Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Samsung Testing 5G Phones With 1gbps Download Speed

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the greased-lightning dept.

Technology 128

Gumbercules!! writes "While many smartphone users are still on 3G and are waiting for 4G to be available, Samsung is now testing 5G networks, capable of getting speeds up to 1gbps. Obviously, we're years away from seeing these in the wild (the company is shooting for 2020) but it's still an amazing improvement over what many people are experiencing now."

cancel ×

128 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Spectrum? (4, Interesting)

thatkid_2002 (1529917) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707173)

Wouldn't a small amount of these phones flood a wireless spectrum? It would not take many people in an area until the speed is chopped down significantly.

Or do they have poor range and expect femtocells everywhere? But why not just WiFi at that point?

Re:Spectrum? (1)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707363)

I do not know what is the limit of the "wireless spectrum" if there is any. Before this limit is reached, I guess just updating all hardware gears that transmit/route more efficiently is all that is needed.

Re:Spectrum? (5, Informative)

rossdee (243626) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707567)

"I do not know what is the limit of the "wireless spectrum" if there is any"

There is legal limits (controlled by the FCC)

There is technology limits

The atmospere absorbs some frequencies

There are practical limits - sure you can theoretically get lots of bandwidth in the X-Ray and gamma ray end of the spectrum, but do you really want one of those next to your ear?

Re:Spectrum? (1)

AuMatar (183847) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707591)

There are other things we can do. For example, transmit in quadnary instead of binary (4 possible values per timeslice, instead of 2. Basically doubles your bandwidth). Remember that frequency is only one of the factors in bandwidth. There will be technical limits on that too (requires new hardware, increased problems from noise) but I think there's a lot of room there that we haven't been forced to try yet.

Re:Spectrum? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43707897)

4G already supports 64QAM (6 bits per timeslice)
Going up to 256QAM will only give you a 33% increase of bitrate and make it a lot more sensitive to noise.
1024QAM and 4096QAM is as far as I know only used in cable bound communication where signal to noise ratio can be kept to a minimum.

Re:Spectrum? (1)

DarkOx (621550) | about a year and a half ago | (#43708147)

Don't know they are not doing this already too but seems you could go asymmetric. The handsets could send to the tower with 64QAM and the tower could use more radiated power to send 256QAM back to the handset.

Phones are no longer symmetric data entities it probably is the case most smart phone users pull down much more than they send now. Of course you can crank the radiated power from the towers up to much or you are just going to start competing with the neighboring cells more. So I don't know how big the gains would be.

Re:Spectrum? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43708637)

Asymmetry is also already implemented.
My point was that you have a law of diminishing returns here. Increasing from 1bit to a 2, 3 or 4-bit encoding is nice and gives you a significant increase in throughput. From 64QAM and up your increased packet loss will probably offset the increased bitrate.
The step from 128QAM to 256QAM increases the bitrate with less than 15% and makes the signal a lot more sensitive to noise. (Introduces more packet loss.)

Re:Spectrum? (1)

jimbolauski (882977) | about a year and a half ago | (#43709685)

Don't know they are not doing this already too but seems you could go asymmetric. The handsets could send to the tower with 64QAM and the tower could use more radiated power to send 256QAM back to the handset.

Phones are no longer symmetric data entities it probably is the case most smart phone users pull down much more than they send now. Of course you can crank the radiated power from the towers up to much or you are just going to start competing with the neighboring cells more. So I don't know how big the gains would be.

Yes you can do some of that but even broadcasting from a tower at higher power levels will not fix issues. Multipath it one issue that will not go away with more power, if you are standing next to a metal building your phone will get two signals the direct one and the signal that bounces off the metal wall at 256QAM the modulation could easily get washed out by the reflected signal. A SNR of 30dB is needed for 256QAM there are many areas that fall short of that requirement.

Re:Spectrum? (1)

hierophanta (1345511) | about a year and a half ago | (#43710649)

binary is preferable because of error correction. anything higher is significantly more susceptible to lost packets (exponentially by number of possible states).

(and anything lower is error proof)

Re:Spectrum? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43707887)

Haven't you heard - it's impossible for any part of the electromagnetic spectrum to have any kind of negative effect on human health!

You must be new here ...

