Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Is it just me or is 5G strictly worse than LTE?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 339 posts

Re: Ask HN: Is it just me or is 5G strictly worse than LTE?

#161

Post by michpoch »

jl6 wrote: post #152
dehrmann wrote: post #136

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.

What were the original promises of 4G?

Re: Ask HN: Is it just me or is 5G strictly worse than LTE?

#162

Post by rocqua »

askvictor wrote: post #69
ksec wrote: post #36

OK, I will bite. Comparing 5G vs 4G as Technology is completely different to 5G vs 4G in real world implementation. That is a bit like asking if Core i9 is faster than Core i7 without knowing the clock speed, core count, cache and power budget. Or for Software developers comparing Python vs Ruby without knowing the code and VM, JIT or not Most 5G network around the world are deployed in higher frequency spectrum. Hen…

> Stand Alone 5G without relaying on 4G Network Back End What's the difference in the backends? Is it just a question of bandwidth, or is there something more?

The difference is quite large. The architecture for the 5g backend was made to allow for easy virtualization and scaling capacity up and down. Hence telcos don't need to buy a very specific subscriber management box that is special made and needs to handle peak usage. Instead you can buy or rent commodity hardware, and usually run much less hardware because you can scale up as required.

Check out the diagram in this article: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/5g-network-architecture/ Note how little space is given to the cell towers.

Re: Ask HN: Is it just me or is 5G strictly worse than LTE?

#164

Post by Gigachad »

dehrmann wrote: post #143
spookthesunset wrote: post #96

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.

Supposedly lots of India will never build out data networks that go to homes because it makes no sense when you have LTE and 5G.

Wireless is probably good enough. Wired is still much faster, more reliable, and has lower latency, but if the cost is unaffordable, none of that is essential.

I expect the future is that rural moves to mostly wireless and inner city areas continue to be connected to fiber.

Re: Ask HN: Is it just me or is 5G strictly worse than LTE?

#165

Post by izacus »

tremere wrote: post #102
spookthesunset wrote: post #96

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.

Why would I want to replace my home internet with something less secure, less reliable, lossier, and slower?

Because it's cheaper and more convenient for you ISP and you'll just need to eat the crappier service when noone will want to deploy fiber to your house anymore.

Re: Ask HN: Is it just me or is 5G strictly worse than LTE?

#166

Post by mlindner »

indy wrote: post #127
tremere wrote: post #102

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.

Or better yet, serve you ads when you're not using the TV where it randomly comes on from time to time and displays an image ad and then turns off again.

Re: Ask HN: Is it just me or is 5G strictly worse than LTE?

#167

Post by Gigachad »

ksec wrote: post #36

OK, I will bite. Comparing 5G vs 4G as Technology is completely different to 5G vs 4G in real world implementation. That is a bit like asking if Core i9 is faster than Core i7 without knowing the clock speed, core count, cache and power budget. Or for Software developers comparing Python vs Ruby without knowing the code and VM, JIT or not Most 5G network around the world are deployed in higher frequency spectrum. Hen…

I just don’t feel like there is much need for faster than 4G right now. It almost feels like a meme to say this “why would anyone want more than 16 mb of ram”. But it’s been years now and not much has changed. I did a speed test and my 4G was 300mbps, that’s faster than the home internet speed of most people I know. I just can’t see why you’d want more than that on a phone.

Re: Ask HN: Is it just me or is 5G strictly worse than LTE?

#168

Post by vinay427 »

raverbashing wrote: post #126
tremere wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's specious. The user experience matters a lot more when using headphones. The weight and tension and tethered nature of a wire degrade the user experience when it comes to an apparatus that goes on your head. In contrast, I personally do not derive any pleasure from liberating my home internet gateway from a cable that goes to the wall.

> The user experience matters a lot more when using headphones. Sure, for the use cases where, for example, you're moving too much, wireless is good But you get an inferior experience on most other cases, for example, switching it from one device to another, not to mention spectrum crowding etc

> But you get an inferior experience on most other cases, for example, switching it from one device to another

I almost always have a better experience switching from one device to another. It’s zero extra taps (just play/pause of some content on the second device) on my Jabra earphones or zero to one taps for my AirPods (one if they’re already playing media on the original device).

Compare that to wired headphones, which I would need to unplug and then snake around my desk to the second device.

Re: Ask HN: Is it just me or is 5G strictly worse than LTE?

#169

Post by joecool1029 »

kjellsbells wrote: post #45

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…

> Verizon have some high bandwidth spectrum, but it doesnt propagate as well as lower (and slower) frequencies like what Tmo has.

Eh.... nitpick. Let's ignore mmwave for a minute and focus on bands that matter for most people. T-Mobile and Verizon both have midband spectrum which is overall most useful. Verizon's is C-band 3.7ghz T-Mobile's BRS 2.5ghz midband is mostly backhaul limited where it's deployed, it'll do ~700mbit/s down but the actual spectrum is capable of at least double this. (in my market I can get 100mhz + 20mhz of N41+N41 aggregated, this is 2.5ghz spectrum). It doesn't matter if I'm next to a tower, it's limited by the backhaul.

I get between 600-700mbps real world if I stand outside my house. I live in semi-rural area and the tower is about 6 miles away nearly line of sight. Indoors the attenuation hits and I mostly use the other bands to reliable pull ~150mbit/s, which is fine for me (and traffic goes mostly over LTE).

> - Telcos desperately need a killer app or use case that drives 5G adoption. They havent got one.

The 'killer app' is called home internet in markets that have trash CLEC's which haven't upgraded infra in 20+ years. Mine is Blightspeed selling 'up to 3mbit/s' copper DSL in 2023. Other option is Comcast, which works but is ludicrously overpriced because there's nobody el> Verizon have some high bandwidth spectrum, but it doesnt propagate as well as lower (and slower) frequencies like what Tmo has.

Re: Ask HN: Is it just me or is 5G strictly worse than LTE?

#170

Post by spookthesunset »

ilyt wrote: post #101
spookthesunset wrote: post #96

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.

In dense permanent environments a bunch of cables will most likely be cheaper than having enough 5G cells to give everyone few hundred Mbits of transfer. In scattered environment the range is too short to excuse the cost of covering it with 5G There is no niche for it except for "my landlord didn't install proper internet so I use 5G" coz it happened to be alreadhy in range

I mean you aren’t wrong. But cable has a monopoly on most peoples home internet today. If you could (theoretically) kick their ass with fast internet that completely bypasses asshole cable companies, more power to you.
Post reply on HN