Please, tell us more about how just 60 hydrogen-powered 5G drones could make 400,000 UK base stations redundant
- Reference: 1604489285
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/11/04/stratospheric_platforms_cambridge_consultants_antenna/
- Source link:
Cambridge Consultants (CC) made its eyebrow-raising announcement a week after The Register reported on its partner Stratospheric Platform's [1]plans to build a hydrogen-powered 5G drone . CC builds the mobile network antenna intended to be hefted aloft by the Stratospheric Platforms (SP) craft.
Key to the SP/CC 5G drone is the antenna, which CC boasted in a statement "will provide coverage over an area of up to 140 kilometres in diameter, equivalent to deploying hundreds of today's terrestrial masts."
It went further, reckoning that "a fleet of around 60 HAPs* could blanket the whole of the UK with connectivity, providing even geographic coverage of peak 5G speeds in excess of 100 Gbps in aggregate."
Richard Leyland, a spokesman for Cambridge Consultants claimed the funky new antenna was capable of blanketing Britain in sufficient 5G coverage to make 400,000 terrestrial base stations redundant, a plan that struck El Reg as a whim too far.
Gartner consultant (and [2]erstwhile vulture ) Bill Ray was less than impressed with Cambridge Consultants' claims, telling us by email: "Using 60 aircraft to cover the UK (along with another 120 in rotation) might make sense if coverage is all that we're after, but the 5G revolution needs ultrareliable networking (which means connecting to several base stations at the same time, which demands greater network density) and ultralow latency (which requires edge computing, ideally in the base station). This kind of flying platform would seem to address the communication challenges of the Noughts, not the challenges that 5G provides."
Nonetheless, CC said its new antenna (32 tiles, three square metres, 120kg) generates 480 individual electronically steerable connectivity beams. These beams can be steered to create very specific coverage areas; the firm showed us a mockup image of beams steered to cover the M25 as a theoretical use-case example.
[3]
Cambridge Consultants' graphic showing its 5G drone antenna's coverage overlaid on the M25 London Orbital motorway
CC continued: "A unique, wholly digital beamforming capability gives massive flexibility in how services are deployed, allowing in-flight reconfiguration to deliver services beyond the reach of conventional fixed terrestrial networks. This includes following mobile users, including trains and autonomous vehicles, and providing coverage exactly where required, for example ending at national borders."
There is one small problem with this: at some point the base station needs to talk to the wider world. More specifically, that not insignificant part of the wider world based on terra firma. How do these 5G drones and their newfangled antennas handle backhaul?
Gartner's Ray said: "Backhaul will require additional antennas on the aircraft, in mmWave. The ground stations can be quite small (as mmWave only requires small antennas), but they will need a huge capacity. The aircraft operator will need to lease that radio spectrum too."
He concluded: "There are, therefore, very significant technical barriers to this innovation. The antenna is very pretty, but we're a long way from seeing an aircraft, or even a finalised design, and the window of opportunity is already closing."
CC/SP aim to have a real-life drone being test flown by 2024. Only a few more years to go. ®
Bootnote
HAPs = High Altitude Platforms. See also High Altitude Pseudo Satellite, which is the accepted industry name for delicate connectivity drones that fly at 60,000ft.
Get our [4]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2020/10/27/stratospheric_platforms_5g_hydrogen_drone/
[2] https://www.theregister.com/Author/Bill-Ray/
[3] https://regmedia.co.uk/2020/11/03/paintingm25.jpg
[4] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: 100Gbps for the whole of London?
You're still off by 3 zeros in your dismay, it'd be only 1 K bps per person (on your own low estimate of 1% simultaneous use)
Welcome back to the 80's acoustic decoupler modems kind of internet speed :)
Windy
Given the wind speeds in the stratosphere can be 100mph+, assume this is going to be tethered to the ground with the odd Solar panel powered fans and GPS to keep it in place?
Re: Windy
Given the wind speeds in the stratosphere can be 100mph+, assume this is going to be tethered to the ground with the odd Solar panel powered fans and GPS to keep it in place?
Tethered drones were trialled over London in the early 1940s. It wasn't very successful. The main problem was that the cables greatly inconvenienced air traffic. Consequently these "barrage balloons", as they were amusingly called, were all gone by the middle of 1945. The mobile phone coverage they provided wasn't much good either.
One word
Rain
Re: One word
Two words: Led Zeppelin
it's from aeronautics class R101
Led Zeppelin
Not quite sure I would call it a Stairway to Heaven though.
Re: Led Zeppelin
More like a Hindenburg Concerto?
Re: Led Zeppelin
H2 powered drones though, so maybe this complex network design is the starting point for the Hydrogen Sonata ?
Re: Led Zeppelin
No, but likely to result in a Communication Breakdown.
Re: Led Zeppelin
And if ever the drones fell from the sky we are then likely to feel a little Dazed and Confused....
Re: Led Zeppelin
This radio all seems Gaga to me.
Could is another way of saying...
There is a remote possibility that this could work if only some fairy godmither would pay us a heap of money to make it work (or not)
As far as I'm concerned, drones are not the answer to anything. Now what is the question again?
Re: Could is another way of saying...
