Don't believe the 5G hype! £700m could make UK's 4G better than Albania's The government should ignore the 5G hype and invest its £700m funding earmarked for the technology on ubiquitous 4G technology instead, a top telecoms expert has urged. Professor William Webb, former director of the regulator Ofcom, has warned that there is no clear rationale for 5G's one-hundred-times-faster speeds, and one- …
Even setting an alternative 5%-10% minimum target of FTTP within the Openreach network (local loop), would be enough to show how G.fast restricts (will restrict) the market in favour of BT.
Especially when it comes to what BT charges itself/other providers relating to the maintenance/fault finding of the copper local loop. BT's maintenance/fault finding costs of copper/G.fast v pure fibre rollout needs to come centre stage to any future decision making.
If Ofcom are genuinely interested in getting competition into the market, it's not going to happen backing G.fast, backing G.fast just entrenches BT's 'upto' obfuscated model even further.
"Never mind that the last mile is the same ADSL garbage from 2002, and that 802.11g is way more than enough for that."
I'm not sure you understand how WiFi works. Line speed is not throughput speed. The g standard can struggle to deliver much more than 3Mbps in the real world.
I'd also point out that lots of the traffic on my home LAN and plenty of other people isn't from the Internet or WAN side. There's streaming going on to phones and TVs and Internet Radios from my media NAS. There are backups from multiple machines going to the backup NAS. None of those would work terribly well using the g standard.
"It's actually "the UK's most powerful Wi-Fi signal"... Meaning their router transmits at more than the broadcast signal strength limit set by the standard? Ofcom should fine them for that."
The signal uses beamforming - like the difference between a 50W bulb in a standard light fitting versus a 50W headlamp. Both bulbs product the same light output but one is visible from further away, assuming you're in the right direction.
Meaning their router transmits at more than the broadcast signal strength limit set by the standard?
No. That's the sort of thing you;re supposed to infer from the advertising, but it is very specifically not said.
Their being the "most powerful" doesn't mean they are any more powerful than anyone else - just that no-one is more powerful than them. And no-one is less powerful either...
Vic.
Forget 5G or 4G just give me full 3G coverage and a double digit Internet connection.
What the government can't grasp is the map of crap land base broadband is the same as the map of iffy / no 3G with no hope of anything better.
Just get every where a basic service before you wasting my tax money on futures that the industry can fund itself it it wants to.
Whilst 4G remains a little exclusive for so many, 5G will be nothing more than simply more expensive and more exclusive... Available only to those who live in the most profitable areas.
Those of us who live in smaller towns (because we want to, and love the peace & quiet) and can only get a 4G signal on the high street... and this means we are being forced to pay a premium for slower connections.
Even switching providers doesn't always help as 4G coverage between the various providers is patchy and inconsistent.
5G should only be considered when 4G has been full rolled out to include the vast majority of the entire country. I know there are always going to be the odd areas where signals are patchy. Visits to the Lake District have often seen me climbing the hill behind the cottage to get one... But in North Wales over Xmas this year saw me getting a strong 4G signal in a tiny little village.
I also have to ask what's the point of having super fast speeds when data is still so ridiculously expensive? You can burn through your 'allowance' in a few minutes on 4G if not careful, so I rarely use it even when I have it.
£20 for 15Gb per month is not really expensive. Go over the pond to the USA and see how far $25 takes you with data. There are people who pay well over $100 for their monthly plan. Add another $200 for cable and more for Amazon Prime, Netflix, Spotify etc etc and suddenly you are paying $400/month.
Even VM have not managed to get a plan that high (AFAIK).
Now if your network is so deluded and charges you more for 4G over a 3G connection then move to one that is not so idiotic (and does not pay Kevin Bacon a small fortune to front their adverts)
the problem is the Kevin Bacon network is the combination of the two best 3G networks and one of the top 4G ones for coverage.
they charge for the privilege
My thought is we nationalise the mobile infrastructure, into a new National Comms Network combined with openreach and completely independent of BT/EE/Plusnet and then all networks become MVNOs and we kill termination charges and get the best of investment as there is no need to duplicate coverage, hence more areas can be covered for less money.
