Re: private 5G networks?
On 12/7/21 18:57, Jean St-Laurent wrote: I thought 5G here meant Fifth Generation of mobile network and not 5 Ghz wifi. I don’t need a sim card to use wifi on 5 Ghz. Is the private 5G network advertised by Amazon a kind of? Put a sim card in that phone and use our 5^th Gen mobile gears. This way you can use your private phone numbers in your private system and send emoji, texts, pictures and even use your phone as a phone to call other people in that private 5G network. Is this new thing just about having a private 5 Ghz wifi or it’s about using phones in 5^th Gen mobile communications through Amazon gears? 5G cellular, not 5GHz wi-fi. Oddly, they are billing it as an augmentation to wi-fi, even though I believe in dense cities where fibre is rife, wi-fi will be a more feasible prospect, especially 802.11ax. However, given how much cellular can scale, Amazon's "5G Cellular in a Box" solution may just be the thing the tips the ratios between both wi-fi and 5G being feasible in concentrated deployments, simultaneously. Mark.
RE: private 5G networks?
I thought 5G here meant Fifth Generation of mobile network and not 5 Ghz wifi. I don’t need a sim card to use wifi on 5 Ghz. Is the private 5G network advertised by Amazon a kind of? Put a sim card in that phone and use our 5th Gen mobile gears. This way you can use your private phone numbers in your private system and send emoji, texts, pictures and even use your phone as a phone to call other people in that private 5G network. Is this new thing just about having a private 5 Ghz wifi or it’s about using phones in 5th Gen mobile communications through Amazon gears? Thank you in advance for your time and patience Jean From: Tom Beecher Sent: December 6, 2021 3:04 PM To: Jean St-Laurent Cc: Mark Tinka ; NANOG Subject: Re: private 5G networks? To come back on Private 5G networks. Can a private 5G network protect against spyware like Pegazus? No disrespect intended here, but you are essentially asking if going from 2.4GHz Wifi to 5GHz wifi will make things more secure. I'm sure you know the answer to that. Private 5G is just a method for local spectrum allocation that does not require a full FCC license. That's it. On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 12:37 PM Jean St-Laurent via NANOG mailto:nanog@nanog.org> > wrote: You're absolutely right and I agree with your line of thought. Strangely, there is apparently a lawsuit of $150B against Meta for for facilitating Rohingya Genocide . I am not sure how valid it is and where it will go, but $150B is quite something. It looks like the price a country has to pay after a war. These cloud providers failed to not polarize the debate. They interfere in the process and it's illegal nearly everywhere except online for the cloud providers. It's like if you telco would give faster speed to inflammatory tweets and slowed down the tweets that don't generate fud. Telco are at the moment in a much better position than cloud providers in my opinion. The train started to anticipate the curve and it's already changing direction. To come back on Private 5G networks. Can a private 5G network protect against spyware like Pegazus? Jean -Original Message- From: Mark Tinka mailto:mark@tinka.africa> > Sent: December 6, 2021 10:02 AM To: Jean St-Laurent mailto:j...@ddostest.me> >; nanog@nanog.org <mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: private 5G networks? On 12/6/21 15:56, Jean St-Laurent wrote: > I vouch for fairness. > > It seems there might be a shift in how we consume services around the world. > It's like a train. You can't turn 90 degrees. You need to start a smooth > curve many miles ahead if you want your train to turn and reach the > destination. > > How leaders govern will be more important. The decisions they make today and > the partners they choose will set the direction for this train. The problem with this approach is that it assumes industrial-revolution business practices where corporations set the standard, and customers follow. This does not work anymore in the modern world, because what the content folk have done is create platforms where users set the the standard, and corporations follow. In the old days, if a service didn't work, we complained, sued, cried, the lot, and took it on the chin. Nowadays, if a service doesn't work, you silently delete the app, and move on to someone else. But corporations don't get good (read: negative) feedback, because they are too busy building and selling products, rather than build and selling experiences, like the content folk do. Because they are blind to this feedback, they don't see the churn that is happening (after all, it's like a slow tyre leak), as users quietly migrate for a better experience, and not a better product. 5 years later, they wonder how they lost 50% of their customer base. I'm already seeing it with a number of traditional banks, here in Africa. Gartner (another typical corporation) just shared this the other day: https://ibb.co/c8PFRyQ ... and as you can clearly see, the "customer" experience is not top of their agenda for the typical CEO, for the coming year. Instead, it's a bunch of other things that make zero sense. How do you grow if you don't look after customers? Users have moved on so fast due the ascension of the base expectation of value, companies that are willing to consider that the best they can do is create an experience that improves the likelihood of a user giving them a chance - rather than forcing a product sale on customers with the intention of meeting the YoY target that was printed in the boardroom PPT slides - will be the ones that have a chance to not only survive, but actually flourish. If Amazon can democratize the mobile network by providing a cloud-based EPC, we might never have to be subjected to the unimaginative services we pay lots of money for, to typical mobile operators. I mean, if there is anyone with t
RE: private 5G networks?
I thought it would have been possible to tap some firewalls at 5G level to inspect what comes in/out. Suspicious traffic toward known C would be investigated. I have no clue how Pegasus or 5G works. Thanks for the info Jean From: Tom Beecher Sent: December 6, 2021 3:04 PM To: Jean St-Laurent Cc: Mark Tinka ; NANOG Subject: Re: private 5G networks? To come back on Private 5G networks. Can a private 5G network protect against spyware like Pegazus? No disrespect intended here, but you are essentially asking if going from 2.4GHz Wifi to 5GHz wifi will make things more secure. I'm sure you know the answer to that. Private 5G is just a method for local spectrum allocation that does not require a full FCC license. That's it. On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 12:37 PM Jean St-Laurent via NANOG mailto:nanog@nanog.org> > wrote: You're absolutely right and I agree with your line of thought. Strangely, there is apparently a lawsuit of $150B against Meta for for facilitating Rohingya Genocide . I am not sure how valid it is and where it will go, but $150B is quite something. It looks like the price a country has to pay after a war. These cloud providers failed to not polarize the debate. They interfere in the process and it's illegal nearly everywhere except online for the cloud providers. It's like if you telco would give faster speed to inflammatory tweets and slowed down the tweets that don't generate fud. Telco are at the moment in a much better position than cloud providers in my opinion. The train started to anticipate the curve and it's already changing direction. To come back on Private 5G networks. Can a private 5G network protect against spyware like Pegazus? Jean -Original Message- From: Mark Tinka mailto:mark@tinka.africa> > Sent: December 6, 2021 10:02 AM To: Jean St-Laurent mailto:j...@ddostest.me> >; nanog@nanog.org <mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: private 5G networks? On 12/6/21 15:56, Jean St-Laurent wrote: > I vouch for fairness. > > It seems there might be a shift in how we consume services around the world. > It's like a train. You can't turn 90 degrees. You need to start a smooth > curve many miles ahead if you want your train to turn and reach the > destination. > > How leaders govern will be more important. The decisions they make today and > the partners they choose will set the direction for this train. The problem with this approach is that it assumes industrial-revolution business practices where corporations set the standard, and customers follow. This does not work anymore in the modern world, because what the content folk have done is create platforms where users set the the standard, and corporations follow. In the old days, if a service didn't work, we complained, sued, cried, the lot, and took it on the chin. Nowadays, if a service doesn't work, you silently delete the app, and move on to someone else. But corporations don't get good (read: negative) feedback, because they are too busy building and selling products, rather than build and selling experiences, like the content folk do. Because they are blind to this feedback, they don't see the churn that is happening (after all, it's like a slow tyre leak), as users quietly migrate for a better experience, and not a better product. 5 years later, they wonder how they lost 50% of their customer base. I'm already seeing it with a number of traditional banks, here in Africa. Gartner (another typical corporation) just shared this the other day: https://ibb.co/c8PFRyQ ... and as you can clearly see, the "customer" experience is not top of their agenda for the typical CEO, for the coming year. Instead, it's a bunch of other things that make zero sense. How do you grow if you don't look after customers? Users have moved on so fast due the ascension of the base expectation of value, companies that are willing to consider that the best they can do is create an experience that improves the likelihood of a user giving them a chance - rather than forcing a product sale on customers with the intention of meeting the YoY target that was printed in the boardroom PPT slides - will be the ones that have a chance to not only survive, but actually flourish. If Amazon can democratize the mobile network by providing a cloud-based EPC, we might never have to be subjected to the unimaginative services we pay lots of money for, to typical mobile operators. I mean, if there is anyone with the time, money, people, data and network, it's surely Amazon, as well as the peers in their group. > Maybe cloud boys and girls are also about to get a fair shake. What the cloud and content folk have perfected is the art of being unsatisfied with the current customer experience. Their continued search for how they can make just one thing about their service better and more pleasurable
Re: private 5G networks?
