151–160 of 339 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would I want to replace my home internet with something less secure, less reliable, lossier, and slower?
The same arguments apply to wireless headphones. (And I'm not disagreeing with you)
Yet many of the same people demand wired internet. Hence I don't believe wireless internet and headphones are comparable.
Having the 5G logo on your phone doesnt necessarily mean your phone is speaking 5G. It's...complicated. - Most US operators do not have ubiquitous 5G radio coverage, so, they do what is called 5G NSA where your traffic ultimately ends up veing processed by the 4G core infrastructure that they have. Which is already overloaded and a bit creaky. - Some operators can do real 5G, "5G SA", where the whole flow end to end…
> I assert that it is dawning on operators that consumers are not interested in paying $10 extra per month for 5G I agree with this. For the most part, LTE is enough for everything from casual web browsing to streaming video. There just isn't that much of an improvement jumping to 5G in the end-user experience. The is very different from the 3G to 4G jump. I still remember using an original 2G iPhone. Maps basically…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's almost like we could just go back to cables and have a plenty good experience again...
But why? If you had the choice of EQUIVALENT (bandwidth, latency, jitter, reliability, etc…) network connectivity, why pick a wire over wireless?
With wireless internet, disruption can be caused by many things. That makes diagnosing a problem so much harder. Incidentally it also tends to be less reliable.
Besides that, the massive complexity of the technology stack makes wireless harder to manage, configure, figure out compatibility for, and more prone to software bugs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The “real” 5g isn’t for your phone, it is to replace your home internet. For that, you want fast and low latency and that means a dense amount of cell towers. The fact that “real 5g” has a shorter range is actually a positive. It means you can make your shit super dense.
So whoever doesn't live in the city center gets a poor signal? Sounds like short sighted view of the decade
5G has an option for higher frequency towers with signals that drop off much quicker, allowing you to pack towers closer together. Hence giving city centers much more bandwidth.
Down in the suburbs you can still get away with fewer towers with larger range and still give everyone bandwidth.
Out in the countryside is where the problem you propose starts occurring. When the people are so spread out that a single cell is going to be woefully underutilized, and hence not built close enough to your home. But that cross-over is beyond the suburbs, not around the city center.
In normal everyday situations 5G just drains more battery and causes more glitches due to the more frequent handoffs.
It's also much faster than 4G, of course, but it's quite rare for me to need speeds above 4G on my cell phone. I'm usually not downloading large files when I'm out and about away from WiFi.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would I want to replace my home internet with something less secure, less reliable, lossier, and slower?
It may be worse for the end user but it's great for corporations. Samsung could sell you a smart TV with built-in 5G so that it can always serve you ads even if you never connect it to your wi-fi.
Having the 5G logo on your phone doesnt necessarily mean your phone is speaking 5G. It's...complicated. - Most US operators do not have ubiquitous 5G radio coverage, so, they do what is called 5G NSA where your traffic ultimately ends up veing processed by the 4G core infrastructure that they have. Which is already overloaded and a bit creaky. - Some operators can do real 5G, "5G SA", where the whole flow end to end…
Worked in Telco too. I always wondered if it wasn’t enough to have 1 infrastructure provider like with streets or anything else. Why build the infrastructure twice or three times?
I hope/imagine that a lot of fiber backhaul is shared between operators that share towers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I worked on a team that prototyped the “watch the game on your phone at the game” using WiFi. Nobody used it. That isn’t going to be the killer app either.
I would expect that to work great for a F1 race.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I assert that it is dawning on operators that consumers are not interested in paying $10 extra per month for 5G I agree with this. For the most part, LTE is enough for everything from casual web browsing to streaming video. There just isn't that much of an improvement jumping to 5G in the end-user experience. The is very different from the 3G to 4G jump. I still remember using an original 2G iPhone. Maps basically…
Also, providers by and large still haven’t delivered on the original promises of 4G.