6G - some research (and webinar on 28th Oct)

Maybe someone here might be interested in the future…? Where 5G is more in a “this is what we have, we have to learn to manage the risks that are there” stage (for instance see the EU 5G risk assessment - which does not cover individual’s risks and privacy directly but is good context as network risks create user risks), 6G is still in early stages, but in the works.

6G is coming. Maybe in Librem 5v3. According to 6G whitepaper:

The first issue of 6G Research Visions focuses on Ubiquitous Wireless Intelligence and identifies key drivers, research requirements, challenges and research questions for 6G.

The vision is based on three cornerstones:
Ubiquitous services will follow users seamlessly, everywhere.
Wireless connectivity will be part of critical infrastructure.
Intelligence will create context-aware smart services and applications for human and non-human users alike.

6G Flagship strives to ensure that 6G becomes a joint effort of traditional and new stakeholders. The program encourages company representatives, researchers, decision-makers, and other builders and members of smart society to join the specification effort for the 2030 wireless era.

Here is a recent magazine publication with several articles on various 6G topics. And on top of that, I noticed there is an advert that on the 28th of October there is a webinar on “Fundamental Research Challenges for Trust, Security and Privacy: Where Are We Now and What Needs to Be Done to Have Trustworthy 6G?”. If anyone can get online on that, notes would be appreciated. Register for free by 27th of October.

The problem with higher frequencies is that they don’t travel as far, get blocked by objects, and have trouble getting around corners. To fix these issues you need the transmitters closer together. This means you can triangulate a device to a more precise location.

Most of the words there is just buzz that can be implemented with the current tech. Low bandwidth, high scale with 4G and vice versa with wifi. 5G and 6G are trying to bridge the gap between the two.

It’s good people recognise it but the current tech companies will only implement privacy by government regulations. Privacy does not maximize shareholder returns, and the share market only cares about $$$.

Edit: wrong number big difference between 3 and 4 G

4 Likes

As 6G is still under development - or maybe even less - there may be a chance to understand, change and prepare. For an individual with current services, it’s probably like you say, but for the envisioned services there seems to be need for more - better latency, things happening closer to the edge of the network, mesh networking, network management stuff etc. Might be interesting. The more precise positioning can also be an opportunity - beneficial, if appropriate controls and protections are built in.

ffs even THIS pages requires java-script to be enabled > https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_19_6049

c’mon guys get a grip … :weary:

2 Likes

Whitepaper on the topic, the research challenges/targets in this area, as defined by the task group: http://jultika.oulu.fi/files/isbn9789526226804.pdf

“The video recording of this webinar will be available in the 6G Flagship YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbmmrgFBOMotqw-rT2YTg-9zsbfcQEl6A , most likely on Friday.”

Most 3G networks will die in the next 2-3 years and be replaced by LTE, which will be standard used by most people for the next decade. 5G/6G will only be for urban areas with high population density to justify the higher number of transmitters at the higher frequencies.

There will be some 5G in the sub-6GHz range, but I think most of it will be implemented with DSS, so LTE and 5G NR can share the same spectrum. The other major change is that 5G in sub-6GHz will push a lot of networks to move from LTE-FDD to LTE-TDD, because it is a more efficient use of scarce frequency space.

The other major change is that satellite internet will make high-speed internet possible everywhere, so there will be less demand for 5G than many expected. Many people will decide that LTE is sufficient, because they will stick a 19" dish on their roof and in their cars for satellite internet and then use WiFi when they need high-speed internet.

You don’t think that’s a bit much traffic for satellites to handle? Comparing how mush stuff is moving in fibres even only now. And even at full capacity, will it be worth it, considering alternatives that they will be competing against (not counting special needs like outback rural). And the latency issues, when there will be more speedier alternatives?

I’m not sure if at that point there will be a “wifi” anymore, since the speed with the 5G/6G networks is so high and some with other benefits. Why jump from one network to another when you can use just the one? And nextgen BT will cover the small and local (and not so local) connectivity.

I’ll give you that in the beginning the celltowers/bases will be at firs in the populated areas but that corrects with time - it always does. I think China just announced they have some 600000 5G stations online, so it’s… spreading (sorry, couldn’t resist - haven’t had a shot yet - sorry). Although, not quite 5G speeds (I think similar situation is elsewhere too) yet.

It will be interesting, at what point do we get to the “plateau” where fast is fast (mostly) fast enough. Like with processing power: common use does not need that much for daily browsing. It’s probably going to be about what services are available and popular. After 6G no one will be left to build 7G since everyone is comatose in VR?

But I digress. Listening to the researchers about what’s in the works regarding security and privacy and trust, I was impressed. Now I’m more worried that it will be watered down. And, it would be cool, if we could just update L5 modems from 4G to 5G to 6G (if someone still makes m2-cards then).

1 Like

Yes, I meant 4G, not 3G. I just hope they move most of the 3G frequencies to 4G so we still have the same range outside the built-up areas. In Australia, a lot of the outback towers are feed by microwave dishes, so data is already slow if you can get it.
Wifi inside the house is faster and cheaper, I wonder how it’ll change in a decade.

