Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
AWS Private 5G (amazon.com)
591 points by Trisell 55 days ago | hide | past | favorite | 358 comments



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.


Spot on. This could be a game changer for us ($xB 100+ year old manufacturing company), where we are on a long, slow journey to digitize every piece of manufacturing (long and slow because manufacturing runs almost 24x7x365). Wifi, even the top enterprise systems, is not as resilient, cheap and quickly installed as we'd like.

So now I can use 5G instead, and template and deploy it via the cloud? Yes, yes! We'll put this through some cost models, but it will likely jump NPV of IoT and automation projects by pushing down the initial capital costs (fiber runs pulled by union electricians to wifi gear installed by a vendor vs. 5G base stations and servers installed and configured by plant electricians and corporate IT).


If you have problems with wifi resiliency I've got bad news for you about the wavelengths 5G uses.


I think GC might be talking about how the reliability of a large-scale mesh network using wifi isn't great (mostly because that's not what wifi was designed for), while this is literally what 5G was designed for.


I think 5G will replace wifi within next 10 years. We don't need WiFi anymore


As somebody not very well-versed in this, a sincere question. Would something like 5g be able to replace a home intranet / network? Eg I have a personal media server that I stream to devices on my wifi--would this be able to work with 5g? From my perspective 5g can only replace internet access, yes? Devices that want to communicate with each other securely would still prefer to be connected over wifi or other personal network like Ethernet?


The part of 5G that gets thrown around a lot with high speed and capacity is mostly based on mmWave bands(think 10's of Ghz) which attenuate incredibly quick. Most of them are nearly direct line of sight. You already see some issue with 5Ghz wifi not going well through walls, there's a high chance you'd be falling back to one of the lower speed bands inside.

The other thing is there's a non-zero amount overlap in the way spectrum is used in wifi and 3/4/5G, MIMO, spread spectrum and other approaches are all trying to get as close to the theoretical limit of the channel bandwidth. When you start looking at large scale wifi deployments it starts getting split into cells of channels not to dissimilar to cellular deployments. There are some differences and certain bands benefit from discrete allocation/cell management but at the end of the day it's all radio waves over the air.


This would seem like an argument for installing wired / wire->mesh 5G base stations around our houses instead of the wifi repeaters we currently use..

Amazon in the past flirted with the idea of building a mesh network of Amazon IOT devices so that your neighbours Echo could connect yours to the internet even if you didn't have a connection. BT in the UK offered reduced price broadband if other BT customers could use a WiFi Guest network from your connection - so BT customers had like 90% free wifi coverage in cities.

I can see a amazon deploying Amazon Echos and automation poducts as 5G enabled IOT devices that backhaul to your home internet but also mesh with neighbours, then eventually deploying its own outdoor 5G coverage and suddenly becoming a mobile network.


Yes it's possible but AWS focus is to be the Layer 1. They're doing it for data and can easily replicate it for voice if there is a use case but at that time they're directly competing with Telco, a fight that they may not pickup at this time. Ideally they would utilize all the unused bandwidth & reuse it. So one neighbour can provide internet + mobile to entire street


Yes it should. Wifi isn't great with security + authentication. So ideally data would transfer over 5G.


5G is typically deployed in CBRS bands - i.e. 3.5 GHz. This isn't mmWave. Will have meaningfully higher coverage areas than WiFi (but mostly because WiFi is power-limited, not to do with frequency).


Nokia has been the pioneer in Private wireless networks. They have already deployed production ready private LTE / 5G systems in ports and factories.

For more info: https://dac.nokia.com/private-wireless/

Disclaimer: I work for Nokia.


"deploy it via the cloud" doesn't actually mean anything and confuses people. You still need to set up hardware at your own enterprise! It's NOT the same as renting a VM in a datacenter and "deploying" it in the cloud.

Sure, it might have a good UX and not require as much expertise to manage, but it's not "deploy via cloud". That's just marketing.


Telecom networks have a seriously complex back-end, that's what makes them better for larger areas than Wifi. A commercial mobile network typically has a few racks of machines below the antenna mast to run the radio systems, and then uses a fiber connection back to a mode central place to control those radios. In this case you're deploying (much smaller) local radios and AWS runs everything else in the cloud.


