Has any carrier globally met those specs outside of the lab? Even with 5xCA using 3x20MHz 5GHz B46 + 15MHz B2 and 10MHz B4 (T-Mobile US's setup on the densified small cells in my area), I have yet...
Has any carrier globally met those specs outside of the lab? Even with 5xCA using 3x20MHz 5GHz B46 + 15MHz B2 and 10MHz B4 (T-Mobile US's setup on the densified small cells in my area), I have yet to see above about 300Mbps down and 30-40Mbps up on a real-world network, while literally standing across the street from a node. If R13 LTE can't do this in a real-world setup with tons of spectrum and direct line of sight, I don't think there was any hope for LTE ever meeting the full 4G spec speeds on an in-use network in real-world conditions. Even a 5xCA with the licensed bands being 20MHz (the cap for LTE bands) situation would maybe get you to 400Mbps down.
Are American cell networks that poorly deployed then? Can anyone from outside the US here speak to LTE speeds at actual 4G spec? I find it hard to believe that they'd be deployed so much more crappily here, especially a carrier like T-Mobile that's an international one, or Verizon who had near-half Vodafone ownership for years, to begin with.
No. And the ITU issued a rule to specifically allow carriers to use 4G terminology despite not meeting the standards so long as they used the technology and showed improvement upon 3G. At that...
Has any carrier globally met those specs outside of the lab?
No.
And the ITU issued a rule to specifically allow carriers to use 4G terminology despite not meeting the standards so long as they used the technology and showed improvement upon 3G. At that point, there was little reason to actually try to meet the standards as actually having faster speeds would not guarantee customers switching and there's going to be some legal tightrope walking to market "We have real 4G, they don't" that would likely make the marketing ineffective.
ITU let them get away without actually meeting standards with 4G, they're doing the same with 5G, carriers will do the bare minimum to meet the low expectations of customers, the world will keep on spinning.
To be perfectly honest, I think that this whole 5G media craze is all a grift from Qualcomm to sell chips that are different for the sake of being different instead of actually offering...
To be perfectly honest, I think that this whole 5G media craze is all a grift from Qualcomm to sell chips that are different for the sake of being different instead of actually offering improvements. These short-range techniques are so pitiful they come across as a sick anti-consumer joke. When the best you can do is "wifi but with a slightly longer range but only if you have a direct line-of-sight", that's not a real improvement for most people. Especially when most of the 5G implementations right now are the same speed or slower than the 4G networks they are supposed to be replacing.
Is 5G actually supposed to replace 4G? I've been under the impression that it's primary use is to supplement 4G in congested urban areas (and congested special use areas like stadiums when those...
Is 5G actually supposed to replace 4G? I've been under the impression that it's primary use is to supplement 4G in congested urban areas (and congested special use areas like stadiums when those become a thing again), which 4G doesn't handle well at all.
There has been so many patently bullshit claims in regards to what 5G is supposed to be able to do. I've heard people say that we need 5G in order to do remote surgeries. Why on earth would you...
There has been so many patently bullshit claims in regards to what 5G is supposed to be able to do. I've heard people say that we need 5G in order to do remote surgeries. Why on earth would you use an unreliable shared wireless signal for a surgery when we have wired services that are more reliable and faster?
Of course, my favorite BS use case scenario is how we need it for autonomous cars to work. They need to communicate with 5G because they need the low latency! Now quick, just put those milimeter wave transceivers every 1/10th of a kilometer on every street of every country!
I always chuckle when I hear somebody say that 5G is going to connect rural areas that do not have any substantial internet access. These companies were given millions to connect America and...
I always chuckle when I hear somebody say that 5G is going to connect rural areas that do not have any substantial internet access. These companies were given millions to connect America and decided not to build infrastructure in certain areas because they weren't profitable. Now we expect them to run an even more expensive infrastructure in these same areas with no regulatory compulsions...?
I don't think it warrants anything like the hype it's getting - all else being equal I'd expect it to be mentioned in dry technical articles in the trade press and not much more - but it's not a...
I don't think it warrants anything like the hype it's getting - all else being equal I'd expect it to be mentioned in dry technical articles in the trade press and not much more - but it's not a scam either.
I trialled 5G broadband about six months ago, and it was a pretty solid product. The ~500Mbps download speeds were real, and the latency was no more noticeable than fixed line - something I absolutely can't say for the 4G products I've used. The upstream was pitiful (one of the major reasons I cancelled the service), but my understanding is that was a decision on the carrier's part rather than a technical limitation.
