Originally Seen: TechTarget April 2018
The latest update on AT&T’s mobile 5G network trials indicates the company will need to work faster to meet its goal of launching a commercial service by the end of the year.
AT&T’s latest update on its mobile 5G trials indicates the carrier has significant hurdles to clear to achieve its goal of launching by the end of the year a commercial service based on the high-speed wireless technology.
AT&T published this week a blog describing its progress in the mobile 5G network trials in Austin and Waco, Texas; Kalamazoo, Mich.; and South Bend, Ind. The company started the tests roughly 18 months ago in Austin, adding the other cities late last year.
AT&T, along with Verizon and other carriers, is spending billions of dollars to develop fifth-generation wireless networks for business, consumer and internet of things applications. But the latest metrics published by AT&T were not what analysts would expect from technology for delivering mobile broadband to smartphones, tablets and other devices.
Chris Antlitz, analyst, Technology Business Research Inc.
“When I look at how AT&T is characterizing these tests, it doesn’t look like mobile 5G to me,” said Chris Antlitz, an analyst at Technology Business Research Inc., based in Hampton, N.H.. “It seems like there are some inconsistencies there.”
AT&T plans to deliver mobile 5G over the millimeter wave (mmWave) band, which is a spectrum between 30 gigahertz (GHz) and 300 GHz. MmWave allows for data rates up to 10 Gbps, which comfortably accommodates carriers’ plans for 5G. But before service providers can use the technology, they have to surmount its limitations in signal distance and in traveling through obstacles, like buildings.
AT&T’s mobile 5G network challenges
AT&T’s update indicates mmWave’s constraints remain a challenge. In Waco, for example, AT&T delivered 5G to a retail business roughly 500 feet away from its cellular transmitter. That maximum distance would require more transmitters than the population outside of major cities could support, Antlitz said.
AT&T, however, could provide a fixed wireless network that sends a 5G signal to residences and businesses as an alternative to wired broadband, Antlitz said. AT&T rival Verizon plans to offer that product by the end of the year.
Other shortcomings include AT&T’s limited success in sending a 5G signal from the cellular transmitter through the buildings, trees and other obstacles likely to stand in the way of its destination. In the trial update, AT&T said it achieved gigabit speeds only in “some non-line of sight conditions.” A line of sight typically refers to an unobstructed path between the transmitting and receiving antennas.
Distance and piercing obstacles are challenges for any carrier using mmWave for a mobile 5G network. Buildings and other large physical objects can block the technology’s short, high-frequency wavelengths. Also, gases in the atmosphere, rain and humidity can weaken mmWave’s signal strength, limiting the technology’s reach to six-tenths of a mile or less.
AT&T’s achievement in network latency also falls short of what’s optimal for a mobile 5G network. The carriers’ 9 to 12 milliseconds seem “a little high,” Antlitz said. “I would expect that on LTE, not 5G. 5G should be lower.”
While AT&T has likely made some progress in developing mobile 5G, “a lot of work needs to be done,” said Rajesh Ghai, an analyst at IDC.
Delays possible in AT&T, Verizon 5G offerings
Meanwhile, Verizon is testing its fixed wireless 5G network — a combination of mmWave and proprietary technology — in 11 major metropolitan areas. So far, the features Verizon has developed places the carrier “fairly far ahead of AT&T in terms of maximizing the capabilities of 5G,” Antlitz said.
Nevertheless, neither Verizon nor AT&T is a sure bet for launching a commercial 5G network this year.
“Some of this stuff might wind up getting pushed into 2019,” Antlitz said. “There are so many things that could throw a monkey wrench in their timetable. The probability of something doing that is very high.”
Originally seen on: TechTarget
Cloud cryptomining as a service is a security risk to users. Expert Frank Siemons discusses cloud mining service providers and what to look out for if you use one.
One of the more interesting news stories over the last year has been the rise — and, currently, the fall of cryptocurrencies.
Bitcoin is the best-known variety, but other cryptocurrencies, such as Litecoin, Ripple and Ethereum, also saw dramatic increases in their worth during 2017. While some of this value dropped off in the first few weeks of 2018, there exists significant value in these currencies.
These virtual coins or their transactions can be mined for a fee, though some coin varieties are more profitable than others. Bitcoin, for instance, has passed the stage where mining at home returns a profit. The complexity and the mining workload have increased so much that the generated electricity costs far outweigh the value of the mined coins.
To avoid individual initial setup costs and to benefit from some of the efficiency increases that large specialized clusters bring, prospective miners can sign up with a cloud mining service provider.
Cloud mining service providers
The main benefit cloud cryptomining providers offer is their economy of scale. Primarily, these providers operate large data centers filled with specialized mining rigs. Everything from purpose-built hardware and software to power consumption is built around gaining maximum efficiency for cryptomining operations.
This significant investment has already been made, and the customer rents a small part of the processing power — expressed in mega or giga hashes per second — based on their expectancy that the currency will be at a certain price point during the rental period.
Security concerns for cloud cryptomining
The mined virtual coins need to be stored in a digital wallet eventually. Home miners are advised to store this wallet on an encrypted offline medium, such as a detachable USB drive, or to use a secure online digital wallet service.
However, both options carry the risk of losing the stored cryptocurrency. This could be due to the theft or loss of the USB drive, a compromised computer, or a hack or bug within a digital wallet service, for instance.
A cloud cryptomining provider is not bound by the same regulations as a traditional bank. This lack of regulation brings with it significant risk. The providers potentially hold a significant amount of value in the form of virtual money, which makes them an attractive target for cybercriminals.
Some research into where data centers are located and under which jurisdiction they fall is fundamental. After all, technically these data centers could hold a significant investment in their virtual vault. Even physical security is an essential factor to consider.
Because cloud cryptomining services depend on distributed networks and require access to the internet, fully air-gapped storage is not possible in a cloud system. This opens up an entry point for external attackers, which is what the NiceHash hackers exploited when they stole an estimated $64 million worth of bitcoin in 2017.
The attackers gained access to a corporate machine through an engineer’s VPN account and started making transactions via NiceHash’s payment system. This simply could not have happened if an offline wallet was used, as is often the case in smaller, individual setups.
Of course, attacks do not need to come from the outside. When relying on a company that is located in another country, the risk of internal fraud is high because it is handling a large amount of money without the protection of banking regulations. Several cases have been reported where either a staff member ran off with a significant amount of virtual currency or the entire cloud mining company was based on a scam.
Several provider comparison sites exist that discuss the reputations of cloud cryptomining companies. It is also advised to check online forums and social media channels before committing to any investment. Research is critical.
Where there is money, there is crime. The substantial increase in cryptocurrency investments and their meteoric rise in value over the recent months have paved the way for many scams and breaches that are traditionally linked to banks and investment schemes.
Does this mean cloud cryptomining is always unsafe? It does not, but it is essential to look at the providers with at least the same amount of scrutiny as one would use when looking at a more traditional investment firm.
Probably even more scrutiny should be applied because of the lack of proper regulation at this point. As always, technology has outpaced policy.