagents before weighing, even if they're not particularly hygroscopic (absorbing moisture from ambient air).

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. good by hjf · · Score: 5, Funny

    The US will build their OWN 5G network. With Blackjack. And hookers.
    In fact, forget compatibility.

    The US will adopt a closed standard, with royalties, that will work only in the US. That'll keep the eurotrash out.

    1. Re:good by myowntrueself · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      The US will build their OWN 5G network. With Blackjack. And hookers.
      In fact, forget compatibility.

      The US will adopt a closed standard, with royalties, that will work only in the US. That'll keep the eurotrash out.

      And the only smartphones available for sale in the USA will be iPhones. Apple will trumpet their growth and market domination. Samsung will breath a sigh of relief that they don't have to even bother selling phones in the USA cos of Apples injunctions. The rest of the world will be happy and the USA will be a lovely walled garden of 'freedom' and 'democracy'.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    2. Re:good by Noryungi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The US will adopt a closed standard, with royalties, that will work only in the US. That'll keep the eurotrash out.

      Yup, and you will keep on paying 10x more than anywhere else in the world.

      The US is becoming more and more irrelevant each step along the way.

      --
      The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
    3. Re:good by nytes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It will be decided on by the telcos. It will be something that can be achieved inexpensively and yield maximum profits. It will grant a minor speed bump for us in the USA, while giving the telcos an excuse for doubling consumer costs.

      And it won't be remotely as fast as "5G" anywhere else in the world.

      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
    4. Re:good by halivar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In the long list of things that can and should make a country irrelevant, the cost of a phone plan is pretty much... not there.

    5. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10x? Sign me up! The US rate is far higher than that.

    6. Re:good by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      As an American, this pisses me off that we now break the economies of scale in terms of equipment. Fuck! Fine, the US should adopt their standard. Question is, does it contain any EU or Chinese backdoors??! Would the US system contain any NSA backdoors for that matter????

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    7. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Phone payment plan is essentially the intersection of government taxation and corporate taxation.
      So it's a little like parliment (the intersection between government power and personal power
       
        You can sort of live without one or the other but probably not both.

    8. Re:good by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      Question is, does it contain any EU or Chinese backdoors??! Would the US system contain any NSA backdoors for that matter????

      Everybody's got their big 5G in everyone else's backdoor.

      It's not about countries any more, anyway. It's about corporations and control. And they've got their 5G all lubed up for your back door.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    9. Re:good by tchdab1 · · Score: 1

      Bah - skip 5, like we skipped 4, and go straight to 6G. Or a reasonably marketed facsimile of 6G.

    10. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awww...let the Japanese guy feel important.

    11. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US is becoming more and more irrelevant each step along the way.

      Then Obama wins!

    12. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really, it's more like they love success (are not all the Democrats in major public office wealthy?) and tolerate the poor. However, they seem to be aware that when you have taken so much from the population at large that what is left starts to look like a rounding error, giving some back is a good way to not end up with your back against the wall.

      Giving back by allowing people to keep a larger portion of the value they generate, and making it more possible to generate value for themselves rather than others (which some might condescendingly define as "teaching them to be successful"), is not the preferred way. Too much of the value generated would end up staying with them.

      Much better to give meager handouts which make their situations just tolerable enough that they don't say "eff this, I've had enough." Now, admittedly, there are those, many of whom are possibly not Democrats, who'll say "screw 'em; we're in charge and the Army's on our side. What're they going to do about it?" However, history has repeatedly shown that this is generally not a viable long term option.

    13. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Irrelevant? American companies own the mobile phone market. iPhone and Android won. If anything, the rest of the world is irrelevant when it comes to mobile phones.

    14. Re:good by grimJester · · Score: 1

      I suspect Google would disagree. They've been putting lots of effort into getting everyone a decent Internet connection and more and more of that is mobile nowadays.

    15. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You cant as we exported all the trash and they became the first merkins after 1776.

    16. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In the long list of things that can and should make a country irrelevant, the cost of a phone plan is pretty much... not there.

      How about infant mortality? Literacy? Incarceration rates? ;)

    17. Re:good by shaitand · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Their women can come. We really only want to keep out the eurotrash dudes. If only we could buid some sort of one way selective female membrane that lets them in but not out.

    18. Re:good by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Ummm... wtf. Did you just curse people of the US to be stuck with IPhones despite most of us picking androids? That cold, cold and cruel.

      Apple tech is definitely more appropriate for socialist communist mentality with a central authority deciding what is best for everyone. Android is the wild wild west of the mobile OS world and everyone has the right to bear arms. If anything the US would definitely be android and Europe would be the bastion of the IPhone. If Apple isn't the phone counterpart to the BBC I don't know what is.

    19. Re:good by shaitand · · Score: 2

      The cost of access to communication and exchange with the rest of the people in the world? Are you kidding or just being deliberately obtuse? Phone links are today what highways were to Ancient Rome.

      Slow broadband and reduced connectivity is absolutely what will make a country irrelevant in time just as roads made Rome great and Infrastructure once made the US great.