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.


There are other comments here claiming Telco nonsense. What you say sounds reasonable though :)


This is the biggest threat to Telco since they've paid billions in Spectrum. The sites that earn the most will be converted to 5G however CBRS has limitations but it's not bad.


CBRS has it's limitation and isn't permanent. Gov can take it back anytime and then there is also a priority. CBRS is good for smaller installation but not able to take commercial traffic. Caveat here is that 5G is difficult to deploy. You need a lot of antennas which cost $$. So in areas with higher density, there'll be smaller telcos that'll start operating.


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?


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.


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.


Faster and more robust for the use case than wifi, I imagine. The wifi spec isn't really optimized for large-scale mesh networks, while this is precisely the use-case 5g was developed for.


Can you share a reference showing the support for mesh in 5G (large scale or not)? As in, the equivalent of IEEE 802.11s for WiFi? I can't find anything about that.

Or did you actually mean "cellular"? Mesh indicates a deployment where not all access points have a backbone connection. Cellular indicates a deployment where all access points have a backbone connection.


It can be either. You can have multiple antennas pointing to a single Base station or each antennas having their own base station. It all depends on the use case. Challenge is when you go from Home to Roaming and vice versa as the handsoff isn't ideal but this'll improve


Benefit is the cost for enterprises. You're paying for bandwidth which'll be much lower than the regular usage to telcos. You're however limited to data usage on this network and this focuses mostly on data


No, this is for private networks with lots of wirelessly connected devices where using Wi-Fi is not ideal (say, a building with a lot of 24/7 cameras). I cannot say for certain, but it’s unlikely Amazon would be interfacing with major telephone carriers given that 1) they are using low power radio units and 2) they are using unlicensed spectrum.


You're right and the biggest benefit is to companies with strictly using iOT


Starting from LTE, there's no distinction in the network level between data and voice or SMS, it's all just IP traffic. The voice call protocol is called VoLTE. As long as your handset can reach the VoLTE infrastructure via IP, you can make and receive calls.

This actually works already over WiFi too and that's called VoWiFi. That does not support handovers between networks though, so it is not that convenient. Specifically it means that if you walk outside the WiFI network, your call will drop. I suppose the different branding is due to this quality aspect, as there's no difference in the protocol.


To have VoLTE or VoNR (the 5G version) the SIP based software handling your calls needs to interact directly with the software stack managed by the operator via a bunch of other telco protocols. I don't think you will be able to support "regular" calls/SMS without if it is not supported by amazon.



Basically they give you a few Wi-Fi access points and a central server PC, but instead of those being Wi-Fi and standalone, it’s 5G and cloud controlled as should be in late 2021.

And unlocked phone should work provided it supports required frequency(tricky) and voice calls should be possible, but it probably can’t readily connect to PSTN and given actual “1-555-1234567” numbers, or make 911 calls for that matter. If you’re going to have Asterisk SIP VoIP server running on-prem, that is probably supported.


They wouldn't allow voice call but yes you can do OTT apps like Signal , Whatsapp etc.


So it's kind of like a VLAN except it's strapped onto the 5G network of the various providers of 5G service via hotspots. Kind of like my 4G security system piggybacks on the network but isn't really callable by a regular old cell phone.


No it's not. It's more like a wifi access point, a hardware device that sets up a private network. The public providers aren't involved in your 5G network at all (unless you are using them for internet uplink at the facility, but that is independent of the private network. AWS handles all the complicated 5G software stack in the cloud though.


From the FAQ:

> At a minimum, you need to provide 110-volt AC power outlets, public internet access....

In the US, 120 or 240 volts are used. Per ANSI C84.1-2020


Voltage supply levels vary a little bit from country to country and modern PSUs are built to accommodate that. My laptop PSU for example will take anything from 100V to 240V, at either 50Hz or 60Hz.


Japan uses 100V, FWIW.


Well there you go.


CBRS however is only available in US so that's why they specified 110V


But the US is 120V, not 110V.


I don’t have insider info but you can almost certainly use this on a 120v outlet. 120 has been the standard for 50 years and you would only need special consideration if the power requirement was something weird like 3-phase 208v or 480v or something. I could be wrong but I don’t see AWS requiring specialty low-voltage electrical supply here.


