Huawei says South Africa needs to improve its 5G site approval process

[Bradley Prior]

Huawei says South Africa needs to improve its 5G site approval process

Huawei has released a statement outlining how the South African government needs to improve its site approval processes to enable 5G coverage to expand rapidly.

David Chen, VP of Huawei's Southern African Region, said that South Africa's current site approval systems might not be able to cope with the expected large volumes of 5G site applications.

 

[morkhans]

With FTTH becoming more and more common why on earth do we need to 5G on every street corner? It probably makes sense in business or commercial locations, but I honestly don't see the point of cluttering the suburbs with a plethora of micro cells.

 

[Swa]

We don't even have the spectrum yet.

 

[Jopie Fourie]

Wha ha ahaha ha ha ha ah ah aha ha ha ha.... they want to do business but they do not know the countries they are dealing with....

 

[morkhans]

So CoCT have actually recently passed by-law amendments that makes it much easier to deploy smaller masts.

City of Cape Town Link

Sharing a City of Cape Town Page...

www.capetown.gov.za

 

[backstreetboy]

With FTTH becoming more and more common why on earth do we need to 5G on every street corner? It probably makes sense in business or commercial locations, but I honestly don't see the point of cluttering the suburbs with a plethora of micro cells.

Why dig up pavement when you don't have to? Here the previous company that dug up the pavement went bust before finishing. Then another fibre company started digging but hit a roadblock with the municipality that wants to get another company in to finish the previous unfinished work. Meanwhile I'll probably never ger fibre. 5g can fix things without all that.

 

[morkhans]

Why dig up pavement when you don't have to? Here the previous company that dug up the pavement went bust before finishing. Then another fibre company started digging but hit a roadblock with the municipality that wants to get another company in to finish the previous unfinished work. Meanwhile I'll probably never ger fibre. 5g can fix things without all that.

Because when it's finally done and fixed up you never see it again. Fibre also doesn't come with the same congestion and cell shrinkage issues that LTE has. Besides that, not everyone likes staring at towers that hardly ever fit into the suburban backdrop.

 

[Swa]

5G has many benefits
- portability
- can cover thousands of households with a tower, don't have to roll out to each one and people can easily connect without installation
- chances of all cells in an area going down from faults is virtually zero and with micro cells you can increase coverage if need be, fibre your line gets cut or someone runs into the box and you're without connectivity often for weeks
- can offer low to middle usage at a price point that fibre can never compete with
- faster than all but your premium fibre connection with micro and nano cells having practically zero congestion

Really proper 5G will give fibre operators a run for their money. Expect prices to come down to R200 for a basic connection. Even at R1000 people are seeing no reason to use a fibre connection any more so you can only imagine once it reaches mainstream PAYU. There's also no cell shrinkage. Cell breathing is a failed concept we haven't seen since hspa and it's a synthetic attribute that doesn't need to be implemented in any case.

 

[morkhans]

From the articles I've read on 5G they all suggested that the coverage area per cell is is much smaller than LTE especially if you want to achieve the promised new speeds, which is why I imagine we are seeing articles like this one where they want relaxed rules for deploying sites. The preffered deployment strategy from what I can tell is lots of micro cells rather than just adding to the traditional large tower. Cell companies keep telling us they want more towers to fill gaps due to overwhelming demand, so if cell breathing wasn't a thing why do they need more towers?

 

[access]

can cover thousands of households with a tower

range is a bit low for that isnt it?

 

[Swa]

From the articles I've read on 5G they all suggested that the coverage area per cell is is much smaller than LTE especially if you want to achieve the promised new speeds, which is why I imagine we are seeing articles like this one where they want relaxed rules for deploying sites. The preffered deployment strategy from what I can tell is lots of micro cells rather than just adding to the traditional large tower. Cell companies keep telling us they want more towers to fill gaps due to overwhelming demand, so if cell breathing wasn't a thing why do they need more towers?

That's not what cell breathing is.

range is a bit low for that isnt it?

Rain already covers about 2000 households per tower. It's all a function of frequency and power output.

 

[access]

Rain already covers about 2000 households per tower. It's all a function of frequency and power output.

surely thats relative to the residential density

 

[Swa]

surely thats relative to the residential density

indeed

 

[access]

indeed

at that moment i was thinking along the lines of suburbia. but yes, they rolled out in jhb area first which has a higher density etc.

5g has poor range.

 

[Swa]

at that moment i was thinking along the lines of suburbia. but yes, they rolled out in jhb area first which has a higher density etc.

5g has poor range.

Nope the frequencies above 6GHz have poor range. 5G has the same range as 4G and 3G, in fact a little better with improved codecs and error correction.

 

[access]

Nope the frequencies above 6GHz have poor range. 5G has the same range as 4G and 3G, in fact a little better with improved codecs and error correction.

the g stands for generation, not gigahertz. and no 5g does not have the same range as 4 3 2 1 g

 

[Swa]

the g stands for generation, not gigahertz. and no 5g does not have the same range as 4 3 2 1 g

Where did I say it stands for gigahertz? For all practical purposes the range is the same and determined mainly by frequency and power.

 

[access]

Where did I say it stands for gigahertz? For all practical purposes the range is the same and determined mainly by frequency and power.

we were talking about 5g and you mention the 6ghz frequency for some reason?

just go read up about the current 5g tower distances, they have a far shorter range. nothing to discuss really.

 

[Swa]

we were talking about 5g and you mention the 6ghz frequency for some reason?

just go read up about the current 5g tower distances, they have a far shorter range. nothing to discuss really.

Yes because frequency has a huge impact on range. You should read up on why it matters and range decreases the higher the frequency. The current 5G deployments are at higher frequencies than 3G and 4G which is why they have shorter range. It has nothing to do with the generation and indeed 5G will have better range at the same frequency because of better codecs and error correction albeit at the cost of speed. It will take quite a while before we have 5G on the sub 800Mhz frequencies.