You must log in or register to comment.

skelleton_exo t1_ithwove wrote

I'm not sure if I would trust the technical analysis of anyone who calls 5G a computing platform.


lughnasadh OP t1_ithyclq wrote

>>calls 5G a computing platform.

I didn't say it was a computing platform, I said it was very likely it will use new OS's.

The follow on from that, is that these may be developed in China first, if it is the first place to have 10's or 100's of millions of people using 5G.


Psychomadeye t1_itj3nfj wrote

> I said it was very likely it will use new OS's

As it turns out, you don't need an OS for radio frequencies.


Fiveby21 t1_itk482v wrote

The article reads like a bunch of BS, designed to manipulate people who have no understanding of how networking works.


DysonSphere75 t1_itkt2m8 wrote

Cellular networks are not platforms, it's a radio based set of channels for communication. An OS has no relation to cellular networking... OS simply facilitates application level by abstracting the hardware via a kernel in computation. Why you're bringing China into this I have no idea, seems like propaganda?

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and I suggest you talk about things you understand so you don't look like an idiot.


Dr_Tacopus t1_iti38ag wrote

More vulnerable maybe, but Huawei came pre hacked, that was the problem


MrWinning t1_itj3jy6 wrote

Exactly. It's "more vulnerable" because there is more hacking being done in general. Huawei can't just "collect diagnostic data..wink..wink" anymore


afonsoel t1_itjrgui wrote

"The lock you installed in your door is vulnerable to picking" reports the person who wants doors with no locks


jc1890 t1_itjm464 wrote

Definitely compromised vs potentially vulnerable. Hmmm 🤔 how is this a hard choice?


funtex666 t1_itmpcw4 wrote

If you don't let politics or tinfoil hats steer then we only know that they are potentially compromised. On the other hand we do know for a fact that their US competitors are in fact definitely compromised (thanks Snowden).


bigots_hate_her t1_itjgbmg wrote

That’s like asking whether you can contract AIDS while having it already.


Redqueenhypo t1_itjypk1 wrote

Exactly, its the difference between potentially getting food poisoning vs drinking a bowl of E. coli


ProFoxxxx t1_ithffcb wrote

>Vendors like Huawei will not allow you to patch systems – you ask to patch, and they do a six-month cycle and charge for it, and it is completely pointless," he said.



funtex666 t1_itmotqo wrote

They have no idea what they are talking about or are straight up making stuff up to make them look bad. Say what you want about Huawei but in Telecom they are known as one of the easiest companies to get code to equipment fast. The exact opposite of the picture they try to paint here. Try working with Cisco and Huawei will feel like a dream. Not that it says much.


Virtual_Cod_1840 t1_ithmufe wrote

Considering Huawei got it's growth off the back of Nortel by Chinese government hacking and espionage, I'm glad we're getting off Huawei. It also reduces any more hostage deplomacy by China.


funtex666 t1_itmpjaz wrote

Swap a name or two and you have the history of Cisco.


derekpearcy t1_itie19p wrote

Actual Summary: Huawei might be on top of their network / endpoint security, it’s unclear—though for customers, at least outside of China, they seem to either take 6 months to patch or patch no more often than every 6 months. This leaves a large gap during which all kinds of shenanigans could occur.

Other vendors don’t seem to have their security acts together any better than Huawei, potentially less so, though unlike that company other vendors allow the companies using their products and services to patch customer-managed systems themselves.

Not sure how that translates to / relates to Huawei dominating in 8 or more years.


CriticalUnit t1_itkfd8j wrote

> Not sure how that translates to / relates to Huawei dominating in 8 or more years.

It doesn't. There is no reason for anyone to think that


Nikiaf t1_itkyxr1 wrote

Considering that company's hardware is being outright banned by many countries, and with the US limiting chip exports to China, I don't see how they don't get relegated to a Chinese domestic brand in that timeframe.


LoveData_80 t1_iu9p8ls wrote

The fact is, the market is always pushing for faster delivery. It makes for poor security. Huwai do very good ASIC LUA for networks (in my experience, they are the only one to do ASIC for self discovery telemetric purposes). But they are really not good for security. And that's not even taking into account the fact they could let backdoor for their government, of course.


geologean t1_ithtara wrote

The frustrating thing is that American leaders will continue to vitirue signal in public over the need for more telecom tech, but then continue to destroy net neutrality. You can't have it both ways. Net neutrality creates the incentives for better internet infrastructure.