Re:Spectrum? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43708117)

From what I have seen what people here says is that if something emits energy at a lower frequency and less power than things around you that you don't have a problem with then it is pretty likely that your problem with that device is psychological rather than medical.

Re:Spectrum? (2)

hierophanta (1345511) | about a year and a half ago | (#43710617)

there are also biological limits - we dont wanna microwave ourselves whilst using a phone

Re:Spectrum? (5, Informative)

WhiteDragon (4556) | about a year and a half ago | (#43709007)

I do not know what is the limit of the "wireless spectrum" if there is any. Before this limit is reached, I guess just updating all hardware gears that transmit/route more efficiently is all that is needed.

The limit is given precisely by Shannon's Law [wikipedia.org] , which gives a mathematical limit on the amount of data that can be sent over a given amount of bandwidth. Spectral Efficiency [wikipedia.org] is the amount of bandwidth available in a given wireless spectrum.

Re:Spectrum? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43707443)

If you have lots of towers and can keep power low then you can have lots of users locally using up tons of bandwidth that don't interfere with each other.

Re:Spectrum? (1)

tyrione (134248) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707571)

Wouldn't a small amount of these phones flood a wireless spectrum? It would not take many people in an area until the speed is chopped down significantly.

Or do they have poor range and expect femtocells everywhere? But why not just WiFi at that point?

What do you think? They sure as hell expect the Telcos to pony up the spectrum mesh and not themselves. Testing at an R&D facility is fine, but to start spreading 5G around is ludicrous and a bad business strategy.

Re:Spectrum? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43707917)

Later generations are designed to be scaled after population density.
In high density areas you use a lot of small low power cells. In rural areas you increase the power and use less cells.
Ideally you should keep the number of people per cell as constant as possible.

Backhaul. (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about a year and a half ago | (#43708533)

The spectrum isn't the issue. Yay, a phone that can do 1Gbps. Now get 10 of them doing that on the same tower. Then 100. Then do 100 on 50 different towers. Then do that in 100 metro service areas.

At least here in North America, the telco's barely have the backhaul to deliver service that could be classified as 4G. They aren't going to be dropping in multi-link 10GbE into every cell tower just because people want to browse the FaceTubes that much faster.

Re:Spectrum? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43708563)

I think they have a range of 300 meters and require a constant connection of the "power cord" [wikimedia.org] .

Re:Spectrum? (4, Funny)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year and a half ago | (#43709101)

Nah, because everyone will reach their data caps in about 80 seconds. There will be plenty of bandwidth for the rest of the month.

5G with 10GB/mo cap (5, Funny)

yayoubetcha (893774) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707187)

Now I can hit my data cap in less than a minute!

Re:5G with 10GB/mo cap (5, Funny)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707347)

From TFS: "capable of getting speeds up to 1gbps"

That's 0.125 GBps so 8 seconds for a GB. You need at least 80 seconds to hit your 10GB cap which is more than one minute. This sounds much fairer now.

Re:5G with 10GB/mo cap (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43707645)

Nobody likes a smart ass. Now go to your room. God help me if I hear you using your abacus.

Re:5G with 10GB/mo cap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43708577)

You forgot about network overhead.

Re:5G with 10GB/mo cap (2)

tgd (2822) | about a year and a half ago | (#43708589)

From TFS: "capable of getting speeds up to 1gbps"

That's 0.125 GBps so 8 seconds for a GB. You need at least 80 seconds to hit your 10GB cap which is more than one minute. This sounds much fairer now.

Holy crap, what is the magical carrier you speak of that has a 10GB cap!?

Re:5G with 10GB/mo cap (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | about a year and a half ago | (#43708717)

My carrier offers unlimited with tethering too!

Re:5G with 10GB/mo cap (1)

chrish (4714) | about a year and a half ago | (#43708993)

Fido in Canada just started bragging about doubling their data cap... to 400MB/mo. We seriously need some competition up here.

Re:5G with 10GB/mo cap (1)

temcat (873475) | about a year and a half ago | (#43709011)

What is the typical cap in North America? 20GB at $23 here in St. Petersburg, Russia, from Megafon (http://spb.megafon.ru/tariffs/options/skidki_na_internet/mobile_internet.html). This is 3G though.

