The common factor of the three communications is the ultra-low latency requirement, but there are different definitions for them according to their applications. So, can we use the real-time communications as a general name for the them or not?
The "real-time" aspect generally relates to the speed at which you can close the control loop. Depending on the application, this leads to different constraints and also different interpretations of the term "real time". E.g. for haptic control, generally, you'd need 10Hz for obtaining a good operator "feeling", whereas for video transmission, you'd probably need 25Hz.
Dear Najib,
I suggest you to see links and attached files in topics.
- Mission Critical IoT Communication in 5G (PDF Download Available)
https://www.researchgate.net/.../288933722_Mission_Critical_IoT_...
- 5G-Enabled Tactile Internet - IEEE Xplore
ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel7/49/5594698/07403840.pdf
- 5G for Mission Critical Communication - BME-HIT
www.hit.bme.hu/.../Nokia_5G_for_Mission_Critical_Communicati...
- Machine-type communication in 5G | Ericsson Research Blog
https://www.ericsson.com/...blog/machine-type-communication-5g...
Best regards
Dears Geert and Mohamed
Thanks a lot for your valuable answers. But, can we call the other communications, haptic and cMTC, also real-time communications or not?
I think that as all require E2E latency of max 1 ms, all can take the same name, Real-time communications.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Organizational Psychology
- Training