[HN Gopher] AWS Private 5G
___________________________________________________________________
AWS Private 5G
Author : Trisell
Score : 437 points
Date : 2021-11-30 17:18 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (aws.amazon.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (aws.amazon.com)
| simonebrunozzi wrote:
| Not sure how big the market will be for something like this;
| apart from, well, drug cartels in Mexico </joking>.
|
| 5G uses multiple bands, and the most useful, and highest
| throughput one, doesn't have a great range (high band, 24 GHz and
| up). So, perhaps you use 5G tech/devices but not use that, and
| instead focus on low band (600-900 MHz, few kilometers of range)?
| Would a mining company use this to oversee a large property?
| Would a large cattle operation benefit?
| josh_carterPDX wrote:
| Tacoma, WA is planning on deploying a private 5G network to
| make port operations more efficient.
|
| You can imagine containers coming in and out of ports are
| slowed when someone has to physically inspect them for damage.
| There are a few companies using AI to detect damaged containers
| and having a higher bandwidth allows those images to be more
| clear which in turn allows the AI to be more accurate.
| simonebrunozzi wrote:
| But it wouldn't use high band! So, why not just stick with 4G
| devices (cheaper, more tested), and existing solutions?
| josh_carterPDX wrote:
| Not sure I agree here. 5G offers lower latency and more
| bandwidth. Also, what I've outlined is just one use case.
| If we're talking about a port there are multiple layers of
| operations in which a high speed network could make things
| move more efficiently. So while 4G might be less expensive
| it also would only incrementally improve current
| operations. I would imagine this is the same for other use
| cases in which there are multiple layers of needed high
| bandwidth.
| jeffwask wrote:
| It's been said that every dollar on the internet has been made
| by unbundling and rebundling products. In the US, cellular
| started as a service that was dominated by regional players and
| now it's essentially a 3 company monopoly. In the same way
| FinTech's have gone after traditional banks, I can see business
| models of providing regional or niche cell phone services.
| 7952 wrote:
| I guess the downside of lower frequency is more potential for
| interference and contention for bandwidth. Having smaller cells
| could help solve that.
| nixpulvis wrote:
| How long until Amazon takes on the existing cell companies?
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Doesn't have the margins to make it attractive. An M2M/IoT MVNO
| though? That'd be cool to see, more competition in the space
| drives down prices.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| Yea because amazon isn't used to entering markets with small
| margins.
|
| /s
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| If mean, if AWS is dragging retail fulfillment around, do
| they need more anchors around their neck? Operating a
| nationwide cellular carrier is HARD, even when dumping the
| capex on tower management REITs and outsourcing all of your
| cellular infra to Ericsson. Seems easier to write a check
| and plug into someone else doing the schlep (ATT is best
| suited for this imho), maybe buy Twilio and have them do
| it.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| Retail is basically cost-neutral at this point. I have a
| theory that they operate at a loss just to avoid taxes
| (because that delta is basically free) and spend that to
| stay extra competitive.
|
| Amazon's whole MO is huge CapEx and selling it for cash
| flow. If they have the credit, why not finance it.
| They're already building satellite ground stations and a
| fleet to beam internet down to earth, this could easily
| supplement or build a market for that.
|
| They'd probably benefit from lots of cheap and available
| internet for their logistics network, but its probably
| not expensive enough to justify alone, but maybe by
| leveraging AWS sales they can prop up cash flow enough to
| cover costs.
|
| Not that they're doing this, of course, just that i don't
| think it should be ruled out.
| Raed667 wrote:
| Now imagine a future where every device you buy is connected to
| the internet wirelessly, whether you like it or not.
| _jal wrote:
| That's what pliers are for.
| Raed667 wrote:
| Besides the fact that your average user will not be able to
| open these devices. Removing connectivity will probably
| irreversibly brick them.
| rakoo wrote:
| Now imagine a future
|
| - where every device you use belongs to a private company
|
| - connects wirelessly through a network owned by a private
| company
|
| - to services owned by a private company
|
| - that loans you even more stuff owned by a private company
|
| - and entertains you with content owned by a private company
|
| - and all the websites and news and games and podcasts and
| chats are hosted on servers owned by a private company
|
| and the democratic power that helps you control this private
| company is funded by the success of such a private company.
|
| I fear a world where we have neither individual nor collective
| control of our everyday lives.
| throw03172019 wrote:
| Is that time already here? Fridges, washing machines,
| dishwashers, TVs etc.
| rzzzt wrote:
| No.
| Raed667 wrote:
| Not yet. All of those still require wifi or bluetooth. They
| ask the user to do the setup.
| r00fus wrote:
| Don't they require wifi? This effort (and Amazon Sidewalk)
| are trying to bypass that.
| d4mi3n wrote:
| Yes. Many devices will ask for a network or create a mesh
| network over wifi/bluetooth/zigby if one isn't presented to
| them.
| kube-system wrote:
| Automobiles is the one you're looking for.
| neolefty wrote:
| Not relevant to this, which is about physically placing
| antennae at a location, to provide a local service.
| stopagephobia wrote:
| Then we start jailbreaking them to use as free modems and cost
| people who make that huge amounts of money, then they will
| stop.
| brendoelfrendo wrote:
| You assume a future where internet is ubiquitous and fee and
| not a future where every device you own comes with the burden
| of a perpetual subscription in order to function.
| orangepurple wrote:
| So what? You can always isolate these things by removing the
| antenna or if all else fails putting them in a faraday cage
| Raed667 wrote:
| Yeah I can totally imagine the average consumer opening the
| back of their TV to find an antenna or setting up a faraday
| cage in their living room /s
| henvic wrote:
| They could've called it AWS Infinidash Mobile.
| Invictus0 wrote:
| There has never been any humor in Amazon's culture.
| milesward wrote:
| This is such a dick move. Ex-AWS superstars built
| https://www.soracom.io/, made AWS folks aware, who balked at a
| deal. Example 1198170892703973...
| reidfromhome wrote:
| These aren't even the same offering. AWS's main selling point
| here is that they provide the 5G hardware like antennas, etc
| and create your own 5G network. Soracom just provides you a SIM
| and piggybacks off of existing 5G networks.
| slownews45 wrote:
| Interesting, didn't Soracom end up going to KDDI in 2017? Is
| KDDI even getting rid of them / are they even for sale now or
| was this an old deal?
|
| $187M for an exit is not that large. Were they offering a price
| in that range to AWS?
|
| It feels a bit like some of the AWS IoT offerings are throw
| stuff at wall style.
| milesward wrote:
| No, the balk happened then, in 2017 AFAIK.
| slownews45 wrote:
| OK, that makes sense. That exit was not huge, would be
| interesting to compare price they wanted from AWS vs market
| price they got. AWS may have missed out if they were
| willing to go with AWS for less than they got.
|
| I'm not THAT blown away by AWS offerings, they feel like
| copies of a couple of players offerings and at least when I
| last looked not THAT polished up. That said, plenty of
| folks will use AWS because they are already there. But it
| does feel like space for other still here maybe.
| _msw_ wrote:
| Disclosure: I work for AWS, but I don't work directly on
| AWS Private 5G.
|
| I mean, it sounds like they / their investors were shopping
| and the KDDI offer of what was reported [1] to be $180
| million won? Who's to say if AWS participated in that or
| not (I, speaking only for myself, have no knowledge on
| this). I don't understand at all why you think that this is
| anything unusual or nefarious, and it seems like the
| founders got a good exit regardless?
|
| [1] https://thebridge.jp/en/2017/08/kddi-to-acquire-soracom
| milesward wrote:
| As in, I'd love to see how much english from the
| marketing/docs/etc are just straight lifted from Soracom.
| houseofzeus wrote:
| Well for one Soracom's homepage doesn't mention 5G (or
| private 5G) once...
| josephh wrote:
| Soracom's offerings look to resemble those of Particle's[1].
| How are they related to AWS Private 5g?
|
| 1. https://www.particle.io/
| throwthere wrote:
| I don't really follow you here. Is soracom entitled to 100%
| market share?
| karmasimida wrote:
| It seems odd that some HN folks think idea is patentable
| simonebrunozzi wrote:
| Probably not as inexpensive, and not a great deal, as the
| original Redshift was, I guess.
| milesward wrote:
| Yup, Ken is not an ignorant negotiator. Happily they had a
| very good exit with KDDI, but it just sits with me wrong.
| Hugs Simone!!