    20. Re:good by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Google should just be a mobile carrier.

    21. Re:good by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Ummm... wtf. Did you just curse people of the US to be stuck with IPhones despite most of us picking androids? That cold, cold and cruel.

      Apple tech is definitely more appropriate for socialist communist mentality with a central authority deciding what is best for everyone. Android is the wild wild west of the mobile OS world and everyone has the right to bear arms. If anything the US would definitely be android and Europe would be the bastion of the IPhone. If Apple isn't the phone counterpart to the BBC I don't know what is.

      You'd think so but with the injunctions on behalf of Apple against Samsung you might find that no one wants to sell you android phones any more :P

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    22. Re:good by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      In the long list of things that can and should make a country irrelevant, the cost of a phone plan is pretty much... not there.

      To borrow Clinton's line about the economy...it's the rent-seeking, stupid.

      Wireless carriers are but the tip of the capitalist iceberg. Other useless rent-seekers and middle men: banks, health insurance companies, university management, defense contractors....

    23. Re:good by unixisc · · Score: 1

      That's fine & dandy, but please make IPv6 the standard Layer 3 protocol for this standard, and keep IPv4 out altogether

    24. Re:good by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 1

      In the long list of things than can and do make your country increasingly irrelevant (although not there yet, by far), restricting access to high quality communications will definitely help. In the end, whether it's an oppressive regime or simple failure to invest doesn't matter.

    25. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking partisan piece of shit; grow up.

    26. Re:good by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      In the long list of things that can and should make a country irrelevant, the cost of a phone plan is pretty much... not there.

      Cost of communications, not to mention the related access to the Internet, enables productivity, informal education, access to employment, etc. so no, it is on that list.

      Aside from this, the US is not impressing anyone with things that you might agree are important like infant mortality (34th globally), medical care per dollar spent (worst in the world), student debt (worst in the world), percentage of the population in prison (second highest in the world), percentage of the population with a university level degree (12th), etc., etc.

      But FUCK YEAH!!!

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    27. Re:good by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      As a Canadian, I have to agree with the statement, "The US is becoming less relevant daily" Where we used to buy our electronics from the USA, we no longer do. Where we used to watch American TV, we no longer do as much, and we rarely buy an American made vehicle. Even our stuff from IKEA is in metric, for metric built homes (Our new home ceilings are 3 meters high, which is about 3*40 inches or 10feet.

      The USA is now a huge service oriented country. Manufacturing and even software engineering is done off shore from the USA, and the USA pays for service. By the way, which Apple or Android product is American made? How many people does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

      Say thanks to Regan economics that allowed for job exporting to the far east.

      Its sad, because my older Stereo and high tech equipment oncewanw bore my "Made in USA" sticker on them. Now it says "Made in China", or Assembled in Taiwan.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    28. Re:good by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Like it really matters in the US - it's just a technology to blow through your arbitrarily apportioned data that much faster, so they can rape you for overages.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  3. Previous, universal definition of 5G by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Buzzword.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Previous, universal definition of 5G by PPH · · Score: 1

      Bingo!

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  4. Needed: headline reviewer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF does that headline even mean???!

    1. Re:Needed: headline reviewer by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Yeah, since when did China and South Korea become 'everybody'? And South Korea - just has a few manufacturing companies - Samsung, LG, Pantech/Curitel, but no standards companies like a Qualcomm or a Nokia. Same deal w/ China - who do they have who'd define such a standard?

  5. This Is Irrelevant to the USA Anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Since there are not even any actual 4G deployments in the United States yet, it will be a while before 5G even matters, if it ever does.

    Yay Capitalism! Yesteryear's technology at outrageous prices.

    1. Re: This Is Irrelevant to the USA Anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2G will be relabeled the new 5G.

    2. Re: This Is Irrelevant to the USA Anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The G formerly known as 4G.

    3. Re:This Is Irrelevant to the USA Anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Since there are not even any actual 4G deployments in the United States yet, it will be a while before 5G even matters, if it ever does.

      Yay Capitalism! Yesteryear's technology at outrageous prices.

      While this is true, as far as it goes, I think you miss the point. US telcos have a nasty habit of insisting that their (sub)standards should be given the imprimatur of the official standard. Witness 4G LTE, which is, at best, more like 3.5G. Then, they have the nerve to charge exorbitant prices for their idiosyncratically-labelled "standards". Finally, someone has called them out on this. It is way past time for this.

    4. Re:This Is Irrelevant to the USA Anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, I don't follow. I'm on an LTE network right now. LTE is by definition a 4G network. Or is it because the actual definition of 4G network does not match what you feel the definition should be? Is your problem with it that LTE doesn't fully fulfill the IMT-Advanced specification? If that's your issue, I've got sad news for you. No LTE network currently deployed in the world fulfills that. Though ITU-R considers them 4G because though it doesn't fulfill the IMT-Advanced specification, it's still substantially better than 3G solutions. And if that's your problem, then it's not a US problem but a world wide problem.

      I mean, christ, those American equipment manufacturers like Ericsson, and Alcatel-Lucent (now Nokia?), and Hwawei. Damn those American pigs!!!!! /sarcasm

    5. Re:This Is Irrelevant to the USA Anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since there are not even any actual 4G deployments in the United States yet, it will be a while before 5G even matters, if it ever does.