Re:5G with 10GB/mo cap (1)

Krojack (575051) | about a year and a half ago | (#43709807)

2GB/month but if you're a good talker you may get 4GB/month at the same cost. I myself am still on Verizon unlimited from being grandfathered in 2 years ago. They did away with unlimited 2 months after I got my contract. There are two other carriers that still offer unlimited data but one of them (T-Mobile) still has limited coverage in outlying areas. Sprint being the other, well in my area they are pure shit. A guy I work with has a hard time making or receiving calls from mid-late afternoon due to over selling in this area.

Re:5G with 10GB/mo cap (1)

GeekWithAKnife (2717871) | about a year and a half ago | (#43708597)

You're both wrong. A bit of common sense here; you need to consider the media to which this data is written. It's too much data for RAM on a phone, and if you stream video it will possibly be a hundred times too fast. So you cannot write to RAM and discard anything over your total free amount... So you're still limited by roughly 30MB/sec of your high quality nand flash phone storage. So...your 5G, 1Gbps download (125MB/sec theoretical) would slow down to 30MBps (IF you're lucky) and you would saturate your 10GB allowance (if you have the space) in just over 5:40 minutes. Now...factor in real life and you'll realise that it's "up to 1Gbps" and only in certain areas, in good weather, when you're not death gripping your phone. So as I said, you're both wrong.

Re:5G with 10GB/mo cap (1)

Xicor (2738029) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707421)

lol, when 5g comes out... it will be almost guaranteed that the dumb wireless companies will realize the error of their ways and start offering unlimited data again.(im still grandfathered on my at&t phone)

Re:5G with 10GB/mo cap (1)

KingMotley (944240) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707641)

I am still grandfathered on my AT&T phone, but I can hit 5GB in a day, then the rest of the month I'm throttled down to less than edge speed.

Re:5G with 10GB/mo cap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43708359)

5GB in a day on your phone? WTF are you doing on it?

Re:5G with 10GB/mo cap (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | about a year and a half ago | (#43708659)

A couple movies on Netflix will do that.

Re:5G with 10GB/mo cap (1)

Krojack (575051) | about a year and a half ago | (#43709875)

I still can't understand why anyone would want to watch movies on their cell phone. Tethered to a tablet maybe but why not just wait till you're at home and watch it on your big screen TV.

I still have unlimited on Verizon and my average monthly usage is about 3-4gigs most of which is streaming music via tethering to my tablet while driving. I think some people just try to use as much as they can for shits and giggles.

Re:5G with 10GB/mo cap (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43708143)

unlimited? not a chance in hell.

but they will sell larger packages...

now: $25 for 2gb, $50 for 5gb (approx/typical)

soon: $100 for 10gb, $200 for 25gb, $500 for 100gb -- per month, no rollover.. and of course, 24 month contract required with penalty for downgrading data package during the contract term.

and dont forget that the fastest speeds will only be available in the largest, most densely-populated (and/or affluent) areas (new york city, chicago, dc/nova, etc.. in north dakota or wyoming, they'll still sell those bigger packages, even though with constant 24/7 downloading it could take a half-year or more to use up 100gb.

Re:5G with 10GB/mo cap (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707927)

Interesting, What kind of third world country do you live in that has a Data Cap? Don't you have companies (Here (Ireland) we have Three (that's the company name)) that offer unlimited data?

Re:5G with 10GB/mo cap (1)

WizardFusion (989563) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707959)

Yes, I am on Three, also with unlimited data. Their support [three.co.uk] page tells you about it.

Re:5G with 10GB/mo cap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43709331)

I live in a Third World Country called "America" where AT&T & Verizon no longer sell unlimited (Some smaller carriers like Sprint/TMobile still have it as an option... or "Grandfathered" plans on Verizon/AT&T). Downside, is that Sprint/TMobile have crappy networks with lots of holes. Where I live, they aren't options unless I want to have no signal as often as not.

Re:5G with 10GB/mo cap (1)

Krojack (575051) | about a year and a half ago | (#43709921)

That company name sounds like a Who's On First [youtu.be] skit in the making.

Re:5G with 10GB/mo cap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43710211)

Exactly.

