The Trouble with 5G
backreaction.blogspot.com
backreaction.blogspot.com
https://www.ericsson.com/en/blog/2020/12/5g-positioning--wha... sez —
“The arrival of 5G delivers new enhanced parameters for positioning accuracy down to the meter, decimeter and centimeter.”
“Positioning of users and devices across general indoor environments, such as offices, shops, logistics, etc., was a focus area of 3GPP Release 16.”
https://venturebeat.com/mobile/sk-telecom-will-use-5g-to-bui... sez —
“While current [2019] smartphones can under some circumstances send and receive location data with 3-foot accuracy, it takes an external GNSS receiver to access location services with centimeter-level accuracy.”
https://www.fastcompany.com/90314058/5g-means-youll-have-to-... sez —
“[5G network positioning] data can also enable advertisers and data brokers to see the exact routes you take each day and even which buildings you go into. And anyone with access to your mobile network’s cell tower data will now be able to track your movements in real time.”
It's going to be a whole new category of passive location tracking.
To be pedantic, LTE stands for “Long-term evolution” and was always intended to be the foundation of future cell network standards.
I won’t get too into the details, but generations 1-4 dealt primarily with modulation techniques, and OFDM (the technique used in LTE) is more or less the best we know how to do over wireless.
[1]https://www.wired.com/story/3g-service-sunset-what-it-means
Ultimately, it has always been like that, since the dawn of civilization. The answer is not fighting technological advances, but regulating the use of technology from law enforcement (and the government, and bad actors) instead.
For very privacy-conscious users, you can always turn off UWB.
In crowded places like trains or planes, where it matters most for me personally, you already don't have a location privacy once you've boarded: your seat is known.
I expect in a few years even shoes will connect somewhere while being powered and recharged by walking. And of course free gait analysis through internal pressure sensors and accelerometers, apps for running or dancing (turn on a IoT device by doing a tip-tap, find your ideal dancing partner, etc) will be the way manufacturers will sell them to the masses, at the price of more and more personal data being surrendered.
I don't care much about what people do with their privacy, that's their business, but how can I enter someone's house, shop or car knowing that there will be no less than a half dozen devices listening to my voice or shooting a picture of me without asking?
Note that I absolutely love the good that 5G and further technologies can bring. It's just some of their uses that concern me.
There are solutions to that problem: https://xkcd.com/1807/
And yet it's first deployed set of standards that encrypts IMSI? (this is pushing Stingrays to obsolescence, Harris stopped making them) https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwide-digital-identity-an... < from one of the world's primary producers of SIM cards.
In a densified enough network (cities) the carrier knows where users are within a few meters by correlating timing advance from the towers. This is independent of any software installed on user equipment. mmwave spectrum in the most populated areas (stadiums/train stations) brings this to centimeter-level due to physics, but we're just splitting hairs. This should be a key area of focus on privacy legislation, on 'who' should be allowed to access this data (LEO with a warrant). Even if user device lacks the hardware, the network side can have hardware installed to measure precise location of user equipment
Other wireless technologies independent of the cellular network can be used for correlation and privacy relies on the device randomizing macaddr for beacons, both Bluetooth and WiFi. GNSS (except for Beidou, which is disabled in firmware in the US) are one-way comms unless the phone is snitching on you.
> this attack provides a new way to track a user’s location not just over 3G and 4G, but even over 5G. Location tracking seems to be the most common use for IMSI catchers by American law enforcement and this vulnerability could provide the next generation of CSSs with a way to track user location, even over 5G.
> It’s important to keep in mind here that, for cases of lawful intervention from law enforcement agencies, there are better ways than this attack technique to get location information, such as getting a warrant and getting the information directly from the phone companies. People working outside the legal system, such as spies and criminals, cannot get warrants and cannot typically work directly with the phone companies.
Colour me skeptical on the latter. What kind of criminal is tech savvy enough to want location data, but can't think of either using a fake business to buy the data (if it's legally allowed to be sold by the phone company), or bribing a phone company employee, or becoming / having one of your criminal team become an employee there, or commit another crime such as hacking into the phone company to steal data, or...?
