Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

OldSchoolMacGuy

Suspended
Jul 10, 2008
4,197
9,050
While technically true, many services scale to what they detect your connection speed to be. Netflix, for example, tests the line, and streams at a rate they believe appropriate. Switching from one type of broadband to another while not changing habits can result in increased data use in cases like that.

On top of that, as higher connection speeds become more widely available, services include more junk. A single article on many news sites is already 2 MB or so. It's basically the same problem as software bloat. You have all this extra capacity. No need to spend time making efficient use of it.

Again, available bandwidth speed alone is not the reason you download more. It's the many other factors that impact total usage, not the speed itself.
 

avanpelt

macrumors 68030
Jun 2, 2010
2,956
3,877
1ms to 5ms latency sounds good but you have to remember that you'll probably only see those numbers within AT&T's network. Still, I'm sure the latency in general will be considerably less than it typically is today over LTE and certainly much less than what you see over 3G and HSPA+.
 

chriscrowlee

macrumors 65816
Aug 10, 2015
1,333
1,468
San Diego, CA
Sure this is great, but I wonder why... I mean won't there be an equilibrium for phone data that it is as fast as it needs to be, and any more than that is wasted technology/implementation?

Once we hit 1ghz on computer processors, the speed bumps are really insignificant for the 95% of users who just use their computers for surfing the web, composing emails and word documents, etc. This has always been the argument with technology. But with internet speed, the technologies like video with larger files for the higher resolutions demand higher speeds. Is it necessary to get 1gbps download and have your 4k video in 10 seconds instead of downloading for 5 minutes? No, but is it nice? Yes!
 

Rigby

macrumors 603
Aug 5, 2008
6,210
10,148
San Jose, CA
Yes this was confusing me. I understand virtualizing computers, where you can have one physical computer segment out CPUs and Memory into virtual machines. but in the network especially at the tower level it made no sense. If this is all about optimizing paths through the network using the word virtualizing seems misleading.
Network Function Virtualization is mostly about migrating network components from today's dedicated hardware boxes to software implementations that can be run in virtualized form (virtual machines or containers) in data centers using standard servers. Primary advantages are cost savings, faster rollout of new services, more flexibility and scalability (scale-out). The first components that will run virtualized will be OSS/BSS, IMS and core network functions, but there are efforts to virtualize parts of the radio network as well (see e.g. here).
 
Last edited:

Photo Op8

macrumors newbie
Feb 26, 2011
7
1
I'd love to cut the cord with time warner's cable modem service. At best it's "ok" and for $55 I get unlimited data at 15/1 speeds. Last time I checked though I download anywhere from 100-300 GB per month for a family of 4. Thank you Netflix! Anyway, if ATT offered me high speeds at anything even close to what I am paying now for something like 100 or 250 GB/month I'd consider changing over and truly going cordless.

Where do you think the price is going to go when T-Mobile gets ahold of this. Bye, bye Comcast!
 

dave420

macrumors 65816
Jun 15, 2010
1,426
276
Nonsense! There is no 5G. There isn't even an agreement between the various parties as to what 5G will be.
Some of us just like our network to be represented by a number that goes up every few years. Is that too much to ask?
 

OldSchoolMacGuy

Suspended
Jul 10, 2008
4,197
9,050
I'm not saying they should start laying fiber to every house. The last mile still can be copper I think thats fair enough.

But my point is, they should be laying fiber anyway and more of it. Yes in a nice world where we dont need fiber anymore because we have all these 18G Towers, those towers sure have to be connected somehow.. with fiber?

And when the day comes they can use Towers with low latency, fast speeds and big throughput for many clients.. I think we still have to wait a while where we can do it all wireless.

Just lay the ****ing lines. Then they are there, we can change the endpoints for faster speeds and dont have to pollute all frequencies with data traffic to connect everything. And a lot of stuff doesnt need to be wireless.

Do you have any idea the cost of laying fiber? It's insanely expensive to lay cable/fiber. You're talking about pulling permits that cost money and months or years for approval, designing the network, then ripping up roads/yards/sidewalks to lay the fiber, then paying to repave roads and sidewalks and re-sod yards.

Right now there's more dark fiber around than active fiber. The problem isn't lack of fiber by any means. Laying more fiber isn't needed in most active areas.

Source: Worked in the ISP and fiber industry.
 

gaximus

macrumors 68020
Oct 11, 2011
2,237
4,372
Standards are generally adopted because someone goes out there and proves their way of doing it works great. They aren't something chosen because the theory sounds good, they're chosen because someone someone PROVES they work well. That's exactly what AT&T is doing here. In a more public way, the war between HD DVD and Bluray let consumers choose the standard.



