Recently, the question of the future of Wi-Fi networks has been increasingly discussed in connection with the expected massive construction of fifth-generation cellular networks. Indeed, why is Wi-Fi needed in a world where cellular networks provide billions of people with high-speed Internet access? Will the Wi-Fi family of standards stop developing with the arrival of 5G? Will the technology leave the market after completing its “historical mission”? This article is dedicated to everyone who answered these questions in the affirmative. For everyone else who understands network technology, we hope it will also be interesting to read.
Despite the seeming importance and consistency, questions about the rivalry between Wi-Fi and 5G are built on an artificial opposition of technologies that are related in essence, but different in terms of application models. Most of the claims about the fragility of Wi-Fi belong to representatives of cellular operators, at the end of the article we will tell you why.
In the meantime, let's try together to dispel two misconceptions - "5G is much faster than Wi-Fi" and "Wi-Fi will die very soon." First, let's go back in time and figure out what 5G is and what Wi-Fi is.
Frequent hunger
5G refers to the next generation of cellular standards that many believe will revolutionize telecommunications. Meanwhile, a similar view regarding 4G at one time was perhaps more justified. Compared to 3G, 4G has increased the data transfer rate by an order of magnitude, the technology has received a completely new radio interface, a new architecture of the core network and a lot of new opportunities for operators (and, as a result, for subscribers).In the case of 5G, there are also many changes and improvements, and some of them are quite radical. But there is one important fact that is rarely talked about: based on the 5G standards, cellular networks of three different categories will be created. These are 5G networks for traditional use cases of a cellular network in the 1-6 GHz bands, networks for continuous coverage of the territory and the Internet of Things (IoT) at frequencies below 1 GHz and millimeter-wave networks. And only the first of these three types of 5G will be widely available to regular mobile subscribers for the foreseeable future. The other two types will have specific usage patterns, which we'll cover too.
But first about the burning thing - about "supersonic speeds" for subscribers. For the mass service of ordinary subscribers, 5G networks will be designed, operating in the more or less familiar frequency ranges from 1 to 6 GHz. At higher frequencies, it is almost impossible to provide continuous coverage with a limited number of powerful base stations (macro cells). Unfortunately, there are few free frequencies below 6 GHz, and this is a worldwide problem. With 3G and 4G, we have already gone through and continue to go through the conversion of spectrum sections, the transfer of various types of consumers to other frequency areas, in the future, refarming of frequencies from older standards to newer ones. Obviously, there is no magical new source of free frequencies for 5G in the usual bands. Actually, a large group of new 5G solutions is precisely aimed at alleviating the problem of lack of frequency resource. The goal of new ideas and technologies in cellular communications is always to increase the capacity and speed of the network without a significant increase in its cost. What exactly can you think of to approach this goal? And what exactly does 5G offer for this?
Wi-Fi rushes to the rescue
To increase the capacity and speed of the network, new frequencies could be obtained. As already mentioned, by and large there is nowhere to get them, so cellular communications are trying to enter the ranges that are occupied by other technologies. In 5G, methods of using cellular communication of Wi-Fi frequencies , which already have a number of implementations in 4G, are being further developed. For Wi-Fi in the world, rather large parts of the spectrum (hundreds of megahertz) are allocated in the 1-6 GHz band, and cellular operators have been "hunting" for them for a long time.But it is impossible to simply take these frequencies away from public networks, so a family of technologies is being developed that allow the simultaneous use of these frequencies for Wi-Fi and cellular communication, and without significant harm to the quality of Wi-Fi. This is an interesting trend. From a simple reuse of the common band in LTE-U technology (poorly coordinated and harmful Wi-Fi), development went first to LAA technology (supported by 3GPP Release 13), using the Listen Before Talk (LBT) principle, and then to LWA and eLAA standards. They no longer just define how frequencies are shared, but also describe a technique for direct coordination (through integration and data exchange) of Wi-Fi and cellular radio subsystems (supported with Release 13 and 14, respectively). The most important thing here is thetrend of coordination and cooperation of cellular networks and Wi-Fi. Let's remember it. Will these technologies affect the expected speed and capacity of cellular networks? Of course, with the help of this trend, it is possible to ensure a certain increase in these parameters, but one should not expect a revolution here.
Growth hormones 5G
If there are not enough frequencies, you need to increase the spectral efficiency - transmit more data on one channel in the same frequency band. Here, 5G is better than 4G due to updates to the modulation and signal coding schemes, but no radical progress can be expected. Modern modulation systems are already close to physical limits and the practically achievable spectral efficiency of cellular communication in a single channel cannot be radically increased. By the way, in the transition from 3G to 4G, the increase in the spectral efficiency of a single channel was more significant than expected in the transition to 5G. Nevertheless, there is still a significant potential for increasing the efficiency of using the frequency band for the provision of services, but it is realized by more complex means. This is the distribution of the frequency resource between network services, a more efficient division of the resource between the upstream and downstream data transmission channels, self-organization of the network, resource recombination and cell coordination, improved support for multi-frequency (carrier aggregation), etc. All this will be actively used in 5G and will have a positive effect, but most of these approaches are already present and developing in the fourth generation.If it is impossible to radically improve the efficiency of using a single channel, it is logical to try to organize the simultaneous exchange of different data streams between the network and the subscriber or subscribers in the same frequency band. In other words, it is necessary to increase the level of reuse of the frequency resource. For this, data transmission channels operating in the same frequency must be isolated from each other in order to avoid mutual interference. There are several approaches to solving this problem, mainly those that have been used for a long time in existing cellular networks and are being further developed in 5G.
The growth in the capacity of cellular networks has always been driven by a combination of the three factors listed above: expansion of the spectrum used, an increase in spectral efficiency, and an increase in the level of frequency reuse. Over the past two decades, the focus has been on reuse techniques, and they are driving the major growth in capacity expansion. According to various estimates, over the entire existence of cellular communications, the capacity due to the frequency resource has grown by 3-4 times, due to an increase in spectral efficiency by 5-6 times, and by improving the use of frequencies - by 40-60 times.
But there is good news: it just needs a very large investment.
All of the above can provide a significant increase in the capacity of 5G cellular networks operating in standard frequency ranges, compared to 4G, but cannot provide any breakthrough growth in the communication speed available to an individual subscriber. The concepts of capacity and data transfer rate in a cellular network are closely related, but not equivalent. The growth in the number of subscribers that the network can serve without loss of quality does not mean that the network will work much faster for each individual subscriber in real conditions.It should be emphasized that to get a significant effect from the innovations described above, you will have to install more base stations, connect them to packet data networks with increased bandwidth, use much more complex and expensive antenna systems and get more spectrum. No magic, a very big investment is needed. And they usually invest where there is a business. For cellular operators, it is not yet clear why invest huge amounts of money in the mass segment of 5G networks with continuous coverage and high capacity.
Networking for IoT and improved 4G
Let's take a quick look at other types of 5G networks. The most important of these is machine-to-machine communication networks or IoT (Internet Of Things). This is where 5G has great advantages over previous generations of cellular communications. This is, first of all, a low latency level (an order of magnitude lower than in 4G) and the ability to serve a very large number of subscribers in the coverage area of one cell. 5G standards include LPWA (Low Power Wide Area) communication protocols, which are designed for low-speed, low-intensity communication of a very large number of subscribers with very low power consumption of modems. Thanks to the architecture and parameters of 5G, it is possible to build not only sensor networks (combining different sensors and actuators, for example, urban systems), but also highly reliable vehicle control systems (cars and drones) and various robots and robotic complexes. 5G IoT networks will mainly be built at frequencies below 1 GHz, where the area covered by a single cell signal is much larger than at higher frequencies. At the same time, high-speed communication in these frequencies in 5G for ordinary subscribers is unlikely to be available, due to lack of spectrum and because Massive MIMO at frequencies below 1 GHz is difficult to use due to the large size of the antennas.The third type of 5G networks is designed to provide subscribers with very high speed communications. Here we are talking about peak speeds up to tens of gigabits per second. These are networks in high-frequency bands with wavelengths less than one centimeter (millimeter-wave) that have never been used for cellular communications before. The reason for the decision to include these bands in the 5G standard is that they have very large unoccupied portions of the spectrum (many hundreds of megahertz).
Many people who talk about a significant increase in communication speed in 5G do not fully realize that ultra-high speeds will be available only in millimeter-wave networks. Signals of these frequencies are distributed in such a way that communication almost always requires a direct line of sight between the antennas of the transmitter and receiver (that is, the signal practically does not bend around obstacles), and the allowed (and technically available) radiation power is very low. This means that in a city in order to build a field of continuous coverage in the millimeter range, it is necessary to install a huge number of small cells.