Blackhat 2020, Detecting Fake 4G Base Stations in Real Time, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32237621
As to your second point, law enforcement buys units like this to bypass normal due process out of the system (having to go to a judge for every minor crime/investigation). I mentioned in my comment that the network will always have this information, even back to 2G there was additional equipment added to the towers when E911 mandates took effect to get better location information off connected user equipment. Reading about E911 requirements is enlightening to learn more about the 'how':
https://urgentcomm.com/2008/07/01/different-strokes/
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/01/16/2019-28...
If there's a 5G protocol vulnerability, it can be exploited with an SDR and custom software, even if no commercial product is sold for this purpose.
2021 Blackhat, https://i.blackhat.com/USA21/Wednesday-Handouts/us-21-5G-IMS...
> IMSI catcher attack is possible in both 5G NSA and SA networks
• 4G RAN security == 5G NSA (false sense of 5G security)
• Unfixed radio protocols allow targeted attacks
• For end users, no control over choosing the most secure network
• No security indicators for connected network
• Need continuous & proactive security monitoring of 5G RAN configsBut we are derailing. All the slides you've linked acknowledge the attempts made in 5G to improve privacy and most of the practical attacks rely on implementation mistakes or downgrade attacks (which should be less possible as legacy networks disappear). I originally responded on the topic to note that for the first time on a global standard there was an attempt to encrypt subscriber identifying data. Earlier standards made no such attempt and were broken in other ways. (For example GSM had two replaced cracked/backdoored encryption standards A5/1 and A5/2 which were replaced by A5/3 and the standard never made any attempt to authenticate towers)
Practically, 5G phones today remain vulnerable to IMSI catching.
And it needs to update fast enough that it can be in a vehicle on the highway or a high speed train and still maintain connectivity.
The need to have more users on the same spevtrum requires sharper antenna beamwidths and smaller cells. All of which either require more precise positioning or make it possible.
All of this is linked with the technology used. Sadly I only see legistlation limiting what can be collected and used being a counter for this getting exploited.
5G isn't mmWave. mmWave isn't REAL 5G. This is the most common misconception on the internet inclusive but not limited to HN. AFAIK, till late 2021, no county other than USA has used or plan to use mmWave for their mobile network. The only usage outside of USA are for residential Wireless Internet. And those were on trial only.
Even the biggest proponent of mmWave, Verizon are backing off mmWave expansion.
5G has lots of things other than mmWave. As a matter of fact mmWave isn't even 1% of the initial 5G ( 3GPP R15 ) spec. And the same goes to 6G, which is NOT about higher frequency either. Another misconception is you need higher frequency for more bandwidth. Which is true in Shannon's law [2]. But we dont need more maximum bandwidth, we need higher capacity, or same bandwidth in ( e.g 1Gbps ) available to more people at the same time. i.e Network Capacity. And that, is what 5G ( Massive MIMO ) and 6G ( Distributed MIMO ) is about. ( Along with dozens of other things )
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32635268
[2] I still remember my professor told me the exact same thing in the 90s when I was doing work on 3G. How we will soon reach those limit. So for people who has not worked in the Wireless / Mobile industry space. A lot of what we take for granted today were essentially miracle or black magic not that long ago.
So why is my meter picking up signals up to 40 GHz from the towers in my small tourist town?
What a silly argument. I'm sorry about nitpicking on one minor point of a long post, but percentage of the text of the standard is a rediculous thing to bring up and very irrelavent.
Another data point: I speed tested at more than 3GBits down on UWB service on the street in Chicago.
It has no reach. It's for high density applications, which seems like a good idea, but is probably already covered adequately by wifi.
I doubt we will see _real_ THz comms in 6G, maybe we go up to a few 100s of GHz, but not THz (I know many in the industry use THz to mean anything from ~50GHz, but that's just marketing rubbish).
Regarding THz, FCC already opened the band till 3THz for 6G testing. I dont track, but next WRC might be planned for 2024 or 2025 (because of COVID, all the schedules are screwed up). The next WRC will kick start the standardization fo 6G and there is more possibility of THz to be part of 6G. Although as I mentioned earlier, my guess is, it more than a decade before THz band will be in use for mobility.
> ( Along with dozens of other things )
To name a few: Enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB), Ultra Reliable Low Latency Communications (URLLC), Massive Machine Type Communications (mMTC), massive MIMO (multiple-input, multiple-output), beam forming, etc.