> > To come back on Private 5G networks. Can a private 5G network protect > against spyware like Pegazus? > No disrespect intended here, but you are essentially asking if going from 2.4GHz Wifi to 5GHz wifi will make things more secure. I'm sure you know the answer to that. Private 5G is just a method for local spectrum allocation that does not require a full FCC license. That's it. On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 12:37 PM Jean St-Laurent via NANOG wrote: > You're absolutely right and I agree with your line of thought. > > Strangely, there is apparently a lawsuit of $150B against Meta for for > facilitating Rohingya Genocide . I am not sure how valid it is and where it > will go, but $150B is quite something. > > It looks like the price a country has to pay after a war. > > These cloud providers failed to not polarize the debate. They interfere in > the process and it's illegal nearly everywhere except online for the cloud > providers. > > It's like if you telco would give faster speed to inflammatory tweets and > slowed down the tweets that don't generate fud. > > Telco are at the moment in a much better position than cloud providers in > my opinion. The train started to anticipate the curve and it's already > changing direction. > > To come back on Private 5G networks. Can a private 5G network protect > against spyware like Pegazus? > > Jean > > -Original Message- > From: Mark Tinka > Sent: December 6, 2021 10:02 AM > To: Jean St-Laurent ; nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: private 5G networks? > > > > On 12/6/21 15:56, Jean St-Laurent wrote: > > > I vouch for fairness. > > > > It seems there might be a shift in how we consume services around the > world. It's like a train. You can't turn 90 degrees. You need to start a > smooth curve many miles ahead if you want your train to turn and reach the > destination. > > > > How leaders govern will be more important. The decisions they make today > and the partners they choose will set the direction for this train. > > The problem with this approach is that it assumes industrial-revolution > business practices where corporations set the standard, and customers > follow. > > This does not work anymore in the modern world, because what the content > folk have done is create platforms where users set the the standard, and > corporations follow. > > In the old days, if a service didn't work, we complained, sued, cried, the > lot, and took it on the chin. Nowadays, if a service doesn't work, you > silently delete the app, and move on to someone else. > > But corporations don't get good (read: negative) feedback, because they > are too busy building and selling products, rather than build and selling > experiences, like the content folk do. Because they are blind to this > feedback, they don't see the churn that is happening (after all, it's like > a slow tyre leak), as users quietly migrate for a better experience, and > not a better product. 5 years later, they wonder how they lost 50% of their > customer base. I'm already seeing it with a number of traditional banks, > here in Africa. > > Gartner (another typical corporation) just shared this the other day: > > https://ibb.co/c8PFRyQ > > ... and as you can clearly see, the "customer" experience is not top of > their agenda for the typical CEO, for the coming year. Instead, it's a > bunch of other things that make zero sense. How do you grow if you don't > look after customers? > > Users have moved on so fast due the ascension of the base expectation of > value, companies that are willing to consider that the best they can do is > create an experience that improves the likelihood of a user giving them a > chance - rather than forcing a product sale on customers with the intention > of meeting the YoY target that was printed in the boardroom PPT slides - > will be the ones that have a chance to not only survive, but actually > flourish. > > If Amazon can democratize the mobile network by providing a cloud-based > EPC, we might never have to be subjected to the unimaginative services we > pay lots of money for, to typical mobile operators. I mean, if there is > anyone with the time, money, people, data and network, it's surely Amazon, > as well as the peers in their group. > > > > Maybe cloud boys and girls are also about to get a fair shake. > > What the cloud and content folk have perfected is the art of being > unsatisfied with the current customer experience. Their continued search > for how they can make just one thing about their service better and more > pleasurable to use, is what keeps them in favour with the user. For as long > as they can maintain that ethos, they will be setting the rules. > > It does help that they also play well together, so they don't have > out-compete each other for business like we, in the telco world, > continuously do... much to our collective detriment. > > Mark. > >
Re: private 5G networks?
