1. OCAU Merchandise now available! Check out our 20th Anniversary Mugs, Classic Logo Shirts and much more! Discussion here.
    Dismiss Notice

Is 5G even possible in Australia?

Discussion in 'Networking, Telephony & Internet' started by blondie_hunter, Aug 19, 2019.

  1. Sunder

    Sunder Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,781
    Well, moving to a real carrier might help. I usually get 60-280mbps on a Cat 6 phone. Never seen it drop below that in good reception, and still get 25mbps with 1 bar in the country.
     
  2. whatdoesthisdo

    whatdoesthisdo Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2011
    Messages:
    8,956
    Location:
    Gold Coast
    I can't believe people still use vodafail. Even with their promised upgrade it was still crap and this was back in 2012.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2019
  3. CAPT-Irrelevant

    CAPT-Irrelevant Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    7,205
    Location:
    Sydney
    I like your explanation here, but just so I'm not misreading it, what stance are you taking? I'm of the impression that you agree that they should just focus improving existing 4G infrastructure...?
     
  4. JSmithDTV

    JSmithDTV Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2018
    Messages:
    7,866
    Location:
    Algol, Perseus
    All we need in Australia is "adequate"...


    JSmith
     
  5. Sunder

    Sunder Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,781
    The feeling I'm getting from a lot of posts here (Not specifically yours, but since yours is the last in this thread of "just fix 4G"), is that people think that 5G is just faster 4G. What about all the new features of 5G?

    1) Massive density - 4G can only sustain about 4000 devices per square kilometer, until you get congestion. You know on News Years eve, and everyone packs into the same area, and you can't make calls? 5G solves that. It's already important now for big events. Imagine when it's not just the phone in your hand, and the tablet in your backpack, but also the watch on your wrist, the sensor in your shoe, the chip in your pacemaker, the uplink in your car, etc.

    2) Peer to Peer communications - 4G can only guestimate if you're in an area, and broadcast. So it's okay for things like emergency evacuation notices, but useless for self driving cars. Two 5G enable cars could do a peer to peer broadcast over say 100m - "Obstacle on road at this GPS location, prepare to brake", and that message, being peer to peer, has very low single digit ms delay.

    We don't need 5G yet, because almost nothing uses it. But you don't want to wait until it's needed, to start building it.
     
    Tinian and JSmithDTV like this.
  6. Tinian

    Tinian Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    19,461
    Location:
    15.0° N, 145.63° E
    That would be true if it wasn't profitable. For example Telstra in the last financial year 'added more than 250 new mobile sites and upgraded a further 1,200'. If you include 5G, that's an additional 320 5G enabled mobile base stations. The problem with other carriers is they don't have to service low revenue areas.
     
  7. caspian

    caspian Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Messages:
    11,172
    Location:
    Melbourne
    my point is simply that 5G is not going to be a magic bullet that solves all of our problems that it is being hyped as. 4G could offer far higher performance than it does now with investment in network capability, we don't need the capital cost of replacing perfectly good 4G gear with 5G gear to achieve that, and exactly the same network capability investment will be required to get 5G to perform better than what we have now. (in fact, the cost is higher again.)

    4G itself isn't the bottleneck, so changing it won't alter much. when Joe Average won't pay any more even to access a better product, the potential advantages of 5G are unlikely to be realised, so why spend the money? far better to spend it on actually making 4G work to capacity, which might not be as flashy, but will actually provide a solid benefit to the end user.

    but that won't happen, because the carriers involved would rather be seen to be doing something new and hip, than actually productive but boring, and an advertising campaign that basically reads "hey, we've made our shit work properly for the first time in all the years you've been paying full price for it" won't fly well.
     
  8. caspian

    caspian Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Messages:
    11,172
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I take your point, but:

    (1) so put in another 4G cell, instantly doubled capacity. we don't need billions of dollars of brand new core network to achieve that. if the capacity is only needed during rare peak demand periods, that means it sits there significantly underused the majority of the time. nobody builds infrastructure to cope with absolute peak demand, from freeways that congest during rush hour to shopping centres that are hell on earth for the fortnight before christmas, for the same reason. good carriers have mobile network augmentation cells that get deployed for major events.

    (2) why do we need peer to peer communications to do that? network connectivity achieves the same thing with a few ms of latency.

    I'm well aware of the "build it and they will come" philosophy but when you're talking multiple billions of network capital investment and significantly increased operational running costs to make it fulfill the promises made, then there had better be a damn good business case and revenue forecasts beforehand. and as per the article linked to above - Joe Average is a cheapskate and doesn't want to spend anything more, even to get something better. especially when it doesn't exist yet.
     
  9. Sunder

    Sunder Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,781
    I'm not an expert in this area - just enough to do a bit of WiFi/4G placement/antenna work... But my understanding is that it's not that simple for several reasons: Some physics, some by engineering specifications.

    Available bandwidth is one issue, especially if you are comparing mmWave 5g vs 4g (as opposed to the legacy frequency). E.g. if you want 100Mhz of bandwidth for each device, there is a lot more "space" between say 28 and 29Ghz, than 2.1 and 2.2Ghz, and less opportunity for interference.

