Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United Kingdom Network The Internet

UK and Germany To Collaborate On 5G 82

Posted by samzenpus
from the working-it-out dept.
First time accepted submitter Niranjan Nallapothula writes in with news of an agreement between the UK and Germany to develop 5G technology, as well as boost momentum for the Internet of Things. "Britain and Germany will team up to work on developing the next super-fast mobile network, 5G, United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron told the opening of the world's biggest high-tech fair. Cameron said the initiative is one of three areas that he wants Britain and Germany to collaborate on to "pool ideas, share data, innovate, and to lead on the next big ideas" in what he dubbed as being 'a world on fast forward.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK and Germany To Collaborate On 5G

Comments Filter:
  • 5? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 10, 2014 @10:28AM (#46445185)

    Shouldn't we concentrate on developing 4G first?

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It's one louder

    • by kthreadd (1558445)

      Shouldn't we concentrate on developing 4G first?

      Why? It's been in deployment since 2009. 5G is the next natural step.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        He's referring to the actual 4G standards, which still have not been met anywhere. The lax 4G advertising standard was accepted because every cell provider unanimously agreed that the existent 4G standards were impossible.

        This will just end up another advertising standard, I doubt there will be any change in speed beyond what you can expect with a slightly better data stream compression (which will use up more battery life to decode).

  • by bobbied (2522392) on Monday March 10, 2014 @10:47AM (#46445377)

    I suppose there is always a place for more bandwidth, but the limiting factor is going to be spectrum space here. 5G is most likely going to increase bandwidth performance, but at what cost? Using 4G you can stream HD video now, what more do we actually need? For mobile devices, I'm not so sure there is much more necessary.

    As always, the issue really is spectrum space. Where will it come from *this* time? Cell spectrum is generally well used (at least in urban areas) so there will be a huge push to find something else. Problem is that all the available spectrum is way up there, where solid state devices start having serious design issues and the power required is huge. You thought your 4G phone battery died quick...

    Research is great, I'm just not thinking there is much practical that will come of this.

    • by Chrisq (894406) on Monday March 10, 2014 @11:02AM (#46445509)

      I suppose there is always a place for more bandwidth, but the limiting factor is going to be spectrum space here. 5G is most likely going to increase bandwidth performance, but at what cost? Using 4G you can stream HD video now, what more do we actually need? For mobile devices, I'm not so sure there is much more necessary.

      As always, the issue really is spectrum space. Where will it come from *this* time? Cell spectrum is generally well used (at least in urban areas) so there will be a huge push to find something else. Problem is that all the available spectrum is way up there, where solid state devices start having serious design issues and the power required is huge. You thought your 4G phone battery died quick...

      Research is great, I'm just not thinking there is much practical that will come of this.

      Well with 4G you can use your monthly data cap in five minutes [pcpro.co.uk]. Many people look forward to the time when it will only take seconds.

      • by Kokuyo (549451)

        What is this "monthly data cap" of which you're speaking?

      • While it is "technically" possible, chances are, you (yes you) cannot. Congestion, distance from Cell Tower, slow network/choke points etc.

        I'm a Network administrator and we run (currently) a 5000 node network across a Gig link, and only average something like 25% network saturation, during PEAK hours. While we have spike traffic that hits the max bandwidth, they are very very temporary. Chances are, you'll never hit a server capable of filling your gig link.

        The closest thing I've seen filling the link is a

    • Especially on batteries, you hit diminishing returns pretty quickly as you increase data speed for any single device(a few oddballs with better power supplies and historical options that basically came down to 'bring an entire damn satellite uplink truck' probably do want realtime 4K streaming back to the studio...)

      However, if the techniques used are suitably clever, technology that can be used to demonstrate impressive-but-irrelevant peak speeds is likely also of use to provide endurable speeds to ever
    • by Anonymous Coward

      God forbid you Google it.