On 12/6/21 19:34, Jean St-Laurent wrote: Strangely, there is apparently a lawsuit of $150B against Meta for for facilitating Rohingya Genocide . I am not sure how valid it is and where it will go, but $150B is quite something. It looks like the price a country has to pay after a war. Content folk will never openly admit it, but I don't think this is something they cannot deal with. They are in a business where borders, buildings and factories have no value. Even if they got broken up in the U.S., you can't break up ideas and culture... it will just split up and move into countries where they won't be bothered. But back to your point... the reason content folk can get away with these "distractions" is, again, because of us, the users. While many users will care about how ethical the content folk are, most will not. Users just want the platform to keep going, because it is a platform that not only consistently provides value, but is annoyingly good at relentlessly improving the experience. We saw what happened between Google and Australia. Who did you think random Australian citizens on the street were going to back? And yes, even if Google or the rest did a deal where they pay something to local traditional publishers, it's still a net-win for them, and the world keeps spinning. The best way to protect your business is from the loyalty of your customers, and the content folk are very good and acquiring and maintaining that loyalty, for better or worse. These cloud providers failed to not polarize the debate. They interfere in the process and it's illegal nearly everywhere except online for the cloud providers. And that's to my point, about this not being about borders, buildings or factories. The Internet is the level-playing field, as long as you have a half-decent idea. Whether that idea is good or bad doesn't matter. What matters is if you can capture the hearts and minds of tens, hundreds, thousands, millions or billions of users, because that is leverage which can't be taken away from you. Telco are at the moment in a much better position than cloud providers in my opinion. The train started to anticipate the curve and it's already changing direction. I'm not sure how you figure that... infrastructure is under massive pressure to keep up with what the content folk are doing. We can no longer buy kit at reasonable prices that does what we want; our customers see us a nuisance that sits between them and their app; we have no innovation DNA; even though we are also users of these apps from the content folk that make our lives easier, we don't know how to translate that into the same experience in our own businesses; we can't negotiate with vendors, gubbermints, partners, e.t.c., at the same level; and we are constantly at risk of losing whatever leverage we have over our customers depending on whether the content folk are in the mood to "build it themselves" or not. A live example playing out for me, now, is how one of my mobile providers is struggling to get me on to a new contract despite them not being able to give me a new iPhone, because of all the global shortages of stock. They have lost about nearly all billing from me, and I likely represent a ton of other customers going through the same. Their whole model is hinged on continuous device upgrades to maintain billing, and now that those devices are nowhere to be found, they are stuck. They are creating data, voice and SMS products that have no head or tail, because that is the depth of their innovation. The kids don't want voice and SMS in 2021 - they will use data to make WhatsApp or FaceTime calls, if they must. I dumped my "full package" and took a data-only package for 1GB/month, at US$2.45/month. I put the Mrs. on the same, but 8GB/month for US$8.09/month. Between us both, that is 20X less billing than they could get from us, all because without the iPhone, their model crashes. Telco's are in serious trouble, and that includes ISP's. We need to figure it out, fast! To come back on Private 5G networks. Can a private 5G network protect against spyware like Pegazus? How secure is your private cloud, is the obvious question :-). I really don't know, to be honest. And really, I actually don't care. If Amazon can make the model work, cheaply, people will build upon it anyway. If they don't trust that Amazon can keep it safe, they'll just add IPSec, or Amazon can sell IPSec as an add-on service... or whatever else newfangled security service thing will exist at the time. Mark.
RE: private 5G networks?
You're absolutely right and I agree with your line of thought. Strangely, there is apparently a lawsuit of $150B against Meta for for facilitating Rohingya Genocide . I am not sure how valid it is and where it will go, but $150B is quite something. It looks like the price a country has to pay after a war. These cloud providers failed to not polarize the debate. They interfere in the process and it's illegal nearly everywhere except online for the cloud providers. It's like if you telco would give faster speed to inflammatory tweets and slowed down the tweets that don't generate fud. Telco are at the moment in a much better position than cloud providers in my opinion. The train started to anticipate the curve and it's already changing direction. To come back on Private 5G networks. Can a private 5G network protect against spyware like Pegazus? Jean -Original Message- From: Mark Tinka Sent: December 6, 2021 10:02 AM To: Jean St-Laurent ; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: private 5G networks? On 12/6/21 15:56, Jean St-Laurent wrote: > I vouch for fairness. > > It seems there might be a shift in how we consume services around the world. > It's like a train. You can't turn 90 degrees. You need to start a smooth > curve many miles ahead if you want your train to turn and reach the > destination. > > How leaders govern will be more important. The decisions they make today and > the partners they choose will set the direction for this train. The problem with this approach is that it assumes industrial-revolution business practices where corporations set the standard, and customers follow. This does not work anymore in the modern world, because what the content folk have done is create platforms where users set the the standard, and corporations follow. In the old days, if a service didn't work, we complained, sued, cried, the lot, and took it on the chin. Nowadays, if a service doesn't work, you silently delete the app, and move on to someone else. But corporations don't get good (read: negative) feedback, because they are too busy building and selling products, rather than build and selling experiences, like the content folk do. Because they are blind to this feedback, they don't see the churn that is happening (after all, it's like a slow tyre leak), as users quietly migrate for a better experience, and not a better product. 5 years later, they wonder how they lost 50% of their customer base. I'm already seeing it with a number of traditional banks, here in Africa. Gartner (another typical corporation) just shared this the other day: https://ibb.co/c8PFRyQ ... and as you can clearly see, the "customer" experience is not top of their agenda for the typical CEO, for the coming year. Instead, it's a bunch of other things that make zero sense. How do you grow if you don't look after customers? Users have moved on so fast due the ascension of the base expectation of value, companies that are willing to consider that the best they can do is create an experience that improves the likelihood of a user giving them a chance - rather than forcing a product sale on customers with the intention of meeting the YoY target that was printed in the boardroom PPT slides - will be the ones that have a chance to not only survive, but actually flourish. If Amazon can democratize the mobile network by providing a cloud-based EPC, we might never have to be subjected to the unimaginative services we pay lots of money for, to typical mobile operators. I mean, if there is anyone with the time, money, people, data and network, it's surely Amazon, as well as the peers in their group. > Maybe cloud boys and girls are also about to get a fair shake. What the cloud and content folk have perfected is the art of being unsatisfied with the current customer experience. Their continued search for how they can make just one thing about their service better and more pleasurable to use, is what keeps them in favour with the user. For as long as they can maintain that ethos, they will be setting the rules. It does help that they also play well together, so they don't have out-compete each other for business like we, in the telco world, continuously do... much to our collective detriment. Mark.
Re: private 5G networks?
> On Dec 5, 2021, at 3:42 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: > > > On 01.12.21 15:17, Tom Beecher wrote: >> While you are correct that it's just as illegal to intentionally interfere >> with the unlicensed wifi bands as it is with CBRS, the difference is that >> the FCC and regulatory bodies are much more likely to investigate and take >> action against intentional interference in these frequency ranges than they >> would be in the unlicensed wifi bands. > > And there's a practical reason for that: establishing proof of unauthorized > use of a frequency is a heck of a lot easier than intentional interference. > All the former requires is triangulation of the offending station. The > latter requires that plus a finding of intent. It CAN happen; but more often > than not what is actually found is a faulty piece of equipment that is > emitting something and everything else catching a bad harmonic. There was a > famous case about this in Wales in which an old television set took out a > town.[1] > > Eliot > > https://www.openreach.com/news/second-hand-tv-wipes-out-broadband-for-entire-village/ > > There was one in Oregon where it was transmitting on one of the ELB frequencies as well https://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/01/technology/the-tv-that-sent-out-a-cry-for-help-via-satellite.html - Jared
Re: private 5G networks?
On 01.12.21 15:17, Tom Beecher wrote: While you are correct that it's just as illegal to intentionally interfere with the unlicensed wifi bands as it is with CBRS, the difference is that the FCC and regulatory bodies are much more likely to investigate and take action against intentional interference in these frequency ranges than they would be in the unlicensed wifi bands. And there's a practical reason for that: establishing proof of unauthorized use of a frequency is a heck of a lot easier than intentional interference. All the former requires is triangulation of the offending station. The latter requires that plus a finding of intent. It CAN happen; but more often than not what is actually found is a faulty piece of equipment that is emitting something and everything else catching a bad harmonic. There was a famous case about this in Wales in which an old television set took out a town.[1] Eliot https://www.openreach.com/news/second-hand-tv-wipes-out-broadband-for-entire-village/ OpenPGP_0x87B66B46D9D27A33.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: private 5G networks?