Telecoms have been getting a sweetheart deal on monopolistic behavior for decades and all it's done is made American high speed internet way less available and more expensive compared to internet service in other developed and even some developing countries.

But it's still a niche policy topic and it will remain so as long as tech-illiterate Boomers continue to shape policy.


dillrepair t1_ithxars wrote

This shit right here ^^. And dude the truth is 90% or more of people my age (older millennials) don’t have a fucking clue either. I at least pay attention and vaguely understand the terminology and some of the implications discussed here/in article. But the truth is generally most people are not focused on what makes things run or keeps them running whether it’s an internal combustion engine or a cloud service and their device… or the healthcare system. It’s not as easy to fix things as people think, but when we have a big picture understanding coupled with the ability to drill down into the details it at least makes it easier. Wish more ppl would pay attention…. And you know, perhaps maintain or obtain a high school reading level/comprehension and critical thinking abilities


danielv123 t1_itk7bhg wrote

Just want to say that it's not Huawei equipment that has made American high speed less available/reliable - Huawei is used everywhere, because they make some of the best products.


funtex666 t1_itmq20g wrote

There's a huge schism between what "experts" say (they aren't experts in anything but politics) and what actual people in the Telecom industry say. One screams bloody murder if you mention Huawei while the other says Huawei is both cheaper and faster at getting code out to devices. This whole thing is 100% politics and 0% facts.


BaconReceptacle t1_itij6ni wrote

The competition for Huawei is mainly Nokia and Ericsson. I would not consider them small players.


Avalanche2 t1_iti2jko wrote

As the recipient of a new 5G iphone from work, I have to ask, why does 5G suck so bad and why are people so excited by it? It's awful thus far.


Warlock_Ben t1_iti8wuc wrote

I'll try to answer your questions

  1. Why does 5G suck so bad?
    1. 5G outputs a much higher frequency signal than 4G does, this has the benefit of allowing a much higher bandwidth (which means faster internet speeds). However, this same change means that the 5G signal degrades across a shorter distance & has less penetrating power as compared to 4G. The solution for this is for telecoms to install a lot of 5G antennas across a given area. Where before a city center might have 1 cell tower, with 5G you might have a 5G cell on each street corner & they'd all connect back to 1 central node.
    2. Telecoms are still building this network of 5G cells so the coverage is pretty bad right now.
  2. Why are people excited for it?
    1. The higher speeds mean that you not only could do more on your phone, but it also supports more users in a given area, so in congested areas like arenas or convention centers each user will have more bandwidth & can do more things.
    2. It also allows for very high speed at home internet (so instead of paying your local ISP a ton of money for a crappy connection, you could pay a wireless vendor to provide you with a wireless solution). This is less important in big cities, but is a huge deal for rural customers who might be stuck on near dialup connections.

nuke621 t1_itjwma4 wrote

Ooof, so much mis-information here. 5G is the 3GPP Release 15 specification. LTE was Release 8. 5G can be applied on all current bands. It sucks because carrier marketing runs way ahead of network builds, period. It takes time to touch 75K macro towers and build who knows how many CRAN/micro cells (think street light mounted cell site). The bugs will be worked out.


exportgoldmannz t1_itirnoy wrote

Your comment contradicts itself somewhat by saying 5G far less distance so you need a massive amount of towers, then says that rural connections will benefit from this. How? Towers are expensive to build, and it sounds like now every farm needs a tower and the back haul.


Anxious-Floor-3375 t1_itj0jm9 wrote

That is in fact what is happening. Atleast here it is. They've started putting up towers every few miles and now my 5G signal is gradually picking up in more and more places. I live in a pretty rural area. The nearest town from here is 20 miles. I would say in the last year I've seen 20+ towers go up in all kinds of places. To be fair though not all of the towers have been 5G a lot are pushing 4G signal.


exportgoldmannz t1_itj0r8n wrote

Yup 4G for rural which gets 10-30KM and then 5G backfill for dense urban areas.

