3GPP has been pushing 5G use cases for years now, trying to come up with a killer requirement than can only be satisified by 5G and a mobile packet core approach. Private networks are one example. There genuinely are cases where wifi doesnt cut it, eg in heavy industrial environments with lots of reflections, signal loss etc. Nokia do good business in this space for example.
Problem 1 is that getting access to spectrum is a pain. And if you are the kind of enterprise prepared to go cellular, you're also the kind of enterprise where your network absolutely needs to work all the time. So your spectrum access needs to be guaranteed, which is not something that you can easily get today (eg CBRS in the US). The alternative is that you get a little chunk from your local mobile operator, but dealing with an MNO is absolutely miserable for enterprises.
Problem 2 is that wifi is not standing still. Wifi 6E and 7 are picking up juicy lessons from the cellular world such as preemptive handover between access points as the client moves around. Wifi chipsets are dirt cheap compared to cellular ones so the cost of devices is lower, and sometimes good enough is better than best.
Problem 3 is that big enterprises like to have consistent BOMs across all operating entities. To my mind, the only bands that can be used on equipment all over the world with no meaningful roadblocks are those that run in the ISM bands, eg the wifi bands and the (?)850Mhz one used by industrial gear. So qualcomm are trying to bring 5G to a new spectrum band that isnt universal and where there is already a cheaper solution. Gonna be an uphill struggle.
5G is designed for private spectrum where interference is minimal. I wonder how well it handles interference from other devices on the ISM spectrum.
By the way, there are better WiFi APs. Ruckus’ APs have software configurable antennas that are rather amazing at improving SNR. It works by becoming a semi-directional antenna by choosing an appropriate antenna pattern. This technique is in addition to the 802.11 standard’s beam forming. I have had excellent results with them in my home after keeping the 2.4GHz channels widths at 20MHz and disabling the DFS 5GHz bands.
Feel a bit mixed about promoting use of unlicensed spectrum, if it's commercially exploitable then shouldn't it be a national regulated resource? What other uses are there which will be negated by this chipset being widely deployed, and what RAND exists over other sources to exploit the RF spaces in question?
Maybe the intent is to make it like wifi but it read much more like a telco sell. Or perhaps it's the commoditisation of iot radio layers for manufacturing?
That's why I said feels like a telco sell. If this doesn't privatise the commons and two factories next to each other and the block of flats across the road can also use it, I'm sold. If it's a telco play like picocells were, to move your voice to VoLTE and then VoWiFI but still charge you for sending data over your IP packet budget.. I'm less sure. Telcos might just be a licencing gadget to sell me a unique phone identity.
This is "Wi-Fi using 5G". You can outright buy a home 5G "router" and "join" network from phones. Cellular carriers aren't involved at all.
There are actually the same legal frameworks and products for LTE as well; you can request quotes for an EPC installed on a mini PC and mini eNB in white plastic enclosures with requisite FCC labels. Though, cost and performance were not highly competitive relative to Wi-Fi. Starting from couple thousands of dollars or so.
They say private networks ... they do not say who owns or manages the private networks ... For all private networks could mean is a enterprise grade private network... I would be seriously skeptical about this ... The last part on the link about LWA is pause for thought. This does not look like it is meant for end users.
Getting SIM cards for a private 5G network seems like a pain. eSIM would avoid the need for physical cards on paper, but I wonder if iOS and Android will take eSIMs from a random entity without the cooperation of Apple and Google respectively.
I remember hearing that some conference at some point did its own 4G network with its own SIM cards. They had gotten permission to use licensed spectrum for the duration of the event. Unfortunately, I do not remember which conference. If I did, I would look at what they said about how they got the SIM cards for it.
eSIMs all need to have a chain of trust all the way back to some GSMA gatekeepers. As usual with all kinds of mobile telco stuff, it's never open and really doesn't like people messing around (partly because people messing around might find how much of a broken, insecure and "designed by committee" shit-show most of it is).
In case you were wondering like I was: 5G networks use the 5G NR (New Radio) standard/spec. The U obviously stands for unlicensed.
LTE-U has already existed since 2018, so this announcement is mostly saying they've worked out the details for a 5G version. This includes interop with LTE and the regulatory stuff.
Once enough boomers die off, and the number of VHF TV watchers drops to near zero, what would this band be useful for, if reallocated for a purpose or just unlicensed?
Major channels are UHF and it’s still a great way to watch national television (election coverage in recent past) and sports (particularly NFL) without having a cable connection.
YouTube Live OTA. Because broadcast is always a lot more efficient than peer-to-peer. They'll distribute genAI super-resolution decompression model over radio waves to Chromecast globally to cache so that actual "video" streaming only takes 8kbps of bandwidth at 32K resolution.
Or they'll keep VHF TV on. I think the latter is arguably more useful.
A lot of the VHF band is already used for fixed and/or land mobile wireless. Think stuff like voice communications, SCADA systems, etc.
It wouldnt be too useful for high speed bidirectional communications though because the signals travel well and thus it would be difficult to pack stations densely.
OTA TV is even more important with streaming and cord cutting because it’s the only way to get access to information about live events such as weather emergencies.
We could reclassify it as an amateur band so that a handful of other boomers can do everything except actually communicate anything meaningful aside from their call signs to each other.
Problem 1 is that getting access to spectrum is a pain. And if you are the kind of enterprise prepared to go cellular, you're also the kind of enterprise where your network absolutely needs to work all the time. So your spectrum access needs to be guaranteed, which is not something that you can easily get today (eg CBRS in the US). The alternative is that you get a little chunk from your local mobile operator, but dealing with an MNO is absolutely miserable for enterprises.
Problem 2 is that wifi is not standing still. Wifi 6E and 7 are picking up juicy lessons from the cellular world such as preemptive handover between access points as the client moves around. Wifi chipsets are dirt cheap compared to cellular ones so the cost of devices is lower, and sometimes good enough is better than best.
Problem 3 is that big enterprises like to have consistent BOMs across all operating entities. To my mind, the only bands that can be used on equipment all over the world with no meaningful roadblocks are those that run in the ISM bands, eg the wifi bands and the (?)850Mhz one used by industrial gear. So qualcomm are trying to bring 5G to a new spectrum band that isnt universal and where there is already a cheaper solution. Gonna be an uphill struggle.