Publicly available estimates show that for large cities, the number of cells will need to be increased by 500-1000 times, compared to the number of cells sufficient to form coverage in standard ranges. Unfortunately, even this will not ensure the continuity of communication (it is enough for the subscriber to turn unsuccessfully to block the signal from the base station). There is no other practical way to create a continuous coverage (apart from projects using drones and balloons). That is, a 5G millimeter-wave network with continuous coverage in the city will turn out to be very expensive, it is almost impossible to reuse the existing infrastructure for it, and it is poorly suited for ordinary subscribers who move freely in the coverage area ... In addition, subscriber equipment does not yet exist for communication in the millimeter wave range, suitable for embedding in typical smartphones and tablets, and they are unlikely to appear in the near future. For the above reasons, in the medium term, this type of networks will be used to solve various tasks of transferring data to stationary (for example, houses) or regularly moving (trains, cars, city transport) objects, as well as for organizing individual hotspots, but not for ordinary mobile subscribers.
These are far from all the features of 5G, but an intermediate conclusion can already be formulated. In the medium term (we would estimate it at 5-7 years, but this is a subjective assessment), subscribers will not receive any revolutionary effect from the construction of 5G networks. With the advent of smartphones and 5G coverage, their user experience will be enhanced by higher and more stable network quality and higher data rates available to them. During this period, 5G networks will be perceived by subscribers rather as improved 4G. Data transfer rates with 5G coverage and a device that supports it (we are not talking about the pace of 5G devices on the market) will, as a rule, be higher, but will remain in the same order of magnitude. If now, under ideal conditions, you can see peak speeds above 100-150 Mbps in commercial LTE networks,
5G in buildings
The above discussed outdoor cellular networks. The indoor situation has a number of features. It is there that most of the traffic is consumed, including mobile. Therefore, it is important for cellular operators to provide high-quality coverage and high network bandwidth in urban buildings. Since the most likely spectral regions available for 5G communication will be located in the vicinity of 3-4 GHz, macro cells located on the street will not be able to form high-quality coverage inside urban buildings due to the strong absorption of the radio signal at these frequencies in the walls. Therefore, the 5G signal will have to come from antennas located directly in buildings. Indoors, the use of high-order MIMO is generally not technically and economically meaningful, therefore, indoor 5G will use small cells and antenna systems similar to those used today for indoor 4G networks. For this reason, the data rates that will be available indoors for 5G subscribers at frequencies below 6 GHz will be of the same order of magnitude that can be obtained today in indoor 4G networks.Currently, most of the traffic consumed by smartphone and tablet users is generated not on cellular networks, but on Wi-Fi networks. For example, according to Mediascope in Russia, 78% of mobile device traffic goes through Wi-Fi and only 22% through cellular networks. And this traffic is mostly consumed indoors. For the situation to change, it is necessary not only for the cellular network to provide a higher data transfer rate than Wi-Fi (this is still often the case), but also that this speed be available both in public places and in the homes and apartments of subscribers. Solving this problem for 5G will require huge investments in the construction of indoor networks, including in residential buildings.
Wi-Fi is as good as 5G, and here's why
Now, after a brief educational program about 5G, let's look at the main question. And how does Wi-Fi differ from 4 / 5G and how is it actually worse or better than cellular communication? The concept of Wi-Fi as a technology is largely shaped by the experience of using existing public networks, arranged very primitively. Meanwhile, modern Wi-Fi is capable of almost everything in the field of data transmission that cellular networks are capable of. Wi-Fi fully supports mobility, allowing you to build continuous coverage areas and serve moving subscribers, service classes, automatic network authorization, advanced data protection, automatic roaming between Wi-Fi networks of different operators. Moreover, both the 3GPP cellular standards and the IEEE Wi-Fi standards provide many means for sharing and coordinating Wi-Fi and 4 / 5G. These are the previously mentioned technologies of the LAA / LWA families, and Wi-Fi Calling, and roaming between cellular networks and Wi-Fi networks with automatic network selection. From the point of view of the data transmission method, Wi-Fi is very close to both 4G and 5G, since the standards of the 802.11 family use the OFDM modulation method, and in modern versions - OFDMA, which is almost the same as that used in 4 / 5G cellular networks. There are many features and differences, but fundamentally, the methods and available levels of modulation and coding of Wi-Fi and 4 / 5G are close (much closer than 3G and 4G to each other), which means that the spectral efficiency in a single channel is also similar.It should be emphasized that Wi-Fi is developing in a parallel course with cellular networks, but always outstripping cellular standards in terms of supported data transfer rates over short distances. Over the past 10 years, just like in cellular communications, there has been one big generational change in Wi-Fi standards. Modern 802.11ac has practically supplanted 802.11n (adopted in September 2009) from the product lines of equipment manufacturers. But if in communication the replacement of standards is accompanied by significant and costly infrastructure transformations due to limited or no backward compatibility between communication generations, then Wi-Fi is developing much more smoothly. 