They also have this strongly science sceptic undertone. While I appreciate that an healthy amount of skepticism is a good thing, the undertones in her posts are much more of a general criticism of science/scientists without any actual arguments.
She also clearly plays with the uncertainty. First stating that yes she doesn't believe there is an issue, but then starting a discussion about the quality of the publications. Now quality of health impact studies is an interesting discussion, but I don't think it's relevant here. Moreover, the way she summarizes the shortcomings in the studies is somewhat selective/misleading, the full quote is:
> Our meta-analysis showed that the bulk of the studies had a quality score lower than 2 out of a possible 5, with only one study achieving a maximum quality score of 5 [9]. The meta-analysis further showed that studies with a low quality score were more likely to show a greater effect.
I think leaving out that last sentence gives a misleading impression.
Another quote from her video/post:
> So scientists say there’s nothing to worry. Well, they also said that smoking is good for you and alcohol doesn’t cross the placenta and that copies of you live in parallel universes.
If you actually follow the link to "they said smoking is good for you" you find it links to the The Stanford Research into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising (SRITA) collection. That's advertising, not scientists who said that smoking is good for you. Again a misleading quote/citation.
And this is not the first time she does this. They are always somewhat plausible deniability kind of sentences, but the repetition of these memes makes me suspect she is purposefully pondering to a specific audience.
After that, it tails off. Convention centers. Busy downtown intersections.
Of course China is ahead in this. They need it. China has ten cities with more people than New York. Most of the US has nowhere near the population density of coastal China. Not much of a use case for short range millimeter microwave.
Not a big problem if they can't do that. But since they are trying to do that it means anybody who truly needs to make a phone-call, or video-call, might not be able to do it. That may not sound so critical, but it can mean whether a phone-company keeps a customer or not. Customers pay for perceived value including reliability.
Honestly, watching football on TV is better than the stadium for many reasons. Yet people want to go to the stadium to be part of an immersive experience (and so they can tell their friends "I was there when so and so broke the NFL rushing record", etc.). So going to the game and still watching a broadcast of the game simultaneously is a desirable experience for a lot of people.
And I'm reasonably sure the same basic principle applies to most other sports that are played in large stadiums.
Whether it's a "waste of time" or not probably depends on your perspective. Some people think watching sports in general is a waste of time. Others think playing D&D is a waste of time. Somebody, somewhere, probably thinks posting on HN is a waste of time...
This argument strikes me as an analog of the "Nobody needs a gigabit line, 25Mbps is enough to stream Netflix in 4k." That position doesn't leave room for future use.
Regarding use cases for mmWave: mmWave exhibits the classic tradeoff of range vs bitrate. mmWave makes a lot of sense anywhere short range, high bitrate communications for the bill, such as home WAN, for example. When it comes to RF pollution, the short penetration of mmWave is actually better than the sub-6Ghz band of classic WAN (wifi).
Edit: one thing I am curious about is how energy consumption and EM pollution actually compares across a 4G and 5G stack. I could see it going either way depending on protocol differences alone, but physically speaking, allowing higher frequencies and faster bitrates should serve to (1) reduce EM pollution (2) improve energy efficiency of actual wire comms.
I don't know that technology is really the solution here. Why bother going to the stadium to watch the game on your phone?
5G ultra wide band has to be one of the most over hyped technologies in recent times. It has stupendously bad range and made zero improvement to a person’s daily use of their mobile phone. Embarrassing it was hyped as much by Verizon and the like (I don’t hear about nearly as much now).
I live in a metropolitan area and I don’t think I have ever had an ultra wide band connection.
Even 5g promises like putting compute closer to edge fall short. Edge computing is merely sending packets to a Verizon data center in the local area: https://aws.amazon.com/wavelength/, which is only slightly better than sending to a computer running on something like cloudflare that works independently of the cell phone network.
That line shows up in press releases:
"Imagine a world where car accidents are a thing of the past; where chronic health conditions like diabetes are managed 24-7 without blood sugar highs and lows; where smart homes unlock doors with a face scan, and then automatically adjust lighting and temperature and even order groceries for delivery before you run out of milk."
None of which require 5G. Those are all low-bandwidth applications, or even ones that run locally.