    Add to that the fact that higher frequencies attenuate more, 5G has beam forming to reduce interference in crowded spectrums, and you're talking a whole lot more efficient use of radio spectrum.

    And if you're going to put up a new tower, which probably will cost 10s of thousands of site license rights, running new power and data cabling, labour, etc. anyway, doesn't it make sense to put a couple thousand dollars of equipment in at the same time?

    Peer to peer communications doesn't require any central authority to determine who is in a localised area, and will work more reliably where reception is weak, or there is interference. It's not a silver bullet, but for some applications it just makes more sense.

    I'm not saying 5G is magic, or we desperately need it. But there are technological advantages of 5G beyond "it's faster".
     
  10. caspian

    caspian Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Messages:
    11,172
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I know very little about the RF domain, so I won't attempt to address that space - other than to comment that to my knowledge, most poor 4G performance is related to congested links to the base stations, which 5G makes worse due to the significantly higher number of cells required. the same for installation sites, they all need physical space and power and somewhere to mount the radio and antennas.

    if reception is weak, it's a regional area, so the need for peer to peer communications diminishes with signal.

    I'm not arguing that 5G isn't technologically better than 4G, just that I seriously question the cost versus benefits, when performance is the main theoretical advantage being flogged to the public.
     
  11. hawpinghaxbag

    hawpinghaxbag Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    5,606
    Location:
    Your mum's place
    Yeah its no good hyping 5G when alot of regional areas use microwave backhauls between towers that get saturated with the telco only adding a 3rd or half the 3/4G spectrum they have licensed, Optus love their microwave backhauls

    If anything 5G 28/39G should be used as a tower-tower backhaul to support more lower band spectrum deployment

    Obviously in places like Asia where existing licensed spectrum amount is low, tower density is high, pop density is insane and backhauls are all fibre then 5G will do well
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2019
  12. merlin13

    merlin13 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2003
    Messages:
    2,032
    Location:
    back in BrizVegas
    Getting somewhat off topic methinks, but I use (well, abuse actually...) Kogan SIMs, which run on the Vodafone network and get solid 4G data rates using the phone as a hotspot - been doing so since beginning of the year.

    Only times it really drops to slow speeds and/or coughs'n splutters/lags to any great degree is the usual weekly prime time rush hour 'tween 4 and 8 pm.

    And I changed my primary number over to Circles couple of weeks ago (they say they run on the OptAr$e 4G Plus setup) and that acts up about the same....
     
  13. MrSnuffy

    MrSnuffy Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    1,396
    Location:
    Hobart
    0_o
     
  14. caspian

    caspian Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Messages:
    11,172
    Location:
    Melbourne
    gotta cut those costs somewhere to compete on price.
     
  15. itsmydamnation

    itsmydamnation Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003
    Messages:
    10,633
    Location:
    Canberra
    The problem is one of bullshot numbers, you cant beat physics and as soon as you lose RF LOS things become virable and down grade quickly. Just like with 802.11 a lot of the improvements from 4G (read 3G) to real 4G to 5G are about allowing a station to maximise its spacial/time/frequency diversity to service as many clients with as much bandwidth as possible. But as a client to that station physics rules, your tiny transmit power is your limiting factor.

    mmwave is something else entirely and i remain unconvinced of its availability in real world environments with meat bags/signage/etc getting in the way, the fallback/failover to <6ghz needs to be impressively fast to make it viable.
     
  16. hawpinghaxbag

    hawpinghaxbag Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    5,606
    Location:
    Your mum's place
    Have had 5G phone for over 2 weeks now, keep in mind Telstra dont have a mmwave network yet, its sub-6 GHz until 2022

    Unlike going from 3 to 4G you dont really notice any difference
    Sure I pulled 1.1Gbps next to the tower but when put on LTE only i was getting ~700mbps. 100mbps is enough Obviously in busy times and populated places this will come into it's own
    Its 3.6 GHz so inside buildings, elevator shafts, underground carparks, anywhere beyond the current 4G2100 envelope you will not be able to access it despite all the 5G tricks (beam forming)
    Telstra will be charging an extra $15 from June next year for 5G access, i wont be opting in for that

    I recommend it if you suffer from network congestion in CBDs and on trains, it will only get better from here on also
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2019
  17. wintermute000

    wintermute000 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,368
    For regular smartphone use, congestion in dense areas aside its simply diminishing returns. I mean for normal phone use-cases are you really going to notice 25M vs 50M vs 100M vs 1Gb really. 1080p will stream fine @ 5M for netflix, 4K at 25M, WTF are you doing watching 4K on a 5.5" screen anyway.

    But for congested areas and mobile broadband (e.g. businesses deploying new sites etc., mobile businesses etc.) it will be a godsend. You probably won't notice a lick of difference as a normal smartphone user in regular suburbia (because it ain't congested) or regional (because you're so far away you won't get much better than 4G anyway).
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: