Salut Kirth,

Le 09/09/2020 à 18:46, Kirth Gersen a écrit :
> 38 tweets ?! TMTDR (too many tweets didn't read)

Ouais, je suis d'accord, c'est pas le bon média. Mais c'est quand même
celui que attire l'attention des politocards. Donc j'ai pas trop le choix.

Je travaille sur un truc un peu plus touffu pour un article sur un
organe de presse, mais entre les soucis techniques de mes clients et la
com événementielle, j'ai un peu de mal à me focaliser dessus.

Après t'as toujours @Threaderapp pour t'aider à lire ce que j'ai posté,
ou juste tu demande et le voilà :

"""
France is a bit late in #5G deployment due to an ongoing "debate". Or is
it so ? Let's update you on the situation. A #thread : 1/43 cc
@EU_Commission @Europarl_EN @DSMeu @ThierryBreton @FTTHCouncilEU @5GPPP
@EU_Growth @EP_Industry

We'll focus on the mainland. Oversea territories fall under different
rules and actors. 550 000km2, 65M inhabitants, 4 mobile carriers, over
20 MVNO, about 20 fixed consumer ISPs with the 4 MNO dominating the
market. 2/43

While #5G rollout hasn't started yet, we're pretty far ahead in terms of
fixed fiber deployment thanks to a 12 year old regulation allowing any
licensed operator to rent underground ducts and cable poles from the
incumbent. 3/43

Though I may come back to the FttH topic later on, because as it goes,
many foreseeable problems arise and public authorities, while informed
by a few engineers years ago, are not taking actions yet. 4/43

Back on the ongoing #5G debate : we have two sides. On the pro-side, we
have… next to no one. Neither carriers, vendors or regulator are willing
to take a public beating by an angry mob. 5/43

On the Con-side, we have nearly every politicized attention-seeking
speaker on the floor. Green-washers, opposition parties, self-entitled
experts on climate, health issues… But no specialists. Guess why ? 6/43

I know I'll take some hits and bruises with this thread, but I want to
clarify a few things nevertheless. It's all about facts and science, not
opinions from now on. Let's review the arguments. 7/43

1) "5G is going to use new, higher frequencies, and no public study has
demonstrated its absence of health impact". That's partially true, but
mostly false. 8/43

5G will essentially run on existing frequencies used by previous
generations, by re-farming the spectrum and a new technique allowing
multiple generations to run simultaneously as to not force early
terminal's replacement. 9/43

"New" frequencies can also be used as to cover dense areas more
efficiently. Well, those are hardly new : 3,5GHz was used for years as
fixed wireless access (WiMax) and low millimetre waves is common for
back-haul. 10/43

As to the health impacts, numerous studies have been conducted and found
none. It doesn't mean there is none, it's just, as Science works, that
we cannot detect them because if they exist, … 11/43

… they may be of such low significance, probability or amount, that even
the best instruments are not accurate enough to find it. 12/43

So, should we "wait and see" as the "caution principle" mandates ? Well,
that's where it comes to opinions, so I'll let you make your own. 13/43

2) "5G will require more antennas to be deployed". That's a big nope. By
re-farming existing frequencies, coverage will be strictly identical
with the same antennas. But, when needed, we could add more to get
better coverage… 14/43

…with a lot less power. Because more antennas mean less radio power. You
don't have to push harder for signal to reach farther terminals, so the
overall energy consumption and radio power is reduced by a denser
coverage. 15/43

3) Associated with the previous is "5G will draw more electricity" :
well, it might, if we use it as it's fullest potential, but in the short
term it consumes less because it has better tricks to reduce its
footprint. 16/43

For instance, 5G allows to reduce the number of MiMo (parallel) radio
chains, thus reducing available bandwidth, when there's less traffic on
the air. That's a 15-20% energy savings, not shutting down the network.
But there's more ! 17/43

5G runs on newer equipments which have more efficient chips (see Moore's
law) than the previous, and some of them are already deployed in
advance, currently running 4G network stacks, so we don't even have to
replace all of them. 18/43

At last, the modulation is more efficient than previous generations,
allowing for a 15% increase in bandwidth for the same energy
consumption. But it allows for gigabit level speeds where 4G allows for
less… 19/43

4) "With more pipes to fill, we'll consume every last bit of it, so in
the end it'll be a waste". Historically that's true : empty pipes
attracts creativity and waste. But… 20/43