If only we can merge Blockchain into this somehow...
an area of up to 140 kilometres
Venture to guess the KEY WORD in the above claim? ;)
Now I'm confused...
My initial scepticism is tempered by the fact that a Gartner consultant also thinks the idea is complete pants. And we all know how their predictions tend to turn out...
Re: Now I'm confused...
Don't worry, No. 10 Downing St will readily cough up a few hundred million or more
Re: Now I'm confused...
Clearly, you are a new reader or didn't follow the link. [1]Bill Ray is ex-vulture and has quite a bit of hands on experience of connecting remote places to t'internet. As well as being a thoroughly decent chap. But anyone with some actual experience of radio will be asking pointed questions. Such as:
a) There are 10 (or 12) million people inside the M25 ring. What aggregated bandwidth does said population currently use (and do they consider it to be "adequate" anyway)?
b) How many flying thingies would it take to service just London's population. Now add every other conurbation in the UK before hand waving a lot about the "rural" internet? You may find this article on [2]Erlangs useful to answer this question.
c) How much spectrum would it take to up and downlink it all?
d) Indeed would there be any spectrum left for anybody else?
Even dear old Elon has figured out that he's going to need to fill the sky with 60,000 bits of junk satellites just to service some of the internet not->slow spots in the US, never mind the rest of the world. I know he thinks that's enough for "the world", but nobody else does.
After all Elon isn't the first person to try this, [3]Iridium started all this off in the 1990s and have gone bankrupt IIRC twice since. Iridium gives you a whole 25 kilo "baud" (probably bits), at least whilst a satellite is in view. BTW, Iridium had problems with their satellites being "too bright" as well.
[1] https://www.theregister.com/Author/Bill-Ray/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erlang_(unit)
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridium_satellite_constellation
Re: Now I'm confused...
"before hand waving a lot about the "rural" internet?"
There is a pattern where people claim "we can do cheap rural internet. It starts with the big claims, then it turns to "we must do big cities first" (where the money is), then the start-up goes bust and either disappears or is taken over by an incumbent. Whatever the outcome, it never seems to reach the originally touted rural roll-outs though.
Superspreader?
Does this mean that the coronavirus particles will have more waves to ride down on?
Re: Superspreader?
David Icke has been permanently suspended from Twitter, so we won't be hearing more from him from that source
[1]https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54804240
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54804240
Won't work
Drones, check
5G, check
Hydrogen, check
Blockchain? Oops...
AI? Oops...
Seriously, their business plan only got 3 buzzwords. That's not enough to attract funding.
Re: Won't work
Seriously, their business plan only got 3 buzzwords. That's not enough to attract funding.
They will be tethered to the ground by a blockchain.
And monitored using AI (=Airborne Interception) radar.
Re: Won't work
You forgot ML and the Digital Divide.
Arrgh
Considering the source, I know this is an idiotic idea for many reasons but manglement will love it.
Backhaul and interference
As noted, 100Gbps backhaul is not easy in any available microwave, especially when its cloudy
How directional are the antennas? Frequency reuse is a headache and this drone becomes a tempting jamming target
Re: Backhaul and interference
If it's tethered to the ground, run the backhaul cable in that tether.
Interesting but...
This is an interesting idea, but I see a couple of issues
1). Backhaul. Current mobile stations can be hooked up to any locally available internet connection, right up to high bandwidth fibre connections. Anyone who has used Satellite broadband is probably grimacing at the thought of being one of potentially thousands of users connected through a single radio based connection to a ground station. Note: I know existing systems connect thousands of users by radio based system, but these can use high power transmitters, which brings me to:
2) Electrical power. Current base stations have access to mains electricity (and are often hooked up to electrical substations). As such, they have access to massive amounts of power, This means they can use much faster (and more powerful) internal hardware which enables the base station to use more bandwidth, and handle more users reliably, but requires more electrical power. Any drone based system is going to be limited to the power the drone can make available. That is going to put a limit on the number of users the stations can handle.
3) Weight. More hardware = more weight. More weight = more fuel/power required for flying. Also, if the drones are using any renewable energy source, they will need batteries or capacitors to store electricity for when the renewable source isn't available. Those batteries or capacitors also add extra weight. When calculating fuel for flying, every extra KG counts (even on something as large as an Airliner).
4) Weather. Can the signal or backhaul signal be blocked?
Re: Interesting but...
1) Backhaul ...
2) Electrical power ...
3) Weight ...
4) Weather ...
All certainly very valid concerns.
But you missed the most important one:
5) Reliability: have you pondered on how easy it would be to shoot them out of the bloody sky?
Absolutely idiotic idea.
O.
Ok but can the flying antenna be made to look like the flying aircraft carrier from Sky Captain and World of Tomorrow?
...or even one of the S.H.I.E.L.D flying carriers
As many others have pointed out these drones would not be practical for heavily built up area like cities and towns where fixed based stations are going to be more reliable, cheaper, have better back haul etc
I guess they could make sense in rural areas, but would the company get enough customers and make enough money out in the sticks to make running the drones profitable?
100Gbps for the whole of London?
Given there are some 10mln people in this area, even if only 1% were to use it that's 1Mbps per person; or in other words, a truly awful contention ratio.
Thank you, not interested.