I understand what your saying, but the standards for HD DVD and Bluray were set before they started mass producing either. The customer had nothing to do with what the standards where. Customers choose which format they
preferred.
 

dorsal

macrumors regular
Aug 20, 2002
159
131
I'm still waiting for reliable 3G or even EDGE in some areas. Every time I visit my in-laws (which live close enough to Interstate 55 to hear traffic), I get almost no signal.

Coverage maps show that some tower is to the north of us, and the south of us. Their house is apparently right in the middle, between the two towers, in a dead zone.

It's not just AT&T, either. Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile actually have worse service there. I usually go outside or stand by a window to try and get a better signal.

I've been using the "Mark this Spot" app there for the past 5+ years in that spot. So have other members of my family. I don't think AT&T cares.


Same problem in Northern Detroit. Apparently it's cheaper for AT&T for me to buy a signal booster from them, rather than them putting up another tower. Go figure.

I gave up on "Mark this spot".
 

ronnyromero

macrumors newbie
Feb 12, 2016
10
5
Nonsense! There is no 5G. There isn't even an agreement between the various parties as to what 5G will be.

In fact, we don't have 4G anywhere around the world yet. LTE is not 4G. Several years ago, when 4G fell well behind schedule, carriers and manufacturers lobbied the 4G working committee to allow them to call LTE 4G. After 6 months, the committee agreed. But LTE is actually 3G+. 4G is LTE Advanced, which has been in testing stage for several years, and is something we won't see for another year, at least, in commercial installation.

Estimates for the release of 5G, is mid 2020s, with some in the industry thinking early 2030s.

So,what AT&T and Verizon, who also announced this, are likely talking about is LTE Advanced, in other words, real 4G.

Don't let anyone fool you guys about this. No one even knows what 5G will be. Some groups want it to be equivalent to 10G Ethernet. Some want it to be a mesh technology, and others want it to be LoT. There is No agreement as to what it will be, much less having equipment capable of delivering anything.

You might be true about the LTE-A, 4G and 5G marketing in part, because it is also true that its a common practice to change standards before launch because of roadmaps and Time to Market. But other than that, you are focusing in the less important part of the news, the important part is not about the names but about the technologies being deployed. First, LTE-A was STANDARDIZED in March 2011 as 3GPP Release 10, which is already old. A complete coverage of commercial LTE-Advanced deployments (Cat.4 with CA and Cat.6 onwards) including launch dates since 2013 can be found in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LTE_networks

Just for reference, LTE-A networks there are 3 in Africa (Cat 6) and 6 in Canada (Cat 6) commercially deployed, and in the US there are some Cat 4 with CA which is also LTE-A: ATT has 2 networks running CA since 2014, Sprint has one since 2013, Tmobile has one since 2014, and Verizon has 2 since 2014. Australia has Cat 11 already (600mbps). Also, Central America and Caribbean countries have a couple more Cat 6 networks I have implemented myself and are not listed in the document. I don't know what is ATT and V planning to test, but they have already had LTE-A in a couple of places for 2 years now.

So, as you can see, LTE-A is not new and I cannot be sure what these guys are going to test, but IMHO I can only hope it is at least Cat 11 which is already commercially deployed. Also, the fact that they have LTE-A or 5G or whatever doesn't immediately translates to higher speeds, that depends on their commercial departments and the Fair Use Policy they want to implement (normally called Cap in the US, both for max speed and for total monthly download, also applied separately for different apps). What it really means is that more people will be able to have and sustain that use policy because it is impossible for any carrier to be sure how many people are going to TRY to connect to one cell (mobility is a bi@tch), also you will have lower latency which, even if it is already low, it is always good to improve for streaming voice or video (online games included), CA will allow you to connect even to separate cells/base stations and load balance, the rest are pretty much improvements for the carrier M&O.

Oh, I worked for a mainstream LTE network equipment manufacturer so believe me, LTE-A is already old (implementation has taken time to carriers but that doesn't mean it hasn't been around for quite a long time) and what you call real 5G has been in testing since 2010. If you go to any of the Telecom expos around the world, you might see the tests running live with several manufacturers. Start talking about 6G, that is a less than a year talk.
 

Jetfire

macrumors 6502
Jul 10, 2008
386
347
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Man and I just got rid of my unlimited plan on my iPhone too.

Well I never really used more than 2GB a month on it anyway. Not being able to tether will it is what killed it for me. Company is also paying for it too. I still have my unlimited plan on my iPad though will have to think about keeping that for a longer time now.
 

mattopotamus

macrumors G5
Jun 12, 2012
14,666
5,879
I'd love to cut the cord with time warner's cable modem service. At best it's "ok" and for $55 I get unlimited data at 15/1 speeds. Last time I checked though I download anywhere from 100-300 GB per month for a family of 4. Thank you Netflix! Anyway, if ATT offered me high speeds at anything even close to what I am paying now for something like 100 or 250 GB/month I'd consider changing over and truly going cordless.

