13
May
samsung-logo

Most mobile users these days are happy to get LTE service (and a few of us just wish we could get 3G reliably) but there is already a surprising push towards the next big thing in wireless speeds. Samsung thinks it has the solution, or at least what might become one: expanding existing LTE networks into the super-high 28GHz range, the lower part of what's known as the millimeter wave bands. The company is calling this system 5G, and expects to have it ready for cellular networks in 2020.

삼성전자5G기술세계최초개발

Any grade school science student can tell you that higher-frequency radio waves have the capacity for more data, and Samsung's system has been tested with speeds just north of 1Gb per second, about ten times as fast as the best current LTE offerings. The company hopes to improve speeds to at least ten times faster than that. The major hurdle to overcome is the shorter physical range that comes with the higher frequencies. According to the Samsung Tomorrow post, the company has used an adaptive array transceiver with 64 elements to extend the stable wireless range to 2 kilometers (about one and a quarter miles). That's much, much shorter than conventional wireless towers, but it's a good start.

Assuming it remains viable as research continues, Samsung plans to implement this technology to provide faster speeds, massive data downloads, ultra high definition video, and remote medical services. Whether stingy wireless plans can catch up with the technology in seven years remains to be seen - it would be shame to have a data cap that you could blow through literally faster than you can say Jack Robinson.

Samsung Tomorrow - Samsung Announces World’s First 5G mmWave Mobile Technology

Jeremiah Rice
Jeremiah is a US-based blogger who bought a Nexus One the day it came out and never looked back. In his spare time he watches Star Trek, cooks eggs, and completely fails to write novels.
  • mldi

    Geez, talk about an expensive rollout! 2km range? Horrendous.

  • GraveUypo

    i'd rather have my data at the 700mhz band. better reception >>>>>> unnecessarily fast speeds. specially because i have a farms and houses in condominiums in the edge of town with shitty reception. and because i don't need more than 5 mbps in my phone to be completely honest.

    • http://richworks.in Richie

      how is the frequency band related to reception quality?

      • GraveUypo

        the lower the frequency, the higher the range for each tower.

        • http://richworks.in Richie

          Thank you :)

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000003999549 Mike Harris

      Oh, well if you don't need it, let's just tell Samsung to stop innovating.

      Hey guys, you can wrap it up. GraveUypo doesn't need his speed to be any faster. We're all set.

  • Ashutos jain

    In India , even 3g is slower than 2g

    • Ayush

      lol indians

    • chandradithya

      Only in India, The affordable-to-common-man Internet plans have bandwidth throttling down to 40kbps on a 2G connection.
      Damn you Vodafone IN :/

      • http://GPlus.to/Abhisshack Abhisshack

        also Airtel and other assholes

        • Ashutos jain

          Vodafone in India is still OK for me on my gnex but sometimes gives me prob

      • HopelesslyFaithful

        Do you mean kbps or KBps? If you really mean slower than a 56k modem than wow but most technology really is 3G. Even some EDGE connection are technically 3G

        3G is at a minimum of 200kbit/s, which is only 25KBps lol

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3G

    • http://GPlus.to/Abhisshack Abhisshack

      as an Indian i confirm it ,

  • http://www.facebook.com/georgealexiouvalentey George Av

    i'm guessing a 5G contract would cost upwards of $500 a month..

    • http://www.androidpolice.com/ Artem Russakovskii

      Why would it? By the time it's ready, it will start replacing 4G and offered as part of regular plans. 4G wasn't $500 a month when Verizon and Sprint started rolling out their visions, and neither was 3G back in the day.

      • http://www.facebook.com/georgealexiouvalentey George Av

        Well, 4G is bloody expensive at the moment, in the UK the 4G S4 goes for £76.00 a month with a DECENT amount of data. That's alot for a 4G phone.. i'm guessing (just a guess remember) that a 5G phone would cost over $250 a month ($500 may be a bit steep). We will see what will happen in 7 years time.

        • http://www.facebook.com/Shinakuma George Millhouse

          Data speed is not related to the price. Don't know where you are getting that , kid.

          • http://www.facebook.com/georgealexiouvalentey George Av

            Nothing todo with the data speed -___________- More like more todo with the price of running 5G and the data cap..

