Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

World's First 5G Field Trial Delivers Speeds of 3.6Gbps Using Sub-6GHz

Posted by timothy on from the saturation-is-the-goal dept.

Mark.JUK writes: Global Chinese ICT firm Huawei and Japanese mobile giant NTT DOCOMO today claim to have conducted the world's first large-scale field trial of future 5th generation (5G) mobile broadband technology, which was able to deliver a peak speed of 3.6Gbps (Gigabits per second). Previous trials have used significantly higher frequency bands (e.g. 20-80GHz), which struggle with coverage and penetration through physical objects. By comparison Huawei's network operates in the sub-6GHz frequency band and made use of several new technologies, such as Multi-User MIMO (concurrent connectivity of 24 user devices in the macro-cell environment), Sparse Code Multiple Access (SCMA) and Filtered OFDM (F-OFDM). Assuming all goes well then Huawei hopes to begin a proper pilot in 2018, with interoperability testing being completed during 2019 and then a commercial launch to follow in 2020. But of course they're not the only team trying to develop a 5G solution.

55 comments

  1. Okay, so 5G isn't 5G by EzInKy · · Score: 2

    Just like 4G isn't 4G and 3G isn't 3G. Other than corporations continuing to rip people off here, what is new?

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    1. Re:Okay, so 5G isn't 5G by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you figure that?
      4G (LTE) is quite different from 3G (WCDMA) which is quite different from 2G (GSM).
      I don't know, but judging from the above, perhaps this 5G is 5G after all.

    2. Re:Okay, so 5G isn't 5G by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I thought he was (hopefully jokingly) suggesting that the G in 5G should stand for Gigabit.

    3. Re:Okay, so 5G isn't 5G by rossdee · · Score: 2

      I always thought that G stood for 9.8 metres per second squared
      (32 feet per second squared for the metricaly challenged

    4. Re:Okay, so 5G isn't 5G by drhank1980 · · Score: 1

      I am pretty sure sure OP is referring to the fact that "4G" networks and devices that are sold come nowhere near the ITU-R's definition for a fourth generation wireless network. I know I do not get speeds anywhere near the low end of the 100Mb/s spec and getting 1Gb/s is completely impossible on my "4G" network.

    5. Re:Okay, so 5G isn't 5G by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nope, that'd be g. 5G is clearly 5 times the universal gravitational constant.

    6. Re: Okay, so 5G isn't 5G by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      In short, those are marketing labels, they don't meet the standard for 3G/4G.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    7. Re: Okay, so 5G isn't 5G by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      Yes. I, too, wish I could consume my monthly cap in 2.4 seconds and then rack up a bill exceeding the GDP of Africa within minutes.

      --
      I hate printers.
    8. Re: Okay, so 5G isn't 5G by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the data that you're using to look at Slashdot comes faster to you, you're not using any more data than you would have if you waited longer for it. The only real concern is that you start "accidentally" downloading something huge. I guess there would have to be a "circuit breaker" on your connection so you could say, "Actually, I don't really want to burn through my monthly cap in 2.4 seconds." ^.^

    9. Re:Okay, so 5G isn't 5G by freak0fnature · · Score: 1

      G = Generation...not Ghz

    10. Re: Okay, so 5G isn't 5G by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      As much as Slashdot is a guilty pleasure of mine, downloading the web page in 2 nanoseconds as opposed to 4 nanoseconds makes no difference, especially when the majority of the wait time is the rendering processing that occurs on the device.

      --
      I hate printers.
    11. Re:Okay, so 5G isn't 5G by sexconker · · Score: 1

      No no no. We French fucks at SI dictate that G is for giga.

      You can never use G for anything other than giga. g is for gram, but we don't use g for the base unit of mass, we arbitrarily use kg as the base unit for mass even though k is the prefix for 1000. However, 1000 kg isn't kkg, as our own rules dictate, but Mg, which is megagram. Note the capital M, we use big letters when we're scaling things up in magnitude and small letters when scaling them down.

      Except for k, as noted previously, because K is for Kelvin. And also except for h and da. We'll gloss over h and da, as well as d and c, because we got drunk and included them even though every other prefix is based on powers of 1000. Yeah, we woke up next to da one morning and it wasn't pretty, I can't believe we included a prefix with two fucking letters when every other prefix is a single letter.

      Back to M. M is MEGA and means 10^6, while m is milli and means 10^-3 (but M is also mass and m is also meter). Now, I know you thought that M being 10^6 would mean m was 10^-6, but it's not. (It's just not, okay?) For 10^-6 we use a u, but not a regular u that you can write or type easily, a squiggly ass Greek fuck of a u. This fucking guy: . Sure, we could have used u since it's not in use in any other base unit, dimension, or prefix, but fuck you, we're French.

