291–300 of 339 posts
As the shift up in frequency happens to chase bandwidth, the penetration through structures and things like foliage, drops off a cliff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If someone was willing to pay for the hundreds of tiny cell sites required. We are already doing that, it's called WiFi. 5G SA is nothing but a souped up WiFi signal, and it should be treated as such and not how we have been treating 4G up until this point. Telcos need to change their business model otherwise the tech giants might end up eating their lunch
> 5G SA is nothing but a souped up WiFi signal, Let's not conflate too many things. Maybe current deployments are in that frequency band, but "5G SA" just means the connection is legitimately 5G. In theory all 4G frequencies will get converted to 5G, and it will be a moderate improvement. Separately 5G is expanding into the wifi arena and the ultra fast near-line-of-sight arena. But "SA" is not how you tell the diffe…
On LTE this is called LAA. As far as I can tell, the term is being kept for 5G as well.
It wouldn't be so bad if phones were better at switching to the best available signal, they they could use the efficient 5G connection when it's available, but fall back to 4G when the 5G is blocked by a building or something (which I gather is more common due to the high frequencies used in 5G). But they seem to insist on connecting to a crappy 5G signal even if an excellent 4G signal is available. Same with 3G, whi…
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…
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 LTE value? Didn't they already by charging for use of their network?
Side-note: If I'm not wrong in my assumption of what you meant, then you conjecture a rather depressing idea that companies feel the need to capture value from an increasing number of market segments and crave hegemonic monopolistic control, for example Microsoft since forever.
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'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…
In their ideal world, they would put up the investment for the infrastructure (or even better: have gov't pay for it) and then turn on the money printer.
Anyway, I'm not all that thrilled with 5G. But I'm a bit of a luddite, I guess, because I also don't want to live in a world where EVERYTHING is connected. I don't want my car to have an internet connection. I don't want 5G boots. I don't need a 5G rain poncho.
It wouldn't be so bad if phones were better at switching to the best available signal, they they could use the efficient 5G connection when it's available, but fall back to 4G when the 5G is blocked by a building or something (which I gather is more common due to the high frequencies used in 5G). But they seem to insist on connecting to a crappy 5G signal even if an excellent 4G signal is available. Same with 3G, whi…
This is inexcusable. I thought my phone was defective for weeks. I would get ZERO data, move 100 yards and have data again. After some Deep Thought™ I disabled 5G and could magically use the Internet from my phone again.
My iPhone is physically incapable of using 5G. It has no 5G antenna. AT&T just makes it say 5G anyway. They use this to “advertise that 5G is available in that area” or some other weird lie. It’s not 5G for me, and I honestly doubt it’s 5G for others either
Completely anecdotally, the internet in these “5GE” areas is usually worse. In fact, nearly everywhere I go anymore my cell service is atrocious now. I have to actually seek out WiFi networks to get usable speeds sometimes. My cellular speeds have noticeably tanked in the past 2 years or so. I used to get like 50mbps sometimes when doing a speed test. Now I usually get ~1mbps at restaurants, or less.
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.