The way the US market is setup, the fact that such amazing speeds are available, yet not available, pretty much makes it non-news to those in the US.
It's like opening a Ferrari dealership in a very poor section of town. Yeah the capability is out there, the local folks just can't have one :D

For the rest of the planet, outstanding. I will envy your blazing fast speeds. The US won't see it until the major carriers can figure out a way to squeeze more
money out of its customer base prior to deploying it. Hell, our infrastructure ( if you believe the carriers ) can barely handle the existing speeds as it is.

Point? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43707217)

Just what do you need 1gps on your phone for?

Re:Point? (2)

Dutchmaan (442553) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707271)

You're assuming that the only use is on phones.. Tablets and computers are edging into the spectrum that was normally used for just cell phones.

You ask "Just what do you need 1gps on your phone for?"

Let the developers have a field day... if you build it, they'll find a use for it

Re:Point? (2)

ducomputergeek (595742) | about a year and a half ago | (#43708885)

As a 4g hotspot user let me tell you that even now the limiting factor for me is only the allowed bandwidth on my plan (12GB per month). The 4G speed is plenty fast to do pretty much all the work I need and will even run games if they aren't absolutely latency dependent (basically anything but FPS). Even with four or five devices connected 4G is fast enough for most business uses and I would say for most people's internet use. In fact oftentimes the limits on the download speed is the server on the other side.

I have the hotspot to connect my WiFi tablet and laptop when I'm out on the road or in meetings, especially meetings where the client has a secured wifi and either doesn't know the password or can't grant guest access, etc..

I mean hell, we have a 100MB/s line into our office and we are only tapping a fraction of that on a daily basis.

So 1Gb/s sounds cool, but device and access speed now isn't my problem. Bandwidth cap is the problem.

Re:Point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43709033)

Given that we pay all those extra fees and absurd amounts for texting/data plans to the cell phone giants. I can't be the only one wondering, at least in the US, if I'm paying so much for standard internet (DSL, cable, etc...), why the hell aren't they doing anything to upgrade the technology and catch us up to the EU?

Re:Point? (0)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707315)

A nice interactive chart at http://howfastisthenbn.com.au/ [howfastisthenbn.com.au]
You can click on the examples to show what a faster download internet would feel like with a ~5g device connected.

Re: Point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43707401)

the point is to make bandwidth cheap. Unfortunately they probably won't pass on much of the savings to us... you know because of the capitalist agenda and all.

Re:Point? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43709895)

Just what do you need 1gps on your phone for?

Porn.

Actually 4G According to ITU-R (4, Informative)

mentil (1748130) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707219)

The technical definition of 4G requires 1Gbps stationary and 100Mbps while moving. The network tech mentioned in the article is thus 4G.
Notice that current '4G' technologies are usually called '4G LTE' in advertisements, to try to get around the established non-marketing definition.

Re:Actually 4G According to ITU-R (1)

Cenan (1892902) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707647)

Definitions of technical terms never stopped marketing from mangling them. Nobody in that office gives a shit what 4G means, as long as they can sell it. 4G LTE just might sound better in a commercial than 4G. More three letter acronyms just communicates "we're smart; we know our shit; trust us".

Ya well the ITU is a little silly with this (3, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707667)

The standard set for 4G was way too high. It isn't like you can just say "We want something to work at this speed!" It is complex, and it is getting harder with wireless because you are working in an environment where you only have so much frequency and shitty SNR. You can't just throw more spectrum at the problem generally.

The thing is 4G, as it is marketed today, or 3GPP LTE as the ITU would like it is a big step up. If you've played with it on a network that implements it well, it is major. I was amazed at how much faster things were when Verizon turned it on in my area (I already had a phone that was ready for it). It is a generational kind of upgrade, not an incremental one, to consumers. So it makes sense to call it something they understand.

Remember labeling isn't all just "marketing" it is also about having shit people can understand. The concept of a wireless "generation" got introduced with 3G phones and people understood it pretty well: 3G phones were a lot faster than their old phones that they now knew were 2G. Makes sense. So it also follows that 4G phones will be faster still.

I really don't like it when new standards get set arbitrarily high and then there's a hissing match over naming and so on. Part of naming should be something to keep it clear to consumers. Don't ask them to go do a ton of research and understand arcane acronyms and so on.

