How much money did Intel spend claiming that they are "the leader in 5G?" Like, winning that "race" everybody keeps talking about although nobody seems to know or care where the finish line is.
I'm willing to bet this old bridge over the East River that there's never going to be Real 5G, aka mmWave, anywhere but very dense populations. the carriers are already lying about their '5G' offerings. Intel only, I'll guess, needs to accommodate the LTE+ bands that are being passed off as '5G'. just like everybody else.
The millimeter wave story does not make sense for handsets at all. Most mobile data is consumed indoors, Cisco says 80%. If you look at places like St. Mark's Square in New York City the walls of many of the buildings are studded with antennas, there is already some massive MIMO going on.
If they add millimeter wave to the mix they are only addressing outdoor users who are just 20%. It doesn't relieve the bottleneck, which is indoors. If you combine it with other technology you might plug the gap but then there isn't much point in providing mmwave service outdoors.
The research I have seen shows that mmWave is the bomb when it comes to fairly long (10m-10km) point-to-point links that you'd see in a fixed wireless application. The model that makes the most economic sense is the "webpass" model where you put up a few super-towers on some big buildings and then connect to them with directional antennas on big apartment buildings. You can probably offer cable-class service for $30-$40 a month that way in a few random places where the economics are good.
Mobile companies though, aren't much more interested in competing with the cable companies than the cable companies are in competing with each other. Sub-1GHz services, however, might be able to beat DSL in "exurban" areas. I published some results about how I could get about the same down and better up than my DSL and not long after, Frontier bumped me up to 4Mbps on two lines.
"The model that makes the most economic sense is the "webpass" model where you put up a few super-towers on some big buildings and then connect to them with directional antennas on big apartment buildings. "
that's how microwave transmission was used for decades: long distance telephone over mw towers. I understand they're still standing and are used? not sure about that last bit.
They are still standing. In my area (upstate NY) many of them are owned by American Tower. The microwave horns are usually still up but not in use. The capacity of optic fiber today is so much greater.
Hypothetically American Tower leases space out on the towers for cell phones and similar uses but they are not such a hot commodity and I don't see many antennas on them that look recent.
mmWave systems would probably involve a phased array antenna at the base station which could cast tight beams at customers, customers would probably have a simpler antenna but possibly with a few sub-antennas for MIMO action.
"If they add millimeter wave to the mix they are only addressing outdoor users who are just 20%."
and a second, or so, re-read twerks a lower brain stem memory. recall that, at one time, we would all be using Moto's (the real one) satellite phones? turns out, they only work outdoors. deja vu all over again.
I remember being excited about Iridium but it took longer to deploy than was anticipated, and by the time it was ready, there was cell phone service in most of the places where people go, thus it served a tiny market.
Apple's stance during the trial was that the way QC licenses patents REDUCES competition in this space. Having Intel selling modems weakens Apple's case, not strengthens it!
But don't let reality, or common sense, get in the way of your Apple bashing...
I wonder if Intel could have made their modem profitable by licensing out the IP instead of tieing up their fab space on a low margin part. I also wonder to what extent Apple's profit margins will be affected. Qualcomm's modem licensing fees are usually based on the MSRP of the device. If that fact holds with Apple and Qualcomm's new arrangement, one would think Apple's profit margins would either nosedive, or they'll be forced to increase prices yet again.
Most multi-user publishing systems have a workflow whereby you submit an article for review without it immediately going live - indeed, the ability to publish is likely to be reserved to editors. The story node and its id would be created as part of the initial submission.
What Apple screw over two suppliers to able to bring the business in house. Surely Apple would never be that low...after all they are the epitome of caring corporations....
It's so frustrating trying to get layman-level technical information about Intel's current and upcoming products because everything they put out is contorted to the extreme by their marketing department. The purported strategies are based around what they think sounds good an any performance benchmarks are cherry picked to a ridiculous level. I remember them claiming 5G connectivity was a key part of their competitive advantage for their autonomous vehicle products. Now they won't offer client 5G modems so that entire claim is out of the window. They seem to operate like defense contractors, developing huge projects and then shuttering them with very little, if anything, getting out the door. Only they aren't able to get taxpayers to pay for it, they pay for it with their huge CPU profits.
ouch!!! and nobody ever needs more than 640K memory. Bill said so. but I digress. it's not clear that mmWave/5G is all that useful. unless human's eyesight devolves to a 6" diagonal viewport so that we all watch GoT while driving.
all of these 'new' computer 'innovations' of the last few decades haven't promoted economic growth, just sped up diversions. the end of Western Civilization in front of us.