      Yay Capitalism! Yesteryear's technology at outrageous prices.

      No no, I totally have 4G, edge, or maybe 3G... until I burn through that soft data cap in two days, then it's 2G all the way!

  6. Standard /. approach is valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Don't read the linked article, it says nothing. More specifically, it has the same headline, contradicts its own headline halfway through, and still tries to claim some moral failure of the USA as part of this somehow.

    Much better off to just go with the normal uninformed reactions of Slashdotters than to try to find any meaning to this.

  7. Why not go 6G? by pseudorand · · Score: 1

    > "About the only point of agreement so far is that 5G is what we'll all be building or buying after 4G..."
    I was going to comment on how obvious and unnecessary the "5G comes after 4G" thing is, but then I remembered Windows 9 and and OS-X "saber-tooth tiger" and realized that with technology, the succession isn't necessarily that obvious.

    1. Re:Why not go 6G? by Dorianny · · Score: 1

      > "About the only point of agreement so far is that 5G is what we'll all be building or buying after 4G..." I was going to comment on how obvious and unnecessary the "5G comes after 4G" thing is, but then I remembered Windows 9 and and OS-X "saber-tooth tiger" and realized that with technology, the succession isn't necessarily that obvious.

      Guess you forgot about 2.5G as well.

    2. Re:Why not go 6G? by sexconker · · Score: 2

      You think OS X and Windows 7, 8, 8.1, 10 are bad?
      Ubuntu and Android release name are like Game of Thrones.

    3. Re:Why not go 6G? by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      It's a tick tock thing. We all know that the even numbered Gs are major releases and the odd, minor. So 5G will be 4G+, wait for 6G and it'll be much better.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    4. Re:Why not go 6G? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I must have missed the goofy alliterative animal name and candy episodes.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    5. Re:Why not go 6G? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he's talking about the novels? There are three alliterative ones:

      3. A Storm of Swords
      5. A Dance with Dragons
      7(eventually). The Winds of Winter

    6. Re:Why not go 6G? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      > GoT

      IIRC released version names were things like "Dragon Lady", "3 Inch Mauve Areola", and "4 Inch Flaccid Shlong".

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    7. Re:Why not go 6G? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows 8.1 was Windows 9. Its right there in the title and the kernel versions. Vista was 6.0, 7 was 6.1, 8 was 6.2, 8.1 was 6.3, and 10 was 6.4 until it became 10.0.

    8. Re:Why not go 6G? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> You think OS X and Windows 7, 8, 8.1, 10 are bad?

      I for one do.

    9. Re:Why not go 6G? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean to say you don't know your ABCs?

    10. Re:Why not go 6G? by nytes · · Score: 1

      You mean the HBO subscribers only get one or two updates to the show before they are abandoned by their pay TV company, and everyone seems to be watching a different version of the storyline? :)

      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
    11. Re:Why not go 6G? by beakerMeep · · Score: 1

      With an aloe strip of course.

      --
      meep
    12. Re:Why not go 6G? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      My G goes to 11.

  8. Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Finally! Someone is stepping up to challenge the US telcos! It's about damn time, too!

  9. I know why.... by Lumpy · · Score: 0

    Because most of us in the USA are pretty much retarded.

    Standards? screw that, we need to make sure XXX or YYY get's the most profit.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:I know why.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make it sound like the EU approached us collectively as a country and we flipped them the bird. Because I don't remember anyone asking me.

      Who is "US" in this context? Verizon/AT&T/Sprint/T-Mobile? FCC? Donald Trump?

    2. Re:I know why.... by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      Tell that to T-Mobile parent Deutsche Telekom, or Sprint's parent Softbank (Japan). Or, for that matter, until last year Verizon's 50% owner Vodafone. I don't think Americans are to blame here.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:I know why.... by Noryungi · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      You make it sound like the EU approached us collectively as a country and we flipped them the bird. Because I don't remember anyone asking me.

      Who is "US" in this context? Verizon/AT&T/Sprint/T-Mobile? FCC? Donald Trump?

      Nope, the Europeans just decided to do the sensible thing and define a pan-european standard. Hence, they created GSM, which begat 2G, which begat 3G, etc.

      Now, they also did the other sensible thing, which is to say to the rest of the world: "There you go, here is our standard, free of charge, this is what we use and it works pretty well for us". Korea, Japan, China, and pretty much everyone else ran with it, and made money hand over fist, selling cheap phones to everyone and their dog.

      It's really not rocket science: create a solid standard, with a clear evolution path, and publish it for everyone to use. The only caveat, of course, is that your phone must be GSM-compliant of you want to sell it anywhere in Europe. But that's a 700+ million market, so you know you are going to make money anyway.

      In the US, every single phone operator had to have its own little standard, just to f*ck their customers for as much money as possible. Because MURICA, free enterprise, and gouging the customers are all christian values, or something.

      Maybe a while ago, Europe and the US would have gotten together and define a common standard, no matter how loud the US operators yelped. That time is long past.