  • SetiroN

    Millimeter waves penetration is horrific. Wave distribution in cities can be pretty great thanks to the high reflection ratio these frequencies have, but getting a signal inside buildings is almost impossible due to the high metal content of exterior walls.

    A 2Km range is alright at this stage of development, I'm sure they're gonna be able to achieve ranges of at least 10Km, but I'm quite pessimistic about indoors coverage, it's going to require additional infrastructures.

    • http://www.androidpolice.com/ David Ruddock

      Yep. Without a massive indoor repeater / small cell infrastructure, this kind of frequency is near useless once you're within the confines of a building.

      • Joshua Hernandez

        wifi? :P

        • Floss

          I don't know about you, but I still enjoy getting phone calls inside buildings. But yes for internet needs wifi should suffice :D

          • Joshua Hernandez

            voip?

          • Floss

            We shall see if in a decade it has completely replaced standard calls. It would be awesome if it did happen, but with the glacial pace the US moves I somehow doubt we would be able to switch to voip only in the next decade :(

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000003999549 Mike Harris

          Wifi is nice, but only solves the problem if every building everywhere has wifi – AND – :

          a) it is open and unsecured; or
          b) you have the password for every network in every building everywhere.

          I'm pretty sure none of those possibilities will never, ever happen, which is why carrying around your own access to the internet in your pocket is so popular.

  • http://turbofool.com Jarrett Lennon Kaufman

    Sounds like these speeds are, in fact, in line with the actual 4G standards, unlike what our carriers have misbranded 4G.

    • http://www.facebook.com/Shinakuma George Millhouse

      That's not true at all

      • http://turbofool.com Jarrett Lennon Kaufman

        Care to elaborate on your rebuttal in any meaningful way?

        True 4G, as defined by the ITU, requires 1Gbps speeds when stationary and 100Mbps speeds when in high mobility. Current "4G" doesn't attain this. The speeds mentioned in this article do.

        • Floss

          The ITU definition was so far beyond ridiculous. I don't understand why anyone gives it any credence. I mean yah, we are so going to skip straight from the 2 Mbs to 1 Gbs in a single generation. That sounds legit ;)

          • http://turbofool.com Jarrett Lennon Kaufman

            Whether or not it's ridiculous, it's still the standard. Also, it's not about skipping. 3G had an upper range that hasn't been hit yet. It's just that people got used to living at the low range of 3G and assumed any big step up had to be a new generation. It doesn't. It's kind of like making USB 2.0 devices that transfer at only 20Mbps and finally making one that transfers at 200Mbps and demanding it be called USB 3.0 even though 2.0 went up to 480Mbps. USB 3.0 was reserved for an actual new technology that was actually faster than what 2.0 could handle. 4G is reserved for speeds faster than what the 3G standards stated.

          • Floss

            Yes, it is exactly like an organization classifying USB 2.0 as up to 480 mbps, and not a single device in existence being able to hit higher then 20 mpbs. At that point that is the speed of USB 2.0. What someone said it should be really doesn't matter. Then finally you create an entire new device which is capable of the higher speed but it is completely different and not even close to the same thing, almost a decade later. At that point it isn't just still USB 2.0. It is a completely different class of product. There is little thing called reality that really doesn't care what standards organizations call it ;)

          • Matthew Fry

            That could easily be solved by creating tiers or transfer speed minimums for standards. Just remember, most of the companies making these devices are the ones making the standards. It's their fault we have this confusion.

          • Floss

            It would solve a lot of issues for a lot of specs, but in this case I don't know if it would really do much simply because they defined it as so far out of bounds that it will be an entirely new generation of technology by the point we achieve "4G" status. With most specs this wouldn't really be a problem, but with 4G it means 4th generational. The rest of the world is going to continue calling the 4th generation 4G regardless of what the official spec is.

            And for your second point I'm actually quite curious who was responsible for the decision to define 4G. I really doubt it was the people who were actually making the equipment simply because they knew exactly what their next generational equipment was capable of and it was in their best interest to push said equipment as the next great thing. Defining a spec where it was still merely "3G" would be counter-productive for them.

          • Matthew Fry
          • Floss

            I guess I more meant who actually voted for it, did someone just make a decision and no one really cared enough to fight it, or was it a group decision, etc...They wouldn't happen to have that in a cool list like that too would they?

