I think saying that 5G is a technology in search of a solution is a little harsh. I think your point is equally well made by saying it's a technology that was needed to replace and improve 4G which was then over-engineered to service speculative use-cases. I do like some of the ideas that it has, but I, too, feel its hard in the broadcast world to see it making many real changes. Other industries, more so. 

I was interested to see this week that AT&T are saying that they will charge for speed increments meaning you won't be able to just expect to get 1Gbps if no one else is using your local cell. That makes sense and would be a sensible way to fund it. We shall see if that idea takes hold anywhere else.


At the end of the day, I'm yet to understand if it will help them serve places like Paddington railway station properly. Perhaps they can already do it with 4G - but have chosen not to. You can get a signal and I've not had issues making calls. But data is very slow - whether that's due to RF bandwidth or the uplink bandwidth into the cell(s), it's clear something not working. If there's an RF saturation issue, then hopefully 5G can help. If they could fix it now with more 4G cells and/or more bandwidth to the cells, then why would 5G get any better investment?


I don't think 5G spells the end or the beginning to any form of TV. It should mean that we can watch video in more places and in better quality when we do. That, in turn, will allow us to continue to watch video on our terms, and not like we were forced to before the internet. You have to define TV pretty narrowly to say that watching a drama series on mobile internet is different to watching it on TV. 


Internet delivery - and hence 5G - is a threat in terms of a) displacing established companies and b) displacing important infrastructure. Like it or loathe it, a UK-wide transmission infrastructure which everyone can watch such as the DVB-T network and the FM radios is important in times of emergency – and emergencies do happen. The DTG, Arqiva and other interested parties are going to have to work hard to make sure it remains interesting and useful else they may find their world under threat.


I've never had much good to say about ATSC, but ATSC 3.0 – delivering broadcast TV using IP-over-RF – seems like the kind of innovation which not only helps broadcasters get some form of economies of scale between their online and broadcast outputs but also keeps the broadcast infrastructure relevant and ripe for investment and innovation. And that is more relevant to broadcast than 5G vs 4G.


Russell Trafford-Jones

--

I think saying that 5G is a technology in search of a solution is a little harsh. I think your point is equally well made by saying it's a technology that was needed to replace and improve 4G which was then over-engineered to service speculative use-cases. I do like some of the ideas that it has, but I, too, feel its hard in the broadcast world to see it making many real changes. Other industries, more so. 

I was interested to see this week that AT&T are saying that they will charge for speed increments meaning you won't be able to just expect to get 1Gbps if no one else is using your local cell. That makes sense and would be a sensible way to fund it. We shall see if that idea takes hold anywhere else.


At the end of the day, I'm yet to understand if it will help them serve places like Paddington railway station properly. Perhaps they can already do it with 4G - but have chosen not to. You can get a signal and I've not had issues making calls. But data is very slow - whether that's due to RF bandwidth or the uplink bandwidth into the cell(s), it's clear something not working. If there's an RF saturation issue, then hopefully 5G can help. If they could fix it now with more 4G cells and/or more bandwidth to the cells, then why would 5G get any better investment?


I don't think 5G spells the end or the beginning to any form of TV. It should mean that we can watch video in more places and in better quality when we do. That, in turn, will allow us to continue to watch video on our terms, and not like we were forced to before the internet. You have to define TV pretty narrowly to say that watching a drama series on mobile internet is different to watching it on TV. 


Internet delivery - and hence 5G - is a threat in terms of a) displacing established companies and b) displacing important infrastructure. Like it or loathe it, a UK-wide transmission infrastructure which everyone can watch such as the DVB-T network and the FM radios is important in times of emergency – and emergencies do happen. The DTG, Arqiva and other interested parties are going to have to work hard to make sure it remains interesting and useful else they may find their world under threat.


I've never had much good to say about ATSC, but ATSC 3.0 – delivering broadcast TV using IP-over-RF – seems like the kind of innovation which not only helps broadcasters get some form of economies of scale between their online and broadcast outputs but also keeps the broadcast infrastructure relevant and ripe for investment and innovation. And that is more relevant to broadcast than 5G vs 4G.


Russell Trafford-Jones

--