Verizon adds four US cities to growing 5G network

Posted:
in General Discussion edited July 2019
Verizon on Wednesday activated 5G Ultra Wideband services in select areas of Atlanta, Detroit, Indianapolis and Washington, D.C., bringing the number of U.S. cities with access to the speedy mobile network up to nine.




The nation's leading mobile provider by subscribers announced the expansion in a post to its website, noting business customers and general consumers can access the 5G network with a lineup of five devices.

When Verizon first flipped the switch on its 5G network in April, compatibility was limited to the Motorola Z3 smartphone with separate 5G moto mod. Other manufacturers have entered the 5G race in the intervening months, with Verizon now offering supporting models from LG, Samsung and Inseego.

Specifically, customers can select the LG V50 ThinQ 5G, Moto Z3 or Z4 with 5G moto mod, Samsung Galaxy S10 5G or Inseego MiFi M1000, the latter being a mobile 5G hotspot.

"Customers in these cities are at the forefront of game-changing technology, with access to download speeds and bandwidth that will power the future of consumer, business and government mobile applications," Verizon CTO Kyle Malady said of the new 5G locales. "Similarly, cities that embrace new technology, like 5G Ultra Wideband, have a leg up in competition to attract businesses and create jobs."

Coverage in Atlanta, Detroit, Indianapolis and Washington, D.C., is limited to highly populated areas such as parks, museums, college campuses and other public spaces, Verizon said. The company intends to expand coverage beyond those areas in the coming months.

Verizon first announced plans for its 5G service in February, promising customers in 30 U.S. cities would gain access to the network by the end of 2019. The company rolled out 5G Ultra Wideband in Chicago, Denver, Minneapolis, Providence and St. Paul earlier this year and is working to debut the technology in Boston, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dallas, Des Moines, Houston, Kansas City, Little Rock, Memphis, Phoenix, San Diego and Salt Lake City.

Apple is rumored to join the 5G party in 2020 after settling a worldwide legal dispute with cellular modem supplier Qualcomm in April. The tech giant is expected to rely on Qualcomm's 5G baseband chip for iPhone and iPad connectivity in the near term, but could make the switch to first-party silicon in a couple years.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 13
    flydogflydog Posts: 1,132member
    Coverage in Atlanta, Detroit, Indianapolis and Washington, D.C., is limited to highly populated areas such as parks, museums, college campuses and other public spaces, Verizon said. 

    Well that’s just great. Let’s all run out and buy 5G phones to use at the museum.  
    mdriftmeyerJFC_PA
  • Reply 2 of 13
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,966member
    flydog said:
    Coverage in Atlanta, Detroit, Indianapolis and Washington, D.C., is limited to highly populated areas such as parks, museums, college campuses and other public spaces, Verizon said. 

    Well that’s just great. Let’s all run out and buy 5G phones to use at the museum.  
    Coverage in Minneapolis is limited to a few blocks as well. I guess the plan is for people to drive to the coverage island, download their stuff at those blazing 5G speeds we’ve all been hearing about, then go back to what we were doing. 
    johnbsirius
  • Reply 3 of 13
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    Genuine question:

    If 5G has such a short range and the signal can’t pass through most building materials, then how is it the future – unless we’re all going to walk around with antenna hats?
    JFC_PAmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 4 of 13
    Rayz2016 said:
    Genuine question:

    If 5G has such a short range and the signal can’t pass through most building materials, then how is it the future – unless we’re all going to walk around with antenna hats?
    Tin foil. 
  • Reply 5 of 13
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    Rayz2016 said:
    Genuine question:

    If 5G has such a short range and the signal can’t pass through most building materials, then how is it the future – unless we’re all going to walk around with antenna hats?
    Tin foil. 
    Ah. The universal solution. 
  • Reply 6 of 13
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    Rayz2016 said:
    Genuine question:

    If 5G has such a short range and the signal can’t pass through most building materials, then how is it the future – unless we’re all going to walk around with antenna hats?
    The same questions could be asked of WiFi and LTE.
  • Reply 7 of 13
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    Here in Pittsburgh Verizon has purchased (many of?) the telephone poles and engaged a separate firm to inspect each of them and reinforce them where necessary -- presumably so they can hold a 5G transmitter.

