AT&T to Begin Testing 5G, 10-100 Times Faster Than 4G LTE

[OldSchoolMacGuy]

Now you can break through your data plan in 10 minutes. Yay us!

now blow through your data caps in half the time!

Because do you watch more movies now that Comcast increased their standard speeds?

The quantity of content doesn't increase with the increase in speed, it simply means that now you don't have to wait as long for it to download to your device. Less time buffering and more time actually watching.

It also means less battery usage in many cases. If I can send your 10MB file in 1/2 the time, now your phone spends 50% less time transmitting which means a savings in battery use.

Usage doesn't generally increase due to increases in broadband speeds. The biggest impact on our usage is more due to the type of content. Higher quality video takes more bandwidth and multi-media heavy websites that have become commonplace are the big reasons for the increase in bandwidth, not simply faster internet speeds.

Do faster internet speeds enable more rich websites and content? Sure. But speed alone isn't the reason for increased bandwidth consumption. You aren't suddenly browsing 100x more websites now that your speeds have increased 100x.

 

[bommai]

Sweet. If the data limits are high enough, this will make swinging the axe on Comcast easy. 50 GB for $50-100 would be plenty.

You realize if you watch Netflix, etc, you can blow through 250GB.

 

[Oridus]

LMAO! SO true. You gotta wonder what kind of incompetent losers work at AT&T when they make decisions like that.

Well, I guess I'm glad you don't get paid well to make those decisions, because if you did and with that kind of logic (or lack thereof), there wouldn't be any cell phone company to make those kind of jokes at.

I would be willing to bet that they've thought about this, and will have something in place. Just like when the NEXT program came out and there were no different plans than the Family Talk and Nation Talk plans, everybody was up in arms because there weren't any real discounts, and then all of a sudden a few months later they rolled out their MS plans, and a few months after that, MSV, essentially equaling or beating the subsidies for MOST (please read that correctly, I SAID MOST, NOT ALL) customers, therefor making it a win for MOST customers... You can bet they didn't just come up with that over night.

 

[Zimmie]

What does it mean to virtualize its network?

How do you virtualize Cell Towers?

It's nonsense. "Software-Defined Networking" is just a new marketing buzzword with no real meaning. Same with "Network Function Virtualization". For the most part, vendors are using those terms to describe networks that self-organize, because machines can use graph theory to optimize paths far better and far faster than humans can. This isn't a new concept or technology, though. It has been widespread in high-performance computing for at least 20 years.

 

[gcliv]

This is honestly downright stupid. Its all about the marketing, "oh we have this many miles covered in infinity-G and the other guys don't!!!!!!1111eleven" LTE is fine for years to come, the issue isn't enough bandwidth from phone-to-tower, its that the backhaul is so abysmal in the vast majority of areas. But we have such a shallow consumer base, all they see is the next incremental "G" with a pretty map and think they're getting something better. We should be measuring our cell phone networks in real performance terms instead of which "G" it is: latency and bandwidth to the public interwebz, call stability, actual signal strength, number of devices capable of being backed at full throttle on any given tower, etc.

I would take 3G with a 100% full bandwidth guaranteed to each phone from the backhaul over the entire country before I'd give two craps about 5G. Fully backed 3G is >20MBps, more than enough for 99% of workloads and use cases. My LTE performance is often <10MBps in major metro areas currently.

 

[drewyboy]

now blow through your data caps in half the time!

You're incorrectly assuming that just because your data is delivered to you in x number of times faster, that you will also consume at a proportional rate. If a website loads 100x faster, will you browse 100x websites? No you won't is the answer.

If you use 2GB a month on average, you'll still consume 2GB, but it will be delivered to your device x times faster.

 

[npmacuser5]

Sweet. If the data limits are high enough, this will make swinging the axe on Comcast easy. 50 GB for $50-100 would be plenty.

If you switch from Comcast TV you will need at least 300 gb to fully replace it. I know doing it now.

 

[American Hero]

LMAO! SO true. You gotta wonder what kind of incompetent losers work at AT&T when they make decisions like that.

Why would they care?

 

[mattopotamus]

Because that would slow progress to a halt if we waited for complete coverage of an older technology before moving on to the next.

what I really mean is there are plenty of areas that still need LTE coverage. I don't think I see anyone complaining about LTE speeds considering, as many people stated, it is faster than their home broadband.

 

[Oridus]

You realize if you watch Netflix, etc, you can blow through 250GB.

Truth. I used 47 Yesterday, 283 so far this month, and 596 last month. Last month was almost 20 gigs a day. Granted, mine is more than just Netflix, and there's probably 12-14 connected devices in the house that use a decent chunk of it, but it's far more than 250 -_-.

 

[Zimmie]

Do faster internet speeds enable more rich websites and content? Sure. But speed alone isn't the reason for increased bandwidth consumption. You aren't suddenly browsing 100x more websites now that your speeds have increased 100x.

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.

 

[Cmd-Z]

My LTE connection is already 100x faster than my home broadband, why does it need to go faster?