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Amazon is the scummiest of the major tech companies, this is
| well known.
| ec109685 wrote:
| Tons of companies are in this space, e.g.
| https://www.verizon.com/about/news/verizon-business-launches...
|
| So it seems odd to call out AWS that they should have partnered
| with soracom or they aren't being ethical.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| I think the idea is that AWS is slimy for rejecting a deal
| with a startup and then launching a competitive product.
| There's a difference between independently coming up with an
| idea versus transparently copying someone else's idea. Of
| course, we can't be certain that the AWS folks who launched
| Private 5g were even aware of the Soracom deal offer, but the
| optics certainly aren't favorable.
| milesward wrote:
| ... a startup founded entirely by prior successful team
| members, all friendlies.
| josh_carterPDX wrote:
| Amazon is known for doing this to early startups. They
| "partner" with a small team, learn what they do, and then copy
| it which screws the original team.
|
| They have teams of lawyers so suing them does no good.
|
| EDIT: I assumed this was a partnership. I have no clue if they
| partnered here. Just speaking broadly after watching a couple
| of my founder friends get screwed by Amazon.
| kspacewalk2 wrote:
| Have they "partnered" with Soracom?
| julienfr112 wrote:
| https://partners.amazonaws.com/fr/partners/001E000001In3e0I
| A....
|
| Maybe it doesn't count as partner, maybe it does.
| verelo wrote:
| I'd love to set this up for my rural community. I've got a good
| connection but many people have no cell service, no dsl lines, no
| cable...literally nothing. Until something like starlink is
| ubiquitous i feel like this could go a long way to solving their
| problems.
| bradley_taunt wrote:
| Came here to say exactly this. Out in rural Canada (Ontario) it
| is extremely difficult to find reliable, fast, unlimited
| access.
|
| With Starlink delaying a good deal of preorders, something like
| this could be great.
| ahaseeb wrote:
| Can you email me haseeb@haseebawan.com - I would love to talk
| about it since we're working on solving this
| technobabbler wrote:
| I don't think this solves the last-mile problem. You still have
| to provide (get) internet connectivity; Amazon just relays that
| landline to 5G.
|
| And in rural areas, 5G probably doesn't give you enough range
| anyhow. Have you considered mesh revenue-share networks like
| Althea (https://www.althea.net/)? There's a nonprofit one too
| operating in several cities, but I can't remember what it's
| called.
| BenjiWiebe wrote:
| My understanding is that 5g can operate at the same or
| similar frequencies as 4g, and actually then has slightly
| better range and throughout than 4g.
| aero-glide2 wrote:
| Starlink could be that backhaul. Future terminals will have
| 1Gbps.
| olyjohn wrote:
| You don't even need that much bandwidth. I had no problem
| doing LTE over WiFi with a 1Mbit DSL line, with like 256k
| up on a good day.
| JaimeThompson wrote:
| 5G can operate at lower frequencies, from my notes I do not
| remember where I copied it from.
|
| "In quick summary, the bands work as follows in the real
| world. One low band (600-700MHz) tower can cover hundreds of
| square miles with 5G service that ranges in speed from 30 to
| 250 megabits per second (Mbps). A mid band (2.5/3.5GHz) tower
| covers a several-mile radius with 5G that currently ranges
| from 100 to 900Mbps. Lastly, a high band (millimeter
| wave/24-39GHz) tower covers a one-mile or lower radius while
| delivering roughly 1-3Gbps speeds. Each of these tiers will
| improve in performance over time."
| turtlebits wrote:
| Doesn't look like this will give you phone/SMS service.
|
| You have to put in their SIM, so unless you have a dual SIM
| phone that can intelligently roam, doesn't seem like the right
| solution.
| xuki wrote:
| It can be used in a modem to provide home internet. Also dual
| SIM phone are easier to find than laying cables.
| ACAVJW4H wrote:
| Open Source software stack to run private LTE/5G with SDR
| https://github.com/srsran/srsRAN
| XMPPwocky wrote:
| For folks who have actually set up srsRAN for anything besides
| a trivial configuration w/ one eNB and manual management of
| most things (and even then), the value-add of having Amazon
| worry about most of that stuff is clear. It's, ah, ...
| complicated.
|
| This is a bit like responding to, say, the original
| announcement of EC2 with a link to download a Linux
| distribution.
| kizer wrote:
| So is this basically an alternative to lots of spread out WiFi
| routers? Like a university could get rid of all the routers in
| all the buildings and just have one or two of the "towers" Amazon
| would provide?
| ethanpil wrote:
| I wonder if this is a product that was built on top of something
| they needed to use internally. Makes me wonder how Amazon is
| using this technology for themselves... Anyone care to speculate?
| the_arun wrote:
| I see a potential use of it from IoT devices. An eg. a tractor
| wants to communicate with a central server for commands.
| bklyn11201 wrote:
| You describe a great use case for LoRaWAN:
| https://lora-alliance.org/about-lorawan/
| nicce wrote:
| I fear what this means in larger scale. All Amazon
| manufactured physical IoT and hardware could have sidechannel
| in the future to escape network isolation. They already have
| this "feature" which expands your home network for neighbor
| Amazon devices if they need Internet access. And default
| setting is "ON", not off. How many consumer is aware of that?
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Amazon-Sidewalk/b/?node=21328123011
| smegsicle wrote:
| This capability is considered in the design of 5G, see NB-
| IoT and LTE-M
| core-utility wrote:
| It's worth noting that the behavior of Amazon with its
| commodity consumer products has been notably different than
| AWS with its customers. The stain on reputation if AWS were
| to, say, mine data from private S3 buckets would be very
| hard to remove.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| Why would you buy a consumer IoT product and not connect it
| to the internet? If you're the kind of person who fears
| that, you're probably not the person who uses something
| like Alexa and smart home stuff.
| nicce wrote:
| If the device has not easily removable battery, it starts
| to be impossible to tell when it collects the data and
| shares it. Many devices are useful in the local network
| only, but still they want all-time internet access
| without real need. Using direct 5G links make it also
| harder to filter traffic. I don't know, I just don't like
| the idea that all information must be collected by any
| means.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| > Many devices are useful in the local network only
|
| no amazon-made device is local only.
|
| > I just don't like the idea that all information must be
| collected by any means.
|
| I agree with your sentiment, but most devices don't
| really have access to much data of concern. I'd be more
| worried 5g bullshit is used in screens that can send ads
| over a smart bulb or something.
| GordonS wrote:
| I would guess it's more aimed at use in large factories,
| warehouses and yards, where WiFi is not going to be practical.
|
| I did a stint as a (software) architect for a large Norwegian
| engineering company, and at the time they were looking at
| getting a private 4G network setup, as their facilities were
| absolutely huge. I did a little research, and quite a few
| mobile operators actually offer private 4G networks for exactly
| this use case.
| [deleted]
| solarkraft wrote:
| Could you explain what makes this tech better than Wifi? Does
| it have better range/deal with interference better?
|
| My impression was that the high speed profile of 5G was
| basically the same as that of Wifi, with exactly the same
| issues. Am I wrong/is it better in lower speed modes?
| oretoz wrote:
| Here are the key differences between 5G and Wifi: 1.
| Dedicated vs shared spectrum. Though all big countries have
| shared spectrum initiatives for 5G too but it is still not
| a free for all like Wifi. So interference-wise 5G might be
| better for some use cases. Have heard about that in several
| shipping ports where Private 5G is deployed 2. Security.
| Due to the usage of SIM but Wifi security is good too 3.
| Range - though most of 5G is in comparable frequency ranges
| with Wifi, there is a huge range of powers at which 5G base
| stations can transmit so range is possibly larger for 5G
|
| But it all depends on use-case and there is no clear winner
| for all situations.
| remus wrote:
| You could imagine them using it in their warehouses. I imagine
| getting good coverage with wifi in a huge warehouse could be
| pretty expensive, maybe 4G/5G works better?
| alexatalktome wrote:
| No internal use. This is a hype driven white labeling.
| vxNsr wrote:
| One of the podcasts I listen to had AT&T as their sponsor and
| they would talk about using IoT to make factories and
| warehouses "smart", so it's possible amazon uses this in their
| warehouses instead of wifi to connect to the bots and hand
| terminals.
| jack_riminton wrote:
| I feel like this has come off the back of Amazon creating their
| own 5G for their warehouses and robots. Can any Amazon employees
| confirm this?
| alexatalktome wrote:
| Can confirm there's no internal use. It's a fresh project to
| capitalize on 5g hype.
|
| They're working with a partner for hardware but redoing their
| software. So it's a pretty low-touch white label job.
|
| They have internal use planned but it was started explicitly
| for sale to external customers not internal.
| WORMS_EAT_WORMS wrote:
| Become a telecom as a service!
|
| Super cool. For those who are glancing over, this is a big deal.
| 5G isn't really like 4G upgraded. It's more its own thing. I
| believe this has been available though for a while and many
| telecoms have partnerships with FAANG beyond Amazon.
|
| With 5G you can essentially split a network into multiple
| partitions and scale them independently on-demand called Network
| Slicing. (like cloud computing but just the network).
|
| This could be extremely useful for security. Maybe even the death
| of VPNs. This is also useful for scaling network resources to
| services as they need it.
|
| Short-term, things like "Tesla Free Network" could exist for
| their self-driving cars. Or, Uber offering free fast Internet to
| their drivers or a truly private device.
|
| Long-term, I am concerned about the emergence of private networks
| with different access. Such as a "Google Network" or a "Netflix
| Network" that offer different services or privacy levels at
| different costs.
|
| It's a crazy, scary, but also fun direction we are going.
|
| Edit: Final comment. If you think this might be the death of AT&T
| with independent providers, think again . Amazon & Co. and others
| like Google are bringing their developer platform, while the
| telecoms offer their infrastructure. It's a gross partnership
| that makes sense. When you send bits over the network -- everyone
| will be getting paid except you.