      But don't worry, is the only one like that, unless you count the dimension symbol for temperature, or the 2nd-tier named units where is for Ohm (we haven't used O but we were worried it might look like a 0 even though we dictate that you must put a space between quantities and units) while C is degree Celsius (because C is for coulomb).

      Now, you might be thinking that we should have used c for coulomb and C for degree Celsius. I'm sure that capitalization led you to believe degree Celsius is named after someone whereas coulomb is not. In fact they are both named after people, but degree Celsius is the only named unit in the first or second tier of base units that has multiple words. We actually dictate that named units start with lower case letters except when any regular ass word would have its first letter capitalized, such as at the start of a sentence. However, since degree Celsius is two fucking words, we decided that Mr. Celsius would always be capitalized, just because. This left us with no choice but to use C for coulomb and C for degree Celsius. Of course when pluralizing degree Celsius we go to degrees Celsius, not degree Celsiuses, even though "degree Celsius" as a whole is the fucking term.

      Where was I? Ah, yes, the . Don't worry, after we go to n, which is for nano, or 10^-9. This is the counterpart to G (for giga) which, as I explained previously, is only for giga and not the universal gravitational constant, so please get it right. It's all so simple and consistent!

    12. Re:Okay, so 5G isn't 5G by sexconker · · Score: 1

      I forgot that Slashdot would eat all the Mus (the squiggly ass u).
      Anytime you see a missing word or something in the above, picture a u but with a little dingleberry hanging off the back end.

    13. Re:Okay, so 5G isn't 5G by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You thought wrong.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant

      You wanted "g".

    14. Re:Okay, so 5G isn't 5G by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      I always thought that G stood for 9.8 metres per second squared

      Warning: Physics Pedant Alert.

      No, small "g" is the gravitational force at the earth's surface.

      The big "G" (not to be confused with the big script G on Cheerios boxes) is the gravitational constant

      F = Gm(1)m(2)/r^2 where m(j) are the two masses in question.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    15. Re:Okay, so 5G isn't 5G by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i mean if we colonized a black hole we might need to keep that in mind.

      because clearly if humans did that the largest of our worries would be our cell data being messed up.

    16. Re:Okay, so 5G isn't 5G by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am pretty sure sure OP is referring to the fact that "4G" networks and devices that are sold come nowhere near the ITU-R's definition for a fourth generation wireless network. I know I do not get speeds anywhere near the low end of the 100Mb/s spec and getting 1Gb/s is completely impossible on my "4G" network.

      Same here. I live in Albuquerque, NM and I supposedly have 4G from V*r*z*n. In actual practice, it is mostly 2.5(-ish)G with an occasional bump up to somewhere around 3.5(-ish)G And, no, this is no exaggeration; my cell phone will actually show when I am bumped down to the "3G" network, which is around half to two thirds of the time. I don't think I've ever really gotten the full 4G experience, according to the ITU standard.

    17. Re: Okay, so 5G isn't 5G by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only real concern is that you start "accidentally" downloading something huge. I guess there would have to be a "circuit breaker" on your connection so you could say, "Actually, I don't really want to burn through my monthly cap in 2.4 seconds." ^.^

      My cell phone has the option of giving yourself an automatic alert if you should bump up near your monthly data quota.

  2. Japan will have 5G by 2020 by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Japan is planning to have a 5G network operating in time for the 2020 Olympics. We are going to see a lot of new tech pushed for 2020 because of that opportunity to show it to the world. Faster trains, 8k TV broadcasts, lots of new EV and hydrogen cars...

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    1. Re:Japan will have 5G by 2020 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good idea to have it by the Olympics. Currently there isn't any way to show technological marvels to the world, except for the Olympics. Although I understand there is this new thing called the InterWebs which can send information somehow...

    2. Re:Japan will have 5G by 2020 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good idea to have it by the Olympics. Currently there isn't any way to show technological marvels to the world, except for the Olympics. Although I understand there is this new thing called the InterWebs which can send information somehow...

      Yes, but there is nothing quite like the Olympics to show yourself naked before the world, warts and all. The telecoms have 5 years to get their act together and put a genuine 5G network in place. If they don't deliver then they will have a world full of angry people to deal with. Is it too soon to start making the popcorn?

  3. sub-6GHz frequency band by sociocapitalist · · Score: 2

    "Huawei's network operates in the sub-6GHz frequency band"

    Is that the unlicensed 5Ghz band?

    --
    blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    1. Re:sub-6GHz frequency band by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My question as well. Good luck getting anything to work at these frequencies. It's either all spoken for, or an unlicensed free-for-all.