      "If 5G appears, and reflects these prognoses, the major difference from a user point of view between 4G and 5G techniques must be something else than increased peak bit rate; for example higher number of simultaneously connected devices, higher system spectral efficiency (data volume per area unit), lower battery consumption, lower outage probability (better coverage), high bit rates in larger portions of the coverage area, lower latencies, higher number of supported devices, lower

      • by skids (119237)

        God forbid you Google it

        God forbid you google "5G wireless" and not know the difference between the cellular definition of 5G and WiFi 5GHz, often referred to as 5G.

        Saw that namespace collision coming a mile away. It's going to be one of those things that causes confusion with PHBs for the next decade. They should have added another letter or something e.g. 5GX.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      > Research is great, I'm just not thinking there is much practical that will come of this.

      I have a suspicion this is not about mobile phones. The german goverment has plans to deliver "Broadband" to the largets part of the population. But they shy away from the cost of digging trenches for cables for every little town and village in rural areas and then also connect each house with fibre or at least awesome-quality copper.
      Therefore, I assume they plan on doing it via mobile technology and hope they can o

    • by mlts (1038732)

      I wouldn't mind seeing 5G add additional security. Since it would likely require a new type of SIM card, now is the time to a couple security features:

      1: Ability to store data on a SIM card in a secure manner. For storing Google Authenticator info, PGP/gpg private keys, tetetc... a SIM card would be perfect because it has protection against brute force built in (PIN/PUK). If changing phones, I'd not have to worry about backing up or generating new authenticator codes.

      2: Similar to #1, except allow SD-l

    • by Aryden (1872756)
      Because, you know, we never ever actually create new things that are larger and need more bandwidth to transfer. re: standard definition vs high definition. If the market creates a capability, there will be someone or something that will seek to fill that capability.
      • by bobbied (2522392)

        Because, you know, we never ever actually create new things that are larger and need more bandwidth to transfer. re: standard definition vs high definition. If the market creates a capability, there will be someone or something that will seek to fill that capability.

        You can stream HD video now over 4G, how much more bandwidth can you sell and for what?

        Latency improvements might be a good thing, but by my reading 5G is targeting 100X the bandwidth of 4G. Even if they manage 10X, I'm here to tell you that they are going to have to find spectrum space for this. Physics require it. The only spectrum available that makes sense is higher frequencies than where we are now with cell phones. But the reason we don't use this spectrum now is because solid state devices that

        • by Aryden (1872756)
          but again, we aren't looking at individual devices needing that much bandwidth, we're looking at a tower piping out the bandwidth to be shared by 100s if not 1000s of users. But then, we can also look at the business application here where instead of running lines into a business, you can get 5g physical receivers.
          • by bobbied (2522392)

            For ground based devices that don't move, fiber is cheaper and faster.

            Trust me on this, 5G is largely useless if the only point is bandwidth... Not saying they won't try to sell it, but the bandwidth required for 10X 4G will put you into spectrum you simply cannot afford in mobile devices due to power budgets and semiconductor costs.

            So it's really about the spectrum space being unavailable and what they can get being expensive to use.

    • If you use directional "point to point" radio communications then bandwidth isn't shared, so everyone can use as much as they want. It's only because of our wasteful omnidirectional radio usage that we've got spectrum shortages. You can have a hundred road side billboards operating at the same time in the same area on the same frequency (visible) without issues.
      • by bobbied (2522392)

        I beg to differ. We have highly directional antennas being used in urban areas now and cell sizes that are getting pretty small around congested areas. So we are already doing what you say will fix this. Putting in more cell towers and antennas does help, but in urban areas where 5G would likely be put first is already subdivided pretty small.

        But when you up the data rates, you have to increase the bandwidth and/or power. Physics demands it. So if you are already maxing out your licensed spectrum doin

      • by Smerta (1855348)

        Are you talking about something like the Artemis pCell system [artemis.com]?

        Their claim is that every device essentially gets its own 5/10/20 MHz of spectrum. Will be interesting to see if it actually works as well as it's being hyped.