IMO the ongoing push to make IoT happen is less about the technology and more about trying to get the next 10B devices online and paying network access fees, software license fees, etc. As you mention, a lot of the proposed use cases are very low data (maybe a few MB/day on the higher end).
AR? Gaming? Perhaps.
But most applications are fine with 10-50ms RTT. I think edge compute will happen but it won’t be as ubiquitous as the telcos would like.
> The fourth Generation of wireless networks, four G for short, is now being extended to five G, and six G is in planning.
Spelling out "four G" does not improve clarity. The sentence should be: The fourth generation of wireless networks, 4G for short, is now being extended to 5G, and 6G is in planning.
> GigaHertz ... Giga Hertz
Must be written as gigahertz.
> four hundred Mega Hertz
Should be written as 400 MHz; using number words doesn't improve clarity.
Also, the factual content could be improved in a few places:
> If you want to transfer more information through a channel with a fixed noise-level, you have to increase either the bandwidth or the power.
There's also beamforming and MIMO.
> If you took all the water in the atmosphere and put it on the ground you’d get about 2.5 cm. The clouds alone merely make a tenth of a millimeter.
To make the comparison easier, it should be written as 25.0 mm and 0.1 mm. Ironically, she linked to an original video that indeed uses millimetres.
> The European Commission has agreed on –42 decibel watts for 5G base stations. The FCC in the US set a limit at –20 decibel watt. This is a logarithmic scale, so this is more than 30 orders of magnitude above the limit the meteorologists ask for.
No, it's 3 orders of magnitude, or 1000×.
In the spirit of being pedantic (don't take too seriously):
"There's also beamforming and MIMO" No. Beamforming attempts to increase apparent power by changing parameters. One could just as easily say "moving sender and recipient closer". MIMO is also manipulation of sending and receiving antennae, and therefore irrelevant to the discussion about transmitting through a channel with a fixed noise level.
She did make a mistake about the number of orders of magnitude, though.
Making new antennae, changing current antennae, moving them closer, aiming them differently, replacing them with an ethernet cable are all ways of increasing effective bandwidth, but those are outside of what she's talking about.
"If you want to transfer more information through a channel with a fixed noise-level"
Here, since this seems tough for you:
"If you want to execute instructions more quickly in a CPU, you can increase the clock speed."
You're saying, "but if you put in a new CPU that has higher IPC"...
Yes beamforming changes the SNR at the receiver, by shaping the beam to be more "concentrated", i.e. focusing onto the receiver. It is highly relevant because yes by increasing the SNR at your receiver you do increase the throughput (albeit only logarithmically). MIMO is very relevant to the discussion, because instead of increasing bandwidth you increase dimensionality of your channel, which has the same effect (i.e. you increase the term in front of the log in Shannon's formula). I don't know why this should be irrelevant for a channel with fixed noise level (also it's probably more correct to say fixed SNR).
FAA Shows ‘Sample NOTAMs’ for Possible 5G Restrictions https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29694085
My comment at the time https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29696273
This is all ridiculous, there's still a 200 MHz band guard between the FAA band and the 5G proposed band.
Here is what a $1 ESP wifi dongle has to follow:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11
"The mask requires the signal to be attenuated a minimum of 20 dB from its peak amplitude at ±11 MHz from the center frequency"
So 2 dB/MHz filter.
I let you do the math.
FAA is just ridiculous here if they let old junk radio hardware handle safety landings for airplanes, but well after 737 max what do you expect...
https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-statements-5g
Airlines and other operators of aircraft equipped with the affected radio altimeters must install filters or other enhancements as soon as possible."
One thing is different: around 20 GHz there's lots of frequencies available (vs 5GHz) so we could have larger guard band without significant impact.
So we have our doppler weather radar transmitting at 450kW, traveling out a big distance to a storm (inverse square), and reflecting at very low efficiency, and traveling back (inverse square). Compare to a base station putting out 40W that's closer and just subject to inverse square law. It can easily be 10 orders of magnitude stronger. You need pretty good filtering for this.
> One thing is different: around 20 GHz there's lots of frequencies available (vs 5GHz) so we could have larger guard band without significant impact.
You need a much larger guard band. It's easy to make a 1MHz wide filter at 10MHz, and really hard at 100000MHz.