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.


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.


So will 5G actually be better than 5GHz WiFi? I'm not too concerned about speed but rather a stable connection.

So here's the thing, currently I have 2.4GHz and 5GHz WiFi in my home. Any device that is stationary connects to the 5GHz one and any device that moves around connects to the 2.4GHz one. Why? Because initially I had everything on the 5GHz network, but noticed if I move around with my phone/tablets/laptops (even as simple as standing still and turning around), the connection would become unstable/choppy and introduce some lag and in rare cases a drop in connection. The 2.4GHz one works no matter what I do in my home. I can also get 2.GHz all the way out to the curb and it still works, where the 5GHz one drops significantly once I'm outside my house. In some cases it will still show the 5GHz one being connected but any app that tries to use it just hangs and never loads whatever it tries to fetch. So the 5GHz version of WiFi has been utterly useless to me, thus I'm only using it for devices that I know have decent line of sight, are within certain distance and aren't moving around. I currently have no Bluetooth devices chatting in the same airspace and I've tried it with single network too (only 2.4GHz enabled or only 5GHz enabled) - still the same. It could be that there is interference from neighbors: I can see quite a few WiFi networks of neighbors, most have both frequencies active - but I also had the same issue before I live in this specific house. So if 5G can improve the situation, that will be pretty great.


5GHz range is less than 2.4GHz. So that's the reason


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?


> Why not just deploy Wi-Fi?

Everyone has a potential wifi access point in their pocket. The only people who have the ability to run their own cellular networks are either a) respectful of frequency allocations or b) know a thing or two about SDR. Interfering with 5G systems is difficult to do on accident and has a much higher barrier to entry to do intentionally.

And this is important for one of the use cases listed in the PDF: sports and entertainment venues. When you have a large venue, you will always have people who are using their phones as wifi hotspots (many of them having simply forgotten to turn them off), and this eats into valuable airtime. You can have your APs send deauth packets to rogue networks, but you could still end up not having enough bandwidth for your own purposes. I'm reminded of an article I read about the unveiling of the first iPhone[0]:

> The software in the iPhone’s Wi-Fi radio was so unstable that Grignon and his team had to extend the phones’ antennas by connecting them to wires running offstage so the wireless signal wouldn’t have to travel as far. And audience members had to be prevented from getting on the frequency being used. “Even if the base station’s ID was hidden” — that is, not showing up when laptops scanned for Wi-Fi signals — “you had 5,000 nerds in the audience,” Grignon says. “They would have figured out how to hack into the signal.” The solution, he says, was to tweak the AirPort software so that it seemed to be operating in Japan instead of the United States. Japanese Wi-Fi uses some frequencies that are not permitted in the U.S.

While wifi has come a long way since 2007, if you need a reliable, high bandwidth system in an environment with lots of interference, this is a good choice.

[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/magazine/and-then-steve-s...

Edit: this comment has some more good reasons for why you would use this over wifi: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29398181


I think the whole point of the service is "convenience". If deploying private 5g is as convenient as deploying Wi-Fi, why not just deploy private 5g?

We all like Wi-Fi because we can attach a Wi-Fi router to an internet link and it "just works". Similarly, if you can make a mobile network "just work", you are getting the same functionality plus the benefits you outlined.

This may not seem very impressive to someone who has no need to support large Wi-Fi deployments, like a typical home or office wireless network. These are not the cases this service is targeting anyway.

The target customers are enterprises that are managing large-scale fully-automated sites like warehouses and factories that need to support 10s-100s of thousands of IOT devices which may include some time-critical systems that need ultra-low-latency reliable connections to a backend. Today these enterprises have to rent a 4g network from a telecom provider to enable these sites which takes months of planning and is expensive to operate and extend.

This is where the "convenience" becomes a game-changer. Using a private-5g service, an enterprise can deploy new large-scale networks in days, manage the networks like just another cloud resource, and extend the network at will. I presume the pricing model for the service will also be much more affordable where instead of paying for each end-user (IOT device), you'd likely be only charged for your data usage on pay-as-you-go basis.


Large-scale, long range Amazon-managed 5G deployment should be easier than large-scale WiFi deployment, at least if the promises are accurate. Especially outdoors where deploying a large number of base stations is challenging.

