Slashdot Mirror
Qualcomm's Simulated 5G Tests Shows How Fast Real-world Speeds Could Actually Be (theverge.com)
At Mobile World Congress, Qualcomm demonstrated the real-world potential of 5G by sharing findings of extensive network simulations it has conducted over the past several months. From a report: Instead of just offering guesses as to the gigabit-plus speeds that 5G technology could one day offer, Qualcomm's tests modeled real-world conditions in Frankfurt and San Fransisco, based on the location of existing cell sites and spectrum allocations in the two cities. The simulations factor in conditions like geography, different user demands on the network, a wide spectrum of devices with various levels of LTE and 5G connectivity for different speeds in order to accurately give an idea of what to expect when these networks launch. Additionally, the simulations are intended only to show the kind of 5G NR (New Radio) networks that could feasibly exist next year -- the non-standalone networks built in tandem with existing 4G LTE technology, not the truly standalone 5G networks that will come later on.
The Frankfurt simulation is the more basic network, based on 100 MHz of 3.5GHz spectrum with an underlying gigabit-LTE network on 5 LTE spectrum bands, but the results are still staggering. Browsing jumped from 56 Mbps for the median 4G user to more than 490 Mbps for the median 5G user, with roughly seven times faster response rates for browsing. Download speeds also improved dramatically, with over 90 percent of users seeing at least 100 Mbps download speeds on 5G, versus 8 Mbps on LTE.
The Frankfurt simulation is the more basic network, based on 100 MHz of 3.5GHz spectrum with an underlying gigabit-LTE network on 5 LTE spectrum bands, but the results are still staggering. Browsing jumped from 56 Mbps for the median 4G user to more than 490 Mbps for the median 5G user, with roughly seven times faster response rates for browsing. Download speeds also improved dramatically, with over 90 percent of users seeing at least 100 Mbps download speeds on 5G, versus 8 Mbps on LTE.
How useful, to be able to reach my data limit in just over 30 seconds!
Yeah, the "real world" test is when the carriers dilute the number of available cells, stifle the backhaul, choose frequency bands that only a mother could love, then find ways to choose phones that aren't really capable of chewing through downloads quickly.
It's a nice proof of concept, but the real world is an unforgiving bear.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
I wonder what the simulated throughput of LTE was back in the day
Nullius in verba
"roughly seven times faster response rates for browsing"
What do you suppose this means? Latency dropping from 30-60 mS to 5-10? Page starts loading seven times faster? Do slow sites magically load seven times faster?
Not unambiguous.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
More speed so that websitescan add more JavaScript bloatware/malware. Usersâ(TM) hardware will be more accessible for third parties and, in return, we will keep 1990s browsing speeds.
I can't quite dig up *that*, but there is some content around the same time period talking about '144 mbit' versus the 300 mbit theoretical max, so it seemed that about the same time in development, they were saying 'about half'.
Now this is saying the about half was too optimistic, and instead 1/6th turned out to be the case. If the same carries over to this, then we would still be talking about 150 mbps. In other words, what was hyped for LTE 'real-world' may be the '5G' real-world.
Of course, this *could* be a more realistic simulation and maybe there is a lot of headroom, but historically speaking that's never been the case.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Browsing jumped from 56 Mbps for the median 4G user to more than 490 Mbps for the median 5G user
So, we'll still be waiting for actual 4G speeds. Maybe "6G" or "7G" will finally meet the standards for 4G.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I don't need faster cell or wired Net service. I need more reliable. Faster without reliability is useless to me.
I don't respond to AC's.
It's important to note they opened some frequency bands below the original 24Ghz+ frequencies that were being touted early on. I suspect physics caught up to marketing guys fast, when they realized a rain storm could easily attenuate the signal to non-usable levels in a very short distance. Not sure if they'll be able to live up to the original speed estimates, but still obviously an improvement.
Seriously, how can you Europeans be so insufferably smug all the time? Need I point out Europe is the place that charges to use public toilets and for water at restaurants. They also created ezjet and ryanair. Nobody does cheap like Europe does.
addendum:
O2 (an example of ISP I used during my stay in Germany) has currently offers of 25 or 20 GB per month.
At currently simulated 490Mbps (roughly 60MB/s) it would take between 300s (5 min) to 400ms to max it out, around 10x more that the above 30s example.