Another important thing: parasitics start to matter a whole lot, too. You can have a filter that sharply rolls off around your fundamental, but then above the resonant frequencies of your passives/filter elements become transmissive again. It's pretty hard to keep 20GHz out of a receiver that was designed for a lower frequency before 20GHz was a major concern.
(ignoring reflection efficiency, but that isn't determined by distance)
No. For a diffuse reflection, the amount of light hitting your target is inverse square. And then it is scattered and inverse square back on the return journey.
1/x^2 * 1/x^2 = 1/x^4.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar#Radar_range_equation
"In the common case where the transmitter and the receiver are at the same location, Rt = Rr and the term Rt² Rr² can be replaced by R^4, where R is the range."
(This all assumes that your target is smaller than the beam size, of course-- which is not as true for the two cases of a radar altimeter or a doppler radar as it is for e.g. tracking aircraft... but it's still close enough in practice).
I got a tip from a friend last month to try disabling 5G and use LTE instead. It’s cleared up 90+% of the issues I was experiencing.
5G to me is a marketing joke which made my reception significantly worse
Which means that not only do advanced economies fail to reap the full benefit of the technologies they develop (because people resist them for wrong reasons), but also the people in those societies get harmed by flaws in the technology that could have been addressed if a proper open conversation were possible.
This means that conspiracy theories and misinformation ends up doing double damage, making it the ideal weapon of authoritarian regimes which have more control over their country's media and less of a technological advantage (so holding back technology in other countries helps them close the gap).
I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to imagine how this might apply to the online discourse around Covid and vaccines, but I'll give a clue about which country might have the most to gain from misinformation about both that topic and about 5G technology:
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/factory-lies-russi...
As for use cases it's a faster network in latency terms. There might be fewer use cases for it now but there were no use cases for WiFi before wifi exist. Once that infrastructure is built people will use it. By definition it's impossible to get a latency of less than 10ms on a large portion of LTE networks. If you have a sensor that requires a response that fast you simply won't use LTE because it's not possible to meet those mission requirements.
5G also has that beam forming whose goal is reduce congestion and solve the penetration issues but that is still being proven
There are massive use cases for it, but not at the people level. Low latency tasks such as edge AI classification, IOT interaction, and game streaming are all currently limited to WiFi only.
> Once that infrastructure is built people will use it.
This is a fallacy.
All of this was to say that 5G has applications even if they might not appear to the OP and that it's only going to be used more once people can actually access 5G technology. It's still in the early stages even in areas which claim that are on 5G for the most part its 5G NSA mode where the backing core network is all LTE still. I also feel as though OP was really talking down 5G trying to bring nonsensical technically problems and unproven medical problems that have no evidence.
You yourself pointed out several applications but your quoting the very advantage I was talking about which was latency. Which we both agree is extremely beneficial but the over arching point is that we don't know all the things that will benefit from 5G because we have not observed them and while IoT, AI, and streaming will absolutely benefit the benefit does not end there. There absolutely will be more areas that benefit which is what I'm trying to communicate
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S14384...
* if the intensity is not too high
Don't put your head inside a microwave. Don't hug the transmisor of a antena that broadcast tv or radio. ...
* non ionizing radiation
Gamma rays, X rays and some UV rays are dangerous. Try to avoid them and keep a low dose for important medical treatments. Use solar protection to block UV rays.
> Now, as I said, there’s no reason to think that five G is harmful. Indeed, there’s good reason to think it’s not [harmful], because millimeter waves have been used in medicine for a long time and for all we know they only enter the upper skin layers.
Are you afraid of red leds?
Each photons of a red les has like 1000x the energy of a photon of 5G. Most of the damage is caused by the energy of each photon, so red photons are more dangerous.
Also, a red led against your skin has more power than a 5G antena far away. You can get hurt when there are really a lot of photons, but both have very low power to be dangerous.
And a normal light lamp has even more power and higher energy photons, and they are safe.
And sunlight has even more power and higher energy photons, and it's safe if you filter UV-B rays that are the ones with more energy.
And neither of us can say it safe because as she pointed out there are enough studently to conclude that it’s safe.
c=lambda*f The wavelength of a red led is ~630nm so the frequency is ~480 THz. The energy of a photon is E=hf so proportional to the frequency. Therefore a red LED photon has approximately 20,000 times the energy of a 25 GHz 5G photon.