On 12/6/21 15:56, Jean St-Laurent wrote: I vouch for fairness. It seems there might be a shift in how we consume services around the world. It's like a train. You can't turn 90 degrees. You need to start a smooth curve many miles ahead if you want your train to turn and reach the destination. How leaders govern will be more important. The decisions they make today and the partners they choose will set the direction for this train. The problem with this approach is that it assumes industrial-revolution business practices where corporations set the standard, and customers follow. This does not work anymore in the modern world, because what the content folk have done is create platforms where users set the the standard, and corporations follow. In the old days, if a service didn't work, we complained, sued, cried, the lot, and took it on the chin. Nowadays, if a service doesn't work, you silently delete the app, and move on to someone else. But corporations don't get good (read: negative) feedback, because they are too busy building and selling products, rather than build and selling experiences, like the content folk do. Because they are blind to this feedback, they don't see the churn that is happening (after all, it's like a slow tyre leak), as users quietly migrate for a better experience, and not a better product. 5 years later, they wonder how they lost 50% of their customer base. I'm already seeing it with a number of traditional banks, here in Africa. Gartner (another typical corporation) just shared this the other day: https://ibb.co/c8PFRyQ ... and as you can clearly see, the "customer" experience is not top of their agenda for the typical CEO, for the coming year. Instead, it's a bunch of other things that make zero sense. How do you grow if you don't look after customers? Users have moved on so fast due the ascension of the base expectation of value, companies that are willing to consider that the best they can do is create an experience that improves the likelihood of a user giving them a chance - rather than forcing a product sale on customers with the intention of meeting the YoY target that was printed in the boardroom PPT slides - will be the ones that have a chance to not only survive, but actually flourish. If Amazon can democratize the mobile network by providing a cloud-based EPC, we might never have to be subjected to the unimaginative services we pay lots of money for, to typical mobile operators. I mean, if there is anyone with the time, money, people, data and network, it's surely Amazon, as well as the peers in their group. Maybe cloud boys and girls are also about to get a fair shake. What the cloud and content folk have perfected is the art of being unsatisfied with the current customer experience. Their continued search for how they can make just one thing about their service better and more pleasurable to use, is what keeps them in favour with the user. For as long as they can maintain that ethos, they will be setting the rules. It does help that they also play well together, so they don't have out-compete each other for business like we, in the telco world, continuously do... much to our collective detriment. Mark.
RE: private 5G networks?
I vouch for fairness. It seems there might be a shift in how we consume services around the world. It's like a train. You can't turn 90 degrees. You need to start a smooth curve many miles ahead if you want your train to turn and reach the destination. How leaders govern will be more important. The decisions they make today and the partners they choose will set the direction for this train. Maybe cloud boys and girls are also about to get a fair shake. Be patient Jean -Original Message- From: Mark Tinka Sent: December 6, 2021 8:23 AM To: Jean St-Laurent ; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: private 5G networks? On 12/6/21 15:10, Jean St-Laurent wrote: > Probably not. There seem to be a new portfolio starting. > > Your telco could probably have a special product for business/enterprises > which need private 5G without all the learning of technical stuff. If Amazon went from selling books to being the biggest cloud provider, they are certainly showing that with enough software developers, white boxes, and a bit of network, you can virtualize an EPC that makes the telco close to irrelevant, in a few years. More pressure on Nokia, Huawei, Ericsson, and friends. > Telco have strong expertise and reliable systems IMO, just not moving very > fast to new products. Hehe - and yet the cloud boys and girls are the largest submarine cable builders and operators, nowadays. Funny that, eh... Mark.
Re: private 5G networks?
On 12/6/21 15:10, Jean St-Laurent wrote: Probably not. There seem to be a new portfolio starting. Your telco could probably have a special product for business/enterprises which need private 5G without all the learning of technical stuff. If Amazon went from selling books to being the biggest cloud provider, they are certainly showing that with enough software developers, white boxes, and a bit of network, you can virtualize an EPC that makes the telco close to irrelevant, in a few years. More pressure on Nokia, Huawei, Ericsson, and friends. Telco have strong expertise and reliable systems IMO, just not moving very fast to new products. Hehe - and yet the cloud boys and girls are the largest submarine cable builders and operators, nowadays. Funny that, eh... Mark.
RE: private 5G networks?
Probably not. There seem to be a new portfolio starting. Your telco could probably have a special product for business/enterprises which need private 5G without all the learning of technical stuff. Telco have strong expertise and reliable systems IMO, just not moving very fast to new products. While at it, make sure you tell your CFO that you want it on IPv6. Jean -Original Message- From: NANOG On Behalf Of Mark Tinka Sent: December 6, 2021 7:46 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: private 5G networks? On 12/4/21 16:52, Jean St-Laurent via NANOG wrote: > Maybe the main argument is: run a Pegasus free 5g/lte network. > > Mr. Besos was hack by that and it's probably a technical way to start > protecting customers against that kind of sophisticated spywares that > spread in the normal mobile network. > > I might be wrong and probably Pegasus can still perfectly run in a > private 5G network? The way I see it, one more push of the hammer into the telco death nail. Mark.
Re: private 5G networks?
On 12/4/21 16:52, Jean St-Laurent via NANOG wrote: Maybe the main argument is: run a Pegasus free 5g/lte network. Mr. Besos was hack by that and it's probably a technical way to start protecting customers against that kind of sophisticated spywares that spread in the normal mobile network. I might be wrong and probably Pegasus can still perfectly run in a private 5G network? The way I see it, one more push of the hammer into the telco death nail. Mark.
RE: private 5G networks?
Maybe the main argument is: run a Pegasus free 5g/lte network. Mr. Besos was hack by that and it's probably a technical way to start protecting customers against that kind of sophisticated spywares that spread in the normal mobile network. I might be wrong and probably Pegasus can still perfectly run in a private 5G network? Jean
Re: private 5G networks?
On Wed, Dec 01, 2021 at 12:23:46PM +0100, Baldur Norddahl wrote: [ snip ] > > And yes these are low bandwidth but on the other hand often stretch wifi to > the very limits on the distance between bases. I am not claiming this is > the same use case as a warehouse. I am pointing out that the argument that > a system critical implementation _must_ be based on licensed frequencies > does not hold as nothing could be more critical than a system that prevents > trains from colliding. The public transit market of rail industry has been in discussions for a while re: mitigation measures (such as licensed band) against possible interference on CBTC signalling data links. It is however a standardization issue (much like we here in internet infrastructure continue to discuss improvements to BGP and its lingering security issues, nothing is perfect in every industry I suppose..). > > I do claim that the reason these metro train systems can boast of a very > high uptime is not that it would be especially hard to jam their wifi based > systems. Moreover, the degree of disruption to loss of data on CBTC is further dependent upon individual deployment cases. One example is system falling back to ABS (non-moving block) operation during loss of confirmations on movement authorities, with trains continuing to run, albeit at reduced capacity. Anyhow it has not been a serious enough issue from operational and security standpoints to date to warrant immediate concern. It's a standardization matter. James
Re: private 5G networks?