| endorphine wrote:
| > This could be extremely useful for security. Maybe even the
| death of VPNs.
|
| If that's true, I wonder if this affects Tailscale's business
| and how.
| xuki wrote:
| This requires a physical cell tower and 5G receiver so it's
| not as flexible as running a VPN client on your laptop.
| jauer wrote:
| It's not new. You can get private address space that's routed
| into your network, but if you trust telco network security,
| you probably don't have anything worth protecting (or run a
| VPN over the top and only use the private APN for persistent
| IP addressing).
|
| For example, AT&T's private APN service has been around since
| the 3G days: https://www.business.att.com/products/private-
| mobile-connect...
| colpabar wrote:
| > 5G isn't really like 4G upgraded. It's more its own thing.
|
| This is my understanding as well, but I have no idea about any
| of the details. I know there's something cool about "beams". Do
| you (or anyone) have a good "entry-level" article/doc that
| outlines some of the major features that makes it so different
| than 4G?
| ksec wrote:
| Search Massive MIMO, Beamforming ( Which isn't really new ),
| Small Cells, NR.
|
| That is about it really. You can ignore mmWave which is pure
| hype. Most of the other enhancements are on the carrier /
| operation side and not consumer.
|
| You can also ignore all the 5G Self Driving Vehicle crap.
| ineedasername wrote:
| _> 5G Self Driving Vehicle crap._
|
| I live in a dense suburb of a large city and 5G coverage
| seems not that great. I'm not sure why self-driving
| requires or gains much benefit from 5g anyway, but I
| wouldn't want to rely on it. You can certainly do car-to-
| car communication & coordination without it, and you
| wouldn't want a minor network outage turning the system
| into chaos.
| michaelt wrote:
| _> This could be extremely useful for security. Maybe even the
| death of VPNs._
|
| You can already get this - if you think you need it, you should
| google 'Private APN'. It's been available for years, assuming
| you're a corporate user looking for a few hundred SIM cards.
| anon11302100 wrote:
| > This could be extremely useful for security. Maybe even the
| death of VPNs.
|
| You can already get plans from the existing cellular providers
| to drop you onto a private secure network that behaves like a
| VPN though... that's common for people who need secure OOB
| access to their network gear: but install routers with
| 3g/4g/LTE expansion cards, get the SIMs on one of these plans,
| and voila -- OOB remote network access that isn't exposing your
| devices to the internet
| vineyardmike wrote:
| Huh?
|
| This doesn't seem to use AT&T at all, and amazon is actually
| bringing their own hardware too.
|
| This isn't MVNO-aaS. Its Antenae-aaS.
| WORMS_EAT_WORMS wrote:
| Ah, you're right. I am mistaken for AWS Wavelength.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| Hate to be that guy, but...
|
| AWS Wavelength is Ec2 instances running on-prem on existing
| telco locations.
| ksec wrote:
| Yes I dont think OP's description is an accurate usage of
| Private 5G. Where it is aiming at industrial ( warehouse ) or
| cooperate usage within certain location ( cooperate HQ ).
|
| Not sure how Tesla or Uber would get their own private 5G.
| cshipley wrote:
| >This isn't MVNO-aaS. Its Antenae-aaS.
|
| I think a lot of people are missing this point. This will not
| allow someone to become their own carrier. It allows someone
| to install their own "cell towers" and have devices connect
| to them without having to use a 3rd party carrier.
| ignoramous wrote:
| Btw, MVNO-aaS does exist (for 5G, too): https://en.wikipedi
| a.org/wiki/Mobile_virtual_network_enabler
| ribosometronome wrote:
| Please excuse my vast ignorance but wouldn't Tesla, Uber or
| whomever need to deploy a massive network of 5g towers for
| that? Or is more that Tesla/Uber/etc could much more easily
| become an MVNO-like-provider because of network slicing?
| spookthesunset wrote:
| For those at home reading this... MVNO = "Mobile Virtual
| Network Operator". Aka a network that doesn't have its own
| wireless infrastructure.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_virtual_network_operato.
| ..
| foolfoolz wrote:
| at this point these are 2 sides of telecom have nearly
| evolved to completely separate industries
|
| one services towers on the ground. base stations.
| maintenance. physical network deployment
|
| the other is the services of running the network. roaming
| agreements. customer management. internet breakout
|
| tesla and other vehicle makers may see value owning the
| service side but very unlikely they want to maintain a
| network
| WORMS_EAT_WORMS wrote:
| The second comment. The telecoms via 5G have been positioning
| themselves to rent their infrastructure on-demand. The AWS
| partnership is this but Amazon then re-extending it to
| developers on their platform as part of their "Cloud"
| offerings.
|
| I doubt Amazon has many towers of their own here and are
| almost entirely through one of the telecoms.
| hadlock wrote:
| I think this is more like long haul wifi for your corporate
| campus, factory, port, university etc. Maybe even for
| things like parking meters (san francisco's parking meters
| are famously being updated/upgraded because they're ending
| EDGE network used by the modems in the parking meters)
| vineyardmike wrote:
| But this doesn't use telco towers? Amazon is literally
| selling antenae.
| thrashh wrote:
| Isn't this service nothing related to using existing
| infrastructure?
|
| It looks like Amazon is sending you base stations to set up
| a private network in one location.
| [deleted]
| ineedasername wrote:
| > _I doubt Amazon has many towers of their own_
|
| Their offering page specifically says that AWS _" delivers
| your network hardware (small cell radio base-station and
| servers) Attach power and internet connectivity to smart
| cells and servers"_
|
| They are not using telco partnerships here, or at least if
| they are, it's not on the level of carving out a chunk of
| the telco network for private use.
|
| I struggle to see how this remains a "cloud" offering
| rather than a hardware rental.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _Short-term, things like "Tesla Free Network" could exist for
| their self-driving cars. Or, Uber offering free fast Internet
| to their drivers or a truly private device._
|
| So like WhisperNet, except 5G, and anyone can make their own?
| alexatalktome wrote:
| Seems unlikely many firms would want to scale out the hardware
| of their own network - rented from Amazon no less- instead.
| danudey wrote:
| None of this is really what this service is intended for.
|
| If you read the whitepaper, they list examples of what this
| would be useful for; namely, covering your own space with your
| own 5G for your own devices.
|
| Deploy it in these areas instead of WiFi:
|
| 1. A stadium's remote ad/video/informational displays 2. A
| logistics distribution hub's stock-tracking
| robots/systems/handhelds 3. A corporate campus's smart displays
| or door access systems 4. Oil and gas drilling/processing
| sites's systems monitoring in remote, non-covered areas
|
| So this isn't about creating a new provider in your local city,
| but rather about connecting your devices in your space in cases
| where WiFi is insufficient or overloaded.
| tenebrisalietum wrote:
| I got the impression this is Amazon providing Airave-type
| "femotcells" that emit a low-powered cellular signal and use
| your wired network for calls and data service. Seems to also
| imply Amazon would be providing SIM cards.
|
| I'm not sure of the advantage of this over Wi-Fi, though,
| except to get devices that have no other option other than
| cellular connectivity to be forced to go over your own
| network.
|
| > Cellular technology such as 4G/LTE and 5G augments existing
| networks with higher bandwidth, lower latency, and reliable
| long-range coverage to an increasing number of devices. With
| AWS Private 5G, you can build private cellular networks to
| take advantage of the technology benefits of 5G while
| maintaining the security and granular application and device
| controls of a private network.
|
| That's from the Amazon website. Why not just deploy Wi-Fi?
| blowski wrote:
| Is there any reason it _couldn't_ become that?
| hattmall wrote:
| Probably not, except cost. It would be too expensive to
| compete with the national providers and then you would
| still need to interface with them for any service outside
| of the city. It's possible, just not the intended use case
| and not a logical use.
| blowski wrote:
| I remember people making very similar claims about AWS
| EC2 in 2007.
| imwillofficial wrote:
| Ah, so the mythical beast of future Amazon 5G use cases
| can be anything I want then, right? How about unicorns?
|
| I see what you're saying, but just because a similar
| statement was made about another service, does not mean
| the outcome will be the same in this instance with vastly
| different dynamics at play.
| ineedasername wrote:
| _> Uber offering free fast Internet to their drivers_
|
| Amazon is talking about installing actual local hardware
| infrastructure here though. It seems like that only makes sense
| where there is no existing 5G, otherwise it's probably just
| cheaper to use the telco's infrastructure since, as you said,
| they could work directly with the telco to get their own slice.
|
| Sort of like the difference in price between a dedicated hosted
| server (the AWS 5G) and a VPS (a slice of the telco's 5G)
|
| I'm sure I'm misunderstanding some aspect of this whole thing
| though.
| mfer wrote:
| I wonder which smart TV provider will be the first to use this
| instead of home wifi where people can disable or black hole
| connectivity.
| KallDrexx wrote:
| They don't need this for that. Instead they are using rings and
| echo devices that allow devices to connect and send small data
| out. You can't black hole them without black holing the
| ring/echos (making them useless). You can disable this feature
| but it's opt-out, and it may just connect to your neighbor's
| instead.
|
| I dont' remember the exact feature name though.
| treesknees wrote:
| I believe you're referring to Amazon Sidewalk. It's more for
| their own devices like cameras and not for TV ad tracking (at
| least for now.)