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000003999549 Mike Harris

            I'm guessing you're probably still demanding to see President Obama's birth certificate too, aren't you?

          • Floss

            Huh?

            [img]https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTysK_f29ytXXpJxCKNnmpRfanyx7Kah5DOVEGG_rWn3NYha6at[/img]

          • http://turbofool.com Jarrett Lennon Kaufman

            There are two major issues with your logic:

            1. Within that system, something finally breaking 20Mbps wouldn't become USB 3.0, or USB 2.5, or USB 2.1, or anything else, because it would still fit fully within the USB 2.0 standard. It would, at best, get an unofficial subtitle to differentiate it from previous USB 2.0 devices to note that it was finally attaining what USB 2.0 was always capable of. Something like "Full-Speed USB 2.0," for example. It wouldn't magically get named a thing that it wasn't.

            2. Your backwards comparison to the 3G issue pretends that 3G had solidified into a single standard max speed, and that anything above that would therefore justify a new name. It hadn't. Every provider and technology had a wide range. And it kept increasing. On Sprint, my 3G was typically at best 1Mbps. Meanwhile T-Mobile and others had rolled out HSPA+42 which was still 3G but capable of (almost never) 42Mbps speeds. So 3G wasn't standardized on any one maximum speed like your comparison suggests but was, exactly as the generations are designed, a category within which a certain generation of capabilities fit. So just like USB 2.0 was capable of 480Mbps, but realistically any device that wanted to transfer between 13Mbps and 480Mbps and followed its guidelines fit, 3G covers everything between its labels as well.

            You can name things anything you like for branding purposes to differentiate it from what came before. That's all well and good. And many companies do that for various purposes (let's not forget when Sony called Firewire cables "i.Link cables" in an effort to make them sound proprietary). But the standards are still in place around that. 4G is 4G, and this new "5G" is, in fact, by standards, within the envelope of the ITU's specifications for 4G, while WiMax and LTE are, in fact, within the ITU's specifications for 4G. They're not a massive leap enough to justify the 4G moniker, as in most cast I don't see them going any faster than my HSPA+42.

          • Floss

            Feel free to nerd rage about everyone calling it 5G because the ITU said it was still only 4G! in a decade. I'm sure someone will actually care.

          • http://turbofool.com Jarrett Lennon Kaufman

            Who's nerd raging? I merely pointed out a fact, then replied to people who argued with me.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000003999549 Mike Harris

            Why are you even this site?

          • Floss

            Our discussion has absolutely nothing to do with technology. That is the entire point. It's about a technicality that one organizations calls something one thing, and literally the rest of the world calls it another.

          • http://GPlus.to/Abhisshack Abhisshack

            this quote dedicated to ignorant Floss

            “Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief.”
            -Frantz Fanon

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000003999549 Mike Harris

            Very well said and a solid explanation. Standards matter for a reason and just because someone decides to use a different name for something, that doesn't make it right. It's just like how some people will idiotically refer to their car's engine as a "V4" even though there is no such thing (There's a V6, V8, etc., but a 4-cylinder engine is an I4).

            Some people, after being given the explanation, reply back with "well, that's what I call it." Well, GOOD FOR YOU, skippy! But just because you call it that doesn't make it right.

  • Sam Burba

    Do you mean 1Gb/s? 1GB/s would be 8 Gb/s which is considerably faster than 10 times current 4g speeds. Also, although the theoretical max of 4g LTE is 100Mb/s I don't think anyone has seen 4g speeds much north of 30Mb/s.

    • http://www.facebook.com/Shinakuma George Millhouse

      Yeah noticed that too. They should mean gigabit not byte. This is done far too often. Just like time Warner saying" 50 meg" in their internet commercials. Implying its megabyte when in fact it's megabit

    • Jeremiah Rice

      You're totally right. Updating.

  • John Nichols

    On the other hand, battery life is about 30 seconds now.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Shinakuma George Millhouse

    This will never be the standard.

  • Rob

    More technological smoke up our asses.....

  • HopelesslyFaithful

    ahhh an article that actually covers some info

  • http://www.facebook.com/paul.mcgowan.90 Paul McGowan

    ....and then we all got cancer.

  • Athonline