> > This should give a good overview: > > https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/files/128950142/COMST2661384.pdf > > It is in fact quite interesting. > Thanks for sharing that. Excellent read, really interesting stuff. Couple quick takeaways: - The design is clearly well thought out to account for the environment of tunnels and moving trains. - They have designed redundancy and diversity into the systems that would really make it difficult to execute a prolonged attack. - Certain aspects of the underground environment actually make some things easier than a wide open area. On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 6:25 AM Baldur Norddahl wrote: > > > On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 at 23:48, Shane Ronan wrote: > >> Please provide details on public transit systems that are controlled via >> Wifi, I find that very interesting. >> > > This should give a good overview: > > https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/files/128950142/COMST2661384.pdf > > It is in fact quite interesting. > > And yes these are low bandwidth but on the other hand often stretch wifi > to the very limits on the distance between bases. I am not claiming this is > the same use case as a warehouse. I am pointing out that the argument that > a system critical implementation _must_ be based on licensed frequencies > does not hold as nothing could be more critical than a system that prevents > trains from colliding. > > I do claim that the reason these metro train systems can boast of a very > high uptime is not that it would be especially hard to jam their wifi based > systems. No it is in fact probably quite easy to do so. It is just that > nobody does it. Because that way lies jail and there are also so many other > ways to stop the trains (rocks on the tracks etc). The same holds true for > the warehouse as someone trying to cause trouble could just as easily do > something to the power, cut a fiber cable, start a fire, call in a bomb > threat, etc. > > Also having a licensed frequency only stops those that are law abiding and > it is never legal to cause harmful interference to sabotage the operations > of a warehouse. > > That leaves the risk that the wifi frequencies are blocked by other legal > users of the frequencies. This risk is especially low on the new 6 GHz > frequencies because the range is not great and you do have full control of > what equipment enters your warehouse. The risk is essentially that the > neighbor is also a warehouse with a wifi based system. The physical > separation would in most cases be enough that this is not a problem and > otherwise it would not be too much trouble to talk to the neighbor to agree > on some frequency split on the bases at the border between the two systems. > No need to pay a third party or the government for that. > > I did read about a use case for a private 5G network however. A system > covering the harbor. Wifi would be at a disadvantage here because it is a > large outside area with a lot of third parties entering, both ships and > trucks. I imagine there also exists similar such a large mining operation > etc. > > Regards, > > Baldur > > > > >
Re: private 5G networks?
> > If we are talking about wifi 6E on 6 GHz sitting in a parking lot trying > to cause harmful interference within legal limits will not successfully > harm the operation within a building, especially not if the owner has a > security perimeter. Harmful interference on purpose is not legal in any > case. > Even with a security perimeter, a cantenna or yagi can easily bridge the gap. While you are correct that it's just as illegal to intentionally interfere with the unlicensed wifi bands as it is with CBRS, the difference is that the FCC and regulatory bodies are much more likely to investigate and take action against intentional interference in these frequency ranges than they would be in the unlicensed wifi bands. On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 5:44 PM Baldur Norddahl wrote: > > > tir. 30. nov. 2021 23.19 skrev Tom Beecher : > >> In my view there is no practical difference. The owner has full control >>> of his warehouse and it would be very illegal for any outside party to >>> install any device at all including unauthorised wifi devices. >>> >> >> Nothing illegal about someone sitting in a parking lot next door with a >> pineapple turned up to 11 that's washing out all the normal wifi spectrum. >> > > If we are talking about wifi 6E on 6 GHz sitting in a parking lot trying > to cause harmful interference within legal limits will not successfully > harm the operation within a building, especially not if the owner has a > security perimeter. Harmful interference on purpose is not legal in any > case. > > >> It would be illegal to do that with CBRS. >> > > On the other hand, saboteurs rarely care about legal and can easily jam > either system. > > And yet, this is simply not a real problem. Did you know that a larger > number of train transit systems are controlled by WiFi? Block that WiFi > signal and the trains stop city wide. But has this ever happened? > > Regards > > Baldur > >>
Re: private 5G networks?
On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 at 23:48, Shane Ronan wrote: > Please provide details on public transit systems that are controlled via > Wifi, I find that very interesting. > This should give a good overview: https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/files/128950142/COMST2661384.pdf It is in fact quite interesting. And yes these are low bandwidth but on the other hand often stretch wifi to the very limits on the distance between bases. I am not claiming this is the same use case as a warehouse. I am pointing out that the argument that a system critical implementation _must_ be based on licensed frequencies does not hold as nothing could be more critical than a system that prevents trains from colliding. I do claim that the reason these metro train systems can boast of a very high uptime is not that it would be especially hard to jam their wifi based systems. No it is in fact probably quite easy to do so. It is just that nobody does it. Because that way lies jail and there are also so many other ways to stop the trains (rocks on the tracks etc). The same holds true for the warehouse as someone trying to cause trouble could just as easily do something to the power, cut a fiber cable, start a fire, call in a bomb threat, etc. Also having a licensed frequency only stops those that are law abiding and it is never legal to cause harmful interference to sabotage the operations of a warehouse. That leaves the risk that the wifi frequencies are blocked by other legal users of the frequencies. This risk is especially low on the new 6 GHz frequencies because the range is not great and you do have full control of what equipment enters your warehouse. The risk is essentially that the neighbor is also a warehouse with a wifi based system. The physical separation would in most cases be enough that this is not a problem and otherwise it would not be too much trouble to talk to the neighbor to agree on some frequency split on the bases at the border between the two systems. No need to pay a third party or the government for that. I did read about a use case for a private 5G network however. A system covering the harbor. Wifi would be at a disadvantage here because it is a large outside area with a lot of third parties entering, both ships and trucks. I imagine there also exists similar such a large mining operation etc. Regards, Baldur
Re: private 5G networks?
Sorry, I wasn't sure what you meant by 3rd tier, but yes, we are talking about GAA. The important bit is as I stated is "or that nobody currently is transmitting on" And yes, the CBRS Radio, called a CBSD must be configured ahead of time to making freq grant requests to the SAS. This happens via the Mgmt. connection of the CBSD and is done via TLS over HTTP. Shane On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 6:22 PM John Gilmore wrote: > Michael Thomas wrote: > > > What do you mean 3rd Tier? > > General Authorized Access? Taken from some random site looking it up. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Broadband_Radio_Service > > it has 3 tiers: > > * Incumbent access, primarily government and military radars, plus some > pre-existing band users. > > * 3550 to 3650 MHz in 10MHz chunks, allocated for priority users by census > tracts for up to 3 years, with up to 7 Priority Access Licenses per tract. > Competitive bidding for getting these licenses. > > * General Authorized Access users can use any of those chunks that aren't > assigned for priority use, or that nobody currently is transmitting on, > plus another 50 MHz at 3650-3700 in free-for-all mode unless there are > incumbents. > > A local Spectrum Access System (SAS) would program the individual devices > to > stay within the restrictions specified by the FCC and any licenses > issued to the operator, for a particular geography. > > John > > PS: The CBRS radio devices can't turn on their transmitter until they > talk a detailed negotiation to their SAS, via HTTP over TLS 1.2 over > IPv4. IPv6 support is optional. None of this negotiation appears to > happen over the radio, it's all apparently on Ethernet (or assumes some > separate Internet provisioning not done in CBRS spectrum). And there's > no discovery procedure, it's all done by manual configuration. See: > > https://winnf.memberclicks.net/assets/CBRS/WINNF-TS-0016.pdf >
Re: private 5G networks?
