Slashdot Mirror
Verizon Completes Its Radio Specs for 5G, Pushing Its Agenda For Global Standard Down the Line (cnet.com)
Roger Cheng, reporting for CNET: The reality of 5G, wireless connectivity that's faster than our speediest home internet service, is years away. But that isn't stopping Verizon from making its presence felt now. The nation's largest wireless carrier said Monday it has worked out the radio specifications for its 5G deployment with its vendor partners, providing a common blueprint for everyone regarding the network infrastructure, processors and devices. It's a significant step on the path to 5G. And by moving quickly now, Verizon hopes to set the agenda for how the standards look, a similar strategy it took with its 4G LTE deployment. Setting the specifications not only speeds the process for its own vendors, but may influence the international community when players around the world finally begin hammering out a global standard, expected in 2020. The Federal Communications Commission is also working to free up resources to drive 5G in the US. [...] Verizon said it will begin commercially deploying its service next year.
Either Verizon is managed by Time Lords or the company is going to deploy 5G technology before global standards are agreed.
What good does extra speed do when there are very low data caps, at least here in the US?
Right now the typical account gievs you 1 - 3 GB per month. Pretty easy to burn though in no time watching a few videos.
Their new account tier 'adjustments' announced a few days ago change nothing.
If higher speeds are to be useful, and mobile streaming is to be useful, they need to do away with the data caps again. Right now we're starting to see a very non-neutrality focusd solution where certain companies streaming services are exempt from the data count. This is a problem when the little indie streaming station I want to listen to is not included. Listener supported indie radio outlets like somaFM.com and Radio Paradise are left out in the cold, shutting out diversity. I can't listen to them in my car, only at home.
Many people feel that data caps are strictly a business decision, and not a technical issue. Which means that there is not enough competition in the cellular wireless sphere. The barrier to entry in this market is very high so it's not surprising.
Why does it take years to draft a standard?
It takes years because each vendor wants a "standard" established which gives them a competitive advantage over the other vendors. Even if their preferred "standard" is technically inferior - like, oh I don't know let's make something up... not being able to handle both voice and data traffic at the same time.
#DeleteChrome
you have t-mobile for that. maybe sprint too, but there is no way i'd ever be a sprint customer
Lads, this is the free market at work. Verizon is using stockholder investments to hire people to scope out the next sector. So long as they have competition, they will raise data caps to account for the new bandwidth (unless it's a total fail - no one finds it adds value, and the stock will drop). All the analog spectrum formerly used to send TV shows like "Beverly Hillbillies" and "Gilligan's Island" could perhaps be better managed, but probably not better managed by cantankerous commenters who see every investment by every mulitinational corporation to be doomed from the start.
Anticipating the curmudgeon lad who says that the bandwidth will increase exponentially more for the 1%, I say I care about MY bandwidth yesterday, today, and tomorrow, more than I care how much faster someone else obtains it.
Gently reply
Who cares? They are one of the most corrupt companies in the world and will gouge the shit out of this.
"You can now download at 1gbps on your phone!! but be careful not to go over your 2gb data plan"
T-mobile 4 life
Verizon still allows unlimited data to exist which is much nicer than what sprint did imho. (IIRC you got canceled outright or switched to a metered plan and billed overage)
Verizon also appears to allow new unlimited lines on enterprise accounts
although grandfathered voice/data and data only plans are much cheaper.
Att also has some true unlimited plans that still exist (the ipad unlimited plans)
AFAIK there are no true unlimited plans in existence on any other providers.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
I have T-mobile, I can't speak to how "true unlimited" my plan is, but I regularly break 10Gb, and have broken 20 (new phone, updated all of my audio content, and watched some movies on vacation).
I can only tether a few Gb though, so in that sense I guess it's not true.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Well i'm pretty sure verizons grandfathered plans are true unlimited as the mifi i'm using to post this is sitting at 76GB and the one I use for internet at home is sitting at 330GB and the bill doesn't reset until the 13th
With that kind of usage I'm pretty sure i'd have gotten a phone call or at the very least a stern letter if it wasn't unlimited.
last I checked tmobile didn't offer unlimited plans for mifi's and even if they did most places have a cap or throttle after 20GB or so iirc tmobile hits you at 26GB and att hits you at 22GB
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
I don't think anybody's too worried about the 1% getting better bandwidth... would be interesting if there were a commercial avenue to tap into unused _military_ spectrum for better coverage.
Unlike the union, where you're apparently from, there is no unified market called the states. Sure, it sounds like it should be, but it isn't. There's a unified currency, and well, there's a unified currency. If you get sick outside your home state, not all health insurance plans will cover that. An insurance plan, you ask. How do I explain the concept of non-universal coverage... eh, I'm bored anyways. Nevermind.
I guess you understood "radio specs" to mean something different than everyone else here. Not that I'm convinced as to what degree everyone else has that understanding. As far as I can tell, this likely means that Verizon has a specification for the radio hardware that works on the frequencies it bought ready to go for phone manufacturers who want to sell phones that will work on Verizon's network that it will brand 5G in the United States. I'm not sure what the "agenda for global standard" stuff is about.
Deciding what the specs are before they are internationally standardized is the most effective way of ending up out of step with the rest of the world. The US has proved very, very effective at that over the years.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
>I'm not sure what the "agenda for global standard" stuff is about.
Global spectrum harmonization. Well actually not. This will do nothing to promote global spectrum harmonization.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Why does it take years to draft a standard?
Because the ITU made a plan how to get to the new G5 standard:
http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-R/study-groups/rsg5/rwp5d/imt-2020/Pages/default.aspx
It seems that Verizon only talks about international standards when it's trying to impose its will on others. To actually follow global standards is another thing entirely. In the heady cash-by-forklift times of the early Iraq occupation, Verizon was almost given the contract to do Iraq's cellular network... in CDMA, of course. Nevermind that every other country in the region was GSM. I think this says a lot about how Verizon thinks about standards.
If the FCC had any stones, they would ban any CDMA hardware for 5G that isn't sim card based. Indefensible. The service should be the card, not the whole damn handset. Even an environmental impact argument could be made against Verizon and their locked, proprietary hardware.
I do not believe any tethering is allowed as unlimited with Tmobile.
Only for phone plans on the phone itself.
and clearly I'm nowhere near in usage to where you are...
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
oh I don't know let's make something up... not being able to handle both voice and data traffic at the same time.
I don't think that existed ever. Some systems allowed that to happen by having two separate radios in the phone, not all phones had two radios, so not all phones upported data and voice at the same time.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?