…with the ongoing simultaneous sanitary, economic and environmental
crisis I *think* (sorry for the opinion) we might *at last* work on
websites and app's efficiency and sobriety, so in the end, we'll do more
with less. 21/43

This doesn't account for innovative uses of this network, things we
can't just grasp yet, because that's the whole point of innovation. 22/43

5) "But people will always find bad ways to waste resources" that's an
opinion, not a fact, as I said, because times are changing fast and we
might as well be more cautious starting this year. But let's sum it up
anyway… 23/43

Speculating on 8k mobile porn is nonsensical, your eyes ain't accurate
enough to count pubic hairs at that resolution, so there's no point in
going over full-HD. 24/43

Remote surgery doesn't need 5G, and must not rely on a shared-media
network anyway. Fixed fiber already does the job. Though there might be
better ways to federate health networks for that, such as @IXPSantX . 25/43

Smart Cities is just another bad excuse to feed consultants with public
funds, I doubt it will ever take that much traction, and if it does,
that should be for savings of other resources and might worth it. 26/43

Internet of Things may be of some use, and we already have networks for
that, like some designed with low-power as its first rule such as
@Sigfox 's. 5G might help, though, for some other uses currently unfit
for it. 27/43

There might be other speculations, but I think you got the point : #5G
gives more with less, or more with more if we need it, but that's up to
the users, not the network's purpose. 28/43

6) "It's a revolution, we'll be forced to replace every smartphone !"
That's also a negative. 4G will still run for years, you'd get the
newest iPhone long before that. 29/43

Or break your feature phone, unless it's a famously unbreakable @Nokia
3310, but 2G is planed to be kept operational just for it - for the time
being, so there's no "forced replacement" of any kind. 30/43

I'm joking, 2G will be kept running for many other purposes, such as
existing industrial and safety equipments, doorbells, eCall, but you got
the point. 31/43

7) "We might as well give the house' keys to the Chinese Government"!
Digital sovereignty deserves a thread by itself, but let's wrap it up
quickly if you will. 32/43

We don't need Huawei's or ZTE's to deploy #5G, we have two perfectly
fine vendors of our own, with @Ericsson (Sweden) and @Nokia (Finnish,
German and French know-how combined). 33/43

I think that covers it all, but if I missed any point, please tackle me
so I'll add it to the list. Now we know why we will deploy #5 because it
has only advantages, let's see how we could do it even better. We're
back to opinions. 34/43

There's a thing about the European Union : every member state'
government systematically tries to steer a ruling's interpretation as to
best fit its own agenda. On the telco market, this as led to opening the
market… 35/43

…generally in a really inefficient way, by privatizing historical
networks and forcing new actors to build redundant networks of their
own. Well, nearly every state f****d it up, only the Brits did it right…
36/43

…but only on the fixed network access, by splitting the incumbent in two
companies, one for the "network" and the other for "services". Mobile
there also runs off multiple redundant networks. We'll miss them… Or
not. 37/43

This has led to the creation of stable oligopolies to replace a
monopoly, often with the incumbent leading the pack and have really
attentive ears from the regulator. Barely what I would call an open
market. 38/43

Deploying a common, public or private, cellular network wasn't feasible
with early technologies. Only 4G started to make it viable. 5G goes even
further. But a cellular network is a complex beast, 39/43

and sharing it amongst multiple service providers might weaken it if one
was to do nasty things. So for the sake of redundancy, as nationwide
coverage is essential, two networks might be the optimal approach. 40/43

Going from 3 or 4 networks to two won't cut the overall energy
consumption in half, because another advantage of 5G is that it has less
fixed (20-35%) and more variable (load-following, 65-80%) energy
footprint. 41/43

But it would reduce the fixed-part of that footprint, and either reduce
the amount of capital to invest in that natural upgrade, or build a
denser coverage, that choice is mostly up to regulators. 42/43

It would also allow for fair access across the EU of both existing and
aspiring MNOs and MVNOs to revive competition as the EU rulings
mandates. #5G allows for that to work, and even more, let's jump on it !
43/43 /#Thread

Thanks for reading this thread @EU_Commission @Europarl_EN @DSMeu
@ThierryBreton @FTTHCouncilEU @5GPPP @EU_Growth @EP_Industry @arcep
@@BERECeuropaeu @sorianotech and everyone who will share it !
"""

@+

-- 
Jérôme Nicolle
+33 6 19 31 27 14


---------------------------
Liste de diffusion du FRnOG
http://www.frnog.org/

Répondre à