Intel Discusses How Megabits Per Second Won't Define 5G

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Asha Keddy, vice president and general manager for standards and advanced technology at Intel’s Mobile Communication Group, recently penned a blog post on how 5G will be different from previous networks. Keddy shares her thoughts on the need for 5G to support the billions of smart ‘things’ by 2020 and how 5G will be unlike from any other wireless standards before it. In particular, bits per second is the standard way of measuring network performance, but measuring 5G will involve bits per joule, bits per Hertz, bits per square meter of coverage and bits per dollar because 5G will address a variety of challenges, including energy efficiency, spectrum performance, reliability and cost.
 
Intel is wrong. 5G bandwidth will no longer be relevant thanks to service provider data caps and the removal of net neutrality. Enjoy your 500MB per month data plan, you worthless peons.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
Intel is wrong. 5G bandwidth will no longer be relevant thanks to service provider data caps and the removal of net neutrality. Enjoy your 500MB per month data plan, you worthless peons.
Click to expand...

Eh, i get 10gb, unlimited everything else for 55 bux a month. I dont think thats unreasonable.
 
Anything that requires carriers to upgrade or change their equipment/antennas/emitters etc. is pretty much DOA. Maybe in South Korea it will happen, but not USOFA

Other than that it sounds awesome!:cool:
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
Intel is wrong. 5G bandwidth will no longer be relevant thanks to service provider data caps and the removal of net neutrality. Enjoy your 500MB per month data plan, you worthless peons.
Click to expand...

but just to be clear yeah, if net neutrality goes we are fucked.
 
Romale23 said:
Eh, i get 10gb, unlimited everything else for 55 bux a month. I dont think thats unreasonable.
Click to expand...

must be nice, here in the great white north most of us are paying $60+/mth for decent plans with only 512mb data and evening and weekend calling bs with minutes. I moved to Edmonton for a month and my brother got me on his plan.

For unlimited Canada it costs me 53/mth plus 1gb, he has a new phone on the plan but he pays the lions share of the cost if I recall was $130/mth for both all told 2gb package I can use 1gb of it, if we drop to 1/2 the amount i.e 1gb total we save $1.50./mth LOL.

I know in my town if I get one local that same unlimited Canada package with 1 gb would cost ~$75/mth at minimum and that really depends on who I go through.
 
Romale23 said:
Eh, i get 10gb, unlimited everything else for 55 bux a month. I dont think thats unreasonable.
Click to expand...

No, it is unreasonable.
Why is there a data cap at all? (other than to simply make money)

Data isn't a finite resource which will eventually run out like water or gas.
Hell, even if they charged you for usage-amount, like electricity, that would make a bit more sense.

But no, they have to give you limits, which would have been limitations for most users 5 years ago, just so they can charge you up the ass once you go over "the limit".
I pity all of those fools actually buying into this bullshit scheme *cough* I mean features these service providers make.
 
Romale23 said:
Eh, i get 10gb, unlimited everything else for 55 bux a month. I dont think thats unreasonable.
Click to expand...

Woo...Watch out..we are rolling in the data now aren't we?

I can blow 10gb in a month with just streaming radio...glad I have an grandfathered unlimited plan.
 
Romale23 said:
Eh, i get 10gb, unlimited everything else for 55 bux a month. I dont think thats unreasonable.
Click to expand...

The more services rely on high bandwidth to deliver the best quality and new functions, the less impressive your 10gb plan is going to look
 
Red Falcon said:
No, it is unreasonable.
Why is there a data cap at all? (other than to simply make money)

Data isn't a finite resource which will eventually run out like water or gas.
Hell, even if they charged you for usage-amount, like electricity, that would make a bit more sense.

But no, they have to give you limits, which would have been limitations for most users 5 years ago, just so they can charge you up the ass once you go over "the limit".
I pity all of those fools actually buying into this bullshit scheme *cough* I mean features these service providers make.
Click to expand...

While i want unlimited wireless data on a decent network, wireless data is finite. You can only transmit and receive when its your devices turn and theres only so much frequency spectrum available for it to transmit/receive on. My phone and your phone can't transmit or recieve data at the same time on the same frequency. "We" really fucked up when we decided to allow spectrium to be sold instead of leased. But thats reality.
 
Romale23 said:
While i want unlimited wireless data on a decent network, wireless data is finite. You can only transmit and receive when its your devices turn and theres only so much frequency spectrum available for it to transmit/receive on. My phone and your phone can't transmit or recieve data at the same time on the same frequency. "We" really fucked up when we decided to allow spectrium to be sold instead of leased. But thats reality.
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with data caps?
So at the start of a new billing cycle for everyone, everyone is downloading again anyways.

I'm not saying your wrong on the technical standpoint, but I do fail to see how this makes sense.
No, the reason there are data caps is because these mega-corps just want to (and can) suck everyone's wallets dry for services they deem are limited, which clearly, they aren't.
 