802.11ac is fully backward compatible with 802.11n and does not require major conversions to use it on existing networks. Since 802. 11ac is the de facto standard today, it is logical to compare its parameters with the parameters of 4G networks currently available. IEEE uses the approach of introducing standards in "waves" (as well as 3GPP) and 802.11ac has already passed the stage of the first wave (Wave 1) and is now at the Wave 2 stage. The standard provides for the use of Multi User MIMO (which previously was not was), and the peak rate of the physical channel (PHY rate) available at this stage is 2.34 Gbps when using three spatial streams and a frequency band of 160 MHz ( theoretically, you can use four streams). The actually achievable peak data transfer rate at this channel speed can be about 1.5 Gbps. 802.11ac Wave 1 offered channel / real speeds up to 1.3 / 0.8 Gbps, and old-fashioned 802.11n in the 40 MHz band up to 450/300 Mbps with three streams. The full implementation of the IEEE 802.11ac specification, expected in the near future, will allow using up to eight spatial streams, receiving a physical channel of up to 6.77 Gbps and actually achievable peak data rates of up to 4.5 Gbps. In existing Wi-Fi networks of high quality (there are such), you can observe peak speeds of 100-150 Mbps when using mobile devices and above 200 Mbps when using modern laptops, even on equipment of the latest versions of the outdated 802.11n standard. Coming to replace 802.11ac, the new 802.11ax standard (the first approved version is expected in 2019) will add about 40% more spectral efficiency in a single channel and a fourfold increase in the overall efficiency of using the available bandwidth. There is also the 802.11ad standard, which, like the millimeter "part" of 5G, designed for high-speed communication at ultra-high frequencies (in this case, it is 60 GHz). This standard defines a peak bandwidth of 7 Gbps and supports beamforming. In contrast to the millimeter part of 5G, there are already a number of mass-produced chipsets for creating subscriber devices for 802.11ad. It is being replaced by the new 802.11ay standard, with theoretical peak PHY rates of up to 44 Gbps in a single stream, which will add to the millimeter Wi-Fi Multi User MIMO with support for four streams (that is, the theoretical physical bandwidth when using four streams and full bandwidth frequencies will be up to 176 Gbps), channel aggregation, and will significantly increase the working distance between the client device and the access point (up to hundreds of meters). Finally, for the sake of completeness with the 5G analogy, I will mention another new 802 standard. 11ah (which also has the official name Wi-Fi HaLow, which for some reason is pronounced as "HayLow"), which describes communication for IoT in the 900 MHz range. Moreover, in this standard, as in 5G, everything is in order with delays and power consumption. It is clearly seen that the ideology of the development of IEEE standards is close to 3GPP and the three types of networks described above are also formed in the Wi-Fi world.
Having looked at these numbers, it is logical to ask the question - why, in fact, is it believed that "5G is faster"? The theoretically achievable maximum data rates in 5G and Wi-Fi networks are quite comparable. From a technical point of view, 5G will not be faster than Wi-Fi (in fact, in the new Wi-Fi standards for 5 GHz, peak speeds can be higher than in 5G standard bands, depending on the available frequency resource, and in millimeter bands there will be much above). But in reality, this is not so important. The main difference between cellular networks and Wi-Fi is not data rates, but usage patterns. We are now ready to formulate this more precisely.
Why-Fi?
Cellular networks are designed to mass service a huge number of subscribers, and they carry in their design the inherited burden of those very basic services. Cellular operators are forced to build their infrastructures so as to provide the most uniform user experience, support for all standards and, if possible, all frequency bands wherever there is network coverage, in any conditions, in an open field and in dense urban areas, in buildings and outdoors. air. 5G, by the way, is for the first time trying to systematically move away from this ideology, rethink it architecturally, proposing to build networks of the type required (remember three types) exactly where they are in demand.Wi-Fi, originally and to this day, is a technology built around only one basic service - data transmission - and is focused almost exclusively on areas where many relatively sedentary subscribers are compactly present, mainly in premises. At the same time, the set of additional services for Wi-Fi is very different from cellular networks, largely due to the absence of the need to conclude a contract and the presence of a SIM card. Many of them are available only in such networks: showing ads when connected, hyperlocal advertising and analytics, short-term paid access for tourists with instant activation. In addition, due to the neutrality of Wi-Fi in relation to mobile networks, traffic offloading, Wi-Fi Calling and international roaming are possible for subscribers of all cellular operators and any Wi-Fi operators.
