Have read that many carriers are reluctant to spend more on infrastructure and would prefer a 6G software upgrade to existing 5G equipment. Can a software upgrade provide improved spectral efficiency to the existing 4G/5G bands or does it require new radios. My understanding is that 6G may provide 2X-3X better spectral efficiency in same band over 5G but can that be accomplished with a software upgrade or need new radios?
Yes, software upgrades can provide improved spectral efficiency, but they cannot change the hardware configuration of an existing base station. If 5G equipment runs 6G software, it will still operate in the same frequency band, have the same number of antenna ports, and have the same built-in baseband processing. 2x-3x higher spectral efficiency will probably only be achievable using more antennas and higher-dimensional spatial multiplexing, which requires new hardware as well. I would rather aim for 20-30% higher spectral efficiency from software updates in existing radios. When 5G was released, some 4G base stations were turned into 4G/5G base stations through a software update. It built on the dynamic spectrum sharing concept, where the available spectrum was divided between 4G and 5G flexibly depending on the demand. Nokia explains the concept here: www.nokia.com/thought-leadership/articles/dynamic-spectrum-sharing-could-be-5g-solution-wireless-operators-looking-for/ Many telecom operators currently run non-standalone 5G networks, where their 5G radios are connected to a legacy 4G core network. Many core networks will likely be upgraded to 5G over the next five years. Similarly, we can expect that 6G radios will be connected to 5G core networks at the beginning of the 6G era. However, this combination will likely be less of a problem than in the past since the 5G core is very flexible and reconfigurable.
Aren't 'requirements' and 'specifications' imply the same things? To ask the question differently, What are the distinct roles of the ITU (requirements: you said) and the 3GPP (roles: you said) in modeling the next generation comm. system? In your video, releases of the 3GPP are mentioned. But nothing by the ITU. Thank you.
The ITU requirements refers to the performance (data rate, latency, etc.) that a technology must deliver to be called 6G. The 3GPP specifications refers to the details of the standard: How does the technology function in order to reach the performance requirements? ITU releases requirements once per decade (4G, 5G, 6G,…). 3GPP refines its standards every other year to add more functionalities, or making existing functionalities more attractive to implement in commercial products.
Dear Professor, Thank you very much for your informative videos. I have a question regarding efficiently finding relevant references in standards. For example, I am writing a thesis chapter regarding pilot assignment algorithms and would like to include a section about pilot assignment algorithms existing in practical (MIMO) networks after explaining all advanced schemes in the literature. After all my searches in textbooks and publications, I still can not find a very comprehensive summary of practical examples regarding pilot assignments. Most of them mentioned things like greedy algorithms based on a predefined set of pilot sequences, but practical examples were not cited. Could you please share some insights on how we can efficiently and precisely locate the references regarding telecom standards and real industry use cases? Many thanks!
When I worked on my thesis, I spent several days trying to understand what scheduling algorithms were used in the latest standard. I then realized that the standard does not specify such things. Most things related to resource allocation is purposely not standardized so that the vendors can compete on making the most efficient implementations. The standard is only a skeleton that specifies the most essential things related to protocols, when to transmit signals and how, etc. I believe the same applies to pilot allocation. The possible pilot sequences are standardized and how you tell the user which one is assigned, but you don’t specify how the selected is made or what kind of estimation algorithm will be used when receiving the pilot. I don’t know what practical systems use, but I would guess it is some kind of greedy algorithm that has been fine-tuned using extensive simulations.
@@WirelessFuture Thank you very much for your reply. That explains a lot! I guess I will stop searching on those standardisation websites for a precise pilot assignment protocol!
Thanks Prof. Björnson. How do you think about using sub-THz wave for communications? Since the limited power of THz sources, it seems we already reach the threshold for higher generation communications, on Earth right? In my opinion, if we need higher data rate with high reliability, the base stations will be in a few meters....
I’ve heard that the 3GPP channel models are being enhanced to also capture sub-THz bands. These bands could be used for fixed wireless backhaul links (or even fixed wireless access), where one can guarantee line-of-sight conditions in the deployment. However, I think sub-THz communications to mobile users is much further into the future, and will not happen until after mmWave communications to mobile users become a commercial success (if that will ever happen).