No idea how this helps remote farms. A fibre run would be cheaper than a fibre run AND cell site for each farm or two


danielv123 t1_itk74ql wrote

Depends on how remote. Any house in LOS of a tower can have an antenna installed, which is much faster than 4g and much cheaper than digging the fiber. It won't get every house, but it will help a lot of people.


Bells_Ringing t1_itj9a6l wrote

They can string fiber on poles versus run it to the house. Amd the cell repeaters can extend that farther. It enables cheaper speeds to the home than ftth oddly enough


Mayor__Defacto t1_itjkbn7 wrote

The marginal cost of running it to the house over poles vs running it over poles to a tower to cover the house favors running it over poles to the house by a wide margin. Tower rents on rural land are around $1500 a month. Unless you’re covering 40+ customers with that, you’re not even covering the rent you’re paying.


goofygoober2006 t1_itkmbmt wrote

5G point to point can span a long distance similar to a microwave shot.


Mayor__Defacto t1_itjk3od wrote

2.2 - will never happen. The same things restricting rural broadband speeds also prevent 5G coverage from replacing wired connections - namely, the revenue per mile of cable is garbage. For many places you’ll have to backhaul quite a lot of remote towers to actually cover a rural area properly, and in terms of cost it is either higher or indistinguishable from the cost of local broadband. Rural broadband is garbage because the ROI is garbage - the big players are largely coasting on investments made by the smaller players that went bankrupt because it was financially impossible. It only exists because the big guys bought it on the cheap.


allaboutAI t1_itlk67k wrote

5G is important for companies - helps advance these industry 4.0 technologies like autonomous vehicles for example. Provides higher speeds, lower latency, etc that allow for more connectivity between machines.


cardiffjohn t1_itk7f4s wrote

Yeah I got 3 to 6 MBPS on ASDL. I now get 200+ MBPS on 5G. Game changer.


Efficient-Radish1873 t1_iti8ouv wrote

5G has been garbage in my opinion. I would normally think it was my carrier but between my wife and I we have all 3 majors in the US and it's garbage with all of them.


glaive1976 t1_itje1nq wrote

Not sure where you are, but my admittedly anecdotal experience the 5G in my area is stupid better than 4G. It feels like magnitudes of difference.


ovirt001 t1_ito3tlt wrote

> why does 5G suck so bad

Mostly because carriers universally suck so bad. The only meaningful improvements in 5G are protocol changes and the addition of C-band/6GHz frequencies (in the US). mmWave is a joke and always has been for wide-area communications. It's easily blocked by every building material including glass.

> why are people so excited by it?

Pandering by tech journos who don't actually understand the technology and the physics behind it.


IMSOGIRL t1_itjqpm9 wrote

End to end encryption will literally solve everything no matter what the network hardware is doing. That's why all companies require you to use VPN from your home no matter what networks or hardware you're using.

The reason the US government's "solution" is just "avoid Huawei" and not "use encryption" is because THEY want to be able to see what you do.


mark-haus t1_itkfuwc wrote

Make no mistake that Cisco does the same for the US as Huawei does for China but I’m sorry this reads like someone who barely understands how IP networks work.


dickpunchman t1_itjm9cv wrote

It's easy, all we gotta do is make a 6G network to show them who's boss!


icemanice t1_itk2bxx wrote

Does anyone actually care about 5G??? I mean really… there hasn’t been a single moment where I thought.. man my LTE is really slow… 5G is just being shoved down our throats for no reason


RkOShea t1_itkfoev wrote

Not for mobile phones.

I recently got 5G for my home ISP, and couldn't be happier. Faster speeds than my old cable, and half the cost.


ovirt001 t1_ito39ma wrote

Huawei is notorious for security vulnerabilities, literally any other choice is a better one.


FuturologyBot t1_ithgbbo wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/lughnasadh:

Submission Statement

Eliminating Huawei from 5G, as many countries have done, was supposed to make them less vulnerable to Chinese hacking. Instead, it's done the opposite. It also seems to have had another weakening effect. China is racing ahead with 5G adoption, which makes you wonder if banning Huawei is slowing down those countries that have done it?

5G will be the major computing platform of the late 2020s and 2030s. It looks like it could be China dominating it.