I think it is reasonable to say "Every time we have a big increase in speed due to a change in technology for mobile phones, we'll call it a 'G' increase." LTE really is a new generation of phones. It is much faster, requires new consumer equipment, requires new tower equipment, etc. That it wasn't as fast as the ITU hoped is kinda silly.

Re:Ya well the ITU is a little silly with this (5, Interesting)

Almir43 (1989390) | about a year and a half ago | (#43708487)

It's funny you should say that, since the entire point of LTE is that it is a Long-Term Evolution platform. It isn't that the "standard was set too high" - it's more that the standard was designed to support high speeds so the wheel would not have to be re-invented as technology progressed.

You can either create a new set of supporting standards and technologies every few years, or you can develop a set of standards that scales up as hardware allows better speeds. So it's only if one entirely misunderstands the purpose of LTE, that the standard would appear to be set too high. The gradual progression that Samsung demonstrates in the article is what LTE-Advanced was all about and is still firmly in 4G territory. 5G is just horrible marketing.

Re:Ya well the ITU is a little silly with this (0)

thegarbz (1787294) | about a year and a half ago | (#43708603)

The gradual progression that Samsung demonstrates in the article is what LTE-Advanced was all about and is still firmly in 4G territory. 5G is just horrible marketing.

Actually 5G is simply marketing. Nothing horrible about it. People in general don't understand LTE, LTE Advanced, HDSPA and crap like that. They understand simple numbers and always have. The problem is that the standards system mixes simple numbers with complex acronyms. EDGE, 3G, HSDPA, LTE, 4G doesn't sound anywhere near as simple as 2G, 3G, 3.5G, 4G, and 5G that people can simply understand. Try it. Go to some random person in the street and just shout in his face "Quick what's faster HSDPA or LTE?" If you're lucky they'll think you're a crazed system admin, if you're unlucky they'll shoot in self defence.

The standards should be set in a way that either makes sense to begin with or has nothing to do with a numbering scheme which has goal posts set so far apart that carriers need to make shit up just so their customers can understand.

Re:Ya well the ITU is a little silly with this (1)

Almir43 (1989390) | about a year and a half ago | (#43708713)

Sure and that`s a fair observation, but they could have gone for 4.5 G or such (in a similar fashion as when 3.5 G was used). That way they would have still remained technically correct as well, while being able to communicate a significant technology jump to customers.

I've had 4G (50/5) since 2009. People still wait? (0)

acidfast7 (551610) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707223)

was is this?

Re:I've had 4G (50/5) since 2009. People still wai (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707285)

was is this?

what you have is faster 3g.

sure, the marketer might have called it 4g though. blame him. and if he had his way, we would be at 8g.

Re:I've had 4G (50/5) since 2009. People still wai (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43707329)

"4G" since 2009? Or "4G LTE?"

Re:I've had 4G (50/5) since 2009. People still wai (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43708115)

was is this?

No you didn't. 4G is a technology, not only a speed. I too had high-speed 3G+, which some "clever" marketeers (including Apple) started claiming to be 4G. It's like saying you have Firewire because you have a faster USB..

I will ask the question everyones really pondering (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43707241)

So I guess I will ask the question every ones really about....
So how is this going to help with the progress of boner pill technology or say make my iPad faster?

Re:I will ask the question everyones really ponder (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43707613)

What's an iPad?

I've heard people mention it. Is it some kind of antique Android tablet for old people and Americans?

The catch is... (4, Informative)

toejam13 (958243) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707265)

The second article notes that the 5G tests are being conducted on the 28GHz Ka microwave band. They also note that they're using a 64 element antenna array.

While those upper microwave bands are great in that you can get very wide channels (possibly hundreds of megahertz wide), their downfall is that they are incredibly line of sight restricted. This is compounded by significant atmospheric absorption. That's why many broadcasters on the band tend to use highly directional antennas. For omnidirectional use, you're going to have to deploy a lot of picocells.

Also for their tests, are they using the large number of antennas for MIMO beamforming (additive RF amplification), MIMO spacial multiplexing (parallel RF feeds slightly out of phase of each other) or old fashioned directional transmission (or a combi of all three?). How much additional cost is that? Even with fractal antennas on short wavelengths, how many of them can you fit in a handset?