It's not hard to imagine there will be things to do with more bandwidth. The hard part is coming up with them. When they increased bandwidth in the past did people say "oh, great, now we'll have taxicab replacements"?
The thing is the major uses aren't going to be more of what is already in place they are going to be things that weren't possible before. That's generally the case.
I predict that 5G will be like Blu-ray. In a couple years, every high-end phone phone on the market will be capable of 5G reception, but few people will use it. It will only be available in limited places and it will be very costly to implement. Plus, people are going to start worrying about the health and environmental effects of living next to so many cellular base stations transmitting at such high frequencies. With LTE Advanced Pro being so much cheaper and easier to implement than 5G, I predict that in 5 years, most people are going to decide that 5G isn't worth it, just like most people decided that DVDs were good enough for watching movies and didn't pay the premium for Blu-ray.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
28 Comments
Back to Article
flgt - Tuesday, April 16, 2019 - link
They checked their twitter account and realized they were supposed to be on 6G, and abruptly gave up.PaulHoule - Tuesday, April 16, 2019 - link
How much money did Intel spend claiming that they are "the leader in 5G?" Like, winning that "race" everybody keeps talking about although nobody seems to know or care where the finish line is.FunBunny2 - Tuesday, April 16, 2019 - link
I'm willing to bet this old bridge over the East River that there's never going to be Real 5G, aka mmWave, anywhere but very dense populations. the carriers are already lying about their '5G' offerings. Intel only, I'll guess, needs to accommodate the LTE+ bands that are being passed off as '5G'. just like everybody else.PaulHoule - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link
The millimeter wave story does not make sense for handsets at all. Most mobile data is consumed indoors, Cisco says 80%. If you look at places like St. Mark's Square in New York City the walls of many ofthe buildings are studded with antennas, there is already some massive MIMO going on.
If they add millimeter wave to the mix they are only addressing outdoor users who are just
20%. It doesn't relieve the bottleneck, which is indoors. If you combine it with other technology you might plug the gap but then there isn't much point in providing mmwave service outdoors.
The research I have seen shows that mmWave is the bomb when it comes to fairly long
(10m-10km) point-to-point links that you'd see in a fixed wireless application. The model that makes the most economic sense is the "webpass" model where you put up a few super-towers on some big buildings and then connect to them with directional antennas on big apartment buildings. You can probably offer cable-class service for $30-$40 a month that way in a few random places where the economics are good.
Mobile companies though, aren't much more interested in competing with the cable companies than the cable companies are in competing with each other. Sub-1GHz services, however, might be able to beat DSL in "exurban" areas. I published some results about how I could get about the same down and better up than my DSL and not long after, Frontier bumped me up to 4Mbps on two lines.
FunBunny2 - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link
"The model that makes the most economic sense is the "webpass" model where you put up a few super-towers on some big buildings and then connect to them with directional antennas on big apartment buildings. "that's how microwave transmission was used for decades: long distance telephone over mw towers. I understand they're still standing and are used? not sure about that last bit.
PaulHoule - Thursday, April 18, 2019 - link
They are still standing. In my area (upstate NY) many of them are owned by American Tower. The microwave horns are usually still up but not in use. The capacity of optic fiber today is so much greater.Hypothetically American Tower leases space out on the towers for cell phones and similar uses but they are not such a hot commodity and I don't see many antennas on them that look recent.
mmWave systems would probably involve a phased array antenna at the base station which could cast tight beams at customers, customers would probably have a simpler antenna but possibly with a few sub-antennas for MIMO action.
FunBunny2 - Thursday, April 18, 2019 - link
"If they add millimeter wave to the mix they are only addressing outdoor users who are just20%."
and a second, or so, re-read twerks a lower brain stem memory. recall that, at one time, we would all be using Moto's (the real one) satellite phones? turns out, they only work outdoors. deja vu all over again.