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Amazon-Sidewalk/
| KallDrexx wrote:
| Yeah that's it, but on the blog post at
| https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/devices/introducing-
| amazon-... they say
|
| > For device makers, we plan to publish protocols that any
| manufacturer can use to build reliable, low-power, low-cost
| devices that benefit from access to long-range, low-
| bandwidth wireless connections. In the meantime, you can
| sign up to be notified when more information is available.
|
| So the intention is definitely there that device
| manufacturers can pay to delvier data over the network.
| paxys wrote:
| What does a smart TV have to do with a private 5G network?
| People just upvote any meaningless comment on this site as long
| as it sounds mildly controversial.
| VRay wrote:
| Smart TVs scan what's on the screen to get data on what
| people are watching and sell that data to anyone who wants it
|
| The idea is to make sure they can keep that data flowing even
| if someone intentionally disconnects the TV from the internet
| paxys wrote:
| So they can (and sometimes already do) insert a SIM card in
| the TV and use any of the consumer 4G/LTE/5G networks out
| there which your phone connects to. Why are people
| hypothesizing that Vizio will ship a $250K 5G base station
| to your house?
| hirako2000 wrote:
| because if setting up private 5G networks becomes cheaper
| and open to any business then the chance TV manufacturers
| consider putting 5G base near enough your house.
| midasuni wrote:
| But it's cheaper and easier to just embed a normal 4g
| modem and SIM card
| ArchOversight wrote:
| Amazon Sidewalk is already available...
| pokoleo wrote:
| Some smart TVs already ship with sim cards. It just requires a
| deal with AT&T/Tmo/etc.
| anchpop wrote:
| I don't think enough people use pihole for smart TV
| manufacturers to care, and encrypted DNS breaks that anyway so
| setting up a 5G base station in your house would be overkill
| KoftaBob wrote:
| This is a platform AWS is providing to make it easier for those
| who have private 5G networks to run/maintain those networks.
|
| You seem to be interpreting this as "AWS is going to put 5G
| towers everywhere and smart TVs are going to connect to them to
| send data they collect!". That's not what this is at all.
|
| This is one of the many reasons it's beneficial to read the
| actual article/post and comprehend the information, rather than
| reflexively reacting to keywords you notice in the title.
| fault1 wrote:
| Exactly, it's more of a b2c thing. Actually in one of my
| previous gigs (at a energy company that had oil rigs in very
| remote areas), they wanted to quicken the provisioning of 5g
| to some of the places they operate in.
|
| AWS was one of the companies they were negotiating with - I
| never realized they had not yet announced this service.
| bob1029 wrote:
| One response to this problem is to perform mild electronics
| surgery and install fine copper mesh around anything that looks
| like it moves electrons as part of its normal function. It
| really doesn't take a whole lot to completely fuck up an RF
| signal.
|
| Alternatively, you could maybe do the same to your drywall if
| you are looking at new home construction... If every room is
| effectively a faraday cage, you are back in control over what
| can talk to what on a much more granular level. This clearly
| creates challenges for your own wireless/mobile signals, but
| presumably you also have the ability to hardwire additional
| access points if you are going to this extent.
| pantulis wrote:
| Don't think that's the use case. how would AWS deploy a base
| station to my home?
|
| But you have a real point, and AWS already solved that with the
| 3G enabled Kindles by having carrier agreements. Why not doing
| that with Smart TVs?
| Turing_Machine wrote:
| > Don't think that's the use case. how would AWS deploy a
| base station to my home?
|
| Unless I'm misunderstanding how this works, it wouldn't need
| a base station in your home, just a commodity cellular modem
| with a network-specific SIM, and an uplink tower somewhere
| within range.
| jareklupinski wrote:
| yup, the only thing in the past that was keeping companies
| from popping a sim into every product to report back home
| (above a certain price) was that there was nothing stopping
| you from pulling the sim and just using their plan in other
| devices, at least for a short while until the company
| realized what was up (if they cared to check (they usually
| didnt))
|
| now they have complete control over the end-to-end, and can
| cheaply provision sims that only talk to their local tower
| for example, and reject non-company provisioned IMEI (if
| they need it anymore?) etc
|
| working on building blocking for this :)
| [deleted]
| vishnugupta wrote:
| > how would AWS deploy a base station to my home?
|
| The TV company will deploy base station(s) in my town. Embed
| SIM cards in TVs they ship. No need to connect to my home
| WiFi to send personalised data back to their servers, or to
| upgrade firmware etc.,
| judge2020 wrote:
| DirecTV already does this for their 'wireless' offering -
| you get a huge LTE modem and a bunch of receivers with sim
| cards in them.
| tenebrisalietum wrote:
| It may interest you to know ATSC 3.0 has specifications for
| a "return path" to the broadcast station in it.
| vxNsr wrote:
| > _But you have a real point, and AWS already solved that
| with the 3G enabled Kindles by having carrier agreements._
|
| Amazon regretted that pretty soon after they did it, people
| hacked their kindles to be hotspots and it became an arms
| race amazon didn't wanna play.
| cptskippy wrote:
| 5G E2E Slicing will prevent such scenarios. The SIM will be
| bound to a network slice and restrictions will be dictated
| by the carrier.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| Was that a big problem? I thought it was a single-intern
| sized problem.
| kfarr wrote:
| Yeah tbh not hard to search for high bandwidth users
| abusing system and dealing with it on a case by case
| basis
| jeffwask wrote:
| I immediately thought of alarm companies like ADT or Vivant who
| I believe currently partner with cellular providers for access.
| How much cheaper would it be to swap to 5G as a service versus
| whatever their current cost model is.
| fredliu wrote:
| Spectrum questions aside (which obviously one of the biggest
| one), could this enable running Helium 5G on AWS?
|
| -- Edit: I don't own any Helium, just curious from tech side what
| this new AWS service could offer. Not sure the downvotes are
| particularly about Helium or any crypto related discussion.
| 2bluesc wrote:
| Probably not if the Helium 5G offering is similar to their
| LoRaWan stuff.
|
| Due to some security issues with the Helium LoRaWAN proof-of-
| coverage, only authorized hotspots/access points are allowed to
| participate. Helium manages this by issuing keys or
| certificates (IDK which it is) via the Decentralized Wireless
| Alliance[0].
|
| I think it's highly unlikely Amazon would deploy Helium enabled
| 5G radios.
|
| [0] https://dewi.org/
| op00to wrote:
| Why do peole care about helium so much?
| paxys wrote:
| People care about the value of their magic tokens and are
| spamming them in every online discussion in an effort to
| bring in more bag holders.
| tradertef wrote:
| Agree. "awareness" drives people to own their token which
| will make them money.
| joewadcan wrote:
| Or because it solves an incentive problem which has kept
| millions of people with sub par networks to choose from.
| [deleted]
| FemmeAndroid wrote:
| I'd love to see _some_ pricing estimates. There's a good amount
| I'd pay to get something like this for some rural communities,
| but it's unclear if I'm anywhere near able to afford it.
| soheil wrote:
| What's next? Own your own island as a service(tm)? I really
| like the direction AWS is headed and I like how they're opening
| up access to hard to setup hardware.
| kingcharles wrote:
| Prices starting at ONE BILLION DOLLARS.
| ahaseeb wrote:
| I would love to connect on this. Do you've any rural
| communities in mind ?
| jcims wrote:
| Probably a small outpost deployment + RF gear, so (guessing)
| $500K up front and $10-20k/mo. I don't know if it's possible to
| get RDOF grants for individual communities but that might cover
| some of it.
| throwthere wrote:
| In addition to the gear, would you have to license the
| spectrum from someone? I think the fcc already auctioned it
| all off? Or does that not apply here? Any idea what that
| would cost?
| jcims wrote:
| I don't know the details there. Presumably there would be
| at least be cost for someone to maintain the paperwork and
| equipment certification. There's a couple comments in here
| about this being on CBRS, possibly more info there.
| pid-1 wrote:
| Aren't small cells significantly cheaper?
| femto113 wrote:
| That's not the way AWS typically prices things--my guess is
| the hardware and setup costs will be baked into the monthly
| service charges.
| lunfard000 wrote:
| best thing is that you dont own the antenna, so Amz will prob
| rent out the remaining capacity.
| matt9j wrote:
| I have some experience building rural cellular networks (4G and
| starting to work on 5G), and can say that the core network part
| of the network is usually not the biggest challenge. There are
| open source cores available that actually work quite well for
| basic Internet access (magma has been mentioned elsewhere in
| the thread), and open5gs is another one. They can be deployed
| on lightweight edge infrastructure or in the cloud, since the
| computational overhead for the core is not huge for a small
| network (10s-100s of devices). SIM cards can be purchased
| pretty easily online from a variety of sources. There are even
| already existing turnkey solutions with a core network hosted
| in the cloud providing a management portal that integrates
| directly with like-branded radios (see Baicells).