Because it's not all about you (er, us). I believe that industrial applications of high speed data transfer is one of the intended uses of 5G (think large-scale remote automation in mining, construction, etc.) Sure it would be pretty cool to have such a boost in mobile speeds, but I believe commercial use is not necessarily the primary targets of this technology. Besides, developing and deploying such technology will keep many of us busy for years to come, so that we can pay for those higher data caps

 

[gaximus]

If you don't have AT&T or Verizon 4G LTE by now, you must live in the sticks, and even most of the sticks have LTE service (at least the sticks I've visited lately).

4G LTE is very widespread throughout most of the country, so moving to 5G makes sense.

I live near Boulder CO, considered a booming tech area. And there are several places her, even in high populated areas, were a mall and a theater exists, where I only get edge network. I can cross the road a get great LTE, but not every where that that doesn't get LTE is consider living in the sticks.

 

[American Hero]

I live near Boulder CO, considered a booming tech area. And there are several places her, even in high populated areas, were a mall and a theater exists, where I only get edge network. I can cross the road a get great LTE, but not every where that that doesn't get LTE is consider living in the sticks.

Likely because of the mountains in Colorado?

 

[Vanilla35]

Why not try to deliver 4G LTE everywhere first?

It's as good as it's going to get. If you don't have LTE by now, you might want to think about relocating.

 

[2457282]

It's nonsense. "Software-Defined Networking" is just a new marketing buzzword with no real meaning. Same with "Network Function Virtualization". For the most part, vendors are using those terms to describe networks that self-organize, because machines can use graph theory to optimize paths far better and far faster than humans can. This isn't a new concept or technology, though. It has been widespread in high-performance computing for at least 20 years.

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. Thanks for the response.

 

[Vanilla35]

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.

What is the incentive for them to do that?

I'm sure they would consider it (thus why the mark this spot option exists), but if there simply aren't enough requests, it's not worth their time and money.

 

[iOSFangirl6001]

Why not try to deliver 4G LTE everywhere first?

What dead zone are you in without LTE, 4G , 4G LTE, or some decent connection?

now blow through your data caps in half the time!

Actually there are other sites with more in depth press releases where ATT is quoted saying "with faster speeds will come larger data buckets! We already offer greater data value to Mobile Share and Mobile Share value customers as well as bonus data and double data to eligible loyal customers"

[doublepost=1455289762][/doublepost]Ok Verizon, let's get on this!

Verizon was 1st to start 5G research as far as providers go so ATT is following suit and racing to beat them just saying

 

[Zimmie]

I would take 3G with a 100% full bandwidth guaranteed to each phone from the backhaul over the entire country before I'd give two craps about 5G. Fully backed 3G is >20MBps, more than enough for 99% of workloads and use cases. My LTE performance is often <10MBps in major metro areas currently.

That's basically what this would enable. Radio is a shared medium. Two things can't talk on the same frequency at the same time. As such, you need to implement some kind of time sharing system to have a capacity of more than one station (including if you want to have a tower and a phone on the same frequency).

Once you've done that, you have two ways to improve capacity. You can either add frequencies or you can shrink the time slots given to each radio. Frequencies are limited by our ability to make radios that use nearby frequencies but that don't interfere with each other. Shrinking time slots is limited by how much you want to divide the total possible throughput on a given frequency.

By using frequencies with higher throughput potential and by keeping the data you can send in one time slot constant, you get more time slots per second. That lets you provide the same throughput to more stations (by giving more stations a single time slot) or more throughput to the same number of stations (by giving those stations more time slots). That's what the cell networks are talking about. They always brag about the maximum throughput to a single station, but splitting the time slots will let them do what you want and provide a certain amount of guaranteed throughput to every station.

 

[Waxhead138]

They really should put that money put in their fiber infrastructure rather than more mobile networks. Yes LTE is fast. But what for, next year my Phone connection is 100x faster than my home connection, but this is the connection where I need it fast. Not on my freaking phone.

Only in a perfect world would home connections take priority to either ATT / VZW wireless ones. Home service, if it has a cap at all, will have a cap much higher than mobile. They can charge a premium for mobile data overage, simply well, because they can and they know it.

 

[nooaah]

My LTE connection is already 100x faster than my home broadband, why does it need to go faster?

Because the home isps' lack of innovation should not be the benchmark for other providers.

 

[Digitalclips]

Why not try to deliver 4G LTE everywhere first?

Leap frogging a technology if feasible isn't a bad thing. Why on earth would you waste time and money on a technology if there is a newer one available. Cost / performance usually gets better as new technologies come on line.
[doublepost=1455294248][/doublepost]

With that kind of speed by 2020, I can't help but think "what will be the point of cable or fiber?"

I'd agree, the newer technologies may well make laying fiber pointless at some point in the next five years.

 

[dannyyankou]

Seems a bit overkill. A lot of places near me have LTE coverage just as fast or faster than my 50mbps wifi network at home.

It would really be worth it if it works better indoors and underground.

 

[bennibeef]

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.

 

[TigerWoodsIV]

Pretty sure they have enough employees to work on both. Would be foolish to wait until the current generation is perfect before looking to the future. I for one don't want to wait till 2045 for 5G.

That and they still have most people covered. Does anyone think they care that much about getting LTE in the middle of nowhere vs 5G in NYC, LA, etc.?