    2. Re:sub-6GHz frequency band by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most likely not:
      http://www.3gpp.org/specifications/specifications

    3. Re:sub-6GHz frequency band by davecb · · Score: 2

      The IETF lists are concerned that some of the proposals will massively degrade the bands wi-fi uses under the current rules. It came up as a side issue in the bufferbloat discussion, which I follow.

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
    4. Re:sub-6GHz frequency band by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Then how do you interpret 'sub-6Ghz' ?

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    5. Re:sub-6GHz frequency band by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Huawei? Those shape-shifting squid things with the representative on Universal Congress's tribunal?

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    6. Re:sub-6GHz frequency band by PincushionMan · · Score: 1
      I've heard that 5G was to use both the 2.4 GHz and 5GHz unlicensed bands simultaneously, to the detriment of home routers. source

      Extending LTE to unlicensed spectrum at 5GHz is an enticing prospect

      Extending LTE-Advanced to unlicensed spectrum is a major feature of 3GPP Release 13, due to be frozen in March 2016. Previously this was referred to as LTE-Unlicensed (LTE-U), but 3GPP uses the name LAA to reflect the role of licensed spectrum in its operation.

    7. Re:sub-6GHz frequency band by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      I've heard that 5G was to use both the 2.4 GHz and 5GHz unlicensed bands simultaneously, to the detriment of home routers. source

      Extending LTE to unlicensed spectrum at 5GHz is an enticing prospect

      Extending LTE-Advanced to unlicensed spectrum is a major feature of 3GPP Release 13, due to be frozen in March 2016. Previously this was referred to as LTE-Unlicensed (LTE-U), but 3GPP uses the name LAA to reflect the role of licensed spectrum in its operation.

      Yep - I think the phrase 'sub-6Ghz' was to avoid the conflict around the attack on our 5Ghz wifi

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  4. 5G, 5 times the spyware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who else bets they're going to include a thousand tracking "features" down in the network's specification to prevent any chance of anonymous browsing?

  5. We are screwed. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, 3.6 Gb/s is cool and all; but I did a quick check and Verizon is calling 18GB/month the 'XXL' plan, so this appears to be largely an exercise in accruing overage fees even faster.

    It seems like what will matter much more(unless somebody is planning to use the same tech for highly directional point-to-point wireless links, in which case raw speed is pretty useful); is how well these '5G' arrangements handle congestion; and how efficiently the amazing-fancy-theoretical-peak-throughput can be divided across a large number of users. Unless you are made of money, the problem with wireless data isn't so much how slow it is; but how costly it is(in part because of scarcity, which more efficient RF technology might actually alleviate, the 'because we can' part is a separate issue); and how it has a habit of just collapsing in a screaming heap under heavy load.

    If the impressive peak bandwidth numbers indicate a larger pool of usable transmission capacity extracted from a given chunk of spectrum, fantastic, that is progress. If they simply represent what you could do if a single client used every doesn't-play-well-with-others trick in the book to get better speeds, that's utterly useless.

    1. Re:We are screwed. by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      I'm not worried. New equipment will be stamped out and installed into existing towers. Nothing new here as that's how it always happens. If the laws of physics become an impediment, so be it; the limitation will set expectation and thus the industry will adapt. Meaning, don't expect 8k or 16k video formats streaming over cellular service anytime soon.

      The new hotness will be voice over WiFi anyways. Xfinity (Comcast) already has a large WiFi router install base already, each one broadcast the same public SSID. The idea is that you can roam between areas with Xfinity and route all traffic through their network and not my cellular provider. In fact, I do that already with my familiar places I often visit. No need for a 6GB monthly plan. And unless you're a road-warrior, there's no need for you to have one either.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:We are screwed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3.6Gbps(small b) for a situation with 1 user doing anything. 4G LTE can go incredibly fast under that situation as well. But in the real world, there are bandwidth caps set per device and tons of devices connected and using data at once. You will never get 3.6Gbps even if this is the tech that gets adopted.

      Furthermore, 18GB/month is the plan in 2015. You wont see anything of 5G for years.

    3. Re:We are screwed. by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      My cable ISP has caps too. I really don't mind caps, provided they aren't too low. They have to find some way to give people high speeds and somehow restrict people from saturating the connection 24 hours a day.

      For me, a faster connection isn't just about more throughput, but more about having individual pages load faster, not waiting for videos to buffer, and being able to play a game on release day, rather than have to wait until the next day for the game to finish downloading.

      For a mobile connection, I want the data I'm looking up to come in fast. But I know I'm not going to be downloading 4K movies on the bus. It would be nice, but I realize there are limits to what we can get.

      I don't really think we need a 3.6 Gb/s connection on mobile, as most of the connections will be closed before the TCP window reaches that speed, but I guess it really can't hurt to have the capacity available when you need it. I guess it just realistically means they'll be able to have more customers downloading at reasonable speeds.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    4. Re:We are screwed. by swb · · Score: 1

      the problem with wireless data isn't so much how slow it is; but how costly it is(in part because of scarcity, which more efficient RF technology might actually alleviate, the 'because we can' part is a separate issue)

      I'd like to know the difference between the high costs due to real scarcity and the high costs due to profit-taking.