Lower frequencies mean improved building material penetration in environments like warehouses and docks, meaning fewer base stations are necessary.

Generally 5G also supports higher density than WiFi for use cases like hotels and conventions, where too many devices on too few channels will quickly destroy WiFi functionality.

WiFi is pretty crappy for many-device midrange solutions (let's say a dockyard, a 1km long facility with 1000 employees).


Commercial deployments on 5G are difficult because it's fairly new . Wifi is very tried and tested. It'll take some time to get practical experience but once done, it'll be easier than Wifi


5G will displace WiFi. 5G has better authentication, handshake etc


Is there any reason it _couldn't_ become that?


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.


I remember people making very similar claims about AWS EC2 in 2007.


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.


Wifi adapters are cheap and everywhere. For 5G tot surpass wifi it will have to match that. Laptops with 5G are not that common yet. ESP like controllers with 5G I haven't seen yet. One of the advantages is 5G operating outside of the ISM bands. That helps a lot with stability and preventing interference. It also means this is not for individuals in their home. If licensing is made so accessible that people at home can use it you will again get overlapping frequency use and increasing interference. If it not made this accessible I don't see the availability of cheap clients solved because the market will be limited.


It's fairly early but within 10 years, every device will have 5G


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.


>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.


Btw, MVNO-aaS does exist (for 5G, too): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_virtual_network_enabler


Yeah, while you might theoretically be able to build a national 5G network using this, it would be way more expensive vs just building it yourself. Amazon wouldn't be marketing this if they didn't expect to have a healthy profit margin, after all.

This seems more applicable in cases where you need 5G but there is no/insufficient 5G already, when it would be prohibitively expensive to go to existing carriers (mobile data rates in the US are ridiculous), or when the threat model necessitates a private network.


AWS wants to sell their storage. Margins are there + it's a new exciting market


Like installing a PBX or email server for internal communications?


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.


Ah, you're right. I am mistaken for AWS Wavelength.


Hate to be that guy, but...

AWS Wavelength is Ec2 instances running on-prem on existing telco locations.


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?


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...


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


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.


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.


>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.


But this doesn't use telco towers? Amazon is literally selling antenae.


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)


>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.


It's actually cheaper if you already have access to cheap broadband such as fibre internet where the GB can be as little as 10 cent/gb. But if you're reselling the telco bandwidth then it doesn't make sense


> 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.


> 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


You can take this a step further and make the telecom as a service entirely decentralized: Earn "tokens" by providing wireless area coverage & data backhaul, spend "tokens" to transmit data.

This is exactly what the Helium (HNT) project is doing. They started with LoRa coverage (super low datarate but long range for IOT) and are moving into other protocols such as WiFi and CBRS 5G (same as this offering) via the FreedomFi project.


> 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?


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.


>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.


Because certain vendor from certain country have a huge patent portfolio on Autonomous vehicle (AV) and wanted it to rely on 5G so that everything is centralised and could easily be controlled in the name of traffic shaping (cough). And somehow (cough) EU was brought into the whole thing until a Saint appeared, after being banished to hell he finally came back and convinced enough people AV with 5G would need to total state surveillance. I think, if I remember correctly EU finally abandoned that idea. But as with everything it may come back someday. ( Hope not )


Any reason for the obfuscation?


Those who knows it would instantly understand. Those who dont could fact check it themselves.


>Those who dont could fact check it themselves.

That's me, and no they can't. At least not without searching the full breadth of possible players looking for a set of facts that matches. If I could figure out who you meant, I wouldn't have commented.


Seems unlikely many firms would want to scale out the hardware of their own network - rented from Amazon no less- instead.


Actually telecom don't have their own infra. They lease the infra from tower companies, here telcos will get hit as well as the tower lease companies

About the payment, we're working on a model to compensate the users. Email me if you're interested


> 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.


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...


This requires a physical cell tower and 5G receiver so it’s not as flexible as running a VPN client on your laptop.


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?


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.


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/


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.


Concerning your point 3) - Few years ago I was a bit excited about Local 4G, but commercial units sold back then could not handle tower handovers, and were very limited in bandwidth(5MHz/~10Mbps down, if I remember right). Has it improved, or if it hasn't, is it going to really offer significant advantages over Wi-Fi...?