I think it's a genuinely useful part of the infrastructure toolkit, and one that (along with 4G and fixed fibre) will help fill in a decent number of gaps in the connectivity landscape. Media hype, though? Yeah, I'm with you on that, it's weird and unjustified.
I don't want 5G in the first place. I want them to have actual 4G, which no US carrier has ever met.
Has any carrier globally met those specs outside of the lab? Even with 5xCA using 3x20MHz 5GHz B46 + 15MHz B2 and 10MHz B4 (T-Mobile US's setup on the densified small cells in my area), I have yet to see above about 300Mbps down and 30-40Mbps up on a real-world network, while literally standing across the street from a node. If R13 LTE can't do this in a real-world setup with tons of spectrum and direct line of sight, I don't think there was any hope for LTE ever meeting the full 4G spec speeds on an in-use network in real-world conditions. Even a 5xCA with the licensed bands being 20MHz (the cap for LTE bands) situation would maybe get you to 400Mbps down.
Are American cell networks that poorly deployed then? Can anyone from outside the US here speak to LTE speeds at actual 4G spec? I find it hard to believe that they'd be deployed so much more crappily here, especially a carrier like T-Mobile that's an international one, or Verizon who had near-half Vodafone ownership for years, to begin with.
No.
And the ITU issued a rule to specifically allow carriers to use 4G terminology despite not meeting the standards so long as they used the technology and showed improvement upon 3G. At that point, there was little reason to actually try to meet the standards as actually having faster speeds would not guarantee customers switching and there's going to be some legal tightrope walking to market "We have real 4G, they don't" that would likely make the marketing ineffective.
ITU let them get away without actually meeting standards with 4G, they're doing the same with 5G, carriers will do the bare minimum to meet the low expectations of customers, the world will keep on spinning.
To be perfectly honest, I think that this whole 5G media craze is all a grift from Qualcomm to sell chips that are different for the sake of being different instead of actually offering improvements. These short-range techniques are so pitiful they come across as a sick anti-consumer joke. When the best you can do is "wifi but with a slightly longer range but only if you have a direct line-of-sight", that's not a real improvement for most people. Especially when most of the 5G implementations right now are the same speed or slower than the 4G networks they are supposed to be replacing.
Is 5G actually supposed to replace 4G? I've been under the impression that it's primary use is to supplement 4G in congested urban areas (and congested special use areas like stadiums when those become a thing again), which 4G doesn't handle well at all.
There has been so many patently bullshit claims in regards to what 5G is supposed to be able to do. I've heard people say that we need 5G in order to do remote surgeries. Why on earth would you use an unreliable shared wireless signal for a surgery when we have wired services that are more reliable and faster?
Of course, my favorite BS use case scenario is how we need it for autonomous cars to work. They need to communicate with 5G because they need the low latency! Now quick, just put those milimeter wave transceivers every 1/10th of a kilometer on every street of every country!
I always chuckle when I hear somebody say that 5G is going to connect rural areas that do not have any substantial internet access. These companies were given millions to connect America and decided not to build infrastructure in certain areas because they weren't profitable. Now we expect them to run an even more expensive infrastructure in these same areas with no regulatory compulsions...?
I don’t expect US telecoms to do anything useful with the current competitive landscape. I’m hoping Starlink will give them a kick in the pants.
To be fair, that could be really great. There were companies suggesting to put up boxes like this on every telephone pole back in the 90s.
I don't think it warrants anything like the hype it's getting - all else being equal I'd expect it to be mentioned in dry technical articles in the trade press and not much more - but it's not a scam either.
I trialled 5G broadband about six months ago, and it was a pretty solid product. The ~500Mbps download speeds were real, and the latency was no more noticeable than fixed line - something I absolutely can't say for the 4G products I've used. The upstream was pitiful (one of the major reasons I cancelled the service), but my understanding is that was a decision on the carrier's part rather than a technical limitation.
I think it's a genuinely useful part of the infrastructure toolkit, and one that (along with 4G and fixed fibre) will help fill in a decent number of gaps in the connectivity landscape. Media hype, though? Yeah, I'm with you on that, it's weird and unjustified.
There are many kinds of 5G you might want to use, and then there's 5G DSS.