      --
      The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
    4. Re:I know why.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, you mean like out of the 4 big players, two of them used the 2G and 3G standards (ATT and Tmobile), while the other two used another standard (Verizon and Sprint on CDMA), and the two outliers by the time 4G came around, they moved to the other standard as well, the US all defined their own standards?

      Word of wisdom in argument, hyperbole is never a good idea. It just makes you look like an idiot.

  10. 5G is five times earth's gravity by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    what do the Euros think it is?

    1. Re:5G is five times earth's gravity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean 5g. G is the universal gravitational constant.

    2. Re:5G is five times earth's gravity by Misagon · · Score: 1

      For those Europeans who listen to Hip Hop it would be a large wad of cash ...

      --
      "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
  11. Herpa Derp on the TFA. by morgandelra · · Score: 1

    4G cores will be upgraded to server 5G radio networks.

    The nice thing about the 3GPP spec is that Packet Cores are an evolution from 3G to 4G and most likely to 5G.

    The US will follow the ITU and 3GPP spec because that is what the device manufacturers will be following for the new handsets. Any other prediction is just there for click bait.

  12. Who cares? by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Increased speed is pointless if they keep choking it with ridiculously low caps. "Oh, wow. I can hit my monthly cap in 19.3 seconds."

    1. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those caps are supposedly at least partially based upon limiting usage of over-the-air bandwidth since long downloads = lots of air time. If the speed increases, for a given amount of data, the time on the air shrinks. So your cap should theoretically increase if the speed increases. But I agree with the sentiment. :)

    2. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can hit the cap in 19.2 seconds!

    3. Re:Who cares? by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 1

      The please to explain why the caps didn't increase significantly (at all!) when we went from 3G to 4G.

  13. What is the point of this article? by Solandri · · Score: 4, Interesting
    From TFA:

    China and the European Union have agreed to agree by the end of the year on a working definition for 5G, perhaps the most overused and least understood term in mobile telecommunications.

    About the only point of agreement so far is that 5G is what we'll all be building or buying after 4G, so any consensus between the EU and China could be significant.
    [...]
    The standards bodies that defined 3G and 4G for us, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and the 3G Patent Partnership (3GPP), are more measured in their approach.

    The ITU plans to decide on its own name for 5G next month. That's likely to be International Mobile Telecommunications system 2020, for the year by which it expects the first equipment will go on sale. It won't get around to choosing a technical standard until February of that year, though.

    Around December, 3GPP plans to start a six-month study of the requirements for 5G radio access networks, with a view to submitting a proposed standard to ITU in early 2020.

    That slow-but-steady approach makes Monday's 5G agreement between officials from the European Commission and from China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology seem almost hasty.
    [...]
    Neither agreement constitutes an end run around the ITU or 3GPP, though, as the EU, China and South Korea also agreed to promote global standardization in support of the work being done by those two bodies.

    In other words, two government bodies which have nothing to do with the actual 5G standard have agreed to agree what 5G is (that is, they won't support different standards). The actual standard itself hasn't been set, and the two bodies which actually do make the standard don't plan to set it until 2020.

    Was the whole point of this submission to take a shot at the U.S.? Need I remind you that had the U.S. signed up for the GSM standard, CDMA would've been stillborn and we would likely have 50-200 kbps data speeds today. GSM used TDMA, which allocates bandwidth to phones which aren't even using it. CDMA allows all phones to transmit simultaneously, and bandwidth gets distributed evenly between all transmitting phones. CDMA worked so well that by the time 3G rolled around, GSM adopted CDMA (it now uses TDMA only for voice) and nearly every GSM phone in the world also packed a wideband CDMA radio for data. That's right, CDMA won the GSM vs CDMA war. That's why you could talk and use data at the same time on a GMS phone - they had a TDMA radio for voice, a wCDMA radio for data. CDMA phones used the same radio for both, just in different modes.

    (And if you're curious, most LTE implementations use OFDMA. Mathematically it's a lot like CDMA, except using orthogonal frequencies instead of orthogonal codes. The orthogonality is what allows you to pick out a specific phone's signal even though all phones are transmitting simultaneously. The transmissions from other phones just increases the noise floor, so a phone that's not transmitting decreases the noise floor, everyone else's signal to noise ratio improves, and the bandwidth the non-transmitting phone would've used is distributed equally among the phones which are transmitting. TDMA is just giving each phone a timeslice, so only one phone can transmit at a time - or not transmit if it didn't actually need the timeslice.)

    1. Re:What is the point of this article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? You are defending against the tone of the stated premise with salient points and measured language? Begone, you ignorant troll...for that you must be for not beating you club on the ground around the giant "Neener Neener" statue that is the high class dance that represents a civilized and right thinking attitude in any comparison between EU and the US.

    2. Re:What is the point of this article? by CajunArson · · Score: 2

      "Was the whole point of this submission to take a shot at the U.S.?"

      Yeah, pretty much.

      Slashdot is a pretty provincial, chauvinistic and bigoted publication... as long as these qualities are directed in an anti-US manner.