Michael Thomas wrote: > > What do you mean 3rd Tier? > General Authorized Access? Taken from some random site looking it up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Broadband_Radio_Service it has 3 tiers: * Incumbent access, primarily government and military radars, plus some pre-existing band users. * 3550 to 3650 MHz in 10MHz chunks, allocated for priority users by census tracts for up to 3 years, with up to 7 Priority Access Licenses per tract. Competitive bidding for getting these licenses. * General Authorized Access users can use any of those chunks that aren't assigned for priority use, or that nobody currently is transmitting on, plus another 50 MHz at 3650-3700 in free-for-all mode unless there are incumbents. A local Spectrum Access System (SAS) would program the individual devices to stay within the restrictions specified by the FCC and any licenses issued to the operator, for a particular geography. John PS: The CBRS radio devices can't turn on their transmitter until they talk a detailed negotiation to their SAS, via HTTP over TLS 1.2 over IPv4. IPv6 support is optional. None of this negotiation appears to happen over the radio, it's all apparently on Ethernet (or assumes some separate Internet provisioning not done in CBRS spectrum). And there's no discovery procedure, it's all done by manual configuration. See: https://winnf.memberclicks.net/assets/CBRS/WINNF-TS-0016.pdf
Re: private 5G networks?
My understanding is those systems require very little bandwidth, so barring a full “jam” of the full spectrum, it can still operate. This is not the same use case as most private 5G implementations. Shame > On Nov 30, 2021, at 6:05 PM, James Jun wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 05:48:28PM -0500, Shane Ronan wrote: >> Please provide details on public transit systems that are controlled via >> Wifi, I find that very interesting. >> > > He's talking about CBTC running on 2.4Ghz band for DCS. And yes he is right, > numerous metro subway systems use this. > > For heavy rail deployments, ETCS Level 2 uses GSM-R. > > > James
Re: private 5G networks?
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 05:48:28PM -0500, Shane Ronan wrote: > Please provide details on public transit systems that are controlled via > Wifi, I find that very interesting. > He's talking about CBTC running on 2.4Ghz band for DCS. And yes he is right, numerous metro subway systems use this. For heavy rail deployments, ETCS Level 2 uses GSM-R. James
Re: private 5G networks?
Please provide details on public transit systems that are controlled via Wifi, I find that very interesting. Shane On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 5:43 PM Baldur Norddahl wrote: > > > tir. 30. nov. 2021 23.19 skrev Tom Beecher : > >> In my view there is no practical difference. The owner has full control >>> of his warehouse and it would be very illegal for any outside party to >>> install any device at all including unauthorised wifi devices. >>> >> >> Nothing illegal about someone sitting in a parking lot next door with a >> pineapple turned up to 11 that's washing out all the normal wifi spectrum. >> > > If we are talking about wifi 6E on 6 GHz sitting in a parking lot trying > to cause harmful interference within legal limits will not successfully > harm the operation within a building, especially not if the owner has a > security perimeter. Harmful interference on purpose is not legal in any > case. > > >> It would be illegal to do that with CBRS. >> > > On the other hand, saboteurs rarely care about legal and can easily jam > either system. > > And yet, this is simply not a real problem. Did you know that a larger > number of train transit systems are controlled by WiFi? Block that WiFi > signal and the trains stop city wide. But has this ever happened? > > Regards > > Baldur > >>
Re: private 5G networks?
I'm sorry Anthony, but you are just plain wrong. You do not have protection rights which means that people can infringe, but the SAS will only provide you a channel that others haven't already been granted. This is very different from protection rights which are guaranteed to higher class users. If this were the case, there would be no need for a SAS registration in the GAA space as it would be a free for all. And because it is still considered licensed spectrum, using it without being properly granted a channel is illegal, unlike unlicensed wifi. On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 5:31 PM Anthony wrote: > Opps, > > Replied direct this is a bit one sided of the conversation but I want to > make certain the community is clear on this as CBRS is a valuable spectrum. > > Unfortunately Shane this is incorrect. GAA is not significantly > different then any unlicensed spectrum as to interference avoidance. But > the SAS will typically have tools that will give you some info on how to > avoid channels already in use. This is truly useful. > > As a CBRS GAA user, i can understand your confusion, When a SAS (Spectrum > Access System) states a channel is "free" that just means it is not > currently in use by a higher priority user such as an incumbent or PAL > user. Any GAA can request a channel in use in the area by another GAA. > You have no interference protection rights as a GAA / 3rd tier user. Again > the SAS can and should assist you with finding a clean channel and potently > working as a mediator between GAA users but there is no guarantee or > protections. > > This might be helpful. @10:10 this video from google SAS's tech team > talks about this very thing. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ5pUE68ndE > > On 11/30/2021 2:53 PM, Shane Ronan wrote: > > What makes it different is once you've been allocated spectrum, which for > in-building use is almost guaranteed, no one else can use that spectrum, so > it's guaranteed. Unlike Wifi, where any device can transmit in those > frequencies. > > Shane > > On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 3:45 PM Michael Thomas wrote: > >> >> On 11/30/21 12:43 PM, Shane Ronan wrote: >> >> What do you mean 3rd Tier? >> >> General Authorized Access? Taken from some random site looking it up. >> >> Mike >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 2:47 PM Michael Thomas wrote: >> >>> >>> On 11/30/21 11:38 AM, Shane Ronan wrote: >>> >>> The spectrum is CBRS and there are MANY benefits to 5G over Wifi, >>> including but not limited to guaranteed spectrum. >>> >>> For the 3rd tier I assume that works pretty much like wifi spectrum, >>> right? It seems to be at about 3.5Ghz so that would be pretty short >>> distance. Other than handoff what other advantages does it have over wifi >>> (can wifi do seamless l2 handoff these days?) >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 2:29 PM Michael Thomas wrote: >>> https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2021/11/preview-aws-private-5g/ Why would somebody want this over wifi? And what spectrum are they using? They can't just camp on allocated spectrum, right? Mike
Re: private 5G networks?
tir. 30. nov. 2021 23.19 skrev Tom Beecher : > In my view there is no practical difference. The owner has full control of >> his warehouse and it would be very illegal for any outside party to install >> any device at all including unauthorised wifi devices. >> > > Nothing illegal about someone sitting in a parking lot next door with a > pineapple turned up to 11 that's washing out all the normal wifi spectrum. > If we are talking about wifi 6E on 6 GHz sitting in a parking lot trying to cause harmful interference within legal limits will not successfully harm the operation within a building, especially not if the owner has a security perimeter. Harmful interference on purpose is not legal in any case. > It would be illegal to do that with CBRS. > On the other hand, saboteurs rarely care about legal and can easily jam either system. And yet, this is simply not a real problem. Did you know that a larger number of train transit systems are controlled by WiFi? Block that WiFi signal and the trains stop city wide. But has this ever happened? Regards Baldur >
Re: private 5G networks?
