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

The Disappointment of 5G

circleid.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 175 posts

Re: The Disappointment of 5G

#141

Post by latchkey »

grishka wrote: post #139

It's interesting that the hypeness of 5G varies greatly depending on the country. In the US, where carriers have a say in what phones people use on their networks, the 5G hype seems to have been through the roof. In UAE where I visit sometimes, both carriers did buy some billboards to advertise their 5G service, and that's it. I have no idea what it's like because I don't have a compatible phone. In Russia though, wh…

> Everyone seems fine with LTE.

Do they have a choice otherwise though?

Re: The Disappointment of 5G

#142

Post by bradgessler »

lordfrito wrote: post #134

I think one of the biggest improvement points of 5G, which most people don't notice, is that it improves the number of devices that can connect to the local cell tower. With 4G, you get 100k device connections per 1 sq kilometer. With 5G, this number becomes 1 million connections per square kilometer. This is a very big deal if you are in a heavily congested area (big cities, major league sporting events). Also a ver…

This perfectly illustrates why 5G is a disappointment for consumers—increasing the number of devices each tower can support is a carrier problem, not a customer problem.

I've never in my life heard somebody on 4G LTE say, "Eugh, my connection is too slow!". It's always "fast enough" to browse the web at reasonable speeds, watch videos, or have an OK-quality FaceTime call.

Re: The Disappointment of 5G

#143

Post by grishka »

lordfrito wrote: post #134

I think one of the biggest improvement points of 5G, which most people don't notice, is that it improves the number of devices that can connect to the local cell tower. With 4G, you get 100k device connections per 1 sq kilometer. With 5G, this number becomes 1 million connections per square kilometer. This is a very big deal if you are in a heavily congested area (big cities, major league sporting events). Also a ver…

How well does 5G work wrt distance from the tower? So far, the good old 2G (GSM/GPRS/EDGE) is best in this regard, at least in my own experience. No matter how far from civilization you are, you're more likely to get 2G than no service at all. You can call, sure, but data works so terribly it could as well be unavailable. Does 5G solve that?

Re: The Disappointment of 5G

#144

Post by FollowingTheDao »

scarface74 wrote: post #49
FollowingTheDao wrote: post #8

All the BS hype about 5G was a red flag for me. They were always showing how doctors could operate on people in far away places (never mentioning the fact that the people in the far away places probably have no health care) and it is also all supposed to lead to everything from energy efficiency to higher efficiency. But all I get is a higher phone bill and no option to opt out of a 5G plan even though I turn it off…

Phones have had GPS since the 2G era. 5G is the least of your problem.

You’re wrong here, even the first iPhone did not have a GPS.

Re: The Disappointment of 5G

#145

Post by grishka »

latchkey wrote: post #141
grishka wrote: post #139

It's interesting that the hypeness of 5G varies greatly depending on the country. In the US, where carriers have a say in what phones people use on their networks, the 5G hype seems to have been through the roof. In UAE where I visit sometimes, both carriers did buy some billboards to advertise their 5G service, and that's it. I have no idea what it's like because I don't have a compatible phone. In Russia though, wh…

> Everyone seems fine with LTE. Do they have a choice otherwise though?

Wi-Fi?

I meant that people rarely, if ever, complain about it. It's mobile data. You use it for apps and to browse the web. That's it. 3G was already fast enough for this purpose. I say that as someone who was relatively late to get an LTE-capable phone.

It's also a common understanding that cell towers have limited capacity and if there are many people in one place, your data connection might not work.

Re: The Disappointment of 5G

#146

Post by hgsgm »

dx034 wrote: post #53
lupire wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not in remote unwired terrain. Examples for "wireless" (roadless) transport of physical packets https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zipline_(drone_delivery_comp... .

In remote areas, Starlink is probably a better bet than 5G to allow for low latency, high bandwidth use cases.

