5G roadblock: labor

Fri Jan 3 14:25:35 UTC 2020

Throughput is (mostly) a function of channel size, modulation, and signal to noise ratio. 

Coverage is (mostly) a function of frequency, radiated power, obstacles, and signal to noise ratio. 

Other than in the bowels of large buildings, coverage shouldn't be an issue in most urban areas. 

The millimeter wave bands do need a lot higher density of sites for similar coverage due to the impact of frequency and obstacles. 

There's nothing saying that AWS or WCS allocations can't be used for site densification. They would have the side-effect of actually being able to penetrate the buildings they're near instead of just serving the sidewalk and street. 

It is true that the peak speed in the millimeter bands is much higher than what AWS or WCS can provide, but peak speeds are only interesting for genital-waving speed tests. If I have sufficient allocations such that Mu-MIMO offers the sector capacity that I need, I'm better off because the aforementioned "entering the building" benefits. That is... unless I intend the user to use WiFi once inside and to not use my 5G network anymore. 

----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Ryland Kremeier" <rkremeier at barryelectric.com> 
To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog at ics-il.net>, "Shane Ronan" <shane at ronan-online.com> 
Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog at nanog.org> 
Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 8:05:56 AM 
Subject: RE: 5G roadblock: labor 

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that it’s become a wavelength problem at this point with 4G in high-density areas. 5Gs shorter but higher in spectrum wavelength will need more nodes per square kilometer but have a much higher limit to its bandwidth ceiling. I believe the numbers I saw were something along the lines of 10k people per square kilometer for 4G, and 1M people per square kilometer for 5G at the 300GHz wavelength. 

-- Ryland 

From: NANOG <nanog-bounces at nanog.org> On Behalf Of Mike Hammett 
Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 7:58 AM 
To: Shane Ronan <shane at ronan-online.com> 
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog at nanog.org> 
Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor 

Why? 

----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Shane Ronan" < shane at ronan-online.com > 
To: "Mike Hammett" < nanog at ics-il.net > 
Cc: "Mark Tinka" < mark.tinka at seacom.mu >, "North American Network Operators' Group" < nanog at nanog.org > 
Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 7:56:57 AM 
Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor 

In locations with high population densities, there is nothing you can do to LTE to provide adequate service. 

Shane 

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020, 8:46 AM Mike Hammett < nanog at ics-il.net > wrote: 

Obviously if the technology is available, works well, and is reasonably priced, 5G it up. However, if you're adding small cells every 500', tripling the amount of "towers" you have... does it matter much if it's LTE or NR? You're adding hundreds of megs if not gigs of capacity with LTE. 

----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

From: "Mark Tinka" < mark.tinka at seacom.mu > 
To: "Saku Ytti" < saku at ytti.fi > 
Cc: nanog at nanog.org 
Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 3:36:52 AM 
Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor 

On 3/Jan/20 11:25, Saku Ytti wrote: 

> 
> Yes markets differ, and this is not 4G/5G question, only thing 5G does 
> is help markets which struggle to provide sufficient service in dense 
> metro installations. 

Which brings us full circle - what's the cost of hooking those dense 
cities up to 5G in 2020 vs. running fibre to an 802.11ac|ax access point 
to serve its residents and visitors, in 2020? 

And more interestingly, if that city's residents and visitors had the 
option of connecting to active 5G or wi-fi, what do we think they'd choose? 

Mark. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20200103/884cd16a/attachment.html>