|
| Getting outdoor radios for rural access installed though is a
| bit more challenging, and I would be surprised if AWS was
| offering an outdoor solution here in the short term.
| Directional antennas and radio planning become a lot more
| important. There are a couple different players who will sell
| outdoor CBRS radios in small volume who all have pluses and
| minuses. CBRS is great for rural areas since there are often
| GAA channels available, but depending on the terrain may or may
| not provide huge area coverage. CBRS limits the height above
| average terrain and power you can deploy at. There are limits
| to the types of equipment and locations you can deploy without
| getting a professional installer certification. Getting the
| certification slightly raises those limits, but they are still
| something you need to take into account for wide-area access.
| You can actually get the CPI certification pretty easily via
| online classes offered by the different SAS (spectrum access
| service) providers. If you're seriously considering founding a
| cellular wisp, there are some Facebook (unfortunately haha)
| groups out there that are pretty active and where you can get
| shoptalk questions answered about specific radios and
| technologies!
|
| IMO the main value add from the AWS solution here is the access
| control, monitoring/auditing, and QoS management they are
| offering, which would be essential in an industrial setting,
| especially if running sensitive services over the network.
| unixhero wrote:
| Which countries???
| Ballu wrote:
| Let me put my perspective, coming from a guy who is involved in
| private Cellular networking (US as well as other countries):
|
| 1) Private 5G can be deployed either with licensed operator
| (Cellular provider) or in CBRS band (CBRS band is opened by FCC
| for the private cellular deployment). It can be used free or
| paid, different options. (Fees is minimal).
|
| 2) CBRS still doesnt support 5G. No idea how AWS will provide.
| But even if it is private 4G, for the end user it doesnt matter.
|
| 3) Your available bandwidth is limited by the air waves bandwidth
| you are using, nit by 4G or 5G. Per enterprise, CBRS band is
| limited to LTE equivalent band (20MHz). Total CBRS band is
| 200MHz, if I am not wrong). You are not going to get giga speed
| just because its 5G.
|
| 4) Not all phones support CBRS band. You will be limited to CBRS
| band support in handset feature. 5) Each end device will need SIM
| (SIM card either physical or virtual). Its not like your laptop
| will be connected with private 4G or 5G. You will need modem as
| well as SIM card (unless your devices support these features).
|
| 6) Its really for small geographic reason. Its not that easy to
| take the equipment with you and start using. (like in car or
| train etc).
|
| 7) There is a concept of SAS server, that's why AWS device needs
| to be connected to this server in cloud (There are SAS license
| holders, to them). Once you install the system and that is
| connected to the SAS server, first you get the frequency band
| which is open in your area. If some one using that band (another
| CBRS player), you are out of luck (ask me , who has to call
| different teams when deploy in lab). PLus, there are scenarios
| when these licenses can be revoked (if you are using free band).
| The law enforcement can ask FCC to use the band temporarily. GCC
| can revoke your lic and stop the system.
|
| What AWS did is big, but for enterprises.
| laserbeam wrote:
| Is thei FAQ in line with your understanding? You might be more
| capable than me at parsing it for all I can understand is: "You
| will receive all the AWS Private 5G hardware (including SIM
| cards) and software you need to deploy your private cellular
| network and connect devices to your applications."
|
| I translate that to: we sell 5G access points as an alternative
| to wifi access points. Am I wrong? Cause if I am right I fail
| to see the bigness of it. I just see it as something
| reasonable.
|
| https://aws.amazon.com/private5g/faqs/
| Ballu wrote:
| You are on right path. Its of no use for consumer. Private 5G
| cant compete against WiFi with current ecosystem. The end
| devices dont support 5G modem (or 4G). It cant compete
| against WLL (Wireless in Local Loop) (Means Wireless based
| broadband service). As you need dedicated internet service to
| configure p5G (private 5G) and to let it remain active, there
| is no business case for p5G for broadband service/WLL. There
| is another service, FWA/Fixed Wireless Access, by different
| 5G provider where you get a receiver which is connected to
| home router. Good question is, what this hype of p5G:
|
| 1) Industrial area coverage: Where you need 50 WiFi radio
| unit, you can provide service with 3-4 p4G/p5G radios.
|
| 2) Hazardous areas: where you cant provide the networking at
| all the corners or areas, one p5G radio blast area (esp with
| beam technology) can provide the coverage.
|
| 3) Security: Mobile phone systems are based on shared secret
| and proven to be secure in terms of access compare as well as
| on air to other technology.
|
| 4) Packet loss: Less packet loss compare to WiFi (believe me,
| its big deal in Industrial world)
|
| 5) Compatibility: what's a negative for 5G modem (not many
| devices are available), is positive to some extent. Once
| investment is made with 5G modem, the device can be on road
| too. THink like, acting like enterprise node in p5G area and
| limited services outside (or device consumer).
|
| 6) Edge computing: With new standards, the applications can
| run at the edge. Those can be done currently with WiFi too.
| But WiFi has limitation of devices counts (too many needed),
| path reliability and geographic coverage. Whole factory or
| port or airport can be covered with small p5G footprint with
| specific applications running at the Edge (I live in this
| world :) )
|
| p5G will be game changer in enterprises with large complexes
| with moving assets.
| the_arun wrote:
| Does this need an "id" (phone number) to communicate in 5G?
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Almost certainly not a phone number. I think 3G/4G use IMSI[1]
| as the customer identifier. You only get a phone number if
| you're going to be doing voice calls over the carrier's
| network.
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_mobile_subscribe...
| rajul wrote:
| Super excited about the new edge usecases this could potentially
| enable
| darklion wrote:
| Such as?
| bhewes wrote:
| This would be useful in oil and gas fields that have a ton of IOT
| on them.
| cinbun8 wrote:
| What's the business case for a service like this? Is there anyone
| on HN that would order this for example?
| hoofhearted wrote:
| I would imagine that Amazon is already using this service
| internally to support their Amazon.com marketplace effort. If I
| were to take a stab at Amazon's internal use case for a private
| 5g network, I would bet they are using it to manage the
| communications of the Amazon Logistics applications.
|
| Amazon has come to not be held hostage and rely on outside
| companies for services all throughout their vertical including
| Fulfillment, Cloud Computing, and Logistics and Delivery. They
| have abstracted out their core operational dependencies into
| their own service offerings, so why not a private 5g network
| next?
| jcrawfordor wrote:
| One use-case is that LTE/5G are becoming increasingly
| attractive as a replacement for land-mobile radio. It used to
| be sort of common for major cities to have commercial
| MotoTRBO/OpenSky/iDEN networks for all kinds of business users
| that wanted LMR without having to pay to install their own
| equipment. Most of them died out due to stagnation of the
| technology and competition from cellular providers. There's a
| bit of excitement that that business sector could be coming
| back, as cellular equipment gets less expensive and increased
| data-centric usage has made quality of service on the
| mainstream cellular networks much more variable.
|
| Almost all major cities operate a private LTE network for city
| agency use, for example. But for various reasons it's mostly
| been out of the reach of private ventures. This could be one
| piece of changing that (5G brings a number of the other
| pieces).
| sithadmin wrote:
| Private LTE/5g is huge in the energy sector. You'll find it
| deployed for various IoT and end user devices at oil fields,
| offshore rigs, and even in parallel to the major carriers in
| large metro areas. The latter is fairly common with energy
| utility providers. One of the US's largest energy suppliers in
| the South operates what is probably the largest private LTE
| deployment in North America, using their own transmission
| towers to cover a majority of two states in the US Southeast.
| In addition to using this to support their own ops, they lease
| access out to other businesses.
|
| It's also increasingly common to see private LTE/5g deployed to
| support municipal government operations.
| ec109685 wrote:
| They talk about it on their webpage, but I've heard this
| described as the ability to offer an SLA on a wireless network.
| This means that rather than using hard wired ethernet,
| company's can instead use a 5G network under their control and
| offer equivalent level of reliability.
| flipbrad wrote:
| If only the linked-to page had a section clearly headed "Use
| cases"
|
| /s
| cinbun8 wrote:
| I completely missed that
| tyingq wrote:
| There's use cases further down the page. A fair amount of
| companies have existing applications that are on-prem and could
| be made to work with mobile devices this way without having to
| expose endpoints to the internet. Things like mobile barcode
| scanners, iot sensors, roving employees with tablets, etc.
|
| Edit: Though there are other options:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29395370
| Fomite wrote:
| There's a _ton_ of research applications with small sensors.
| pdelgallego wrote:
| anything big enough that connecting it using wifi might be
| challenging. E.g. Port, factories, airports, ...
| woofcat wrote:
| They outline a few cool business cases. I imagine it could be
| used by mining corps who are often in the middle of no-where.
| Set up your own cellular tower and give everyone Amazon branded
| sim cards and it will be a hell of a lot better than Wi-Fi in
| specific buildings and/or radio only communications.
| turtlebits wrote:
| I wonder what the range is for their small cell towers. Would be
| interesting for off-grid/remote communities (pair with
| Starlink?).
|
| edit: Reading more, it might not be the right use case - doesn't
| sound like something you use for your phone.