"Those of us who live in smaller towns (because we want to, and love the peace & quiet) and can only get a 4G signal on the high street... and this means we are being forced to pay a premium for slower connections."
That's the opportunity cost you pay for being in the sticks. Away from civilization, away from civilization-based services. And rolling out to your neck of the woods WILL cost, simply due to geography. Small Town USA found that out decades ago. So you have three choices: pay through the roof, move back to where all the services are, or go without.
Small Town USA is different from Small Town UK though, for the simple reason that the UK is much smaller. It's much easier and cheaper to cover, say, 95% of the UK population because the population density is much higher (263 people/km² for the UK vs 35.2 people/km² for the USA). A better comparison would be with Germany (234 people/km²).
tl/dr population density is seven times higher in the UK, you shouldn't compare it with the US.
Actually he's acting like a paid spokesman for BT. 5G requires a massive fibre backhaul investment, something BT are trying their hardest not to do, due to their obsession with Pointless obsolete 'cherry picking' copper carcass 'upto' G.fast technology.
In a way, he's promoting BT's roadmap of Femtocell BT Homehubs, run off the backhaul of taxpayer paid for, FTTC, under the EE Branding, with per MB mobile pricing. A highly profitable route for BT, but not for the UK as a whole.
You have to question the man's motive's for doing this.
A true fibre rollout with 4-6 redundant fibres to evey home (as the Swiss have done) would mean BT lose wholesale access control, what is needed.
BT are determined to keep the final leg copper, rather than replacing it with Fibre, (even for new installs/end of life replacement), because BT lose overall control of the local loop having redundant fibre in place to the Premises. The redundant fibres would mean you could have multiple products from multiple companies at once, bypassing BT's control.
BT are desperately pushing G.fast, because it artificially restricts the final leg of the network, to a couple of twisted copper pairs, that keeps overall control with BT. Its not a cost thing at all anymore, that final piece of copper is an artficial control/restriction, to gouge 'upto' prices, artificially make Broadband is a finite, restricted resource, when it doesn't need to be.
Further infill FTTC isn't cheaper, because most of the cheaper 'cherry picking' ideal sites now have FTTC. New FTTC infill won't be cheaper (it requires new (copper) cabling/cabinets/plannng) than FTTP, but it will allow BT to keep overall control of the local loop, hence BT prefer FTTC over FTTP rollout.
Mark, you're missing out the practical side of implementing this.
So how are you/Mr Professor Man, intending to get all this blanket improvement in 4G (even a pretty pathetic goal of 10Mbps) 'ubiquitous' {blanket coverage} mobile mast data to/from a network of 1Km spaced, 4G masts across the UK? Including masts in remote rural locations.
Everything this guy is putting forward is designed to sit within the technical limits/points to BT's roadmap of 4G 'Home hub' Femtocell use over taxpayer funded FTTC at per MB EE Mobile data pricing. It's BT propaganda, with (revolving door- BT Jobs) 'fake' Ofcom regulator endorsement.
Upto a 100 Users each receiving 10Mbps doesn't happen without a fibre backhaul connected to the mast. So this will be a limited set of concurrent users probably 10 at most, getting 10Mbps. You not going to achieve blanket coverage with Microware relays, with larger amounts of data of 100 users receiving 10Mbps, at 1Km intervals between masts (needed to get blanket 4G coverage).
What you getting is low demand coverage using Home Hub Femtocell technology, without the ability to cater for large numbers of users, so its not blanket coverage at all.
Without a massive fibre rollout faster data speeds are just not going to happen, so why waste money paying Incumbents BT to rollout Pointless obsolete G.fast over copper when rolling out multiple (redundant) fibres to the premises, allows true competition and the market to grow, outwith BT's control.
Put the wholesale choice at my door, not in the hands/control of BT (by leaving them to control that final piece of copper), BT only know whats best for BT. BT rightly, exploit the current entrenched position for themselves, with biased reasoning with favours their legacy network topology. Nothing will change, unless you change the local loop/Openreach.
"taxpayer funded FTTC"
How is FTTC taxpayer funded? There's a subsidy for commercially non-viable cabinets in rural areas, the rest is privately funded.