      Basically, if the Slashdot crowd looked at itself in the mirror, the the ugly bigoted and uninformed face it would see staring back at it would look surprisingly close to the stereotyped caricatures that it pretends only apply to those evil "Muricans".

      --
      AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    3. Re:What is the point of this article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Summary: China and the EU agree that 5 comes after 4.

    4. Re:What is the point of this article? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Slashdot is a pretty provincial, chauvinistic and bigoted publication... as long as these qualities are directed in an anti-US manner.

      I get the feeling Slashdot is provincial, but in the sense that their province is the basement and they hate everyone outside it.

      Me, I only hate Australia because they have death adders and kangaroo, who are not at all cute and cuddly. They're mean and they just want to kick your ass all the time.

      Europe, US, South America, Asia. As long as I can get a decent meal, they're all OK in my book. But you can't get a decent meal in Australia, unless by "decent meal" you mean getting bitten by death adders and your ass kicked by a surly kangaroo. Even koalas you can't trust. They're cute until you get close enough for them to pull a death adder out of their marsupial sack and then it's your ass.

      No sir. I do not like Australia.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:What is the point of this article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, the above is utter crap. The main "advantage" of CDMA was that you don't need to have all users orthogonal, so you could have N degrees of freedom and K>N users using it (of course, that assumed that N of them are active at any given time).

      This sounded nice to professors, but was complete garbage practically. So while Qualcomm managed to convince a bunch of idiots "CDMA is great" in the end, it was dumped from all standards.

      So in GSM vs CDMA it is GSM that won. And OFDMA is TDMA in disguise (i.e. each user gets an orthogonal set of degrees of freedom, just like in TDMA).

      Source: I teach digital comm at top-5.

    6. Re:What is the point of this article? by onkelonkel · · Score: 0

      "Australia is entirely peopled with criminals" - Vizzini

      --
      None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    7. Re:What is the point of this article? by lexman098 · · Score: 1

      (And if you're curious, most LTE implementations use OFDMA. Mathematically it's a lot like CDMA, except using orthogonal frequencies instead of orthogonal codes. The orthogonality is what allows you to pick out a specific phone's signal even though all phones are transmitting simultaneously.

      That's really not at all true. Here. OFDMA just increases the usable frequency range for FDMA, which splits users into different bands (channels). In CDMA all users take a lot of bandwidth and the receiver filters them out using codes or somesuch.

    8. Re:What is the point of this article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish WiFi used any of those instead of CSMA...

    9. Re:What is the point of this article? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      In other words, two government bodies which have nothing to do with the actual 5G standard have agreed to agree what 5G is (that is, they won't support different standards). The actual standard itself hasn't been set, and the two bodies which actually do make the standard don't plan to set it until 2020. Was the whole point of this submission to take a shot at the U.S.?

      Well I'm hoping the idea is that we can use as much as possible of the same frequency bands and phone hardware all across the world. In that respect, 5 years is actually a very short time if you need to free up a frequency band for use even if it's obscure.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    10. Re:What is the point of this article? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2

      Need I remind you that had the U.S. signed up for the GSM standard, CDMA would've been stillborn and we would likely have 50-200 kbps data speeds today

      Um, wat? You think the designers of UMTS were incapable of understanding the different radio technologies because they weren't born in America? CDMA was invented by the Soviets, you know.

      GSM and its upgrades stomped the mobile phone system called CDMA for all kinds of reasons, one of them being that GSM had the concept of a SIM card and CDMA did not, so GSM users could pick their own phones and trade them. Another is that GSM was developed by an actual international standards process and industry consortium, whereas cdmaONE was basically an attempt to standardise a Qualcomm internal project and it showed. It was expensive, single vendor, etc. Wikipedia refers to the "immature style" of the cdmaONE standards documents. GSM had first mover advantage and international adoption.

    11. Re:What is the point of this article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I somehow trust the guy that explains his point versus just saying wrong and points to wikipedia.

    12. Re:What is the point of this article? by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Need I remind you that had the U.S. signed up for the GSM standard, CDMA would've been stillborn and we would likely have 50-200 kbps data speeds today.

      Are you under the delusion that just because the USA doesn't support something that progress stops and people abandon all efforts and R&D for improvement?

    13. Re:What is the point of this article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Mod parent wrong? About everything? The CDMA technology in UMTS is based on the Japanese standard FOMA, which only came slightly after IS-95 and was developed while most US phones were still analog. UMTS does not use 2G GSM TDMA for voice, but runs voice over the same W-CDMA interface as data. It can do both because the air interface can interleave multiple communications streams (i.e. the protocols are better designed). There are many carriers with some or all coverage only in W-CDMA UMTS that have no 2G GSM at all. And OFDM isn't really very much like CDMA at all, as other posters have noted. Also, GSM TDMA slots are assigned to calls, not handsets, so non-transmitting phones do not in fact consume bandwidth.

    14. Re:What is the point of this article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CDMAIDS won the war? Verizon shill, plz go.