Typical mass-market Wi-Fi equipment that meets standards has significant radiation power limitations and is designed to serve subscribers in a short distance. It's easy to see that Wi-Fi is inherently a niche technology. Due to this, Wi-Fi is much simpler in terms of architecture than cellular networks. The most significant simplification is the absence in the Wi-Fi ideology of any single centralized backbone network, which in the case of cellular communication is not only necessarily present, but also very complex. Each Wi-Fi segment can be built independently, using solutions for processing and routing traffic "in place" and at the same time managed centrally by one operator. The Internet is perfectly suited as a communication medium that ensures the network unity of such a system. Another difference is that the ranges in which Wi-Fi operates either do not require licenses and permits, or have a significantly simplified licensing procedure and a lower cost of frequency resource compared to frequencies for cellular communication. Due to this, Wi-Fi networks are much cheaper per subscriber in the coverage area. No matter how the technology of cellular communication changes, its fundamental difference from Wi-Fi is the specific cost of the infrastructure, which allows serving a certain number of subscribers with a given level of service in a given area. Due to this, Wi-Fi networks are much cheaper per subscriber in the coverage area. No matter how the technology of cellular communication changes, its fundamental difference from Wi-Fi is the specific cost of the infrastructure, which allows serving a certain number of subscribers with a given level of service in a given area. Due to this, Wi-Fi networks are much cheaper per subscriber in the coverage area. No matter how the technology of cellular communication changes, its fundamental difference from Wi-Fi is the specific cost of the infrastructure, which allows serving a certain number of subscribers with a given level of service in a given area. Wi-Fi is always cheaper.
On the other hand, if you try to build solutions using Wi-Fi for creating continuous coverage, serving a large number of subscribers outdoors with a single level of service and centralized management of the subscriber base, the result will be worse than in the case of cellular networks, the economic efficiency and quality of which are far superior to outdoor Wi-Fi. It should also be remembered that Wi-Fi frequencies are less secure than cellular frequencies and are much more likely to cause interference. This is not very important in premises, where the situation is usually under the control of the owner, but creates big problems outside the buildings.
Peace as an alternative to war
Cellular operators are worried about the availability of public Wi-Fi networks, not because their level of quality, usability and security is lower than that of cellular communications, but because they are free. Since cellular operators have not learned to earn seriously on something other than traffic, the availability of a free, albeit lower-quality alternative to their networks is unacceptable for them. The market has long offered an alternative to the hostility between cellular communication and Wi-Fi, which consists in unloading the traffic of cellular subscribers in the Wi-Fi network (Wi-Fi Offload) in an automatic, transparent mode for the user. The subscriber may not even know through which network his traffic is currently going, since all services (both voice communication, data transmission and all types of messaging services) work without any differences. There are many types and technologies of Wi-Fi Offload (for example, now Wi-Fi Calling is actively developing, in fact, belonging to the Offload category), as well as advanced methods of cooperation and coordination of cellular and Wi-Fi networks (some are mentioned above in the text), and increasingly cellular and Wi-Fi operators in they are used all over the world. As modern and high-quality segments of Wi-Fi networks appear, they become a natural alternative to the construction or expansion of our own infrastructure with the growth of traffic or a change in network generations, or they allow to limit investments by creating networks of smaller capacity. now Wi-Fi Calling is actively developing, in fact, belonging to the Offload category), as well as advanced methods of cooperation and coordination of cellular and Wi-Fi networks (some are mentioned above in the text), and increasingly cellular and Wi-Fi operators in they are used all over the world.The process of forming cooperation between cellular networks and Wi-Fi is going very badly in Russia. In my opinion, the reason for this is the practical absence of really high-quality, standards-compliant and well-operated Wi-Fi networks in our country. There is a chicken and egg problem here. To build a high-quality Wi-Fi network in an area where there are many subscribers, you need to invest substantial funds (which, although significantly lower than the corresponding costs of cellular operators, are also quite material). To invest, you need to have a business case. That is, to be able to make money on this network. But almost no one knows how to make money on public free Wi-Fi networks. As a result, public Wi-Fi networks for the most part are built with a direct customer and external funding to solve any problems (convenience for visitors, security, etc.) other than commercial. This means that such networks are designed to minimize all costs while maintaining the minimum acceptable quality and do not take into account the needs of cellular operators in any way. The experience of using such “cheap” networks accumulated over time, in turn, has led to the formation of a stereotype about the low quality of Wi-Fi as a technology. In fact, with proper use and quality design, construction and operation, Wi-Fi can provide a user experience just as good as 4G or 5G, but for less money and only where it makes sense to use it. The experience of using such “cheap” networks accumulated over time, in turn, has led to the formation of a stereotype about the low quality of Wi-Fi as a technology. In fact, with proper use and quality design, construction and operation, Wi-Fi can provide a user experience just as good as 4G or 5G, but for less money and only where it makes sense to use it. The experience of using such “cheap” networks accumulated over time, in turn, has led to the formation of a stereotype about the low quality of Wi-Fi as a technology. In fact, with proper use and quality design, construction and operation, Wi-Fi can provide a user experience just as good as 4G or 5G, but for less money and only where it makes sense to use it.