Opps, Replied direct this is a bit one sided of the conversation but I want to make certain the community is clear on this as CBRS is a valuable spectrum. Unfortunately Shane this is incorrect. GAA is not significantly different then any unlicensed spectrum as to interference avoidance. But the SAS will typically have tools that will give you some info on how to avoid channels already in use. This is truly useful. As a CBRS GAA user, i can understand your confusion, When a SAS (Spectrum Access System) states a channel is "free" that just means it is not currently in use by a higher priority user such as an incumbent or PAL user. Any GAA can request a channel in use in the area by another GAA. You have no interference protection rights as a GAA / 3rd tier user. Again the SAS can and should assist you with finding a clean channel and potently working as a mediator between GAA users but there is no guarantee or protections. This might be helpful. @10:10 this video from google SAS's tech team talks about this very thing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ5pUE68ndE On 11/30/2021 2:53 PM, Shane Ronan wrote: What makes it different is once you've been allocated spectrum, which for in-building use is almost guaranteed, no one else can use that spectrum, so it's guaranteed. Unlike Wifi, where any device can transmit in those frequencies. Shane On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 3:45 PM Michael Thomas wrote: On 11/30/21 12:43 PM, Shane Ronan wrote: What do you mean 3rd Tier? General Authorized Access? Taken from some random site looking it up. Mike On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 2:47 PM Michael Thomas wrote: On 11/30/21 11:38 AM, Shane Ronan wrote: The spectrum is CBRS and there are MANY benefits to 5G over Wifi, including but not limited to guaranteed spectrum. For the 3rd tier I assume that works pretty much like wifi spectrum, right? It seems to be at about 3.5Ghz so that would be pretty short distance. Other than handoff what other advantages does it have over wifi (can wifi do seamless l2 handoff these days?) Mike On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 2:29 PM Michael Thomas wrote: https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2021/11/preview-aws-private-5g/ Why would somebody want this over wifi? And what spectrum are they using? They can't just camp on allocated spectrum, right? Mike
Re: private 5G networks?
> > In my view there is no practical difference. The owner has full control of > his warehouse and it would be very illegal for any outside party to install > any device at all including unauthorised wifi devices. > Nothing illegal about someone sitting in a parking lot next door with a pineapple turned up to 11 that's washing out all the normal wifi spectrum. It would be illegal to do that with CBRS. On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 4:57 PM Baldur Norddahl wrote: > > > tir. 30. nov. 2021 22.09 skrev Shane Ronan : > >> Happy, no, but it wouldn't be illegal. And if they are building their >> warehouse automation based on wifi, it would surely be a problem if someone >> was competing for bandwidth. >> > > In my view there is no practical difference. The owner has full control of > his warehouse and it would be very illegal for any outside party to install > any device at all including unauthorised wifi devices. > > For comparison, consider that many city train systems are operating > signaling using wifi equipment. > > Regards > > Baldur > >
Re: private 5G networks?
tir. 30. nov. 2021 22.09 skrev Shane Ronan : > Happy, no, but it wouldn't be illegal. And if they are building their > warehouse automation based on wifi, it would surely be a problem if someone > was competing for bandwidth. > In my view there is no practical difference. The owner has full control of his warehouse and it would be very illegal for any outside party to install any device at all including unauthorised wifi devices. For comparison, consider that many city train systems are operating signaling using wifi equipment. Regards Baldur
Re: private 5G networks?
Happy, no, but it wouldn't be illegal. And if they are building their warehouse automation based on wifi, it would surely be a problem if someone was competing for bandwidth. The policy functions and timing interval of a cellular network are also far superior to wifi. On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 4:00 PM Michael Thomas wrote: > > On 11/30/21 12:53 PM, Shane Ronan wrote: > > What makes it different is once you've been allocated spectrum, which for > in-building use is almost guaranteed, no one else can use that spectrum, so > it's guaranteed. Unlike Wifi, where any device can transmit in those > frequencies. > > If it's in premise would that really matter much? I mean if I tried to set > up an AP in an Amazon warehouse I assume they wouldn't be too happy about > that. > > Mike > > > > Shane > > On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 3:45 PM Michael Thomas wrote: > >> >> On 11/30/21 12:43 PM, Shane Ronan wrote: >> >> What do you mean 3rd Tier? >> >> General Authorized Access? Taken from some random site looking it up. >> >> Mike >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 2:47 PM Michael Thomas wrote: >> >>> >>> On 11/30/21 11:38 AM, Shane Ronan wrote: >>> >>> The spectrum is CBRS and there are MANY benefits to 5G over Wifi, >>> including but not limited to guaranteed spectrum. >>> >>> For the 3rd tier I assume that works pretty much like wifi spectrum, >>> right? It seems to be at about 3.5Ghz so that would be pretty short >>> distance. Other than handoff what other advantages does it have over wifi >>> (can wifi do seamless l2 handoff these days?) >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 2:29 PM Michael Thomas wrote: >>> https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2021/11/preview-aws-private-5g/ Why would somebody want this over wifi? And what spectrum are they using? They can't just camp on allocated spectrum, right? Mike
Re: private 5G networks?
On 11/30/21 12:53 PM, Shane Ronan wrote: What makes it different is once you've been allocated spectrum, which for in-building use is almost guaranteed, no one else can use that spectrum, so it's guaranteed. Unlike Wifi, where any device can transmit in those frequencies. If it's in premise would that really matter much? I mean if I tried to set up an AP in an Amazon warehouse I assume they wouldn't be too happy about that. Mike Shane On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 3:45 PM Michael Thomas wrote: On 11/30/21 12:43 PM, Shane Ronan wrote: What do you mean 3rd Tier? General Authorized Access? Taken from some random site looking it up. Mike On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 2:47 PM Michael Thomas wrote: On 11/30/21 11:38 AM, Shane Ronan wrote: The spectrum is CBRS and there are MANY benefits to 5G over Wifi, including but not limited to guaranteed spectrum. For the 3rd tier I assume that works pretty much like wifi spectrum, right? It seems to be at about 3.5Ghz so that would be pretty short distance. Other than handoff what other advantages does it have over wifi (can wifi do seamless l2 handoff these days?) Mike On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 2:29 PM Michael Thomas wrote: https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2021/11/preview-aws-private-5g/ Why would somebody want this over wifi? And what spectrum are they using? They can't just camp on allocated spectrum, right? Mike
Re: private 5G networks?