| ahaseeb wrote:
| It's usable for phone but the biggest use case is data - Do you
| have any communities in mind
| turtlebits wrote:
| You can put the SIM in your phone but then you'll only be
| part of the private network. I didn't see anything about
| phone calls/SMS.
| sbisson wrote:
| Catching up with Azure, I see. Edge Zones has been available
| since May.
|
| https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/solutions/private-multi-ac...
| stossie wrote:
| Different products, Azure offering competes against AWS
| Wavelength.
| sbisson wrote:
| See Azure Private Edge Zones, part of the full product. Azure
| is offering both network-provided and private 5G as options
| in the same service.
| kumarski wrote:
| I wonder how many CISOs and CTOs trust Amazon.
|
| I'm not sufficiently technical on this front and so I'm probably
| being a little on the side of paranoia but I don't trust Amazon
| with my cellular infrastructure.
| emteycz wrote:
| What makes you trust telcos more?
| kumarski wrote:
| Who said I trust telcos more?
|
| Waveform.com is worth looking at.
| DesiLurker wrote:
| I'd guess mostly their (telcos) incompetence.
| bastardoperator wrote:
| They tend to have a track record, where this is a new
| offering and anyone signing up is ultimately the guinea pig?
| paxys wrote:
| CTOs of like half the companies on the planet (and 90% of the
| Fortune 500) which use AWS seem to trust it just fine.
| imwillofficial wrote:
| The number of people completely missing what this service does
| either means they did not read the article, or the article was
| very poor in clairity.
|
| For those who were mistaken, which was it?
| djfergus wrote:
| Q: What spectrum does AWS Private 5G support?
|
| By default, AWS Private 5G uses shared spectrum like Citizens
| Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) in the US.
| no_time wrote:
| >Run a smart manufacturing facility
|
| >Enable business-critical applications
|
| I'm not sure what manufacturing facility are they talking about
| but at the places I know you will get ridiculed for even
| entertaining the idea of controlling infrastructure over anything
| but good old copper or fiber.
|
| And they are right.
| ABeeSea wrote:
| Amazon has deployed wirelessly controlled KIVA robots in the
| warehouses for over a decade.
| kizer wrote:
| Why? There are undoubtedly wireless components to the
| infrastructure's network already. If everything could just beam
| to a single tower what's the issue?
| no_time wrote:
| >undoubtedly wireless components to the infrastructure's
| network already.
|
| Yeah, the free guest wifi in the meeting rooms. Believe me,
| out in the field it's all copper and fiber, held together by
| mountains of cisco switches. The facility in question is an
| oil refinery.
| cesarb wrote:
| An obvious use case would be controlling a fleet of AGVs;
| forcing them all to be tethered could be very limiting.
| wantsanagent wrote:
| There are a lot of places that use RFID, Bluetooth and WiFi for
| equipment tracking, tote tracking, part tracking etc. Each has
| its pros and cons so I imagine there is space for 5g as well.
| javajosh wrote:
| Sounds like they are selling Wifi++ - what confuses me is how/why
| Amazon is involved, apart from selling the hardware. Is there a
| subscription piece?
|
| The implication of this product concerns me, although maybe it's
| just a communication issue. Amazon is selling this as an Amazon
| product, but wifi isn't an Amazon product, nor is 5G. They are
| retailing the gear to put up a 5G network - so why call it a
| "product" and roll it out like this?
| jcrawfordor wrote:
| The 5G architecture (and LTE for the most part, but 5G was
| designed ground-up this way) makes very heavy use of remote
| resources. An actual 5G base station (and most new LTE base
| stations) is somewhat like an SDR with very little actual
| protocol logic locally, it connects to a remote controller that
| handles all of the "business logic." It's an important change
| because for various reasons, some good and some not so good,
| the architecture of these networks is really quite complicated
| and a base station needs a lot of "support services" to
| function. Making them all remote is basically the change that
| allowed cell base stations to go from 120sqft concrete huts to
| the "microcells" we have today where the equipment fits in a
| pole-mount cabinet.
|
| So the value proposition here is that Amazon is operating the
| actual network, which is not a small thing. You just have to
| install the radio hardware.
| javajosh wrote:
| Thanks for the clarifications! I still have questions - there
| is no "business logic" in my wifi router, so why would there
| be such a thing in a 5G base station?
|
| What is the analog to a wifi router calling out to a "remote
| controller" to handle "business logic"?
|
| A base station needs "support services" to function - what
| are those?
|
| Presumably the complexity of 5G vs Wifi comes from it's cell
| nature, and the nodes need to know about each other and
| connected devices to deal with a handoff (which implies at
| least limited multiplexing). But I don't see why this
| behavior would require a server-side component and a
| subscription. Shouldn't the 5G nodes be smart enough to deal
| with this without phoning home?
| jcrawfordor wrote:
| A simple explanation is that the nature of a cellular
| network requires that all base stations have a relatively
| large amount of shared state (which can get as fine as TDMA
| synchronization) and the ability to exchange information
| with each other in realtime. WiFi generally doesn't have
| this requirement, especially now that roaming extensions
| have mostly obsoleted AP virtualization (which is what
| pricey enterprise WiFi systems with a dedicated controller
| used to add).
|
| An even simpler explanation is that the architecture of the
| cellular network is both old and comes out of the telecom
| industry, which both mean that it has many layers and
| strict requirements for QoS, traffic engineering, etc.
|
| In a little more detail (given that this is not a topic I'm
| an expert in and it can get confusing): most of the magic
| in 5G happens in a component called the RAN or radio access
| network. The RAN is basically everything between your phone
| and the "core network" that provides actual services like
| telephony and IP access (which is going to be in a data
| center). The RAN can be fairly complex as in newer
| technologies it involves things like making intelligent
| heuristic decisions about which base station a given device
| should be communicating with.
|
| Historically base stations were expected to be largely
| independent and handle basically everything between the
| phone and the existing ISDN network, which just sort of
| dated back to how analog radiotelephones had worked. This
| required a lot of equipment to provide the entire RAN on-
| site. The new direction has been to absolutely minimize
| what is located in the field, both for size and power
| savings but also to simplify management since there's less
| field equipment to upgrade and maintain. This means that a
| typical 5G gNB, the actual radio station, basically does
| nothing but encode/decode to/from binary, which it then
| sends to a "virtual RAN" or vRAN running in a data center
| somewhere. All of the actual protocol implementation,
| access control, traffic engineering, etc. is done in the
| vRAN. This adds a lot of flexibility since the vRAN can be
| maintained and iterated on more easily and can flexibly
| allocate resources between sites. It also simplifies field
| installation because the site only needs connectivity back
| to the vRAN, which is a little simpler to arrange (via VPN,
| fiber, metro ethernet, ISDN, whatever) than getting the
| site connectivity into an actual mobile exchange, and to IP
| capabilities, etc.
|
| Or in other words, your WiFi AP does contain the business
| logic of IP switching and 802.11 session management. But
| that's relatively simple and done for a relatively small
| number of clients compared to a cellular base station, and
| WiFi has (mostly) always been designed with the idea of
| minimal to zero requirements for inter-AP communication
| beyond existing IP capabilities.
| fault1 wrote:
| it's sort of like asking whether for self driving cars
| whether it is prudent to have cars that strictly know to
| act based on what they sense (in a reactive way), or if it
| is better to collect maps of sensed environments and figure
| out how to proactively figure out the best optimal
| approaches in given situations conditioned against various
| environments and push out updates.
|
| the answer is that _both_ are prudent. There is enough
| cooperation and coordination challenges that both offline
| and online approaches are important.
| vel0city wrote:
| Not only is there some additional network logic to help
| handoffs go smoothly, there's a lot more complicated
| business logic going on with cellular APs than home WiFi
| APs. On top of that, you're going to want to try and
| control potentially thousands of APs and have them
| orchestrate and you may not want to rely on RF links to
| propagate changes.
|
| A home WiFi AP is doing a pretty straightforward relation
| of SSID to some Ethernet-like network. Anything talking on
| the Ethernet network addressing a client goes out the
| radio, things coming from the client to the Ethernet
| network goes in. Even with this, it can make sense to have
| the management of these systems centralized, most
| enterprise systems do this already.
|
| Cellular networking gets a lot more complicated with
| various APNs and other advanced networking concepts. There
| is a lot more going on than just doing a handshake, pulling
| an IP address, and starting to talk networking.
| spookthesunset wrote:
| My understanding of 5G and modern cell phone protocols is
| there isn't really an idea of "handoff". With CDMA multiple
| towers in an area all get the same signals from your phone
| and are all transmitting on the same frequencies as well.
| It is kind of a "mesh" like thing.
| ksec wrote:
| Basically Modern 5G ( allows ) moving most of the compute,
| controller to the cloud. That is why 5G is much more cost
| effective from Carrier's POV.
|
| For something truly like WiFi it would be Standalone NR-U ( New
| Radio Unlicensed ).
|
| I am just wondering if it will ever be cost effective for
| consumers.
| javajosh wrote:
| _> moving most of the compute, controller to the cloud_
|
| And when I hear that I think "SPOF, intense vendor lock-in".
| detaro wrote:
| Presumably they sell network
| management/operation/maintenance/... as a service. (Similar to
| how cloud-managed wifi stuff is a thing, except mobile networks
| are more complex)
| yayr wrote:
| How does this work from a regulatory standpoint? Most countries
| license frequency bands to dedicated operators under very
| specific conditions. These operators usually pay a lot of money
| for that and need to provide a certain degree of public coverage.
| ghshephard wrote:
| Intriguing - but the first three questions that immediately came
| to mind didn't seem to have an immediate answer. (1) What
| range/power, (2) Pricing (3) Density/Number of connections? I'd
| love to see a network architecture that shows how they hop from
| antenna to antenna as well, and whether it's guaranteed with no
| interruption to service.
| atlgator wrote:
| Will this let me build out a 5G network near my mom's house in
| the sticks?
| alexatalktome wrote:
| Heard it may not launch soon because the project is so stressful
| employees may quit before it's done. Lots of weekend work and
| lying management.
| jgalt212 wrote:
| Can I just use this as a cheaper (hopefully) home internet
| connection?
| vmception wrote:
| Would be awesome to see them make a proposal to authenticate to
| the Helium network, I believe they intend to also support private
| 5g?
|
| anyway Amazon could handle the logistics to rollout hardware much
| better than existing manufacturers on the Helium network.
| nerdbaggy wrote:
| This is fantastic, I wonder what the pricing will be. Cellular
| stuff is always expensive it seems.
| axegon_ wrote:
| I'm curious to find out where this would be available. I spent
| about two years in an ISP provider and any service you wanted to
| add that involved telecom services required a million and one
| licenses and government permissions, most of which took months if
| not years.
| tyingq wrote:
| Probably worth noting that the regular cell providers can also
| provide SIMS that dump the end device into your existing, normal
| private network rather than the internet.
|
| I don't know how this service differs in pricing, so it's hard to
| quantify when this AWS service would be a better idea outside of
| coverage issues.
| paxys wrote:
| Dedicated base stations are the difference here. There's a huge
| need for private communication networks outside of urban areas
| where there is bad cell coverage - think oil fields, docks,
| industrial estates, ranches, war zones.
| tyingq wrote:
| Yes, sure...that's what I meant by "coverage issues". I
| wasn't sure everyone was aware of the route-to-my-private-
| network option that doesn't require a VPN, etc.
| maccolgan wrote:
| I would assume that'd be so nickle and dimed by CISPs (probably
| trying to milk the enterprise cow) that nobody either knows or
| cares about that.
| tyingq wrote:
| They do have to compete with one another, and potential
| customers usually already have leverage with other things
| they do with the same carrier, like WAN links, MPLS,
| corporate owned mobile contracts, etc.
| drewda wrote:
| Is this a competitor to Twilio's managed SIM card service? That's
| been my go-to in recent years whenever we need to provide cell
| data connectivity to a small number of devices.
| alexatalktome wrote:
| No this is a Antenae-as-a-service
| joewadcan wrote:
| Are they using Magma[1]? I couldn't tell from their sparse
| FAQ[2]. The Magma community is strong and they're making great
| progress on the open standard.
|
| 1 Magma - Facebook built 5G hotspot platform:
| https://www.magmacore.org/
|
| 2 AWS FAQ - https://aws.amazon.com/private5g/faqs/
| ocean_id wrote:
| They don't. As a matter of fact i'm here to see if the name
| company involved in this project is going to leak.
| [deleted]
| savant_penguin wrote:
| Why would telecoms offer a service that could compete with their
| own?
| a-dub wrote:
| so i'm guessing this means they use 5g in their warehouses for
| the their robots/cameras/etc and they've turned it into a
| product?
|
| it's still a little unclear to me when 5g becomes a better option
| than 802.11. the standard bands are just a little faster than lte
| (which 802.11 outperforms) and the mmwave high bandwidth stuff
| requires line of sight with no occlusion. 802.11 seems better all
| around, it can work at high bandwidth without the line of sight
| requirements... especially considering that most mobile devices
| are designed to switch between 802.11 and mobile.
| laserbeam wrote:
| It seems everyone here is confused. Here's the official FAQ, and
| it has 0 marketing garbage.
|
| https://aws.amazon.com/private5g/faqs/
|
| There's no "telecom as a service", and there's no "5g can be
| split into multiple networks" nonsense.
|
| Amazon is just selling 5g access points and hardware (just like
| you would install wifi), and rents you a private connection for
| that hardware to AWS, and management of that network from AWS.
| Basically.
| taf2 wrote:
| I'm still kinda of confused... does that mean we could say get
| a simcard and make voice calls via this network? insert sim
| card into mobile phone android/iphone and make phone calls?
| laserbeam wrote:
| Unsure. But private LTE is already a thing where you can
| install your own towers onprem and configure your devices to
| connect to those towers instead of the ones of your standard
| AT&T provider (or whatever). I don't think there's any magic
| voodoo involved. I assume there's a way to configure 5G
| capable devices to connect to some local physical network you
| set up at a factory.
|
| I don't expect this is for telephony, but rather a faster (I
| guess it's faster...) wifi. But who knows. Maybe if you
| install your own telephony servers or whatever you could call
| people on that network. Unsure anyone would care about that
| unrealistic usecase.
| teeray wrote:
| They are giving you a core and a RAN (Radio Access Network).
| The RAN uses "lightly licensed spectrum," (CBRS in the US),
| which I believe is supported in newer iPhones.
|
| That's enough to make bars appear on your phone. What's
| missing is the IMS, which adds traditional calling,
| voicemail, SMS, etc. However, FaceTime, iMessage, etc. will
| all work.
| fbourque wrote:
| to be a Telco at scale you need dedicated spectrum allocation
| which is seldom auctioned by the government at super high price
| so this is definitively what this is. it uses CBRS Spectrum
| which is dynamically allocated per site and the government can
| yank the CBRS spectrum you were temporary allocated at their
| discretion.
| laserbeam wrote:
| There are other comments here claiming Telco nonsense. What
| you say sounds reasonable though :)
| [deleted]
| epa wrote:
| How does this compare to Helium 5G? https://www.helium.com/5G
| paxys wrote:
| The biggest difference seems to be that aside from dropping
| some buzzwords like blockchain that page gives no description
| for what Helium 5G actually is or what the intended use cases
| for it are.
| delabay wrote:
| Helium 5G will become a large neutral host carrier for mobile
| using CBRS bands. Meaning that major network operators, or
| MVNOs, are the real customer.
|
| The way this works is Helium hardware owner/operators deploy
| CBRS radios in whatever real estate assets they have at their
| disposal, then Helium or the Helium OEM partners with
| MNO/MVNO to offload data at a very cheap rate, and suddenly
| the carrier can grow network coverage at zero capex and low
| opex and the Helium node owner has a new source of revenue
| which was never before possible.
|
| They also open the door to become a semi-private network
| infrastructure too, which would be in competition with this
| new Amazon product.
| vmception wrote:
| Kind of interesting how it stops being a buzzword when you
| understand why the word is being used, more interesting to
| watch other people be allergic to some words.
|
| That landing page is sparse but Helium and other wireless
| networks are using blockchains as a rollout strategy.
|
| Basically people invest in radio hardware because they think
| they can earn more in the blockchain token, don't worry as
| the radios are low power and most networks especially
| Helium's doesn't allow people to hoard radios, you earn less
| if there are other radios in the coverage zone. Other radios
| are the nodes which report your adherence to the network
| rules, the blockchain automatically pays out. Thats the
| supply side. The demand is people and organizations buying
| the token to buy send data over this network. With Helium I
| believe thats a one way conversion: Helium tokens -> data.
| But the receiving radio gets paid in new Helium from the
| blockchain's issuance, if it received any data then thats a
| bonus added to its payout allowance (but its not 1:1 to the
| amount of Helium tokens burned). So its kind of fun to think
| that the availability of this wireless network will have some
| service buying this digital commodity as an overhead cost and
| extending service to people that don't know Helium is one of
| the network routes behind the scenes. There are some IOT
| device that use the Helium network, I think some of the
| rideshare scooters use it already for over a year.
| NikolaeVarius wrote:
| > wireless network supported by the Helium Blockchain.
|
| The fuck
| Invictus0 wrote:
| I mean it's very obvious how it's different: helium is not
| private. It's also obvious that you just wanted to namedrop
| Helium even though it has nothing to do with the use case for
| Amazon's product.
| csdvrx wrote:
| I beg to differ: it's a competitor for custom devices needing
| to transfer small amounts of data without regulatory hurdles,
| with the drawback of spotty connectivity given the current
| coverage map.
|
| But for a moving device (ex: truck) transmitting locally
| stored data without latency concerns (ex: IOT temperature
| readings for a frozen cargo) I think it would be much more
| efficient, with far more coverage: you could have a $20
| LORAWAN ESP32 built in individual boxes.
|
| Think of this like Apple airtags, using a mesh network to
| intermittently transfer data on a best effort basis, but
| hooked to custom sensors so you fully control the payload
| tradertef wrote:
| It is similar concept but for AWS, you need to own your
| spectrum ($$$$).
|
| Helium is a useless concept (in practice) that is now getting
| on the 5G trains for marketing purposes. Their IOT is super-low
| data rate for anything useful. It is good for people to thinker
| and speculate but no use for real life applications that demand
| actual throughput.
| 2bluesc wrote:
| Helium is (initially) focused on shipping a LoRaWAN[0] network
| with a crowd sourced model for Lora RF hotspots that uses
| blockchain for to pay incentives to those supporting the
| network (via hardware, power, bandwidth). LoRaWAN focuses on
| low power, very low bandwidth, long range devices like sensor
| networks and simple controls.
|
| Nearest competitor to Helium's LoRaWAN deployment that I'm
| aware of is The Things Network[1] which has no incentive model
| and instead people often host an access point for their
| personal use and sometimes for the use of those nearby.
|
| Helium is expanding to CBRS[2] 5G service which will offer
| traditional higher bandwidth services, but this deployment is
| very early and the first units are shipping next month from
| FreedomFi[3].
|
| Coolest thing about the Helium LoRaWAN offering is that you can
| buy a $20 ESP32 microcontroller with Lora radio on Amazon,
| write some software, buy Helium data credits and use it
| anywhere helium has coverage. No contracts, no special
| hardware. And if it sucks you could switch your application to
| use another LoRaWAN offering (The Things Network). That said, I
| think the coverage of Helium vastly outpaces anything else
| because of the crypto incentives fueling the madness and
| growth. [4]
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LoRa
|
| [1] https://www.thethingsnetwork.org/
|
| [2]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Broadband_Radio_Servi...
|
| [3] https://freedomfi.com/
|
| [4] https://explorer.helium.com/coverage
| solarkraft wrote:
| > Coolest thing about the Helium LoRaWAN offering is that you
| can buy a $20 ESP32 microcontroller with Lora radio on
| Amazon, write some software, buy Helium data credits and use
| it anywhere helium has coverage.
|
| Or just go with the free TTN. But I do agree that it's good
| to have icentives and I'm quite glad somebody is rolling out
| a large scale LoRaWAN.
| delabay wrote:
| Helium has better coverage than TTN by orders of magnitude.
| I have an environmental sensor which reports every 15
| minutes and $1 pays for years of data transfer.
| bogwog wrote:
| > Blockchain
|
| Hard pass
| Spivak wrote:
| It's actually not that bad. It's basically just a payment for
| providing verifiable wireless coverage to an area. If you
| want access to the network you buy it with VerizonBucks and
| people who provide coverage get them.
|
| In this case the only reason for the blockchain is really
| because global payments are hard.
| Digory wrote:
| Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1865/
|
| Which seems to be true for me. Despite having semi-pro levels of
| wifi gear and a "fiber" provider at home, I can often get
| transfers work by turning 'off' the wifi and going to LTE.
|
| If I were a campus IT administrator, it probably makes a lot of
| sense to get rid of wifi costs.
| NicoJuicy wrote:
| Which telecom would really want to partner with Amazon?
| anonymousDan wrote:
| Surely the problem is access to spectrum, or is the idea to rely
| on unused spectrum bands reserved for local experimental use?
| amarshall wrote:
| > Convenience of CBRS (Citizens Broadband Radio Service) in the
| US with no need to acquire spectrum licenses.
|
| From: https://d1.awsstatic.com/reInvent/re21-pdp-
| tier1/private-5g/...
| simplyaccont wrote:
| it's probably CBRS based system. there are a SAS (spectrum
| access system) administrators that in charge of managing
| spectrum so different users won't sit on same frequency. kinda
| like this https://www.comsearch.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2020/02/cbrs-sa...
| foobarian wrote:
| There is a ton of bandwidth up in the millimeter wave area if
| line of sight is not too obstructed. One whole GHz is nothing
| while with legacy WiFi it could be almost half the actual
| carrier frequency.
| [deleted]
| detaro wrote:
| With 5G, many countries have reserved space and/or licensing
| mechanisms to get spectrum access for small local deployments.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| In the US, the FCC has specifically allocated 3.5ghz for open
| use[0]; paying for a license just gives you priority access to
| the spectrum. Use of the band requires checking in with a
| server to lease spectrum at a granularity of about 4 minutes.
| This is akin to if your Wi-Fi router could ask the FCC to give
| it a channel known to not have any users within a certain
| radius of itself.
|
| [0]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Broadband_Radio_Servi...
| csdvrx wrote:
| If I want to deploy a custom 5G base station on this band 38,
| what hardware do I need? Are there free software solutions?
| throwawaymanbot wrote:
| They love 5G because their mesh neighborhood spyveillance BS
| works even better without the need for WiFi permissions.
| arendtio wrote:
| How is a private 5G network different from wifi from a
| consumer/business perspective? Does it have a superior range?
|
| (Honest question)
| XzAeRosho wrote:
| - Massive bandwidth (up to 50 Gigabit/s in certain
| configurations).
|
| - Allows real concurrent connections (one "antenna" can connect
| simultaneously multiple clients vs. the switch that Wifi does
| for each client).
|
| - The above improves latency, and you can achieve 1ms latency
| in private networks with multiple connections.
|
| - The stack allows slicing which can help to isolate networks
| or devices.
| 310260 wrote:
| 5G has the ability to run on licensed and unlicensed
| frequencies too. Unlicensed spectrum is highly interfered and
| is a reason WiFi performs so poorly sometimes. Using licensed
| spectrum means you control the RF environment and therefore
| have much better control of network performance.
| josh_carterPDX wrote:
| Digital Trends has a good article about this. You can read it
| here: https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/5g-vs-wi-fi/
| j56no wrote:
| the article doesn't answer the question. Why setup an
| expensive private 5G network instead of a private wifi lan,
| also considering wifi maturity and wide support?
| josh_carterPDX wrote:
| Because if you need a private 5G to solve your own supply
| chain problems, why not set it up so you can also make
| money off of it.
| solarkraft wrote:
| It's not really a good article in terms of answering my
| question what makes 5G a better wireless communication
| platform than Wifi (besides having a different spectrum - how
| much does it matter?).
|
| When I think about creating a high speed wireless network for
| my factory/campus I don't think of 5G first, since it appears
| like it has the speed of Wifi, the range of Wifi (the power
| efficiency of Wifi?) and way more associated cost for
| stations, modems and SIM stuff while Wifi APs are pretty
| cheap and Wifi modems virtually free.
| ocean_id wrote:
| Most of articles comparing 4G/5G and Wifi are focusing just
| on bandwidth and latency. That is somehow like comparing cars
| in just how fast they can go.
|
| 3G/4G/5G are standardized and built for operators that are
| used to manage huge amount of users. A lot of effort is put
| in avoiding congestion, providing guaranteed bitrate/latency
| for dedicated services (like your phone calls), smooth
| handovers between different antennas, a lot of of security
| features, and obviously, an excellent user tracking in order
| to charge the customers.
| krab wrote:
| I had the same question as the parent poster, so thanks for
| the link.
|
| Still, I'm confused. The article says that both WiFi 6 and 5G
| have similar theoretical max speeds. The main difference in
| the article seems to be that 5G operates on licensed
| spectrum. But if I understand correctly, this AWS service
| uses an unlicensed spectrum, so I'm still not sure why would
| I choose this over WiFi.
| IMSAI8080 wrote:
| What radio spectrum does it use for a private 5G network? Isn't
| it all expensively purchased by the phone companies already?
| s800 wrote:
| AFAIK, this is CBRS as a Service, which means it uses the
| 3.5GHz PAL.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Broadband_Radio_Servi...
|
| https://www.fcc.gov/35-ghz-band-overview
| IMSAI8080 wrote:
| Thank you
| eliseumds wrote:
| I still don't get why AWS keeps using images to display textual
| content. It's inaccessible and it looks terrible on mobile
| devices.
| lawwantsin17 wrote:
| Everyone quick, Amazon now wants us to pay to help build out its
| cellular infra. Jump on the inflated prices, quick!
| parhamn wrote:
| Curious if anyone is familiar: if you could purchase these for
| your home and all your devices that have wifi chips also have 5g
| chips, how do you choose between 5g and wifi for your home? Would
| 5g make sense in wifi-like deployments? Any reason this tech
| hasn't merged?
| NikolaeVarius wrote:
| You test them
| htrp wrote:
| From the conversation I had, you don't need a spectrum license
| and Amazon ships you the equipment. The killer app is that there
| is no per device costs and you pay based on your usage.
|
| Unfortunately, no mention of actual pricing.
| benjaminwai wrote:
| I wonder how do they link back to the main network? Would it
| require a fiber backbone in place as a prerequisite? Or through
| satellite uplink? i.e., would somewhere really remote, say, the
| oil rig in the North Sea, be out of luck for such installation?
| sinak wrote:
| It works over a regular IPSec tunnel I believe.
| 8ytecoder wrote:
| I think people are missing the point on what this is about. It's
| not about telecom at all. 5G is being looked at as an alternative
| to WiFi in certain environments - large retail stores,
| warehouses, ...etc. Basically anything where you need large scale
| WiFi mesh setups and the devices are controlled by a single
| entity.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-30 23:00 UTC)