"(revolving door- BT Jobs) 'fake' Ofcom regulator endorsement."
Can you name anyone who has gone in either direction?
"Without a massive fibre rollout faster data speeds are just not going to happen, so why waste money paying Incumbents BT to rollout Pointless obsolete G.fast over copper when rolling out multiple (redundant) fibres to the premises, allows true competition and the market to grow, outwith BT's control."
You make this mistake often. Mobile network backhaul is not delivered using consumer broadband products. I buy circuits for mobile backhaul in the UK and most of northern Europe. I've never used broadband technology, I buy guaranteed bandwidth and guanranteed throughput Ethernet private circuits delivered directly back to my nodes or my cages in a telehouse.
The scope and scale of any broadband rollout has zero impact on mobile networks, because mobile networks don't use broadband. I think you need a better grip on the basics of how this stuff works.
"(revolving door- BT Jobs) 'fake' Ofcom regulator endorsement.
Can you name anyone who has gone in either direction?"
--------------
Ofcom - Members of the Advisory Committee for Wales
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/how-ofcom-is-run/committees/wales/members
John Davies (Chairman)
John Davies is a telecommunications consultant. The former Director of BT Wales and Chief Operations Officer of BT Wholesale, John has an MBA from London Business School. He is a Senior Trustee of E F Sparkes Trust, lives in Cardiff and is Chairman of Adventurers Quay Management Ltd.
--------------
Do you want me to give you the full fcuking list?
100Mbps to a phone can't be achieved by ANY new standard.
Even bonded 3G or 4G CAN do it, but only if every other street light is a femto base station.
The xG standard is almost irrelevant. It's having smaller cells, very many more masts that gives extra speed.
Oh and having fixed users on fibre would maybe double speeds for those actually mobile
Then double speed again by having a single wholesale network (load balancing is impossible with spectrum split between companies)
I want to see mobile network 'speed camera' / fine generating type devices. You place a temporary mobile network mast covering all networks in a not spot Area, the same tech as would be for a permanent mast installaton. For every call/data that connects to that mast, Operators are fined for lack of coverage. Each is placed in situ for a month. Locations are changed.
If there is shown to be demand from subscribers, where Network Operators are not rolling out coverage, funds from the fines/further funds from Network Operators with the worst coverage are used to build out a generic mast at that location where coverage is needed, but is not be fulfilled by the market.
Planning permission is an obvious stumbling block, but I still believe there are cases in not spots, where there is known demand, planning hasn't been sort and the coverage is still not been fulfilled by the market. If these companies have paying customers that are unable to use the service they are supposed to be receiving/signed up for, they need to be fined (from the profits). These are the areas where a fine based system, against Network Operators could work.
Just offloaded my trusty old 1st gen Moto G and now able to experience 4G for the first time. Central London and with 4G on my new phone spends more time connected through GPRS than 4G and my actual signal for calls/SMS is intermittent.
Turn 4G off then I get perfectly adequate 3G HSPDASPPAH+ (or whatever it is).
I didn't think it was actually possible for the UK to get worse at infrastructure.
I don't care two monkeys about what silly speed the damn G's can do in a city, I need a simple reliable as nuts signal on the stupid M4 from Reading to Slough. Or Reading to Maidenhead. Or Uxbridge to High Wycombe.
Or just about any fucking two points in this country.
So, yesterday you published an article which basically rubbished BT for not looking forwards enough, for using older technology and not investing in new technology quickly enough.
Today you publish an article which basically rubbishes the government for looking too far forwards, for wanting to use new technology and planning to invest in that new technology early on.
...can you not see the problem with these two articles side by side?
No. The telecos needs to catch up, the government needs to stop dropping what it's doing and running off on to the next shiny thing just to make a headline. The government will end up subsidising 5G to the detriment of 4G and telecos will stop rolling out 4G and start on 5G as that's where the money is. That's part of the reason why there isn't a full 4G or even 3G network rolled out across the UK.
I can't see a problem with these articles side by side.