    15. Re:What is the point of this article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can see why you teach. As the saying goes, those who can't do, teach. You clearly don't understand what you're talking about as if you did you'd know a very good reason why CDMA won over TDMA at the time. TDMA requires extremely tight timing or becomes extremely wasteful. CDMA requires tight timing as well, but not nearly as tight as TDMA. Especially if you want to do a scheme like OFDMA where you're dynamically allocating hundreds of sub-channels as bandwidth allocations are changed between subscribers. At the time CDMA was created, OFDMA was impossible. What TDMA did was the best that could be done at the time. CDMA worked better, at the time. It didn't have the limited number of channels problem that TDMA had. TDMA had a set number of slots. Once those were full, that was all you could support without additional hardware. CDMA had the ability to allow sacrificing QOS to allow more simulations users. OFDMA can do this because it uses super wide bands and can dynamically allocate sub-bands and get the same QOS trade off that CDMA allowed. Wide bands and better radios. Technology has improved, and now we can do OFDMA. And as OFDMA is really a combination of FDMA and TDMA, it wouldn't surprise me if people much cleverer than I figured out a way to work CDMA in there as well to improve things even more.

      Source: A cellular protocol engineer who actually works in the field.

    16. Re:What is the point of this article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... marsupial sack ...

      It's called a marsupial pouch.

    17. Re:What is the point of this article? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      It's called a marsupial pouch.

      No, the "marsupial pouch" is where they keep their babies. The "marsupial sack" is where they keep the death adders.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    18. Re:What is the point of this article? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Last time I was in Oz, I made friends with several kangaroos and an emu. Emus are cool.

      They also have the world's best pies.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    19. Re:What is the point of this article? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Need I remind you that had the U.S. signed up for the GSM standard, CDMA would've been stillborn and we would likely have 50-200 kbps data speeds today.

      That seems unlikely. You are confusing IS-95 (a.k.a. CdmaOne), the CDMA based 2G standard with the concept of CDMA (code division multiple access) which was first invented in 1935, in Soviet Russia. IS-95 was superior in a number of ways (though also inferior in a number of others). However, I think it's a massive stretch to conclude that if the US adopted GSM we'd be on 200kbps still. That assumes that CDMA as a general concept arrived with IS-95.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    20. Re:What is the point of this article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a hell of a lot easier to get a decent meal in Australia than in the US, hell it's easier to get a decent meal from the floor of a shipping container that's been floating 10 feet under the surface of the Atlantic for 10 years than in the US.

      EVERYTHING food wise in the US is insanely sweet, almost indelibly so, I have no idea how 350 million people can survive on it.

    21. Re:What is the point of this article? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      It's a hell of a lot easier to get a decent meal in Australia than in the US, hell it's easier to get a decent meal from the floor of a shipping container that's been floating 10 feet under the surface of the Atlantic for 10 years than in the US.

      Come to Chicago, my friend. I'll take you on a gastronomical tour of the neighborhoods that will make you forget all about vegemite and shrimps on the barbie.

      Our first stop will be Mr Beef on Wells Street where you get an Italian beef sandwich with sport peppers that will make you skeet in your drawers. If you've been brought up on Australian food, you may not survive the experience, but I guarantee you will die a happy man. And I'll pay for both our lunches with a mere $20 bill, and get enough back in change to pay for an Italian lemonade on Taylor Street and bus fare back for you back to fuckin' Australia with the goddamn death adders and backstabbing koala and "football" that's played by guys who look like they belong in the Village People.

      Unlike American football, which is played by men:

      http://turnonthejets.com/wp-co...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    22. Re:What is the point of this article? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      They also have the world's best pies [fredopies.com.au].

      They don't tell you there are death adders in the pies.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  14. Made in the USA! by penguinoid · · Score: 0

    Would you rather buy a G5 phone Made in the USA(TM) or Made in China? I wonder how long it takes to destroy one's reputation.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    1. Re:Made in the USA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a trick questions since no phones are made in the USA.

    2. Re:Made in the USA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Would you rather buy a G5 phone Made in the USA(TM) or Made in China? I wonder how long it takes to destroy one's reputation.

      I've got terrifying news for you...they are all made in China.

    3. Re:Made in the USA! by unixisc · · Score: 1

      We'll have to wait for the Donald to be prez before things like this get made in the US again

  15. Sounds familiar... by jacks+smirking+reven · · Score: 3, Funny

    Carriers: The numbers all go to 5G. Look, right across the board, 5G, 5G, 5G and...
    Customers: Oh, I see. And most networks go up to 4G?
    Carriers: Exactly.
    Customers: Does that mean it's faster? Is it any faster?
    Carriers: Well, it's one faster, isn't it? It's not 4G. You see, most blokes, you know, will be surfing at 4G. You're on 4G here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on 4G on your phone. Where can you go from there? Where?
    Customers: I don't know.
    Carriers: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
    Customers: Put it up to 5G.
    Carriers: 5G. Exactly. One faster.
    Customers: Why don't you just make 4G faster and make 4G be the top number and make that a little faster?
    Carriers: [pause] These go to 5G.

  16. and Mythbusters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    its painful to watch them try to work things out in pounds, ounces and feet.