PaulHoule - Thursday, April 18, 2019 - link
I remember being excited about Iridium but it took longer to deploy than was anticipated, and by the time it was ready, there was cell phone service in most of the places where people go, thus it served a tiny market.edzieba - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link
Or for the more cynical: how much did Apple pay Intel to /appear/ to have a 5G program whilst the Qualcomm litigation was ongoing?name99 - Friday, April 26, 2019 - link
Uh, wot?Apple's stance during the trial was that the way QC licenses patents REDUCES competition in this space. Having Intel selling modems weakens Apple's case, not strengthens it!
But don't let reality, or common sense, get in the way of your Apple bashing...
Morawka - Tuesday, April 16, 2019 - link
I wonder if Intel could have made their modem profitable by licensing out the IP instead of tieing up their fab space on a low margin part. I also wonder to what extent Apple's profit margins will be affected. Qualcomm's modem licensing fees are usually based on the MSRP of the device. If that fact holds with Apple and Qualcomm's new arrangement, one would think Apple's profit margins would either nosedive, or they'll be forced to increase prices yet again.Irata - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link
Looking at how many modem customers they had besides Apple may hold the answer to your question...Raqia - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link
Those fees are capped at $13 a phone:https://www.qualcomm.com/documents/examples-of-roy...
Therefore, Qualcomm's sliding schedule is actually a discount for most OEMs off of a fixed fee meant to encourage broad adoption.
0iron - Tuesday, April 16, 2019 - link
This article(14229) has a link to new article(14230) which was published an hour later. How is that possible? 😊Ryan Smith - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link
The link was added later. The QC article ended up being published second.Valantar - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link
Time travel. Obviously.Lord of the Bored - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link
Great Scott, Marty!GreenReaper - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link
Most multi-user publishing systems have a workflow whereby you submit an article for review without it immediately going live - indeed, the ability to publish is likely to be reserved to editors. The story node and its id would be created as part of the initial submission.SydneyBlue120d - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link
I wonder if we can expect Apple to buy the IP and the whole team to finally make its own modem?Speedfriend - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link
What Apple screw over two suppliers to able to bring the business in house. Surely Apple would never be that low...after all they are the epitome of caring corporations....Yojimbo - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link
It's so frustrating trying to get layman-level technical information about Intel's current and upcoming products because everything they put out is contorted to the extreme by their marketing department. The purported strategies are based around what they think sounds good an any performance benchmarks are cherry picked to a ridiculous level. I remember them claiming 5G connectivity was a key part of their competitive advantage for their autonomous vehicle products. Now they won't offer client 5G modems so that entire claim is out of the window. They seem to operate like defense contractors, developing huge projects and then shuttering them with very little, if anything, getting out the door. Only they aren't able to get taxpayers to pay for it, they pay for it with their huge CPU profits.Gunbuster - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link
Still waiting for the consumer use case on 5G... Besides hit your data cap or throttle point in 65 seconds?FunBunny2 - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link
ouch!!! and nobody ever needs more than 640K memory. Bill said so. but I digress. it's not clear that mmWave/5G is all that useful. unless human's eyesight devolves to a 6" diagonal viewport so that we all watch GoT while driving.all of these 'new' computer 'innovations' of the last few decades haven't promoted economic growth, just sped up diversions. the end of Western Civilization in front of us.
ABR - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link
Can’t argue with you there.sandtitz - Thursday, April 18, 2019 - link
That's not a problem in those 1st world countries where data caps don't exist. I feel sorry for the US consumers ...well, not really.Yojimbo - Friday, April 19, 2019 - link
It's not hard to imagine there will be things to do with more bandwidth. The hard part is coming up with them. When they increased bandwidth in the past did people say "oh, great, now we'll have taxicab replacements"?The thing is the major uses aren't going to be more of what is already in place they are going to be things that weren't possible before. That's generally the case.
amosbatto - Friday, April 19, 2019 - link
I predict that 5G will be like Blu-ray. In a couple years, every high-end phone phone on the market will be capable of 5G reception, but few people will use it. It will only be available in limited places and it will be very costly to implement. Plus, people are going to start worrying about the health and environmental effects of living next to so many cellular base stations transmitting at such high frequencies. With LTE Advanced Pro being so much cheaper and easier to implement than 5G, I predict that in 5 years, most people are going to decide that 5G isn't worth it, just like most people decided that DVDs were good enough for watching movies and didn't pay the premium for Blu-ray.RealBeast - Friday, April 19, 2019 - link
Can't disagree. I'm interested in the Samsung S10 5G but only because it has a bigger battery. ;)