  • Ethernet syndrome (Score:4, Interesting)

    by spectrokid (660550) on Monday March 10, 2014 @10:48AM (#46445385) Homepage
    For a cabled connection to your desktop, GB ethernet is probably more than you will ever need. How many HD movies can you see at the same time anyway? Is 5G not going to hit the same barrier? Sure there will be some niche applications, but John Doe doesn't need to be able to download an entire movie in 10 seconds. He definitely doesn't need to be able to use his "unlimited data" for a whole month in under a minute.
    • Mod parent down! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Mod parent down, for he is shortsighted and hates technology. Bigot!

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Absolutely! If we only did things based on "need", life would blow.

    • by Zuriel (1760072)
      Yeah, but wireless spectrum gets shared between users. You don't need to download an entire movie in 10 seconds, but what about streaming bluray quality video to 100 people from a single cell tower in the city?
    • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Monday March 10, 2014 @11:09AM (#46445565) Homepage Journal

      Sure there will be some niche applications,

      Feeding the last mile is not a niche application.

      In cities, it's reasonable to wire everyone up. In bumfuck, not so much. I live in bumfuck. I have three ISP options available to me, all of the WISPs. All of them crap. I am now on the one which is least crap. A notable percentage of Americans are in the same boat, or one which is indistinguishable from a distance. Population density is low enough and sectored antennas directional enough for wireless to be a last-mile solution for the USA.

      On the other hand, it'll still require microcells...

    • The one major difference between (contemporary) ethernet and wireless scenarios is that, now that switches have pretty much 100% replaced hubs, 'shared media' issues tend to occur only between a computer and its switch, so there really isn't as much pressure for research on elegant coexistence. Yeah, a bit of QoS algorithm tweaking; but 'How can we allow 1Gb, 100Mb, 10Mb, and 4800bps transmissions to coexist on a single hub and set of cables?' just isn't a relevant question. Everybody hates shared media, an
    • by dkf (304284) <donal.k.fellows@manchester.ac.uk> on Monday March 10, 2014 @11:34AM (#46445783) Homepage

      For a cabled connection to your desktop, GB ethernet is probably more than you will ever need.

      No, it's just more than you can currently envisage using. What about streaming 3D interactive entertainment? The bandwidth requirements of such things are rather high, beyond what is practical now (and we also don't have all the other hardware required yet) but it's still reasonable to consider how to provide that.

      Expanding capacity has an additional benefit in urban areas: sharing of capacity between multiple users becomes easier. Maybe you live out in the sticks, but lots of people don't, and lots of them want fast internet.

    • by jittles (1613415)

      For a cabled connection to your desktop, GB ethernet is probably more than you will ever need. How many HD movies can you see at the same time anyway? Is 5G not going to hit the same barrier? Sure there will be some niche applications, but John Doe doesn't need to be able to download an entire movie in 10 seconds. He definitely doesn't need to be able to use his "unlimited data" for a whole month in under a minute.

      Home Ethernet will be fast enough when it can keep up with my 10 disk RAID 0. I may not transfer large volumes of data over my Ethernet on a regular basis, but when I do, I want it done ASAP.

    • "GB ethernet is probably more than you will ever need. "

      I've heard this line before. On 10MB, 100MB, and now 1000MB connections. Yeah, we'll be filling int 10GB networks soon enough. If you build it, they will fill it.

  • by frnic (98517) on Monday March 10, 2014 @10:59AM (#46445479)

    It seems a significant number of the readers here would rather say "64kb is all the memory anyone will ever need", because they are too lazy to try and think rather than just knock any and every innovation mentioned on Slashdot.

    As far as 5G - "why" the answer is use (consumption) will always expand to fill capacity. The question is not WHY the question that needs to be answered is how can we put that additional capacity to use.

    • by ledow (319597) on Monday March 10, 2014 @11:13AM (#46445611) Homepage

      "Why" should we invest in a technology that we don't know "how" to put to use?

      And, believe me, it's us that are investing in it. My mobile service provider keeps telling me about 4G. Says it's wonderful. Say's I'm ready to go. Except I don't have a 4G handset and have no intention of really getting one. Because it costs a lot more and does nothing that mine doesn't already do, just slightly faster (in theory). Coverage isn't there. Cost is too much (still measured in fucking megabytes). No real advantage over 3G at the moment.