  17. Re:Thanks Obama by prefec2 · · Score: 1

    Well, you are irrelevant. No I do not mean the USA, I mean you. And actually, the guy who sabotaged EU US relationships the most is W. Bush. However, pushing for treaties like TTIP and TiSA is Obamas fault. Stop that shit.

  18. In other words by frovingslosh · · Score: 2

    Wouldn't it be simpler and less confusing if you just reported the truth in simple terms: The U.S. telecom industry has decided to continue to screw up standards and make sure that their next generation equipment does not work with the rest of the world and likely not work with each other. Sprint has picked three different incompatible standards and will deploy all three and challenges its customers to guess which will still be supported the following year (while locking them into two year contracts but .phasing out their supported type of supposed 5G in much less time in their area). Prices will go up.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  19. I'll make sure to let me sister know by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 0

    She'll be happy to know that her cell plan is much cheaper than she thinks it is, because some random dude on the Internet is convinced US cell plans have to be more expensive.

    I'm going to guess you have no fucking idea what you are talking about, and are just hating on the Us because that's trendy to do. My cell plan is 50 USD/month. For that I get unlimited calls to and from any number in the US, Canada, and Mexico, landline or cellphone. I get unlimited text to and from any cellphone in about 140 countries (including Europe). I get 1GB of data at 4G speeds (meaning about 30-40mbit/sec where I live) and then 2G speeds after that (meaning about 100k/sec) unless I choose to buy more.

    When traveling internationally I can continue to use my text and data just like in the US, no extra charge. Voice calls are $.20/minute when roaming, though as mentioned not in Canada or Mexico.

    My sister couldn't believe it. She lives in the UK and we were discussing my trip to visit and she was mentioning getting a prepaid SIM, which I told her I don't need. I told her my plan and she was stunned.

    This isn't some super-secret service or anything, it is just T-Mobile's normal post-paid plan. They are happy to sell it to anyone and advertise it heavily.

    So how's your plan compare? Also please remember when talking about roaming and long distance that the US is almost certainly a bit larger than your country. Roaming and calls in all 50 US states would more be the equivalent of roaming and calls in all of Europe, than all of one European country.

    1. Re: I'll make sure to let me sister know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get unlimited everything in Finland for less than $30. No speed limits, data caps or anything. Last month I had almost 35GiB traffic go through my phone as I also use it as a hotspot when travelling.

    2. Re:I'll make sure to let me sister know by makapuf · · Score: 1

      yup, here in France unlimited voice calls, unlimited VOIP to many countries incl USA / Europe - in your data plan, unlimited texting to many countries, 3GB data on 4G or 3G - throttled after that - , no minimal contract (you can leave anytime), open wifi where available : 22$/month, I'm stunned by your plan (not) - and this is just a random example on the best cellular network coverage, there are cheaper/larger options (28$ for 5G)

    3. Re:I'll make sure to let me sister know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never compare to Europe. It's cheap to roll out a cell phone network in Europe. Small countries, dense population means cheap to put in a cell network. Compare the US to other big countries. We're a down right bargain compared to Canada. I've heard Australia is quite expensive as well.

    4. Re:I'll make sure to let me sister know by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Also is $50 the price on the bottom line of the bill or the advertised price? In my experience you add about 30% to whatever the plan rate is in the US for what you are actually going to pay with like $1 of it actually being taxes vs parts of the price the carrier has opted to add as a surcharge so they can advertise a lower price than they charge.

    5. Re:I'll make sure to let me sister know by dave420 · · Score: 1

      So many excuses! Explain the European with lower population densities than the US but with better phone/internet infrastructure? By your pathetic, sniveling, twisted logic that simply can't exist. But whatever makes you feel happy about the US, I guess...

    6. Re:I'll make sure to let me sister know by ixuzus · · Score: 1

      Hey, don't look down under to make you feel better about your expensive plans. For AU$50 my current provider will give you unlimited calls, unlimited text, and 10 gig of data - either 4G or 3G depending on what is available in your area. Unused data can be rolled over to the next month. Now international calls are limited - I think to the countries I would call occasionally the plan includes what works out to about 6 hours talk time a month - but I don't call overseas from my mobile (cell) phone all that often. After we do a currency conversion we get a plan price of about $35 in American money. Even the most overpriced unwieldy telecommunications company in Australia (I think most Australians would know to whom I refer) will give you 7gig and unlimited talk for under the US$50 pricepoint. For only 1gig with unlimited talk and text prices start around AU$30 or US$21.

      One more thing, never paid for an incoming text in my life - what is that all about?

    7. Re:I'll make sure to let me sister know by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      So how's your plan compare?

      $50/month seems like a lot more than I'd want to pay for phone service. I have a pre-pay SIM and end up paying about £1-2/month. Costs are 3p/minute for calls, 2p/text, 1p/MB of data. If I use more, there are bundles that are cheaper. If I buy a bundle, it also works in any one of the 'feel at home' countries, including the US. For example, for £10 I can get 100 minutes, 3,000 texts, and 500MB of data, which will work in Australia, Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Macau, New Zealand, Norway, Ireland, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, and the USA (and, of course, the UK). Oh, and I don't pay to receive calls or texts from anywhere in the world, even when I have no credit on my phone.