Depends where you live. I pay $70 for a GBPS connection with ATT.
 

Moorepheus

macrumors 6502
Sep 13, 2012
461
375
Niagara Falls, NY
What dead zone are you in without LTE, 4G , 4G LTE, or some decent connection?

At my house, it is a DEAD zone and regardless of what technology AT&T is working on, I don't see them fixing my DEAD ZONE any times soon. I have been living here 3 years now, complained the first week we moved in, about the dead zone. AT&T's solution was to give me a M-CELL for my house. Doesn't help me if I am outside my house, outside the range of the M-CELL, I will be lucky to get 1 Bar for Cell Service. With the advent of WiFi calling w/ AT&T, i am thinking of returning the M-CELL , but not sure how well the WiFi calling works, but again, still have issue when I am outside the range of my WiFi. I just looked at AT&T's coverage map for my area and it states I should have HD Voice. Not with 1 bar. I love the service when it works and I have been with AT&T for years. Not ready to switch, just hoping the will address this issue one day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iOSFangirl6001

danielwsmithee

macrumors 65816
Mar 12, 2005
1,135
410
You bring up a very good point. Will fiber in the home be obsoleted by next generation wireless networks? If no cable to run, that is a huge labor savings.

Just have power into the house and have all communication in and out of the place be a stationary next generation microcell doubling as WiFi for the home.
Theoretically it is a possibility. Very similar to in your home would your rather have a 100Mb ethernet connection or AC Wireless? I'm faced with that choice today with my Apple TV.

The wired Ethernet connection is much more reliable, and except in the most optimal situations still provides better speed.
[doublepost=1455298459][/doublepost]
Depends where you live. I pay $70 for a GBPS connection with ATT.
$45 for gigabit fiber up and down. Municipal fiber is great. Fiber could pretty easily be updraded to 10Gb, its the routers and devices in home that would hold that up.
 

puckhead193

macrumors G3
May 25, 2004
9,570
852
NY
Now you can bring back the unlimited data plans! The real unlimited data plans...no throttling.

"Quick, download the file in ludicris speed!"

Great movie!! I think I can quote it line for line hahaha
I just wish they made 4G handle more devices, trying to use it during a crowed event like a hockey game/concert at MSG is like pulling teeth and MSG changed the press WIFI :(
 

danielwsmithee

macrumors 65816
Mar 12, 2005
1,135
410
Do you have any idea the cost of laying fiber? It's insanely expensive to lay cable/fiber. You're talking about pulling permits that cost money and months or years for approval, designing the network, then ripping up roads/yards/sidewalks to lay the fiber, then paying to repave roads and sidewalks and re-sod yards.

Right now there's more dark fiber around than active fiber. The problem isn't lack of fiber by any means. Laying more fiber isn't needed in most active areas.

Source: Worked in the ISP and fiber industry.
Very true, our city had a fiber network loop installed throughout the city that remained dark for 10 years. It was until recently that the state laws propping up ISPs were changed that the city was finally able to get it turned on.

They been connecting to homes throughout the city now for about a year. The yards haven't been much of an issue. It took two people about 45 minutes to lay it into our yard. The bigger delay was getting it from the main loop to the junction boxes at the property lines. Lots of conduit has gone in throughout the city...
 

kdarling

macrumors P6
now blow through your data caps in half the time!

On the good side, even if ATT throttles your overages to a fraction of normal speed, it'll still be ungodly fast :D

I'm guessing we'll need the faster networks for new devices of the future, ex: Apple Car, medical technology, football stadiums, streaming TV on our devices without the cable networks, etc.

It means no more expensive to lay and maintain wires / fibers needed.

All comms to/from your house will be wireless... TV, Internet, and phone.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: American Hero

rrm74001

macrumors 6502
Nov 11, 2008
289
336
If you believe that websites, apps, and videos will not get more data intensive with these new technologies - hence blowing through your data allocation faster - then it's possible there is a little bit of willful ignorance going on.

And in factual terms, if I have a 2 GB plan and I can download that in less than 10 minutes with new technology, do I really have to use math to defend my statement?

Go get that second cup of coffee and carry on. :cool:

We are arguing 2 different things.

You are arguing time, we are are arguing data.

Let's say the water company restricts everyone to just 1 gallon of water every day, and 1 gallon is all you need for drinking, cooking, etc. After that, the water company charges you extra.

So every day you fill a gallon container from the faucet. Currently, your faucet outputs .1 gallon per second. It takes 10 seconds to fill the gallon container.

Let's say you upgrade your faucet to output .2 gallon per second. It now takes just 5 seconds to fill the gallon container. Just because you can fill 2 gallon containers with the upgraded faucet in the same time it took to fill 1 gallon container with the original faucet, are you necessarily going to use more water?
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.