      So my question is not "how" at all - I can name a million ways we *could* use 5G. Like I could name a million ways we *could* use 4G. Or 3G. Or EDGE, GPRS or any number of other technologies before it. Fact is, we still don't really do them.

      The problem is not "how". My question is "why". Why would I touch something that's likely to be commercially exploited to the hilt to my disadvantage and which I, honestly, hardly ever use?

      Sure it's cool to check GMail on the go. I've RDP'd in and fixed servers from a smartphone. It's useful. But it's not a killer application of the technology because I've been able to do that (maybe not quite so fast) since the GPRS days.

      And yes, you "can" video-stream etc. now Fact is, it all costs money and not everyone will pay you to watch Gravity in 4K on their 2" mobile screen (especially not if they're already paying £40 a month for 4G, and you want more for 5G to recoup your investment costs).

      Why deploy a technology "just because" it's supposed-progress? Isn't that what left us with all kinds of dead-end hardware and initiatives / technologies that never really took off (3DTV)? Why not use what we've got and get the most out of even 3G as it stands (because, ultimately, we certainly don't do that in the UK)?

      Let's use what we have to its limits, and be clever, and get better value out of those BILLIONS of pounds worth of 3G/4G licenses before we start jumping on the 5G bandwagon "just because". Hell, I'd infinitely rather have 3G everywhere at the max capable speed (which is surprisingly high!) than even a single base station with 5G.

      And if consumption expands to fill capacity, the opposite is true - we will squeeze every byte we can out of technologies if they are the upper limit.

      • by Pascoea (968200)

        No real advantage over 3G at the moment.

        Should I get off your lawn now, or can I wait till later?

        Hell, I'd infinitely rather have 3G everywhere at the max capable speed (which is surprisingly high!) than even a single base station with 5G.

        Replace 3G in this sentence with 4G and I'd be happy to agree with you. In my experience 3G wasn't fast enough. It wasn't fast enough when they first turned it on, it wasn't fast enough when they started replacing it with LTE.

      • by Shatrat (855151)

        still measured in fucking megabytes

        Storage is measured in megabytes, network is measured in megabits/second. In real-world usage mbps still plenty for most activities, assuming you are actually getting it. 10mbps is enough for an office full of people to use for email, web, voip, et cetera without noticing any issues. The problem is oversubscription of the wireless network so that although you can theoretically get hundreds of mbps, you are actually getting hundreds of kbps, and then only in bursts.

        • by ledow (319597)

          Obviously don't know that UK mobile providers put a data cap on - in Megabytes Per Month.

          You can have all the speed in the world, but it's useless if you can go over your limit (especially if you go to another European country) in a matter of seconds.

          • by Shatrat (855151)

            Obviously you don't know that all retail services measure caps in megabytes and that they have nothing at all to do with technology. It's like complaining about other people having fast cars because you live on a dirt road.

  • Did you have to say "collaborate"?

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Great, so I can have 4K video instead of wimpy 1080p, but voice calls will still be barely intelligible.

  • By all means increase speed, however if gains can be made on power consumption, connection latency, call clarity, cost of implementation, ect. I would suspect these items would be more beneficial than raw speed increases. Particularly with the internet of things concept, if it can cost pennies and miliamps to connect your toaster to the internet wirelessly then lets connect everything.
  • My amazing 4G implemented by the telco here got me 10-20mbps. 5G? I can assure you my telco's 5G will have the speed of 15-25mbps.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    David Cameron couldn't give a shit about 5G.

    All he cares about is that sweet, sweet spectrum auction money for his government to spend.

  • by fisted (2295862)
    Wasn't 4G considered "Long Term Evolution"? What a crap. *strokes his GSM phone*
  • I mean seriously, compared to the rest of the world, we in the US may as well be reading about quantum teleportation.

  • I wasn't aware that we have proper 4G service too. And we r talking about 5G Wow...

%DCL-MEM-BAD, bad memory VMS-F-PDGERS, pudding between the ears

Working...