      If I wanted to go onto a contract, there are a lot of options, but since you seem to like spending a lot on the phone we'll pick the most expensive one: unlimited data, unlimited calls, unlimited text, one-month contract is £30/month (around $45/month). And those allowances work in any of the destinations that I listed above. Dropping down to only 4GB of data and 600 minutes lowers it to £19 (about $29) per month. Even the cheapest contract (500MB, 200 minutes, unlimited texts) at £8/month ($12) is a lot more than I spend on a pre-pay plan though, so I'm not really tempted to switch. You need to use the phone a lot for it to be worthwhile.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    8. Re:I'll make sure to let me sister know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get 1GB of data at 4G speeds (meaning about 30-40mbit/sec where I live) and then 2G speeds after that (meaning about 100k/sec) unless I choose to buy more.

      Data caps are cute. In Germany, I pay 20€ a month to UnityMedia and get 100Mbit/sec with unlimited data.

    9. Re:I'll make sure to let me sister know by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      The European countries with lower overall population densities than the US are few: Estonia, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Russia, and Iceland.

      In Finland for example according to the coverage maps I'm seeing the northern third of the country has spotty coverage if any from all the carriers. The middle third has 3G along highways and 2G elsewhere. The southern third has 4G most places, but some more rural areas are 3G. The whole country is slightly smaller than Montana. The vast majority of Finland's people live near the Baltic and its gulfs, with 20% living in Helsinki alone. The whole country has fewer than 100 towns and cities and a population density overall of about 18 people per square kilometer over a total land area of 338,424 square kilometers with a total population of under 5,500,000 people.

      In 1990 about half of US states were lower than Finland in density, and half were higher. Now only 13 states are of lower density. This is because Finland's population is relatively stable. The US birth and immigration rates are higher. The total density of the US is 35 people per square kilometer.

      The twenty-fifth most dense US state is Washington, with about 40.5 people per square kilometer, but in 1990 the 25th most dense was Alabama with only 30.7 people per. Alaska has 0.5 people per square kilometer. New Jersey has 467.2 per. Only 13 states have double the density of Finland or more. Fifteen have less than half.

      My current state, Texas, is 696,241 square kilometers holding about 28,000,000 people. 40.8 people live per square kilometer, up from just 25 in 1990. Texas has 254 counties. There are 1,216 incorporated cities, only 246 of which are home to more than 10,000 people. Thirty-five cities are home to more than 100,000, with just six cities over half a million in population. Still, nearly one quarter of the population lives in the Houston metro area. Another quarter lives in the Dallas/Forth Worth metro area. Another quarter live in the San Antonio, El Paso, Laredo, Amarillo, Brownsville, Corpus Christi, and Austin metro areas. That means that one quarter or so of the population is spread sporadically throughout an area twice the size of Finland, with fewer in the deserts in the far west of the state. Like Finland, huge population centers are especially well served by a variety of carriers. Some are as cheap as $30 or $35 a month, like Boost Mobile. The most reliable national carriers that don't drop signal driving across the state on highways among the cattle ranches, forests, farm fields, and such are $50 or more.

      When I visit friends and family in more rural areas in Missouri and Illinois, where the largest city or town in any direction for a hundred miles is about 50,000 people and my parents live 7 miles from the closest town (of 900 people) and 8 miles from a town of 16,000, I get consistent 4G at their house. I pay $50 a month. I'm okay with that.

      The most recent data from the U.S. Census Bureau (2007) counted 39,044 general purpose local governments, which includes 19,492 municipal governments, 16,519 township governments and 3,033 county governments. It has a total land area around 9,600,000 square kilometers. Yes, it costs money to build and operate in this kind of environment.

    10. Re:I'll make sure to let me sister know by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      Well, sounds like a great plan except for the fact that you clearly have the details wrong since there is no 5G wireless yet. So thanks, but I'll take my info from someone who is able to give me accurate info.

  20. enough is enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just nuke the fucking usa already

  21. Re:Thanks Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama, Osama, whatever. Same shit, different pile.

  22. Well! by jargonburn · · Score: 1

    If they don't agree with us, they must be wrong!

  23. 5G is already outdated by Misagon · · Score: 4, Funny

    I have a 7G mobile hanging in my window. That is seven G's! Two more than this 5G and at least THREE MORE than what most people have.

    I added a small bell to balance them to eight items. I had used a pre-made mobile ring with eight holes around the circumference and was too lazy to measure and drill seven new ones for the strings. But when the window is open, and the wind catches the G's in the mobile, the bell hanging from the ring rings.
    People have asked me if I could also talk into it: of course I can, but I don't see the point.

    --
    "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
  24. Dave420 "eats his words" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & "read em' & weep" Dave420 http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    * "EATING YOUR WORDS" != GOOD NUTRITION fool!

    APK

    P.S.=> How'd they taste, Dave420? Flavored with the "bitter taste of SELF-defeat", & washed down with your FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH ramming them down?? LMAO @ U, fool... apk

    1. Re:Dave420 "eats his words" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can somebody ban this fuckwit? I see this flamebait enough that I know the link will be about the fucking hosts file. No one cares.