    Some of these poles were installed more than 70-80 years ago but are still being used to carry electric, copper, fiber optic and cable lines.  But, according to the inspectors, the old poles are often in better shape than the newer ones because, back then, they used toxins like creosote to insure that they didn't rot.   The people working with those toxins likely rotted, but not the poles.

    But that invites the question:   Will each pole have to hold 3 separate transmitters (one each from the Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile)?   Or, will the carriers be forced to act more like a regulated utility with a monopoly over service?

    In any case, it will be a welcome addition:   not only will we be able to reap the power and speed benefits of 5G but it will offer welcome competition to the cable companies.
  • Reply 8 of 13
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,966member
    Rayz2016 said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    Genuine question:

    If 5G has such a short range and the signal can’t pass through most building materials, then how is it the future – unless we’re all going to walk around with antenna hats?
    Tin foil. 
    Ah. The universal solution. 
    Works for me!

    Actually, there are different parts to 5G. one part uses mm waves that allow very high data rates. The problem with this frequency is it has very poor penetration and only works over short distances (articles I've read have said even leaves on trees will block transmission.) That's why the providers need to put new antennae up every few blocks. My understanding is they can get around some of these issues by using beam forming technology to better focus the transmission, which theoretically could work but seems like it would be technically infeasible to do for several hundred connections that are all simultaneously moving. It would be more feasible for a fixed installation.

    Another part is changing how the existing frequencies are used to allow more connections, higher bandwidth, etc. From articles I've read, the mm wavelength portion will likely never extend beyond densely populated areas while the other changes can be utilized more broadly. All of this requires back-end infrastructure improvements as well. What we will see in terms of coverage, roll out dates, actual speeds, etc. remains to be seen and is up for debate, as is what effects it will have on 4G/LTE service.
  • Reply 9 of 13
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    MplsP said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    Genuine question:

    If 5G has such a short range and the signal can’t pass through most building materials, then how is it the future – unless we’re all going to walk around with antenna hats?
    Tin foil. 
    Ah. The universal solution. 
    Works for me!

    Actually, there are different parts to 5G. one part uses mm waves that allow very high data rates. The problem with this frequency is it has very poor penetration and only works over short distances (articles I've read have said even leaves on trees will block transmission.) That's why the providers need to put new antennae up every few blocks. My understanding is they can get around some of these issues by using beam forming technology to better focus the transmission, which theoretically could work but seems like it would be technically infeasible to do for several hundred connections that are all simultaneously moving. It would be more feasible for a fixed installation.

    Another part is changing how the existing frequencies are used to allow more connections, higher bandwidth, etc. From articles I've read, the mm wavelength portion will likely never extend beyond densely populated areas while the other changes can be utilized more broadly. All of this requires back-end infrastructure improvements as well. What we will see in terms of coverage, roll out dates, actual speeds, etc. remains to be seen and is up for debate, as is what effects it will have on 4G/LTE service.
    I quite agree with all you say....
    But, to the comment it will "likely never extend beyond densely populated areas" I personally speculate that we may see it eventually installed on all interstate highways as self-driving cars and (mostly) trucks begin to proliferate.   Even without full self-driving, there could be multiple potential safety benefits -- as cars incorporate increased automated features.   For instance, slowing cars prior to stoppages due to weather, construction or accident by essentially setting their cruise controls. 

    There has even been talk of installing it on all roads so that information on speed limits,  traffic light and stop sign information are transmitted directly to the car for it to take action on.

    Currently, under current (LTE) conditions, those discussions will be limited to social issues (safety versus independence) -- and will cause many to shudder at the thought of the ultimate Big Brother.   But it will be driven by the trucking and insurance industries as well as safety advocates. 
  • Reply 10 of 13
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,887member
    Rayz2016 said:
    Genuine question:

    If 5G has such a short range and the signal can’t pass through most building materials, then how is it the future – unless we’re all going to walk around with antenna hats?
    At the end of the day, all communications are government controlled (they licence the spectrum and set the rules) and it is government, through legislation, that should clear the way for communications infrastructure rollouts, establishing a level playing field for all and guaranteeing competition.

    Each wireless generation has brought new issues that were dealt with via legislation.