Please reply to OP's comment here:


vhat248 t1_itjrr6o wrote

I know jack about nothing and I could’ve told you that. Money blinds all logic and reason


WhileNotLurking t1_itjl6hh wrote

Yeah.... I'd rather have a slower adoption of 5G than a flawed infrastructure that will plague us for decades to come because a state sponsored entity pretends to be cheaper and safer.

Cheap comes at the expense of a state subsidized "extra feature" you don't know about. I can't trust any company that got started by bootlegging competitors products. Early routers still had the damn CISCO logo on the software/firmware.


funtex666 t1_itmr6d9 wrote

Yeah let's get that US sponsored extra feature instead. Like the countless times hard coded backdoors have been found in Cisco equipment and all those backdoors we know of from nice guys like Snowden. It's fine not to trust Huawei, but trusting anything else more than Huawei is pure stupidity. They are all equally bad. Some are just worse because your overlords doesn't like the form of government in their place of origin. In other words, someone is brainwashed.


jphamlore t1_ithtmzs wrote

The United States model for consumer devices is to charge per cellular device an expensive subscription. I am curious if for 5G the Chinese can overcome the problems of trying to achieve fully autonomous vehicles by simply hooking them up to 5G and remote controlling them if needed, which was actually everyone's vision for the future of autonomous vehicles until about 5 years ago.


Someones_Dream_Guy t1_ithjrhw wrote

"You have nothing to worry about. Its not hacking if we're allies."-US


lughnasadh OP t1_itha0ki wrote

Submission Statement

Eliminating Huawei from 5G, as many countries have done, was supposed to make them less vulnerable to Chinese hacking. Instead, it's done the opposite. It also seems to have had another weakening effect. China is racing ahead with 5G adoption, which makes you wonder if banning Huawei is slowing down those countries that have done it?

5G will be the major computing platform of the late 2020s and 2030s. It looks like it could be China dominating it.


ASK_IF_IM_PENGUIN t1_ithfro6 wrote

I'm not sure I understand.

People are moving away from China, but by doing so are allowing China to dominate the industry?


Allarius1 t1_ithhzzc wrote

I think it’s more like:

Huawei has superior technology and by not working with them, the software countries are using, is subpar in terms of security. (Based on the “racing ahead with 5G adoption” comment)

So by not allowing them to be a part of it, they have inadvertently made it easier for Chinese hackers to gain access more so than if they just integrated huawei to begin with.


thezoomies t1_itlmxx7 wrote

Nothing provided by a Chinese company is secure. This has more to do with data and IP sovereignty than it does with technological advancement.


lughnasadh OP t1_ithh5oc wrote

>>I'm not sure I understand.

A few different people comment in the OP article.

The TLDR version is that the companies that have switched from Huawei for 5G have chosen even less secure and easy to hack software.


ArenSteele t1_ithpqjq wrote

Well it’s either Huawui hardware with built in back doors for Chinese state hackers to have guaranteed access or other hardware that might be less secure in general but lack the Chinese back door.

So they could actually be more secure from Chinese hacking but maybe less secure from random black hats?


ednksu t1_itigeyc wrote

I also took that anything with the legacy Chinese tech is going to have issues because it won't have servicing on the back end.


NebXan t1_ithn0qi wrote

> 5G will be the major computing platform of the late 2020s and 2030s.

Am I missing something? I thought 5G was just a faster cellular data spec. How is it a computing platform?

Here in the west, we've always had slower internet speeds than counties like China and South Korea, thanks to the fact that we let ISP companies run roughshod over us.


lughnasadh OP t1_ithollz wrote

>>Am I missing something? I thought 5G was just a faster cellular data spec

No, its much more than that.

That's because it will allow massive data speeds ( 1-4 Gbit/s) with almost no latency (the best 5G is in single digits milliseconds).

5G will be the platform for virtual reality, augmented reality, remote human control of robots/drones, and for an Internet of Things will trillions of sensors.

It's hard to imagine it not being the main computing planform in the 2030's. Who on earth would want Windows or Android when you could have 5G delivering what its capable of. Today's computing planforms will look geriatric in comparison.


NebXan t1_ithtkly wrote

> Who on earth would want Windows or Android when you could have 5G delivering what its capable of. [sic]

I'm still not sure I understand. 5G is fast, yes, but it's still just a way of transmitting data. How is it a replacement for an OS?