As I mentioned, bandwidth is proportional to available access/RF bandwidth (Shannon's Theorem). Current available band in US (CBRS) is limited to 20MHz per user/enterprise 9I think for enterprise you can go higher, but its still limited). FCC hasn't updated the standards (CBRS) for 5G. Germany is way ahead in p5G (trying to keep the leadership in Industry 4.0/Industrie 4.0, I am not sure what's the available band there. Search for Hannover Trade fairs private 5G where its deployed for Edge computing and secure industrial app ecosystem). In terms of bandwidth, p5G will not provide any advantage over WiFi esp WiFi6. Its the enterprise level ecosystem where its going to be huge differentiator.

Regarding your point of tower level handover, that will not be an issue. It should not be in pLTE (p4G) too. But I can understand in earlier versions, the systems might be feature limited.

Are you sure it was local 4G service line p4G or Femto service where operators provide small device to cover either indoor no-RF spots or to move the traffic load from network to public internet/network.


Isn't there a huge debate going on for the 6Ghz band between WiFi vs 5G? [1] This could end up being used for home & private networks

[1]https://www.gsma.com/spectrum/resources/6-ghz-for-5g/


That's the different domain. 5G standards are defined for Licensed, unlicensed as well as non-mobile world (means the core network can support all the different access technologies). CBRS is licensed band, just free to use but you have register. 6GHz is new band opened for unlicensed spectrum. It will mostly be used by next generation WiFi (may be WiFi 6 too). Any other technology can use that band too and 5G standards may enhance to support this band or may define other technology too. Just last month, ITU accepted the DECT (remember cordless phones) technology to be part of 5G ecosystem (5G core will be able to support devices with DECT air interface). But CBRS band is different and its more about similar to current mobile ecosystem but in private domain.

CBRS cant be used for WiFi or other technology (only 4G in US at this point, most probably 5G in future.. 3GPP defined OFDMA based air interface). 6GHz is unlicensed and mostly will be used by WiFi.


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.


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.


Just dropped you an email.


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.


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?


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.


Per https://aws.amazon.com/private5g/faqs/ it is, indeed, CBRS. And it seems like if you have other frequencies in your possession, you can use those, too.


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.


Generally yes but outpost is a little different:

https://aws.amazon.com/outposts/rack/pricing/

Either way this is just a guess :)


Even with Outposts you're not "buying" the rack (Amazon still owns it and takes it away at the end of the term), you're just committing to keeping it long enough for them to make money on it. The choice of paying upfront or paying monthly is roughly the same money management strategy available with any AWS service (e.g. EC2 Reserved Instances), and likely is more about lining up with capex/opex decisions than actual cost savings.


Totally agree 100%. Text communication sucks sometimes, if we were talking over beers it would have taken 3-5 seconds to clear up.


I think it'll be cheaper. We're looking to get the home unit cost to $499 & zero fees


best thing is that you dont own the antenna, so Amz will prob rent out the remaining capacity.


Aren't small cells significantly cheaper?


I would love to connect on this. Do you've any rural communities in mind ?


What's next? Own your own island as a service™? I really like the direction AWS is headed and I like how they're opening up access to hard to setup hardware.


Prices starting at ONE BILLION DOLLARS.


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.


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?


> 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.


Was that a big problem? I thought it was a single-intern sized problem.


Yeah tbh not hard to search for high bandwidth users abusing system and dealing with it on a case by case basis


5G E2E Slicing will prevent such scenarios. The SIM will be bound to a network slice and restrictions will be dictated by the carrier.


> 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.,


DirecTV already does this for their 'wireless' offering - you get a huge LTE modem and a bunch of receivers with sim cards in them.


It may interest you to know ATSC 3.0 has specifications for a "return path" to the broadcast station in it.


> 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.


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 :)


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.


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.


Amazon Sidewalk is already available...


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.


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/


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.


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


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.


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


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?


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.


But it’s cheaper and easier to just embed a normal 4g modem and SIM card


Every device will have 5G instead of Wifi. Remember Wifi dongles ?


"Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." - The Hacker News Guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

Given that there's an extremely simple and straightforward answer to your question (smart TV manufacturers sell data obtained from spying on users, and they need a way to get that data from the TV to their servers), I would encourage you to give some thought before making such an empty and vapid comment about voting habits on HN.


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.


Some smart TVs already ship with sim cards. It just requires a deal with AT&T/Tmo/etc.


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.


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/


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.


How is a private 5G network different from wifi from a consumer/business perspective? Does it have a superior range?

(Honest question)


- 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.


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.


Digital Trends has a good article about this. You can read it here: https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/5g-vs-wi-fi/


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.


5G can handle more clients. WiFi (vaguely) slows down if a slow client connects to the same network as you, rather than a fast client using all the bandwidth.

Cellular ISPs also don't do routing the way wifi/wired ISPs do, so your IP address isn't tied to your physical location anymore. That wouldn't apply to private 5G so much though.


+1 authentication is much smoother and quicker


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.


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.


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?


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.


so I guess the question is: why can’t one use wifi for these “supply chain problems” ?


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?


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.


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?


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.


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?


I see a potential use of it from IoT devices. An eg. a tractor wants to communicate with a central server for commands.


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


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.


This capability is considered in the design of 5G, see NB-IoT and LTE-M


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.


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.


> 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.


You describe a great use case for LoRaWAN:

  https://lora-alliance.org/about-lorawan/


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.


No internal use. This is a hype driven white labeling.


The first major client using this service is Boost Mobile, which was acquired by Dish Network from Sprint as a condition of the T-Mobile/Sprint merger:

https://www.fiercewireless.com/5g/dishs-rouanne-says-aws-5g-...


Surely the problem is access to spectrum, or is the idea to rely on unused spectrum bands reserved for local experimental use?


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...


If I want to deploy a custom 5G base station on this band 38, what hardware do I need? Are there free software solutions?


It's Band 48 and there are 321 FCC approved devices as of today


> 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/...


With 5G, many countries have reserved space and/or licensing mechanisms to get spectrum access for small local deployments.


Which other countries have such free spectrum ?


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.


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...


Nokia has been the pioneer in Private wireless networks. They have already deployed production ready private LTE / 5G systems in ports and factories.

For more info: https://dac.nokia.com/private-wireless/

Disclaimer: I work for Nokia.


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.


Authentication, security & efficiency. Handoff time between multiple Wi-Fi nodes is terrible, security can be compromised much easier since by end of the day it's just a password


Why though? What's the advantage of this over Wi-Fi?


If you need consistently low latency, high uptime, have security requirements, or need extended range. And don't mind paying more. ATMs, credit card machines, alarm systems, EV chargers, phones, etc. are often on cellular connections.


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.


It's available across US


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.


Think of the scenarios where Wi-Fi performance suffers. A sports stadium or music concert with thousands or tens of thousands of people. You make a phone call over Wi-Fi and the other person complains "you're breaking up." A convention floor with hundreds of booths. An auditorium with hundreds of people with an open laptop.

LTE and 5G have much more consistent latency, and can provide true quality of service mechanisms. Wi-Fi has 802.11e that moves VoIP packets to the front of a series of queues but this is only a probabilistic process not a guaranteed time slot every 20ms. Of course licensed channels are an important part of this carrier grade experience and Wi-Fi on a low duty cycle 5GHz channel is often good enough.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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...


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.


Have they "partnered" with Soracom?


https://partners.amazonaws.com/fr/partners/001E000001In3e0IA....

Maybe it doesn't count as partner, maybe it does.


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.


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.


... a startup founded entirely by prior successful team members, all friendlies.


I don’t really follow you here. Is soracom entitled to 100% market share?


It seems odd that some HN folks think idea is patentable


Soracom's offerings look to resemble those of Particle's[1]. How are they related to AWS Private 5g?

1. https://www.particle.io/


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.


No, the balk happened then, in 2017 AFAIK.


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


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.


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.


As in, I'd love to see how much english from the marketing/docs/etc are just straight lifted from Soracom.


Well for one Soracom's homepage doesn't mention 5G (or private 5G) once...


Probably not as inexpensive, and not a great deal, as the original Redshift was, I guess.


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!!


Amazon is the scummiest of the major tech companies, this is well known.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: