Adaptive array transceiver technology to offer several Gbps speeds on very high frequencies

Before most of the world has seen a consistent 4G LTE connection (or even 3G in many places), Samsung is already talking about its research into new 5G technologies. It's a lot of technical speak, but Samsung has developed what it is calling an "adaptive array transceiver technology" to deliver extremely high speed mobile data over millimeter-wave frequencies. Previously considered a poor choice for transmitting data because of their extremely high frequency when compared to what's being used today, Samsung has proven that it can send data in the millimeter-wave frequencies quite efficiently. Testing at a frequency of 28GHz (today's networks are in the 600MHz to 3GHz range), it has successfully made data transfers of 1.056 Gbps over the distance of 2 kilometers. Samsung says its 5G technology would be consistently several hundred times faster than current 4G tech.

Now these are the very early stages of just a proof of concept, as Samsung doesn't expect these technologies to be commercialized until at least 2020. That gives Samsung -- and other companies -- plenty of time to refine its processes to see what works best. If it can indeed take advantage of these previously unusable extremely high frequencies, it could be part of the solution to the "spectrum crunch" we seem to hear about all too often.

Source: Samsung


Reader comments

Samsung working on '5G' technology to deploy by 2020


Ah, real technology, not just some concept of 'how to touch a screen' like that other company..

Considering 4G isn't really 4G anymore I wonder how long until 5G includes everything from about 5Mbps and up? And remember wimax at 2.5ghz or whatever? That had horrible building penetration. I wonder how they will address that? Does 28ghz even go through a sheet of paper?

My thoughts exactly. As soon as i saw 28 ghz my immediate reaction was "ewww ....." and i started to wonder about its building penetration. If they can make it work, good on 'em, but i don't know if that's even possible...

Considering Carriers change the definition of 4G (100 MBps) to fit them better and change it to a marketing term I doubt we'll ever see 1GB up or down from them. Carriers are all about maximizing profit from the least amount of investment. I doubt Carriers like Verizon even have a R&D department, and if they do a poorly funded one, I mean they can't even update a phone in a timely fashion either.
The average 4G speeds in St.Louis here is 12mbps up and 5 down on 4g lte, on a good day. My home wifi is 10 down and 2 up. I doubt we'll even see 100 mbps in 2020 by the carriers and if we do they'll call it 5G when in reality it will actually be true 4G. Companies don't care about the customer anymore, only about stock holders and making 8% increases every year in profits.

2KM isn't even remotely close to a usable distance for real world use. Not to mention I'd be surprised if you could even get a signal while anywhere that wasn't a giant open field.

Do you have any idea how many 4G or even 3G towers it takes to cover even a small city? 2km is actually pretty good this far away from deployment..

4G LTE towers only cover a range of 4 miles and get exponentially worse in signal strength the further away you are from it. Not including regular cell towers here in St.Louis vzw has 7 4G towers for 2 million people and covering 800 sq. miles, which is why the average 4G speeds here are 5 up and 12 down. All carriers do the bare minimum to call an area 4G.

Agreed, unless you are in the middle of the desert that's not gonna happen. The signal probably wouldn't even penetrate a tent yet alone a building at these distances either.

2020 or even 3020 will not solve problem with high frequency electromagnetic waves not penetrating any obstacles. I call BS on this.

High frequency electromagnetic waves won't penetrate obstacles? Really? In that case, I'd like to perform an experiment. You stand in a house and I'll detonate a hydrogen bomb nearby. Let's see how that house protects you from the highest frequency band radio waves known: gamma rays.

Gamma rays are not radio waves. They are highly energetic high frequency EM waves. I stay corrected in general, but radio waves in principal are less penetrable with higher frequencies.

You didn't say "radio waves". You said electromagnetic waves which encompasses the entire spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. Plus, modern cell spectrum is better characterized as microwaves.

It's not a function of power but is dependent on frequency. That's why X-Rays go right through you and visible light does not.

Here in Cambridge England we still only have good 3G in urban areas.. no launch dates even announced for 4G!
And if you're phone drops back to GPRS rather than Edge you can forget about Mobile data.
And when you do get a good signal the data rates aren't fantastic.
So just having working 3G covering my entire journey from home to work would be a bonus.

I'm guessing that once this technology rolls out en masse, carriers will lower data caps to take advantage of higher speeds...say hello to your 1GB a month plan for $59.99.

What's the point of this? Unless you have unlimited data you would use your entire data quota in a matter of seconds.

For most people worldwide that isn't an option because they don't have a true unlimited data option or any carriers that do have appalling speeds.

I don't understand why people think data speed has anything to do with how fast you go through a data cap (your carrier of choice imposes on you). Whether I am getting a 50mbps connection, or a 5mbps connection, my usage habits don't change, I go to the same websites, download or update the same apps that range in size between 1mb-20mb, only different is websites load faster, apps update faster, but the amount of data these websites and apps use,...remain the same, regardless of speed.

It's human nature. The faster your connection, the more you download. Things that would be just tedious to do at slower speeds now become trivial. Five minutes after I got broadband for the first time I went to to watch their streaming commercials, something that would never have worked at 56Kbps.

By the way, browsing speed to most sites is capped by pipe throttling at the hosting level. Thus, a faster connection doesn't do much for browsing above a certain point.

So false. If you have say an hour train ride to work in the morning. With 3G you could only do so much web browsing and video watching when you factor in load and download times. Move to 4G and now things move several times faster, so you can view more websites, load music and videos quicker, download apps faster, fast forward to this and basically anything you do will be instant. You will still be using your phone for that hour, but you would be getting a lot more done.

Indeed. My data use grows in direct correlation with the speed of my connection. The broader my band, the more I can multitask. I can stream audio while I upload photos, for example. Or I can download the latest Photoshop update at 1.3GB.

What does Apple, Inc think of all this?
Perhaps Samsung can own 99% of the 5G patents and
make Apple pay for it. Unless Apple already
own the patent to the word "5G" in their arsenal. :)

By the way, someone please tell T-Mobile about this as well.
My entire half of the state still only gets 2G/EDGE on T-Mobile
networks because T-Mobile does not appear to want to invest to
upgrade to 3G... let alone 4G. :(

Doesn't the headline's "to deploy by 2020" mean almost the opposite of the phrase "until at least 2020" in the actual article?

I'm fine with 4G speeds. My problem is Sprint speeds are so inconsistent. When I get a good connection 4G is very fast. I think they should work on good coverage before going to the next level.

My big problem with Sprint 4G is that I can only get data to move to and fro when I dock the phone on a specific part of my desk. If I undock and move around, I get this quasi-connection that says 4G but doesn't really transmit anything or gets data at really bad latency and less than dial-up speeds. When I keep it docked in that one spot though, it's fantastic.

I don't know if my house has crappy wiring causing too much interference or what but Sprint 4G can't penetrate whatever is wrong with my house.

Sprint 3G is great all over. It's nice and snappy and, for most intents & purposes like casual browsing, just as good as 4G no matter where I am in the house. It has low latency and the only time it shows that it's only 3G is when I try so stream video and/or high quality audio.

It's very strange.

This reminds me of the Ozzy Osbourne/Justin Bieber 6G commercial from a couple of years ago. Funny stuff!

Oh great, so by 2020 T-Mobile US will be hyping "5G" that will only be rolled out in cities while many, many, rural/suburban areas are still GPRS/EDGE!