Last but not least: about the metro
Separately, I would like to comment on the issue of Wi-Fi networks in the subway. As you know, MaximaTelecom is the operator of such a network in the rolling stock of the Moscow and St. Petersburg metro. We serve about 1.5 million unique subscribers daily. We are often asked how we feel about the prospect of a full-fledged cellular connection in metro tunnels, especially in the 5G standard, and how this will affect our subscribers and whether we believe that this will lead to a significant outflow of subscribers to cellular networks.I'll start with 5G. Let me remind you that the benefits of 5G are very much based on MIMO technology. In subway tunnels, for purely physical reasons, high-order MIMO and beamforming will not work. Therefore, the 5G network in terms of data transmission speed and capacity in metro tunnels will not differ significantly from 4G (moreover, from 3G too). The speed and capacity of the network available to subscribers will mainly be determined by the frequency resource that operators can use in the tunnels, and not by the communication standard. Therefore, we do not think that the change of generations of communication in the metro will somehow affect our subscriber base.
Of course, the issue of usability and security of using networks is very important. This is the difference between a cellular network and a public Wi-Fi network. It is often said that for subscribers of public networks, a big problem is the need for identification in the network, which in our country is dictated by law. MaximaTelecom's experience shows that one-time required identification for the vast majority of subscribers is not an obstacle to using the network. Subscribers are much more concerned about the advertisements that we display every time they log on to the network. MaximaTelecom builds networks using its own and borrowed funds, the subways of the two capitals do not pay us for the fact that we provide Wi-Fi services for passengers (and never did). On the contrary,
The cost of creating and maintaining our networks is very high, since they include not only Wi-Fi and packet data networks, but also a transport radio network. Providing communication between moving trains and base stations providing communication between moving trains and base stations in metro tunnels. It is this component of our infrastructure (the so-called Track Side Network, TSN) that is the most expensive, and it is this component that is the basis for the unique service that we create for our subscribers. We are a commercial company, and our business model provides, in contrast to cellular operators, receiving income not for data transmission, but for advertising and services (something that cellular companies dream of, but never know how to do). We have to show subscribers a certain amount of advertising so that the service itself remains free for them. Today, each subscriber makes a choice between seamless entrance, but paid traffic and low quality of cellular communication in the metro and entrance with advertising, but free unlimited traffic and an available network. If cellular communication of good quality appears in trains in Moscow (so far only MTS, with our help, provides reliable voice communication in the 3G standard there), then some small part of subscribers, especially those for whom speed of entering the network is very important, will most likely prefer her Wi-Fi network. We are not at all afraid of this, because we will always be able to provide a higher quality of communication through our Wi-Fi network in wagons (speed, stability and availability) than cellular operators with a much lower investment. And the presence or absence of 5G has nothing to do with it. We are not at all afraid of this, because we will always be able to provide a higher quality of communication through our Wi-Fi network in wagons (speed, stability and availability) than cellular operators with a much lower investment. And the presence or absence of 5G has nothing to do with it. We are not at all afraid of this, because we will always be able to provide a higher quality of communication through our Wi-Fi network in wagons (speed, stability and availability) than cellular operators with a much lower investment. And the presence or absence of 5G has nothing to do with it. because we will always be able to provide a higher quality of communication through our Wi-Fi network in wagons (speed, stability and availability) than cellular operators with a much lower investment. And the presence or absence of 5G has nothing to do with it. because we will always be able to provide a higher quality of communication through our Wi-Fi network in wagons (speed, stability and availability) than cellular operators with a much lower investment. And the presence or absence of 5G has nothing to do with it.