Concerning your new book, I am struggeling with exercice 6.3. I know we must build the derivative. My approach: the term behind the LAGRANGE multipl. becomes 0 because the sum is 1 and we get 1-1, so the term is canceled. The term behind the first sum: I use the product rule for the derivative. But I get a complicated expression: Sum(B/log(2)*[log(1+(P*beta_k)/(xi_k*B*N))-(P*beta_k)/(B*N+P*beta_k*xi_k^-1)]=0. The expression in the squated brackets must be 0. Perhaps you have a little time. Thanks.
If you write up the Lagrangian and compute the derivative with respect to \xi_k, you will get something of the kind: log2(1+(P*beta_k)/(xi_k*B*N0)) - log2(e)(P*beta_k/xi_k)/(B*N0+P*beta_k/xi_k) - Lagrange multiplier. This should be equal to zero for all k. Since the Lagrange multiplier doesn't depend on k, the expression can only be zero for all k if beta_k/xi_k=constant. It then remains to identify the right value of the constant.
4 місяці тому+1
The governing structure of the telecommunication industry is fascinating. The first thing I noticed after entering the field is that there are so many cartoon drawings in the papers. The second thing is that there are so many conferences. The third thing is what you are presenting here, the governing structure. It is very much a system of its own. I don't think any other field has such a close-knit governing body involving industry, academia, and regulators.
There were competing cellular standards in the 1G, 2G, and 3G eras, but the telecom industry has since then realized the benefits of having only one global standard so that the same equipment can be sold everywhere. The standard is only a skeleton that enables interoperability between equipment developed by different vendors, which can still compete when it comes to the implementation details. Since standardization is done with unanimous decisions, there are many features in the standard that were added for bargaining reasons but that might never be utilized in practice.
Dear Professor Björnson, Thanks for your educational material! I've been following it since the early days when I started to get into MIMO. Have you followed the recent research applications of AI surrogates in Digital Engineering? AI surrogates enable to turn engineering simulations (from CFD, FEA, CEA to even CEM) from hour-long computations to instantaneous predictions. Additionally, they provide gradients to optimize for certain outcomes. Have you thought of how to apply this in cellular/mobile communication? Are you aware of any researcher who does?
I haven’t worked with this myself, but there is a lot of talk about building digital twins of cellular networks to optimize their operation. I believe that can be related to the surrogate AI approach.
5:44 Brian computing things like Elon musk cyborg dreams😮😂😂 12:21 You are continuenly adding features in 5G also..I wonder telcos of different countries will also eager to upgrade themselves as well as people using smartphones.. This is kinda complex enough😅 16:26 Still we. need to use 5G for higher range cuase if 6G gets live,4G gets depreciated.. 16:59 That's better to know?😄
We focused on 6G to keep the video short, but all the 3GPP releases mentioned in the middle of the video will also contain enhancements of 5G. Moreover, some of the improvements developed for 6G will be added to 5G as well, but in a less refined form since the system must be backward compatible. As mentioned in the video, 6G will continue to evolve from 2030-2040.
5G that is producing 1G speeds is what 4G was billed to max out at. 3G speeds are what 4G was billed to max out at. Are you seeing a trend? 6G will be a huge disappointment, too
5G is a very capable technology that greatly improves the network capacity. The main issue is that the telecom industry tried associating the 5G technology with new "5G services". It is the uptake of those services that has been disappointingly slow so far. It is only mobile broadband and fixed wireless access that have been commercially successful in 5G so far. This has happened before. 3G was supposed to be about video telephony, but it didn't take off until we entered the 4G era.
Thanks a lot for this information....Really interesting
Have read that many carriers are reluctant to spend more on infrastructure and would prefer a 6G software upgrade to existing 5G equipment. Can a software upgrade provide improved spectral efficiency to the existing 4G/5G bands or does it require new radios. My understanding is that 6G may provide 2X-3X better spectral efficiency in same band over 5G but can that be accomplished with a software upgrade or need new radios?
Yes, software upgrades can provide improved spectral efficiency, but they cannot change the hardware configuration of an existing base station. If 5G equipment runs 6G software, it will still operate in the same frequency band, have the same number of antenna ports, and have the same built-in baseband processing. 2x-3x higher spectral efficiency will probably only be achievable using more antennas and higher-dimensional spatial multiplexing, which requires new hardware as well. I would rather aim for 20-30% higher spectral efficiency from software updates in existing radios.
When 5G was released, some 4G base stations were turned into 4G/5G base stations through a software update. It built on the dynamic spectrum sharing concept, where the available spectrum was divided between 4G and 5G flexibly depending on the demand. Nokia explains the concept here:
www.nokia.com/thought-leadership/articles/dynamic-spectrum-sharing-could-be-5g-solution-wireless-operators-looking-for/
Many telecom operators currently run non-standalone 5G networks, where their 5G radios are connected to a legacy 4G core network. Many core networks will likely be upgraded to 5G over the next five years. Similarly, we can expect that 6G radios will be connected to 5G core networks at the beginning of the 6G era. However, this combination will likely be less of a problem than in the past since the 5G core is very flexible and reconfigurable.
Aren't 'requirements' and 'specifications' imply the same things? To ask the question differently, What are the distinct roles of the ITU (requirements: you said) and the 3GPP (roles: you said) in modeling the next generation comm. system? In your video, releases of the 3GPP are mentioned. But nothing by the ITU.
Thank you.
The ITU requirements refers to the performance (data rate, latency, etc.) that a technology must deliver to be called 6G. The 3GPP specifications refers to the details of the standard: How does the technology function in order to reach the performance requirements?
ITU releases requirements once per decade (4G, 5G, 6G,…). 3GPP refines its standards every other year to add more functionalities, or making existing functionalities more attractive to implement in commercial products.
Good job putting this together. Thank you for posting.
Dear Professor, Thank you very much for your informative videos. I have a question regarding efficiently finding relevant references in standards. For example, I am writing a thesis chapter regarding pilot assignment algorithms and would like to include a section about pilot assignment algorithms existing in practical (MIMO) networks after explaining all advanced schemes in the literature. After all my searches in textbooks and publications, I still can not find a very comprehensive summary of practical examples regarding pilot assignments. Most of them mentioned things like greedy algorithms based on a predefined set of pilot sequences, but practical examples were not cited. Could you please share some insights on how we can efficiently and precisely locate the references regarding telecom standards and real industry use cases? Many thanks!
When I worked on my thesis, I spent several days trying to understand what scheduling algorithms were used in the latest standard. I then realized that the standard does not specify such things. Most things related to resource allocation is purposely not standardized so that the vendors can compete on making the most efficient implementations. The standard is only a skeleton that specifies the most essential things related to protocols, when to transmit signals and how, etc.
I believe the same applies to pilot allocation. The possible pilot sequences are standardized and how you tell the user which one is assigned, but you don’t specify how the selected is made or what kind of estimation algorithm will be used when receiving the pilot.
I don’t know what practical systems use, but I would guess it is some kind of greedy algorithm that has been fine-tuned using extensive simulations.
@@WirelessFuture Thank you very much for your reply. That explains a lot! I guess I will stop searching on those standardisation websites for a precise pilot assignment protocol!
Thanks Prof. Björnson. How do you think about using sub-THz wave for communications? Since the limited power of THz sources, it seems we already reach the threshold for higher generation communications, on Earth right? In my opinion, if we need higher data rate with high reliability, the base stations will be in a few meters....
I’ve heard that the 3GPP channel models are being enhanced to also capture sub-THz bands. These bands could be used for fixed wireless backhaul links (or even fixed wireless access), where one can guarantee line-of-sight conditions in the deployment. However, I think sub-THz communications to mobile users is much further into the future, and will not happen until after mmWave communications to mobile users become a commercial success (if that will ever happen).
Concerning your new book, I am struggeling with exercice 6.3. I know we must build the derivative.
My approach: the term behind the LAGRANGE multipl. becomes 0 because the sum is 1 and we get 1-1, so the term is canceled.
The term behind the first sum: I use the product rule for the derivative. But I get a complicated expression:
Sum(B/log(2)*[log(1+(P*beta_k)/(xi_k*B*N))-(P*beta_k)/(B*N+P*beta_k*xi_k^-1)]=0.
The expression in the squated brackets must be 0.
Perhaps you have a little time. Thanks.
If you write up the Lagrangian and compute the derivative with respect to \xi_k, you will get something of the kind:
log2(1+(P*beta_k)/(xi_k*B*N0)) - log2(e)(P*beta_k/xi_k)/(B*N0+P*beta_k/xi_k) - Lagrange multiplier.
This should be equal to zero for all k. Since the Lagrange multiplier doesn't depend on k, the expression can only be zero for all k if beta_k/xi_k=constant. It then remains to identify the right value of the constant.
The governing structure of the telecommunication industry is fascinating. The first thing I noticed after entering the field is that there are so many cartoon drawings in the papers. The second thing is that there are so many conferences. The third thing is what you are presenting here, the governing structure. It is very much a system of its own. I don't think any other field has such a close-knit governing body involving industry, academia, and regulators.
There were competing cellular standards in the 1G, 2G, and 3G eras, but the telecom industry has since then realized the benefits of having only one global standard so that the same equipment can be sold everywhere. The standard is only a skeleton that enables interoperability between equipment developed by different vendors, which can still compete when it comes to the implementation details. Since standardization is done with unanimous decisions, there are many features in the standard that were added for bargaining reasons but that might never be utilized in practice.
Very valuable material, keep it up
Very good material, indeed. Professor I will ask for material on critical communications on 4G and 5G.
Thanks a lot for this information. Really interesting
Dear Professor Björnson, Thanks for your educational material! I've been following it since the early days when I started to get into MIMO.
Have you followed the recent research applications of AI surrogates in Digital Engineering?
AI surrogates enable to turn engineering simulations (from CFD, FEA, CEA to even CEM) from hour-long computations to instantaneous predictions. Additionally, they provide gradients to optimize for certain outcomes.
Have you thought of how to apply this in cellular/mobile communication? Are you aware of any researcher who does?
I haven’t worked with this myself, but there is a lot of talk about building digital twins of cellular networks to optimize their operation. I believe that can be related to the surrogate AI approach.
5:44 Brian computing things like Elon musk cyborg dreams😮😂😂
12:21 You are continuenly adding features in 5G also..I wonder telcos of different countries will also eager to upgrade themselves as well as people using smartphones..
This is kinda complex enough😅
16:26 Still we. need to use 5G for higher range cuase if 6G gets live,4G gets depreciated..
16:59 That's better to know?😄
Why isn't 5G advanced aka 5.5G mentioned since that's the upcoming bridge to 6G?
We focused on 6G to keep the video short, but all the 3GPP releases mentioned in the middle of the video will also contain enhancements of 5G. Moreover, some of the improvements developed for 6G will be added to 5G as well, but in a less refined form since the system must be backward compatible. As mentioned in the video, 6G will continue to evolve from 2030-2040.
Internet = 6
Geração = Até =
Ano = 2030 =
Estar = Pronta !
Funcionamento ! ;
China ; Japan ;
U.S.A. ; Koréa ;
Taiwan ; Germany; France;
U.K. ; Etc :
Até = Ano = 2030
Pronta ! ❤❤❤🤫😲😲😲😲😲
👍👍👍👍
5G that is producing 1G speeds is what 4G was billed to max out at. 3G speeds are what 4G was billed to max out at. Are you seeing a trend? 6G will be a huge disappointment, too
5G is a very capable technology that greatly improves the network capacity. The main issue is that the telecom industry tried associating the 5G technology with new "5G services". It is the uptake of those services that has been disappointingly slow so far. It is only mobile broadband and fixed wireless access that have been commercially successful in 5G so far.
This has happened before. 3G was supposed to be about video telephony, but it didn't take off until we entered the 4G era.
@@WirelessFuturewhic version of 5G are using, who produced it😮😊
bro, just make internet in the phone (facepalm) BUILT IN INTERNET HELLO