With the 12000 satellites that have been approved by the FCC, they are estimating 500,000 simultaneous connections at full speed in the US, but StarLink will probably sell 3 to 10 times that many subscriptions and serve at slower speeds when saturated. However, SpaceX is now asking for approval of 30,000 more satellites. So StarLink won’t replace most ISPs and cellular networks, but it will take some of the market and be a competitor that keeps down the prices. If StarLink gets 40-50ms latencies for internet traffic as predicted, then it will be fast enough to compete with fiber, but the big thing is that it should have good coverage everywhere on the planet and its $ per GB will be much lower than cellular internet, so it will be very attractive for people who need good internet while near their car or house where they can mount the phase array dishes. I can see some percentage deciding to just get a very basic 4G plan for the times when not near house or car, and using StarLink for the rest of the time.

… and to be clear, you are only talking about Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites because the latency for geostationary satellites is horrible and much more than that.

1 Like

I think it’s sad that LEO will saturated with that much junk (really, anything - I feel it’s an act against environment, polluting the night sky…), but I even with those optimistic sounding cases the number of users seem to me mere fractions of all the cellphone (or what ever the communication device is then) users. So, 6G will be used. I wonder though, if any of the presented security updates to the network (especially SCION) will a) actually replace IP-networks and, b) be used in these satellite systems as well (no idea if it’s even possible, if it’s taken into account in their development now).

If I might ask @todd-weaver - and I know it might be a bit premature, as in, could he even imagine an answer - does Purism have any 6G strategy? Like, plans to make sure L5 will have a 6G replacement modem or to support/do research to next gen security features?

our satellites will blot out the sun …

…then we will download in the shade!

1 Like

Space junk is unlikely to be a problem with StarLink and OneWeb, because the FCC mandated that their satellites would all move to a lower orbit within one year of no longer being active, so they will rapidly de-orbit. Due to public concern, SpaceX is likely to get dead satellites out of the sky even faster than one year. Also StarLink uses krypton hall thrustors to maneuver around space junk, so there are unlikely to be collisions that destroy the satellites. Even if the krypton hall thrustors fail on a StarLink satellite, SpaceX changed its plans and will now operate all its satellites at 550km or lower. If a satellite is lower than 600km, then it should naturally de-orbit within 25 years. With the addition of anti-reflective coating and a new sunshade, the StarLink satellites shouldn’t be visible in the night sky.

The real danger in my opinion is whether all the planned launches will change the chemistry of the stratosphere which could deplete the ozone layer. See my post: https://amosbbatto.wordpress.com/2020/05/31/risk-rocket-emissions/

In my opinion, solid state rockets of all types should be outright banned except for emergency abort systems and military missiles (because they won’t be used very often in those applications). Space tourism based on either solid state or kerolox should also be banned. Kerolox emits too much black carbon for the world allow it to be used on a massive scale. Only hydrolox or metholox rockets should be allowed on a massive scale, and we really need detailed studies on the effects of metholox rockets in the stratosphere before we allow SpaceX to send 1 million colonists to Mars.

6G won’t come until the late 2020’s. The real question is whether Purism has a 5G plan. 5G has twice the power requirements of 4G. The standard 32x29x2 mm passive heat spreader found on a M.2 3042 card isn’t large enough to dissipate the heat of a 5G baseband. In addition, 5G over 6GHz requires different antennas, and needs antennas on every edge of the phone so the waves won’t be blocked by the hand. What this means is that it is unlikely that a 5G baseband can be implemented on an M.2 3042 card, so Evergreen will probably never be able to support 5G. Maybe the industry will figure out how to make more energy-efficient 5G chips, or use passive vapor coolers, or something else that can be mounted on a M.2 3042 card, but I’m skeptical.

This isn’t a big problem for me since LTE networks will be functional for the next decade, but I don’t think that it will be possible to use 5G with the current design of the Librem 5. Maybe 5G on the Librem 5 will be possible in the sub-6GHz spectrum in the future with a more energy-efficient baseband chip, but that kind of 5G doesn’t have the same kind of speeds of the higher frequencies.

the mass-media is full of fluff saying that they need 1ms latency for autonomous vehicles but with this PLANdemic i don’t see that happening … if people quarantine indoors then that means that expensive cars like the Tesla can’t reach mass production …

1 Like

Pffft, 1 ms latency translates to 300 km (186.5 miles) in vacuum. Any system larger than that must have higher latency. Why not argue for instant messaging? Ask Usula K. Le Guin about ansible, she is an expert with decades of experience in the subject.

2 Likes

Anyway, it isn’t an autonomous vehicle if latency is even a consideration. Right?

(Edited for clarity)

4 Likes

the 5g marketing strategy is that an autonomous vehicle with a 1ms latency connection can stop the car in aprox. few centimeters (from 100km/h to 0). that must be under perfect lab conditions. no way to achieve that during real-world scenario.

almost everything about 5G in mass-media is baloney imo … got 2 books about it but i don’t know when i’ll be able to finish them …

Ah, good point, I missed it entirely.

2 Likes

Hence the logical conclusion is that the agenda / end goal is that if you buy a car, it is not driven by you and it is not autonomous but it is remote controlled (while still having some local intelligence e.g. enough intelligence to safely pull over and stop if it loses signal and e.g. enough intelligence to safely execute whatever commands are sent to it remotely). One might call this “semi-autonomous”. One thing is clear though: you aren’t part of the picture.

Presumably therefore the agenda is that the local government is coordinating the movement of all cars in the vicinity (and hand-off when moving from one government area to another, in a manner analogous to what happens with cellular connections).

1 Like