      I'd love to see a heat map of cell sites based on RF congestion and backhaul congestion to get an idea if the limits being imposed are really about site limits or mostly about extracting maximum profit.

    5. Re:We are screwed. by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      And nobody will get access to enough data to use those new towers.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  6. like subscribing to am radio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    almost exactly save the 2way radio feature, which is also free?

  7. Huawei... really? by hackwrench · · Score: 0

    My previous phone was a Huawei Valiant. The battery life was terrible, and the battery stopped working and needed to be replaced pretty early. It was rootable, though. When I first got it, the screen started glitching, but it got better later.

  8. I wonder if this will benefit 4g by Chrisq · · Score: 2

    I read somewhere that the largest initial benefit with the introduction of 4g was that 3g networks improved as the real heavy data users upgraded. I wonder if the same thing will happen to 4g when 5g is introduced. It's nice to be behind the curve but benefit anyway!

    1. Re:I wonder if this will benefit 4g by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read somewhere that the largest initial benefit with the introduction of 4g was that 3g networks improved as the real heavy data users upgraded. I wonder if the same thing will happen to 4g when 5g is introduced. It's nice to be behind the curve but benefit anyway!

      That's odd. Up until a couple of months ago, I had 3G and my download speeds were typically around 10-20kbps. No, I'm not exaggerating. Now, I have 4G. While it is a vast improvement over what I had previously, it is still not anywhere near what I would call 4G "fast".

  9. Should hit my monthly cap in 1/3 of a second by nycsubway · · Score: 1

    I have the Verizon 1GB/month plan. With these speeds, I should be able to hit the cap within 1/3 of a second. Not sure that "5G" really benefits anyone.

    --
    http://github.com/gbook/nidb
    1. Re:Should hit my monthly cap in 1/3 of a second by JWW · · Score: 1

      Not exactly, its GigaBytes per month and GigaBits of speed.

      You'll have 8 times as long until you hit the plan cap, so 8/3 of a second or 2 and 2/3 seconds.

      Way better ;-)

      Again I have to say, this is like having a Ferrari that you can only drive a few minutes a month.

      The cognitive dissonance between freaking tiny bandwidth caps and huge speeds just keeps growing.

    2. Re:Should hit my monthly cap in 1/3 of a second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No cognitive dissonance at all. The wireless companies want your connection to be so fast that you exceed your cap faster than you even know what happened.

    3. Re:Should hit my monthly cap in 1/3 of a second by rworne · · Score: 1

      That's because the 5G service isn't for you.

      It's for the carriers. Along with the added bandwidth comes added capacity - especially if it cannot be exploited by the customers due to data caps.

      Your requests just get on/off the network faster leaving space for another user to do the same.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    4. Re:Should hit my monthly cap in 1/3 of a second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get unlimited data so you can fill your 32GB iPhone in a minute and a half.

  10. 4 Seconds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's awesome. You can reach your data cap on Verizon in under 5 seconds.

  11. Huawei? by acoustix · · Score: 1

    Don't they basically just rip off Cisco hardware and software?

    --
    "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
  12. You're a kid, you're a squid by tepples · · Score: 2

    Huawei? Those shape-shifting squid things

    As opposed to shape-shifting kid things?

  13. What happened to 4G? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    And don't try telling me that LTE is 4G.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  14. Sub 6Ghz by Squatting_Dog · · Score: 1

    Sub 6 Ghz .... is that better known as 5 Ghz?

    1. Re:Sub 6Ghz by sjames · · Score: 1

      YUes, they will "accidentally" degrade your WiFi, but don't worry, when you lose your nearly free connectivity, they will happily $ell you $some.

  15. and the carriers wet their pants with joy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because now they can charge me for going over my data cap in minutes instead of hours.

  16. Isn't 5G more than just speed by sachin.date · · Score: 1
    5G is supposed to codify a *set* of objectives that networks need to satisfy. These include: .
    • Mindnumbingly high throughput when the user is stationary or moving slowly.
    • Very high throughput even when the user is moving very fast (e.g.high speed train travel upto 300 kmph).
    • Very low latency connections (1-10 ms)
    • Support for massive city-wide or region-wide deployments of Internet of Things over low power cellular connections
    • Very high spectral efficiency leading to reliable high throughput connections in densely populated neighboords

    These are some of the important objectives. Speed is just one of the criteria for qualification. In that sense, the test described in the article seems to be more like 4.1 G in the same way plain LTE (i.e. not LTE Advanced) is 3.5G.