Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com>]

Oh good :) someone coaxed cameron out of the holiday keg :)

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 6:32 PM Ca By <cb.list6 () gmail com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 2:41 PM Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 4:11 PM Brian J. Murrell <brian () interlinx bc ca> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2019-12-30 at 09:50 -0500, Shane Ronan wrote:
> > > > Also, keep in mind that 10 years ago, you didn't know you would want
> > > > or
> > > > need 25mbits to your phone,
> > >
> > > Who needs 25mbits to their phone?
> >
> > this is the wrong argument to make... or at the least it distracts
> > from the conversation about: "Why 5g?" because everyone can come up
> > with a reason for/against N mbps to Xthing. (I think this is sort of
> > shane's point, actually)
> >
> > 4G/LTE:
> >   o started the migration/consolidation of voice/video/data to a
> > single bearer (well, IP anyway).
> >   o moved the (ideally) IP endpoint closer to the tower base
> >   o removed some latency, jitter, intermediaries between 'End-User'
> > and "thing on the network"
> >
> > 5G:
> >   o supposedly reduces latency 'more' (brings more of the IP
> > connection and routing closer to the tower/radio?)
>
>
> Latency to what? Latency between your handset and a front-end web server at Google or AWS is likely unchanged. Physic 
> did not change for 5G.

good question... I think for any IP flow in previous deployments the
point where my ip packet went from 'radio' to 'ip networking' could
have been a fair distance away (super cell in 2g/3g worlds) from my,
bending my IP path significantly from me to the thing I'm talking to.
(introducing latency and other pokery from the carrier side swapping
around from radio/3gpp/etc to "ip on ethernet").

In the LTE world it's POSSIBLE that that transition could happen at
the tower base (unlikely, but possible, theoretically). So, given some
regional network and aggregation / etc my IP packet's path COULD be
'better'. That should enable better latency/jitter/etc. In practice
the 3g ~300ms to send a packet from 'reston virginia' to 'ashburn
virginia' has become ~20-40ms.

Note, I'm not super interested in point-to-point measurements, but the
general path being 'better' for user packets.

> Just random samples of what people post online....
>
> Vzw 5g 19 ms
>
> https://twitter.com/donnymac/status/1164491035503976448

19ms from 'georgetown' to <unknown> so I can't really tell what the
uplift on a straight ping from (for example) georgetown university
campus -> <thing> might be.
either way... maybe it's 12-14 ms (since the test seems to talk about
Annapolis which ought not be more than 3-4 ms from DC proper on fiber)
that's not so bad really.

> Att 5ge 34ms
> https://twitter.com/joelouis77/status/1196651360185462784

yea.... no endpoints specified so: "testing that the internet is on fire" :(

> Sprint , this guy shows 27ms on LTE vs 34ms on 5g
> https://twitter.com/robpegoraro/status/1202705075535257600

i'm guessing he means: "north arlington virginia" to "washington
dc"... 34ms is 'long' :( much more uplift on that than I'd expect.

> >   o simplifies management? (maybe?)
>
>
> Hahahaha. No. Because 5g does not replace anything. It is yet another thing.

:) "long term, when you decom 3g and 4g for 5g! you know, when 6g arrives..." :)
It's amazing to me that there's not a unified management system to
offer network management across radio technologies? and some
requirement from the carriers to push the vendors to provide a
standards based interface to keep that management system in play long
term? Maybe there is and it's running YANG/OpenConfig/etc ? Maybe it's
silly to want that though because the radio world is 'so very
different' from the plain-jim IP world? and/or there's enough
difference between 3/4/5g that using a single management system just
isn't practical?

> > keeping speed out of the conversation, the footprint for MANY 5g
> > deploymetns in the US (and elsewhere) is likely 'hundreds of feet
> > circles', where 4G is 'miles'.
> > (yes you can beam-form and make ovals and such...)
>
>
> This is still a physics thing. Most purest will says 5G = new radio (NR). NR can run in any band. And, the distance 
> is a function of the band. Tmobile is big on 600mhz NR, Sprint is big on 2500mhz NR and VZW has 28ghz NR.

oh sure, who gets the 'right' spectrum is going to drive what each
carrier can 'do' with the 5g.
but generally speaking, particular carriers aside... "5g is beneficial
to users because?" (again, aside from speed increases).

"Lower cost, because more people on less equipment and lower
management costs" (pass that on to the users, right?)
"more reach into places where cell coverage is spotty?"
"new tech options over the network provided?"

> There is an relation between the available spectrum bandwidth and the mhz. Meaning, there is only little 600mhz but 
> there is a lot of 28ghz mmwave. That said, 600mhz can drive for miles, while 28ghz needs line of sight.
>
> Horses for courses. No silver bullet.  All the best mid-band spectrum , balanced volume and propagation, got deployed 
> in the 90s as pcs / gsm, and re-deployed in the 10s as umts and LTE.  Low band is great for penetration and coverage 
> with a few cells, mmwave is great with line of sight... midband is the sweet spot in the middle.
>
> The future requires all tools available.
>
> > It'd be nice to see what benefits 5g really has for carriers and
> > consumers/users... It looks, to me, like a bunch of the 5g hype is
> > really: "uhm, we need to sell these carriers on the G++ ... spin up
> > the hype machine about speed!" never mind the cost to deploy, range of
> > deployment, changes in handset/radio gear / etc... more $ to the
> > vendors!
> >
> > -chris
>
>
> NR does operationalize more spectrum and allows bigger aggregate pools (like LACP) The new mmwave spectrum is the 
> last to come to market because it’s value is limited in the general case.

thanks!
-chris

> >