Re:The catch is... (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about a year and a half ago | (#43708555)

So when a police uses his radar gun in a speed trap, everyone loses data signal because they operate in the same frequency.

Win / Win!

(Yes, I know that the Ka band is like 15Ghz wide, and that phones could work around existing devices)

Re:The catch is... (1)

chihowa (366380) | about a year and a half ago | (#43709127)

(Yes, I know that the Ka band is like 15Ghz wide, and that phones could work around existing devices)

Maybe not, though. Non-communication gear in bands that are mostly empty tend to shit all over their band. Especially old police kit that you just know is well maintained and calibrated.

Re:The catch is... (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about a year and a half ago | (#43708617)

Even with fractal antennas on short wavelengths, how many of them can you fit in a handset?

You tell me, but before you do put yourself in the shoes you wore back in the 80s. Back before chip antennas were widely used, back when antennas were long whips. Then take a brief look at where we are now with the average smart phone having multiple antennas on multiple frequencies for multiple purposes in a device that is no more than a few mm thick.

I'm not going to pretend to be able to predict what technology will look like in 8 years.

Thinking of Australia in 2020 (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707277)

With 5g we can use 500mb of months data in a few days as we wait for our 25mb copper line to be fixed.
Just think of the speed over a few days.... and the per mb fines if you go over :)

Re:Thinking of Australia in 2020 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43707419)

With 5g we can use 500mb of months data in a few days as we wait for our 25mb copper line to be fixed.

Just think of the speed over a few days.... and the per mb fines if you go over :)

Its Not too late !
A Vote for Labor ahead of the Conservatives (Coalition) is the only way to guarentee this future will not happen.
The sad thing is the biased conservatve private media have the fuckwitt vote pretty much stiched up.

Re:Thinking of Australia in 2020 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43708081)

A vote for labor is the only sure way Australia has NO FUTURE. The coalitions NBN plan sucks, but better a shitty internet they an entire basketcase where no one can even afford internet.

Re:Thinking of Australia in 2020 (1)

bloodhawk (813939) | about a year and a half ago | (#43708101)

If you are only looking at using 500mb over a few days then you are hardly going to notice any difference from 25mb connection. that is literally only 3 mins or so of use at 25mbps.

Re:Thinking of Australia in 2020 (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year and a half ago | (#43708175)

More a comment on been 2020 and the same monthly data plans ;)

What is this 5G thing? (5, Insightful)

ras (84108) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707281)

Must we really publish brain farts from a fanboi on slashdot's front page? This "news item" is completely substance free. No description of technology, no links, no science, no official announcement from someone you might believe. It uses terms that don't exist - there is no 5G - or at least the mob responsible for naming GSM, 3G, 4G, LTE, LTE Advanced doesn't have one yet. And there is nothing particularly special about 1Gbps download speed. LTE Advanced already does that if is has around 67MHz of bandwidth available, and you are the only one using the cell.

So let me see, what is there that could justify its position on the front page? Oh I see now - a baseless jibe at a Apple. That's OK then.

Re:What is this 5G thing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43707305)

I believe the proper term is "Slashvertisement".

Re:What is this 5G thing? (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707383)

They also mention a 10G upload from a mobile device by NTT DoCoMo. So he's not just talking about 1 Gbps down, but a different test that did 10 Gbps up.

Is 10 Gbps up interesting enough for you?

Re: What is this 5G thing? (1)

PixetaledPikachu (1007305) | about a year and a half ago | (#43708357)

Only if I'm allowed to host web and counter strike servers from my phone

Re:What is this 5G thing? (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707519)

Okay, I'll try to bring it back on topic for you. Samsung are presumably developing this tech so that they can patent it and then charge other companies license fees. It will all be under FRAND rules, but we have seen an unwillingness from some companies to pay the typical percentages required. Most cross-licence but some don't have anything to cross-license with.

Re:What is this 5G thing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43707631)

I think it has to do with the deterioration with what or who qualifies as nerd. Back in the days you were a nerd, when you had a used PDP 11 and programmed it in assembler. In the nineties, one qualified as nerd with a few lines of bash on linux. Post 2k, having played through zelda on a game boy scored you the geek card. Today, everyone sympathizing a little with Sheldon of Big Bang Theory thinks he's a nerd without realizing he's probably just a little gay/bi

Slashdot appears to be catering to the ever-broadening definition of nerd.