Cloud computing is nothing new and it's nothing special, it's just someone else's computer.


Psychomadeye t1_itj51pu wrote

5G is just the microwave spectrum. Specifically the spectrum ranging from 24.25–29.5 GHz


danielv123 t1_itk7gat wrote

No, it's a specification. It covers many other spectrums as well.


Psychomadeye t1_itk83ih wrote

It sorta dips into the radio spectrum on the low end, but anything commonly used is most likely going to be used in the microwave spectrum is it not?


danielv123 t1_itk9gh6 wrote

Maybe if you count by number of bytes, but by time on network it will be mostly in the 4g frequencies for a decade yet.


pantbash t1_iti7qok wrote

In 5G you move a load of compute into the RAN ( or as close as possible), maybe that is what they are getting at


lughnasadh OP t1_ithw1ld wrote

> How is it a replacement for an OS?

I'm sure Windows, Android, and iOS will still be around in the 2030's, and I'm sure they will have plenty of 5G apps.

However, it's likely the OS that dominates 5G hasn't been built yet.

None of the three main OS's have any meaningful VR/AR features now. If China gets to widespread 5G adoption first (likely), then the first software companies to be building apps for 10's and 100's of millions of 5G consumers will be Chinese.

I can't see them doing this on legacy western OS's that aren't fit for 5G purposes in the first place.

There's a popular video that looks at what the experience of a VR/AR OS might be like called Hyper-Reality


Lurker_81 t1_itigfq9 wrote

> I'm sure Windows, Android, and iOS will still be around in the 2030's, and I'm sure they will have plenty of 5G apps.

This is gibberish. 5G is just a communications protocol like WiFi. 5G is already currently in use on all 3 operating systems you listed.

> None of the three main OS's have any meaningful VR/AR features now.

Utterly false. Almost all AR/VR capabilities currently in existence are implemented in one of these 3 operating systems....alongside 5G.

Your statements make absolutely no sense.


Jonsj t1_ithxlx4 wrote

Why would not google and apple build apps capable of utilizing 5g? So far as I understand western companies are ahead of china in both platforms as well in the microchips required to run these.


Complete_Potato9941 t1_iti4eq0 wrote

I am yeeting out…. 5G is just architecture to transport data faster than 4G… if in general you look at nation state actors they always find a way… too much money and time. I find it funny that you believe that none of the “Main three OS’s” have VR features but either way VR is a joke right now, it’s too expensive and no one wants to stand or sit with a relatively heavy headset on their head. The hyper reality video you link is what people believe a some thing could be taken to an extreme. In general other providers are used less as huawei has always be about 1/2 of the price of the competition. This article talks about software defined networks allowing them to be faster to mobilize however it’s common for miss configuration. I really don’t believe you even read the article you linked.


skelleton_exo t1_itis6t2 wrote

5G is still just a networking technology. Its higher bandwidth and lower latency may open up new use cases.

But that does not make 5G a computing platform. Nor does an operating system dominate a networking technology that sentence just does not make sense. Also lets be realistic even if Chinese companies develop their own mobile operating systems, they will still be Linux or BSD based. No company is going to develop an operating system from scratch, when they can start with something that saves them countless development hours.

5G hardware is already supported by plenty of operating systems. And operating system support is actually not that crucial outside of mobile devices. Because if it is used in a traditional network, then an edge device like a router will handle the connection.

Also APPs don't need to specifically support 5G. They may be able to take advantage of the higher bandwidth and lower latency. But that will not require them to directly program for any specific 5G hardware. Low latency connections are also something that already exists, 5G simply improves those things for mobile applications.

VR does not necessarily need any networking, AR could be different, but I can see how there is more of a need for processing beyond what you would want to do on mobile devices, so being able to offload will help with applications there.

Also the truly important technologies on the backend are going to be in industry applications. And the players can simply set up their own 5G networks. Daimler for example started with that already a while ago.

Especially for these big companies hardware with potential back doors from China is unacceptable.

Honestly with the way you are throwing around buzzwords, you sound like some troll with no understanding of the tech you are writing about.


B-krytical t1_itke6uu wrote

You honestly sound like you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.


Prowler1000 t1_itjyx5r wrote

Do you have any clue what 5G is? Or maybe the better question is, do you know what Windows or what Android is?