What these two articles demonstrate is a privatised near-monopoly sweating assets it was gifted in a fire sale, rather than investing in the future, while the government spends public funds on vanity projects that it will hand straight over to the private sector if they prove to be profitable.
Surely it is the responsibility of private enterprise to develop new technologies and open up new markets, and the state to ensure a level playing field and widest possible access?
It's boring.
But the real solution is better utilisation of 900 / 1800 / 2100 /2500 by very many more masts and thus smaller cells.
1800/ 2100 /2500 are massively underutilised.
You can't increase mast density (decrease cell size) so much on 900, much less on 800 and 700 is only useful for GSM voice, the cell sizes are too large and uncontrollable.
Smaller cells mean much higher speed (fewer users), lower latency and more reliable operation. The only "technology" needed is a single wholesale RAN with phones able to bond channels on different bands.
No new spectrum is needed.
5G as such delivers no extra speed at all. New spectrum above 2500 is progressively useless due to line of sight. New spectrum below 900MHz is progressively very poor capacity BECAUSE the range is more. Twice range is less than 1/4 speed. Progressively below 900 the cell range is affected by weather and as range grows in certain weather some areas stop working due to interference from far off masts on same channel.
That's why UHF TV (470MHz to 862MHz) was designed on reuse of 8MHz channnels for only 4 unique signals and fitting in a 5th was really awkward.
It's always good to see technical explanations on here why something will / won't work. The 5G chipset rolled out by Intel (today-CES) and Qualcomm last October, ignoring the ridiculous headline speeds, do have a lot of underlying technologies that help improve poor signals.
5G is not all about speed, it does have Quality of Signal elements in that framework, to help maintain call/data. I do wonder how smaller femto type cells will manage to pass over a call without dropping it, if they end up been multiple small cells on the average street though, as you drive down.
The biggest problem ignoring 5G infrastrucure, opting for 4G is those Intel/Qualcomm 5G 'system on chip', chipsets will be the standard chipset in every Smartphone sold within 3 years. The expectation of progress is there.
£700m doesn't seem to me like its going to get very far. If these are truely 'real 4G masts' (and not 4G 'home hub' femtocell rollouts). At £125,000 per 4G mast, that is still only 5600 sites, so one per Telephone Exchange across the UK. Not exacly ubiquitous.
What version of *G has fixes for all the security issues in the cellular network that allows anyone to take over phonecalls from their backyard, in the same way as stringrays work? Which version blocks the tracking and other exploits available via the ss7 and similar protocols?
I'll take that more secure version of *G thanks.
Agree. There are a few 'Jens' (ITCrowd) on here that think 4G/5G Femtocells / 4G/5G masts magically feed themselves with backhaul data from that small black box called the Internet.
Without ubiquitous Fibre Optic cables in the ground across the whole of the UK, you don't get ubiquitous 4G masts and certainly not 5G 'en-masse' concurrent users/ blanket speeds, which everyone sort of hopes we might have at some stage.
"Without ubiquitous Fibre Optic cables in the ground across the whole of the UK, you don't get ubiquitous 4G masts and certainly not 5G 'en-masse' concurrent users/ blanket speeds, which everyone sort of hopes we might have at some stage"
You can order Ethernet private circuits to any point in the UK right now, this minute. Some are delivered via copper, some fibre. Cell towers do not use broadband for backhaul.
The lack of rollout to rural areas of 4G masts has little to do with backhaul and much to do with economics. if a mobile telco rolls out rural masts with few users its costs will increase and so will its prices. Guess what happens to the mobile telco that charges more than the others?
If mobile telcos did what you demanded and achieved 100% landmass coverage you'd then be complaining that your mobile phone bill has doubled.
The market has a choice between price and ubiquity. The market has chosen price.
The cartel of telcos has chosen - not the customers.
And we get high price and poor coverage.
I regard price I pay as high as service is so poor - catch 22 of the poor coverage.
Not everyone lives in big cities with good reception (ironically I live in the sticks because it's overall cheaper than the city (unless I live in part of the city where house / car break in attempts occur on a weekly basis, streets are full of needles & condoms, & I'm getting too old to put up with living in police no go bar proper emergency areas)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