Admittedly I only have a high-school level knowledge of this, but my understanding is that (as the parent said) higher frequency = higher energy = lower wavelength. Hence visible light has more energy than any sort of microwave.
Did you mean the "length of the wave" instead of the "energy of the wavelength"? In that case we all agree.
I am using amplitude to describe the energy of a wave, you are using frequency.
EDIT: To expand on this further, you are materialists and think light is a particle, a photon. But light is not a particle, it is a wave and it always is a wave, until we measure it. Objectively it is a wave (a probability), subjectively it is a particle (a certainty).
What you are measuring is what you measure, so you cannot see the effects of what you are not measuring.
Because this radiation is non-ionizing you think it is harmless. That is your folly and not mine.
Because you think the energy of the wave lay only in the photon means you can see the energy of the wavelength.
It's more complicated. Anyway, when the light colide with your skin it counts like a "measurement". Most of the times, the light colides with an electron of your skin and the energy that the electron get's is the same energy that it would get in the photoelectric effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect
> Is it's energy in the frequency or the amplitude?
Both. You can calculate the energy using the amplitude, and that energy determines how many photons will you count in a photoelectric experiment.
The wavelength determines the energy of each photon. The amplitudes determines the total amount of energy in all photons.
> Because this radiation is non-ionizing you think it is harmless.
Note that there are two ways in which light can be dangerous, let's call the "cancer" and "cooking".
As far as we know, non-ionizing radiation does not cause cancer.
You can cook something/someone using non-ionizing radiation but the power of the 5G antenas in not enough where people can go.
The review shows: 1) 5G lower frequencies (700 and 3 600 MHz): a) limited evidence of carcinogenicity in epidemiological studies; b) sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental bioassays; c) sufficient evidence ofreproductive/developmental adverse effects in humans; d) sufficient evidence of reproductive/ developmental adverse effects in experimental animals; 2) 5G higher frequencies (24.25-27.5 GHz): the systematic review found no adequate studies either in humans or in experimental animals. Conclusions: 1) cancer: FR1 (450 to 6 000 MHz): EMF are probably carcinogenic for humans, in particular related to gliomas and acoustic neuromas; FR2 (24 to 100 GHz): no adequate studies were performed on the higher frequencies; 2) reproductive developmental effects: FR1 (450 to 6 000 MHz): these frequencies clearly affect male fertility and possibly female fertility too. They may have possible adverse effects on the development of embryos, foetuses and newborns; FR2 (24 to 100 GHz): no adequate studies were performed on non-thermal effects of the higher frequencies.
I looked into their data for glioma (see page 51, table 4). They used 8 total studies. 3 studies showed glioma to be more likely in mobile phone users, 2 showed no difference, and 3 showed glioma less likely in mobile phone users. From this they concluded "probably carcinogenic for humans, in particular related to gliomas"?
This is a long paper and I didnt read it all, but I'm not sure I see how that conclusion is supported.
Also, an important quote in the description following that table:
"The association of glioma and acoustic neuroma is stronger among long-term heavy users of mobile phones, which is also the most extensively investigated exposure source, and in some cases the onset of tumours was related to the side on which the device was handled."
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no...
My biggest hurdle, has always been access in remote areas, not bandwidth.
Previously, all USA 5G-enabled iPhones included support for mmWave.
Welcome to 5G networks, please enjoy your stay
Endless discussions about the state of play
We’ve got endless features, some good, some weird
And lots of little quirky bugs that we’ve engineered
Welcome to 5G networks, log on and take a chance
You can have your phone roam or do the coverage dance
Your radio is abysmal, It’s… not optimized
But throw it up on 3GPP and we’ll call it standardized
Welcome to 5G networks, you’ll never feel alone
Debug chinese radios or inspect packets whole
Ericsson? Nokia? Which one do I choose?
Just pick a third party that has the least SKUs
Welcome to 5G networks, be sure to run your fiber
Duplicate an incumbent network at the whim of the regulator
We’ve got timelines and roadmaps and radio test plans
So you can bill for ringtones nobody wants
Edit: why the downvotes?
That gets an instant downvote