Its out of roi. Which its terrible but companies are judged off of growth in revenue. So if you make a billion in profit this year and next your actually failing. Its shitty but there is absolutely no solution that doesn't involve consumers suffering to get it done and that's basically everyone going to sprint or mvnos for cheaper rates and no matter how many times I tell people I'm getting the same service for half what they pay, I have yet to get a single person to switch. Bottom line is what I'm arguing is we are to stupid to deserve it done properly
 
I dunno how carriers can really show any growth at this point from new customers. It seems like most people are just moving from one provider to another without there being a lot of new ones coming into the market. I admit I have like zero supporting facts and I'm waaay too lazy to even check to see if there's anything published to support that but I'm thinking growth now is more about cutting costs and entering new markets than getting more customers. Maybe there's some like reducing churn or whatever, but seriously, people who don't own smartphones now prolly aren't interested in getting them.
 
Red Falcon said:
Well, companies like this deserve to fail.
Click to expand...

thats literally every single publicly traded company in existence. You got to understand that EVERYTHING has a cost, and you have to have something quantifiable to justify any expenditures. This actually goes with the guy below your posts comments as well. Sprint offers an unlimited plan. They don't have the best network. Well, in order to upgrade their network they have to be able to show where that network upgrade will increase revenue. Which goes to data caps and the other guys post. There aren't many new cell companies because the initial investment cost is fucking incredible. So you have cell companies which are trying to figure out how to attract customers from each other. There are not many new customers out there every year.

So you have sprint, which goes unlimited and lower prices, as a result return on investment for upgrading their network is low because they can't quantify how many more customers they get from doing the upgrade. They are attempting to attract larger market share to increase revenue. They can quantify how many customers they are LOSING due to a poor network. But because they are going for raw market share, they have to invest more money in their network then the others to increase their ROI

. Then you have give me your first born child verizon or ATT, att is a better example. They have a pretty good network. Since they charge basically per mb, they know if they upgrade the network to go faster, the result is people will use more data, resulting in them being able to charge more. I.E. They have a direct quantifiable ROI.

The only way to fix this is to change OUR habbits. but we dont. I try and try and try to get people to change their provider. I remind them the FCC made it so you can port your number. People would rather be ripped off then put forth any effort at all.

BTW i use cricket. 60 bux a month for 10gb, -5 for autopay brings you to 55, with taxes and everything. It uses ATT network. They charge 10 bux per additional gig. So even if you have an unlimited plan you might still save money depending on how much you use, ie if you use 20gb a month, its 105. etc. etc. If your not using an unlimited plan thats either grandfathered in or on sprint, you should look into mvno's to pay less. If your reading this and you dont, you are basically saying you like these insane prices. You have to make ATT and Verizon have market share problems in their core business if you want it fixed at all.
 
Romale23 said:
thats literally every single publicly traded company in existence. You got to understand that EVERYTHING has a cost, and you have to have something quantifiable to justify any expenditures. This actually goes with the guy below your posts comments as well. Sprint offers an unlimited plan. They don't have the best network. Well, in order to upgrade their network they have to be able to show where that network upgrade will increase revenue. Which goes to data caps and the other guys post. There aren't many new cell companies because the initial investment cost is fucking incredible. So you have cell companies which are trying to figure out how to attract customers from each other. There are not many new customers out there every year.

So you have sprint, which goes unlimited and lower prices, as a result return on investment for upgrading their network is low because they can't quantify how many more customers they get from doing the upgrade. They are attempting to attract larger market share to increase revenue. They can quantify how many customers they are LOSING due to a poor network. But because they are going for raw market share, they have to invest more money in their network then the others to increase their ROI

. Then you have give me your first born child verizon or ATT, att is a better example. They have a pretty good network. Since they charge basically per mb, they know if they upgrade the network to go faster, the result is people will use more data, resulting in them being able to charge more. I.E. They have a direct quantifiable ROI.

The only way to fix this is to change OUR habbits. but we dont. I try and try and try to get people to change their provider. I remind them the FCC made it so you can port your number. People would rather be ripped off then put forth any effort at all.

BTW i use cricket. 60 bux a month for 10gb, -5 for autopay brings you to 55, with taxes and everything. It uses ATT network. They charge 10 bux per additional gig. So even if you have an unlimited plan you might still save money depending on how much you use, ie if you use 20gb a month, its 105. etc. etc. If your not using an unlimited plan thats either grandfathered in or on sprint, you should look into mvno's to pay less. If your reading this and you dont, you are basically saying you like these insane prices. You have to make ATT and Verizon have market share problems in their core business if you want it fixed at all.
Click to expand...

If I didn't have my VZW UDP I'd be pre-paid all the way!
 
The internet of things is the fucking stupidest thing ever attempted. If you are too stupid to know that you are almost out of milk then you shouldn't be allowed to own an electronic device anyway.
 
Romale23 said:
Eh, i get 10gb, unlimited everything else for 55 bux a month. I dont think thats unreasonable.
Click to expand...

Consider that someone back in the 1990's who drove to Blockbuster and rented a single DVD movie and brought it home moved as much data in that short trip as you are allowed to over your cell plan in an entire month - and this is 2014. That is not only unreasonable, it's embarrassingly, cringe-worthy sad, as well as downright pathetic.
 
Caps are there to charge you more in the end. Maybe not yet but in the future. Caps are unncessary. Its artificial scarcity. Megabytes are unlimited when being transferred between point and A and point B. The only time megabytes cost anyone money is when those bytes are being stored. ISP just pays for the pipe. Business connections don't have caps either or limitations like regular residential connections. All this artificial inflation is there to make people put out more cash on top of the monthly fee. Just one big scam.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top