This arbitrary web site disagrees: 25ms vs 1ms latency.

https://history-computer.com/starlink-vs-5g-which-is-better

Re: The Disappointment of 5G

#147

Post by lordfrito »

bradgessler wrote: post #142
lordfrito wrote: post #134

I think one of the biggest improvement points of 5G, which most people don't notice, is that it improves the number of devices that can connect to the local cell tower. With 4G, you get 100k device connections per 1 sq kilometer. With 5G, this number becomes 1 million connections per square kilometer. This is a very big deal if you are in a heavily congested area (big cities, major league sporting events). Also a ver…

This perfectly illustrates why 5G is a disappointment for consumers—increasing the number of devices each tower can support is a carrier problem, not a customer problem. I've never in my life heard somebody on 4G LTE say, "Eugh, my connection is too slow!". It's always "fast enough" to browse the web at reasonable speeds, watch videos, or have an OK-quality FaceTime call.

Totally agree, this fixes infrastructure problems, not so much end consumer problems.

Still, the carriers have to get people to upgrade their phones before 4G gets sunset. Can't exactly blame them for pushing the tech, seems like the transition to digital TV. No one was happy their old TVs were going to stop working, but such is progress.

Re: The Disappointment of 5G

#148

Post by lordfrito »

CivBase wrote: post #138
lordfrito wrote: post #134

I think one of the biggest improvement points of 5G, which most people don't notice, is that it improves the number of devices that can connect to the local cell tower. With 4G, you get 100k device connections per 1 sq kilometer. With 5G, this number becomes 1 million connections per square kilometer. This is a very big deal if you are in a heavily congested area (big cities, major league sporting events). Also a ver…

5G is definitely a cool tech. What's not cool is how carriers trick people into thinking they're using "5G" (or even "6G") just because their phone's cellular data connection is operating on the 5G spectrum. What's also not cool is how carriers market their 5G services with claims of speeds that a normal user will never achieve. I've never seen a carrier market 5G as a solution for maintaining connections in congeste…

See my other comment here, this solves carrier problems not so much consumer problems.

Yeah it's a trick. Marketing being what it is, it's hard to sell it any other way, they have to fallback on "buy this new shiny thing".

Re: The Disappointment of 5G

#149

Post by elcritch »

bastawhiz wrote: post #129
Analemma_ wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

T-Mobile keeps sending me texts trying to get me to sign up for their 5G home internet. They're offering 50 Mbps down for $60/month. Xfinity gives me 200 megs down for the same price and lower latency, and when you're losing to Comcast , that's not a good sign.

Comcast isn't the real competitor. Lots of folks are stuck on shitty ADSL because the hassle of getting cables in and run—especially as a renter—are too high. I've even heard of folks who can't get a decent enough signal from Comcast switching because the time and energy to replace the coax to their condo was too much.

For me the temptation of 5g over cable are better contracts. The cable provider in my apartment already has cable setup in my home with a no-contract “WiFi” option. But to get faster speeds I have to pay $150 buck setup fee and sign up for a year long lease.

Like, nope 5g’s probably good enough.

Re: The Disappointment of 5G

#150

Post by lordfrito »

grishka wrote: post #143
lordfrito wrote: post #134

I think one of the biggest improvement points of 5G, which most people don't notice, is that it improves the number of devices that can connect to the local cell tower. With 4G, you get 100k device connections per 1 sq kilometer. With 5G, this number becomes 1 million connections per square kilometer. This is a very big deal if you are in a heavily congested area (big cities, major league sporting events). Also a ver…

How well does 5G work wrt distance from the tower? So far, the good old 2G (GSM/GPRS/EDGE) is best in this regard, at least in my own experience. No matter how far from civilization you are, you're more likely to get 2G than no service at all. You can call, sure, but data works so terribly it could as well be unavailable. Does 5G solve that?

Caveat, I'm not exactly an expert at that level. My understanding is that "it depends".

I do know that transmission distance goes down as the frequency (and bandwidth) increases. For example, 2.4 GHz WiFi works farther than 5 GHz, but is slower.

I also know that 5G enables high speed "micro cells".. Higher bandwidth but smaller coverage zone. The idea that every city block can have a mini cell in their corner traffic light equipment buried undergound etc., less obtrusive cell towers needed. Sort of in between WiFi and true cell towers. I like to think of it as super charged WiFi on steriods. So that's one capability 5G brings, but it doesn't mean that your local experience is using this.

So, again, it all depends.

Maybe someone else here can post a more definitive answer or techincal explanation.

Post reply on HN