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

331–339 of 339 posts

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

#331

Post by daddylongstroke »

bobkazamakis wrote: post #94
cycomanic wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I am not big on defending telcos, let's not forget that they are under enormous price pressure (for the fibre backbone essentially they need to double available throughput every 18 month or so without increasing cost) at the same time it's the software/service companies who really made enormous profits based on these developments, while data capacity is becoming more and more a commodity.

man, can you imagine if we had payed some telcos money to drop fiber that they never did?

Still waiting on Centurylink (or whatever they rebranded to now) to start on their piece of that "bridge to the 21st century". Not holding breath. 3Mb/.5Mb, at a cool $50/month. :-O

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

#332

Post by dathinab »

idk. about US in some EU countries it's pretty common to only have LTE+5G sending stations.

I.e. most parts are hand over LTE and only some traffic gets switched over to 5G (e. g. video streams or large downloads).

the reason is simple that:

- backwards compatibility for all the non 5G devices is needed

- for most daily use LTE is enough

- use-cases which really need 5G and are in the normal phone radio network are still rare, the most common probably bring 5G to WiFi router in some cases. But such solutions are often seen as last choice if they is no other solution so mostly in the country side where the 5G/LTE net often isn't grate either (of available at all)

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

#334

Post by throwaway2037 »

disordinary wrote: post #330
porkbeer wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Outside cities, the network situation is pretty bad. I am in an affluent suburb and my only option is 4mb/200k. No that is not a typo. Broadband coverage is still pretty spotty in the usa.

Wow, we have fibre to about 90% of the population and ripped out copper a few years ago. In rural areas there is government subsidised 4g internet and in the most rural it's government subsidised satellite. I was in Korea for work and it seemed the same there, I was even in eastern Europe visiting family and it was a pretty similar story. So I figured it was pretty universal. Although I know that Australia isn't in a…

You wrote:

    we have fibre to about 90% of the population
Australia? NBN (National Broadband Network) is the only one I can think of...

Real Question: On paper, NBN is an insane human development achievement. Why do so many non-urban Ozzies on HN complain about lousy Internet access? Honestly, I don't believe it. Send them to Germany for a year, and they will see how bad it can be. (HN is full of funny stories from Germans about how bad is their broadband.)

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

#335

Post by disordinary »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #334
disordinary wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, we have fibre to about 90% of the population and ripped out copper a few years ago. In rural areas there is government subsidised 4g internet and in the most rural it's government subsidised satellite. I was in Korea for work and it seemed the same there, I was even in eastern Europe visiting family and it was a pretty similar story. So I figured it was pretty universal. Although I know that Australia isn't in a…

You wrote: we have fibre to about 90% of the population Australia? NBN (National Broadband Network) is the only one I can think of... Real Question: On paper, NBN is an insane human development achievement. Why do so many non-urban Ozzies on HN complain about lousy Internet access? Honestly, I don't believe it. Send them to Germany for a year, and they will see how bad it can be. (HN is full of funny stories from Ger…

No, New Zealand with UFB which is fibre to the door for about 90% of the population with rural broadband initiatives for the remaining 10%.

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

#336

Post by TheHappyOddish »

secondcoming wrote: post #195
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…

5G is great for those who want > 100MBs internet connections without having to be locking in to a multi-month contract with a fibre broadband provider. You can just buy a SIM card and you’re on.

I was getting 800mbps on 4G though.

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

#337

Post by jon-wood »

toyg wrote: post #309
martinald wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably council rejecting new masts if it is like most places in the UK. 3UK have thousands (maybe 10k?) new masts in planning to really improve 5G coverage (and they have the spectrum to actually deliver 2gig/sec to phones in the real world). Annoyingly the (vast in many cases) majority will are being rejected on suprious grounds by the council.

The reality where I live (North of England) is the opposite: cash-strapped (and often greasy-palmed) councils will approve masts willy-nilly, to the annoyance of locals who find out only after they're erected. Very occasionally this generates any actual organised blowback.

I'm curious, what are the actual objections to mobile masts being erected? They don't make a noise, they're not (despite the conspiracy theorists) in any way dangerous. All I can think of is that people don't like the way they look, but I don't really see them as being any uglier than a lamppost or street sign.

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

#338

Post by samhuk »

kjellsbells wrote: post #313
samhuk wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a bit confused about your last point. Could you elaborate? Telcos are (in theory, at least) private utility companies, so why does it make sense for them to create the application/use case? Do you mean that Telcos like Verizon are reeling from not creating their own platforms (say, apps or app stores) that charge for use of LTE etc.? Basically, why and how do you think that Telcos are reeling from not capturing L…

Basically, telco is a fee for carriage service. You pay for transport on some network that they build: cellular, fiber, etc. They figure out what to charge you based on historical models of what you used the transport for. In the days when all that you transmitted were telephone calls, this was easy. Then people started sending IP packets and it got a little harder, but ok, the telcos would just charge a per byte fee…

Ah, thanks for explaining that. Really appreciate it. Makes a lot more sense now.

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

#339

Post by dazc »

jon-wood wrote: post #337
toyg wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reality where I live (North of England) is the opposite: cash-strapped (and often greasy-palmed) councils will approve masts willy-nilly, to the annoyance of locals who find out only after they're erected. Very occasionally this generates any actual organised blowback.

I'm curious, what are the actual objections to mobile masts being erected? They don't make a noise, they're not (despite the conspiracy theorists) in any way dangerous. All I can think of is that people don't like the way they look, but I don't really see them as being any uglier than a lamppost or street sign.

Mainly aesthetics, the new 5G masts are much larger and need to be sited in densely populated areas where there is already a significant amount of unwelcome street furniture.

Conspiracy theories regarding harmful radiation can also be a factor.

Post reply on HN