Also, once the limit is hit, the device isn't cut off internet, the speed is simply degraded to 1Mbps.
There are other countries in Europe where it's not even customary to have data limits : Switzerland is an example thereof (on most non-pre-paid-plans, only speed is limited (together with minimal guaranteed speed), not total download volume)
I'm too lazy to do a systematic check but lots of European countries are likely to be in similar situation.
And that's today's number. By the time 5G finishes getting deployed to customers, the various plans will be adapted to it (probably with data limits in the 100GB range and higher speed limits / minimal guarantee).
Meanwhile, US custommers will probably have their monthly limits increased from 1GB to 2GB.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
In the sense that we need this service to be available farther past the edge of large urban areas than currently available, which is to say, where there is no Starbucks or Panda Express an easy drive away. Because once you hit the exurbs, it's not about "is 5G better then 4G" or "will the new thing be a little more reliable," but rather "is there any chance of even getting 3G coverage at my house."
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
My understanding of "browsing" says that it is a series of file parsings and downloads, in a sequence, interspearsed with various short or long pauses. That suggests that the average browsing speed should be less than the peak file transfer speed.
In the TFA, the "median 5G user" experiences a 490 Mbps "browsing speed", while the "90%" experienced a "download speed" of 100 Mbps.
How could that be? Is "downloading" capped to the nice, round number 100?
Perhaps the most honest metric is the time to first meaningful paint.
When the user navigates to an HTML document, a browser doesn't immediately display the data as it comes in. Doing that would cause the layout to jump around as style sheets, images, and fonts provided by the server replace those built into the browser and operating system. This jumping is often called the "flash of unstyled content" (FOUC). So before rendering anything, some browsers wait until the layout "above the fold" (that which can be seen without scrolling) has stabilized.
Maybe I'm extraordinarily lucky. I don't know, but I don't struggle for phone service, basically ever. Verizon 4G LTE is "good enough". I watch Youtube videos casually. Navigation works. Texting, music, installing apps wherever, etc. There are problems but they are rare enough that I can't actually remember the last time I had a service problem.
The only exception is when hiking backwoods trails and half the reason I do this is to get OFF the grid. Service in Italy was basically useless, calls only. But service in Peru was excellent!
So I'm not really willing to pay for more speed. I want cheaper and comparable service around the globe, and I want bandwidth caps dropped.
The summary implies that the test assumed current subscriber-to-tower ratios. I imagine that prioritizing bursty interactive traffic improves overall user experience for a given subscriber-to-tower ratio.
To get 144Mb you need multiple antennas and multiple channels. It's available in Japan but you need a special mobile router (phones have only one antenna) and a special extra expensive SIM card. It's marketed to business users and I doubt you get that full speed, but it should be faster than single antenna.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Need I point out Europe is the place that charges to use public toilets and for water at restaurants.
That's because we famously hate socialism, of course.
Ezekiel 23:20
I'm in Canada, on fixed wireless with a hub with a couple of antennas, dual channel (2.4 and 5Ghz) and the best I get is 15Mbs down and now that all my neighbours (perhaps 100-200) seem to have the same setup, it is currently 5.5Mbs down and 1 up, last evening it was 1 down and 3 up. Not very impressive, though it saves the ISP money in just building a cell tower with some government funding instead of bringing the fiber all the way out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
It also means that I can get to the Slashdot SSL error pages faster. Yay!
Since wireless carriers are already placing limits on my data usage and throttling sites heavily used sites (netflix etc.) what the hell good does a bigger endpoint pipe do if they won't allow any more data in it?
They were simulations, although the TFA isn't real specific about how they were set up. It's implied that they took real data using existing LTE infrastructure and extrapolated how 5G would perform in that environment. Far from perfect, but assuming they're reasonably competent they should be able to get projections that are in-the-ballpark accurate. As for "ideal conditions" well, yeah, that's what you use for a benchmark. "Rain" can mean anything from light mist to torrential downpour, you can't use it as a context for comparing systems because it's too variable.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
just like with 4g lol its so fast and by the time the tower got loaded up you got hi end 3g speeds of 8 mbs. still for a phone more then good enough stop putting 4k screens in 4 inch phones lol.