Re:What is this 5G thing? (1)

timbo234 (833667) | about a year and a half ago | (#43708025)

LTE Advanced already does that if is has around 67MHz of bandwidth available, and you are the only one using the cell.

This. Correct me if I'm wrong here but I thought the quoted maximum speeds for mobile networks are always *per-tower* not *per-user*, so you could only ever get those speeds in the real world if a virus wipes out 95+% of the local population in your area, leaving you the only one using the tower.

Re:What is this 5G thing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43708229)

Not even then. If 95% of users died the tower would become unprofitable and would be shut down.

So you will never, under any circumstances see anything close to the per-tower numbers.
However, an improvement in the per-tower number may result in an improvement in the per-user number, so it's still progress.
But using the per-tower number in your slashvertisement is still pretty much fraud.

Re:What is this 5G thing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43708433)

You are correct. LTE-Advanced requires 100Mbit to the sole Mobile user of a _sector_ on the tower, and 1Gbit to a sole Stationary user of a sector on the tower.

Of course, there is no LTE-Advanced in the US, just LTE, which is quite a bit slower.

Re:What is this 5G thing? (5, Informative)

tlambert (566799) | about a year and a half ago | (#43708321)

The Samsung testing was in the LMDS frequency band, which the FCC has auctioned off already in the US to cable providers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Multipoint_Distribution_Service [wikipedia.org]

The FCC has already licensed this band for satellite downlink:

http://spectrumwiki.com/wiki/display.aspx?From=disp&f=28499999999 [spectrumwiki.com]

Which means it can't be used for 5G in the US like they are doing with NTT DoCoMo in the Samsung experiments.

Re:What is this 5G thing? (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about a year and a half ago | (#43708565)

LTE Advanced already does that if is has around 67MHz of bandwidth available, and you are the only one using the cell.

Don't forget "and the cell mast has the backhaul to actually support 1Gbps."

My guess is that the majority of LTE towers deployed (at least in North America) have multi linked 100Mbps metro ethernet as the backhaul, because the telcos are incapable of seeing past a horizon of about 6 months.

Vaporware much?? (1)

kiwirob (588600) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707367)

These Samsung guys are the new Microsoft with all the hype about non existing products. Can't they just tell us when they have a product for sale? I want to know what I can buy today, not what I might or might not be able to buy in 7 years time!

Re:Vaporware much?? (4, Informative)

KingMotley (944240) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707679)

Then perhaps you should stop reading slashdot, and instead go to amazon.com and newegg.com?

AT&T Soon To Announce Launch of 1GBPS Network (3, Funny)

MrEdofCourse (2670081) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707429)

In similar news, AT&T is expected to soon launch it's 5G 1Gbps network nationwide with speeds expected to reach *up to* 10Mbps. Rollout is expected to begin as soon as 5G/1GBps icons and logos are complete.

Utter nonsense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43707599)

This is a marketing ploy - like so many technologies - to convince people to buy the "next best thing."

3g speeds are crap.
4g speeds will be crap.
5g speeds will be crap.

idiots who believe they'll see anything NEAR the speeds being gushed about deserve to be milked.

Re:Utter nonsense (3, Insightful)

thephydes (727739) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707685)

Quite. To quote Monty Python ( and show my age) " ...... as long as you realise that "up to" clearly includes the number zero"

Battery backup. (1)

cute_orc (2911555) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707721)

With 2 hours of stunning battery backup!

28GHz... thats WiMAX... how about 1.05 Petabit/s (1)

johnjones (14274) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707763)

its 2 Kilometres distance so its a repackaging of WiMAX... and we all know how well that turned out...

now personally I prefer the 1.05 Petabit/s that fibre will provide... though thats in development oh wait thats what this wireless speed is in "development"

cheers

John

Re:28GHz... thats WiMAX... how about 1.05 Petabit/ (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year and a half ago | (#43708007)

Silly human. When your mind is the Internet, you don't have to worry about bandwidth anymore. This message was brought to you at the cost of only a few Yottobits of autonomous SPAM relays.