    Not many years ago the rooftops of many residential buildings in Spain were TV antenna farms where each home owner had their own gear up on the roof. Not now. Those days are long gone. Now there is one 'community' antenna that is maintained by the residents in each building. Not many years ago those same buildings might have housed cell towers from different mobile operators. Not now. Now operators are forced to share their infrastructure so for example we don't see different companies digging up streets to lay fibre.

    In the case of 3G and 4G the signals were never designed to penetrate your home. All you are receiving is residual signal from the street. Walls have always been a problem. All some variants of 5G will do is highlight the problems that walls and other objects represent. Obviously this means more equipment will be needed in some areas but in reality the same was true of DVB.

    I live in a problem area. Close to a mass of water (the Mediterranean), elevated temperatures and 'shade' (hills/mountains). There are technological challenges to be overcome and as government runs the communications show it also provides the solutions to any problems. It obliges local councils to facilitate solutions such as making urban infrastructure available to operators. It also obliges the operators to meet coverage targets.

    The foreseeable problems for 5G have actually been studied and mostly, legislation is in place but there are always unforseen issues to even the best thought out legislation.

    Here is an example:

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/may/19/revealed-5g-rollout-is-being-stalled-by-rows-over-lampposts

    However, where I live, the LED lamposts even have connections for the Christmas lights and sensors.

    Worldwide, YMMV but it is up to government to resolve the root issues.

    Most construction legislation here already includes communications requirements so I can see a time when 5G is literally pumped into our homes along with the DVB signal from rooftops and fibre from floor level.

    Out on the street, lamp posts, bus stops, flag poles and of course cell towers (free standing or building mounted) etc will cover our needs.

    Then there are CPE solutions too.
  • Reply 11 of 13
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    avon b7 said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    Genuine question:

    If 5G has such a short range and the signal can’t pass through most building materials, then how is it the future – unless we’re all going to walk around with antenna hats?
    At the end of the day, all communications are government controlled (they licence the spectrum and set the rules) and it is government, through legislation, that should clear the way for communications infrastructure rollouts, establishing a level playing field for all and guaranteeing competition.

    Each wireless generation has brought new issues that were dealt with via legislation.

    Not many years ago the rooftops of many residential buildings in Spain were TV antenna farms where each home owner had their own gear up on the roof. Not now. Those days are long gone. Now there is one 'community' antenna that is maintained by the residents in each building. Not many years ago those same buildings might have housed cell towers from different mobile operators. Not now. Now operators are forced to share their infrastructure so for example we don't see different companies digging up streets to lay fibre.

    In the case of 3G and 4G the signals were never designed to penetrate your home. All you are receiving is residual signal from the street. Walls have always been a problem. All some variants of 5G will do is highlight the problems that walls and other objects represent. Obviously this means more equipment will be needed in some areas but in reality the same was true of DVB.

    I live in a problem area. Close to a mass of water (the Mediterranean), elevated temperatures and 'shade' (hills/mountains). There are technological challenges to be overcome and as government runs the communications show it also provides the solutions to any problems. It obliges local councils to facilitate solutions such as making urban infrastructure available to operators. It also obliges the operators to meet coverage targets.

    The foreseeable problems for 5G have actually been studied and mostly, legislation is in place but there are always unforseen issues to even the best thought out legislation.

    Here is an example:

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/may/19/revealed-5g-rollout-is-being-stalled-by-rows-over-lampposts

    However, where I live, the LED lamposts even have connections for the Christmas lights and sensors.

    Worldwide, YMMV but it is up to government to resolve the root issues.

    Most construction legislation here already includes communications requirements so I can see a time when 5G is literally pumped into our homes along with the DVB signal from rooftops and fibre from floor level.

    Out on the street, lamp posts, bus stops, flag poles and of course cell towers (free standing or building mounted) etc will cover our needs.

    Then there are CPE solutions too.
    Here in the U.S., for the past 40 years, we have operated increasingly under the hypothesis that government can't do anything right and private enterprise can't do anything wrong.
    So, 5G will be rolled out with little or no oversight -- so, I suspect that individual areas will either have to deal with an unregulated regional monopoly or pay excess rates so that all three carriers duplicate each other's efforts.