What makes it different is once you've been allocated spectrum, which for in-building use is almost guaranteed, no one else can use that spectrum, so it's guaranteed. Unlike Wifi, where any device can transmit in those frequencies. Shane On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 3:45 PM Michael Thomas wrote: > > On 11/30/21 12:43 PM, Shane Ronan wrote: > > What do you mean 3rd Tier? > > General Authorized Access? Taken from some random site looking it up. > > Mike > > > On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 2:47 PM Michael Thomas wrote: > >> >> On 11/30/21 11:38 AM, Shane Ronan wrote: >> >> The spectrum is CBRS and there are MANY benefits to 5G over Wifi, >> including but not limited to guaranteed spectrum. >> >> For the 3rd tier I assume that works pretty much like wifi spectrum, >> right? It seems to be at about 3.5Ghz so that would be pretty short >> distance. Other than handoff what other advantages does it have over wifi >> (can wifi do seamless l2 handoff these days?) >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 2:29 PM Michael Thomas wrote: >> >>> >>> https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2021/11/preview-aws-private-5g/ >>> >>> Why would somebody want this over wifi? And what spectrum are they >>> using? They can't just camp on allocated spectrum, right? >>> >>> Mike >>> >>>
Re: private 5G networks?
My assumption was that he meant GAA. On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 3:48 PM Shane Ronan wrote: > What do you mean 3rd Tier? > > On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 2:47 PM Michael Thomas wrote: > >> >> On 11/30/21 11:38 AM, Shane Ronan wrote: >> >> The spectrum is CBRS and there are MANY benefits to 5G over Wifi, >> including but not limited to guaranteed spectrum. >> >> For the 3rd tier I assume that works pretty much like wifi spectrum, >> right? It seems to be at about 3.5Ghz so that would be pretty short >> distance. Other than handoff what other advantages does it have over wifi >> (can wifi do seamless l2 handoff these days?) >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 2:29 PM Michael Thomas wrote: >> >>> >>> https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2021/11/preview-aws-private-5g/ >>> >>> Why would somebody want this over wifi? And what spectrum are they >>> using? They can't just camp on allocated spectrum, right? >>> >>> Mike >>> >>>
Re: private 5G networks?
On 11/30/21 12:43 PM, Shane Ronan wrote: What do you mean 3rd Tier? General Authorized Access? Taken from some random site looking it up. Mike On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 2:47 PM Michael Thomas wrote: On 11/30/21 11:38 AM, Shane Ronan wrote: The spectrum is CBRS and there are MANY benefits to 5G over Wifi, including but not limited to guaranteed spectrum. For the 3rd tier I assume that works pretty much like wifi spectrum, right? It seems to be at about 3.5Ghz so that would be pretty short distance. Other than handoff what other advantages does it have over wifi (can wifi do seamless l2 handoff these days?) Mike On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 2:29 PM Michael Thomas wrote: https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2021/11/preview-aws-private-5g/ Why would somebody want this over wifi? And what spectrum are they using? They can't just camp on allocated spectrum, right? Mike
Re: private 5G networks?
What do you mean 3rd Tier? On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 2:47 PM Michael Thomas wrote: > > On 11/30/21 11:38 AM, Shane Ronan wrote: > > The spectrum is CBRS and there are MANY benefits to 5G over Wifi, > including but not limited to guaranteed spectrum. > > For the 3rd tier I assume that works pretty much like wifi spectrum, > right? It seems to be at about 3.5Ghz so that would be pretty short > distance. Other than handoff what other advantages does it have over wifi > (can wifi do seamless l2 handoff these days?) > > Mike > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 2:29 PM Michael Thomas wrote: > >> https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2021/11/preview-aws-private-5g/ >> >> Why would somebody want this over wifi? And what spectrum are they >> using? They can't just camp on allocated spectrum, right? >> >> Mike >> >>
Re: private 5G networks?
Except there is spectrum available which is not subject to PAL, and for an inbuilding system with low power, there are specific exemptions that make it almost guaranteed when requested properly from the SAS. Shane On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 3:06 PM Josh Luthman wrote: > There is no guaranteed spectrum in CBRS without a PAL. That auction has > come and gone, but the license holders may rent out channels in time (this > is expected to happen). > > Josh Luthman > 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > > > On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 2:38 PM Shane Ronan > wrote: > >> The spectrum is CBRS and there are MANY benefits to 5G over Wifi, >> including but not limited to guaranteed spectrum. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 2:29 PM Michael Thomas wrote: >> >>> >>> https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2021/11/preview-aws-private-5g/ >>> >>> Why would somebody want this over wifi? And what spectrum are they >>> using? They can't just camp on allocated spectrum, right? >>> >>> Mike >>> >>>
Re: private 5G networks?
Wifi handoff is 802.11r. Josh Luthman 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 2:47 PM Michael Thomas wrote: > > On 11/30/21 11:38 AM, Shane Ronan wrote: > > The spectrum is CBRS and there are MANY benefits to 5G over Wifi, > including but not limited to guaranteed spectrum. > > For the 3rd tier I assume that works pretty much like wifi spectrum, > right? It seems to be at about 3.5Ghz so that would be pretty short > distance. Other than handoff what other advantages does it have over wifi > (can wifi do seamless l2 handoff these days?) > > Mike > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 2:29 PM Michael Thomas wrote: > >> https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2021/11/preview-aws-private-5g/ >> >> Why would somebody want this over wifi? And what spectrum are they >> using? They can't just camp on allocated spectrum, right? >> >> Mike >> >>
Re: private 5G networks?
There is no guaranteed spectrum in CBRS without a PAL. That auction has come and gone, but the license holders may rent out channels in time (this is expected to happen). Josh Luthman 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 2:38 PM Shane Ronan wrote: > The spectrum is CBRS and there are MANY benefits to 5G over Wifi, > including but not limited to guaranteed spectrum. > > > > On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 2:29 PM Michael Thomas wrote: > >> https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2021/11/preview-aws-private-5g/ >> >> Why would somebody want this over wifi? And what spectrum are they >> using? They can't just camp on allocated spectrum, right? >> >> Mike >> >>
Re: private 5G networks?
On 11/30/21 11:38 AM, Shane Ronan wrote: The spectrum is CBRS and there are MANY benefits to 5G over Wifi, including but not limited to guaranteed spectrum. For the 3rd tier I assume that works pretty much like wifi spectrum, right? It seems to be at about 3.5Ghz so that would be pretty short distance. Other than handoff what other advantages does it have over wifi (can wifi do seamless l2 handoff these days?) Mike On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 2:29 PM Michael Thomas wrote: https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2021/11/preview-aws-private-5g/ Why would somebody want this over wifi? And what spectrum are they using? They can't just camp on allocated spectrum, right? Mike
Re: private 5G networks?
The spectrum is CBRS and there are MANY benefits to 5G over Wifi, including but not limited to guaranteed spectrum. On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 2:29 PM Michael Thomas wrote: > https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2021/11/preview-aws-private-5g/ > > Why would somebody want this over wifi? And what spectrum are they > using? They can't just camp on allocated spectrum, right? > > Mike > >