Personally I prefer the unlimited bandwidth quantum computing provides -- when you make each atom in the universe part of the calculation. What's this "technology" of yours that is "in development"?

What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43707859)

What's the point of 5G?

My current 3G already gives me 42Mbps - until I hit the cap. Then I get stuck with "fair use" speeds for the rest of the month.

When I look for my next mobile internet provider, the "top speed" isn't of any interest to me. All I care about is the speed that I get unlimited access at, once my top speed allowance has been used up, and the price.

Without my provider investing heavily in backbone infrastructure, they could offer me 100G internet and it wouldn't make any difference. As far as real-life usage patterns go, (X)G is just a silly buzzword designed to sell electronics and expensive limited data packages that I don't want or need.

Dont test the speed! (if you have quota) (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about a year and a half ago | (#43708731)

I recently got a 500 MB per month high speed data plan. I used the speed test app to test the speed. I blew through half my quota in speed tests alone. The test was for a fixed duration, not the fixed amount of data. At 1Gbps speed, I would have gone over the limit in just test!

No data plan parity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43708741)

5G, 4G, it matters not. 5G would just allow one to blow through one's data plan allotment that much faster. I can see the carriers foaming at the mouth now in gleeful anticipation of millions of ignorant "subject" eating through their data plans and incurring the dreaded overcharges (or the lesser evil of throttled speeds).

High speeds are great for consumers, but what people don't realize is that data is cheap, cheap, cheap for carriers to offer. Most of it is peering networks anyway, and it cost them pennies to the dollars they spend to provide it.

What is so evil about giving high speeds for a relatively inexpensive price? The notion that profit should be limitless has to stop.

I almost wish the federal government was the ISP/carrier. For the tinfoil-headed among you, they already know about you what they want and can get the balance with an alacrity and ease that would stun you. You have more to fear from Google than you do from Uncle Sam. Really.

Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43708835)

When they implement this it will only take my kids 6 seconds to chew through my data cap.

What aboutt broadband speed? (1)

valnar (914809) | about a year and a half ago | (#43708883)

Maybe by 2020, I'll have a home broadband connection that is 100Mb.

Re:What aboutt broadband speed? (2)

Anarchduke (1551707) | about a year and a half ago | (#43709425)

Of you could move to South Korea and have it now...

Re:What aboutt broadband speed? (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | about a year and a half ago | (#43709777)

Yeah, but then you'd have to live in South Korea. ;-)

1gbps?!?! Poor in seconds now! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43709405)

This makes me laugh. (Tiered Data Plans) Ã-- (Teen) + (1gbps speed) = Ability to send mom and dad to the poor house in a matter of seconds without the time to intervene in high usage situation.

I call it waste (1)

tatman (1076111) | about a year and a half ago | (#43709961)

This is rant (you've been warned) I'm so frustrated with 4G. I get charged $10 more a month, and it rarely works well, if at all. I live, literally, in the middle of a major city (1M+ citizens).

No joke, if I'm facing south while sitting on the left side of my couch, I have 4G, if I turn east, I do not. The worst part is most of the apps that are running get into a mucked state if its in the middle of doing something when the phone context switches between 3G and 4G. Text messages wont send (fail, not stay in a queue) while its switching. Many times I have to reboot the phone to fix the app problems (killing them in the task manager doesn't work all the time).

I want the carries and cell mfg to fix 4G and give me something that works, reliably

Fast but battery will be the deal breaker (1)

Cherubim1 (2501030) | about a year and a half ago | (#43710663)

Great! Now we can download porn at speeds up to 1gbps wireless before the battery runs flat after 1 hour :) Seriously, what fool *needs* link speeds up to 1gbps for a mobile device ?

Why? (1)

GigaBurglar (2465952) | about a year and a half ago | (#43710669)

Why? just why? Why?? Why Why Why Why Why Why?? Just why though why?? I don't get it why? 1Gbps??? Why? How many mobile devices can even write data at that speed? 6G next? What speed will that be? Realise that this is what you call an unregulated market - useless shit sold at extortionate prices. Maybe in twenty years - for now 4G is WAAAAAAAY more than I need. I'm sure 5G has it uses - but to be effective it will need to be rolled out to consumer networks otherwise it is just a technology that will sit on the proverbial shelf.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?