    In my case, the only thing blocking having 3 transmitters on every telephone pole will be that Verizon owns the poles and will decide if they want to share them or not.
  • Reply 12 of 13
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,887member
    avon b7 said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    Genuine question:

    If 5G has such a short range and the signal can’t pass through most building materials, then how is it the future – unless we’re all going to walk around with antenna hats?
    At the end of the day, all communications are government controlled (they licence the spectrum and set the rules) and it is government, through legislation, that should clear the way for communications infrastructure rollouts, establishing a level playing field for all and guaranteeing competition.

    Each wireless generation has brought new issues that were dealt with via legislation.

    Not many years ago the rooftops of many residential buildings in Spain were TV antenna farms where each home owner had their own gear up on the roof. Not now. Those days are long gone. Now there is one 'community' antenna that is maintained by the residents in each building. Not many years ago those same buildings might have housed cell towers from different mobile operators. Not now. Now operators are forced to share their infrastructure so for example we don't see different companies digging up streets to lay fibre.

    In the case of 3G and 4G the signals were never designed to penetrate your home. All you are receiving is residual signal from the street. Walls have always been a problem. All some variants of 5G will do is highlight the problems that walls and other objects represent. Obviously this means more equipment will be needed in some areas but in reality the same was true of DVB.

    I live in a problem area. Close to a mass of water (the Mediterranean), elevated temperatures and 'shade' (hills/mountains). There are technological challenges to be overcome and as government runs the communications show it also provides the solutions to any problems. It obliges local councils to facilitate solutions such as making urban infrastructure available to operators. It also obliges the operators to meet coverage targets.

    The foreseeable problems for 5G have actually been studied and mostly, legislation is in place but there are always unforseen issues to even the best thought out legislation.

    Here is an example:

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/may/19/revealed-5g-rollout-is-being-stalled-by-rows-over-lampposts

    However, where I live, the LED lamposts even have connections for the Christmas lights and sensors.

    Worldwide, YMMV but it is up to government to resolve the root issues.

    Most construction legislation here already includes communications requirements so I can see a time when 5G is literally pumped into our homes along with the DVB signal from rooftops and fibre from floor level.

    Out on the street, lamp posts, bus stops, flag poles and of course cell towers (free standing or building mounted) etc will cover our needs.

    Then there are CPE solutions too.
    Here in the U.S., for the past 40 years, we have operated increasingly under the hypothesis that government can't do anything right and private enterprise can't do anything wrong.
    So, 5G will be rolled out with little or no oversight -- so, I suspect that individual areas will either have to deal with an unregulated regional monopoly or pay excess rates so that all three carriers duplicate each other's efforts.

    In my case, the only thing blocking having 3 transmitters on every telephone pole will be that Verizon owns the poles and will decide if they want to share them or not.
    Yes, I've always found it weird that in the U.S I see lots if people complaining that their options are limited. Not being happy with their providers but not having any real alternatives either. I have no idea if that is the case for most people but that is definitely the impression you get from the outside.

    In my case I could swap to any of the big three operators (vodafone, Movistar, orange or their other brands, O2, Jazztel etc) or any of a host of competitive virtual operators that have no infrastructure of their own.
  • Reply 13 of 13
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    Genuine question:

    If 5G has such a short range and the signal can’t pass through most building materials, then how is it the future – unless we’re all going to walk around with antenna hats?
    At the end of the day, all communications are government controlled (they licence the spectrum and set the rules) and it is government, through legislation, that should clear the way for communications infrastructure rollouts, establishing a level playing field for all and guaranteeing competition.

    Each wireless generation has brought new issues that were dealt with via legislation.

    Not many years ago the rooftops of many residential buildings in Spain were TV antenna farms where each home owner had their own gear up on the roof. Not now. Those days are long gone. Now there is one 'community' antenna that is maintained by the residents in each building. Not many years ago those same buildings might have housed cell towers from different mobile operators. Not now. Now operators are forced to share their infrastructure so for example we don't see different companies digging up streets to lay fibre.

    In the case of 3G and 4G the signals were never designed to penetrate your home. All you are receiving is residual signal from the street. Walls have always been a problem. All some variants of 5G will do is highlight the problems that walls and other objects represent. Obviously this means more equipment will be needed in some areas but in reality the same was true of DVB.

    I live in a problem area. Close to a mass of water (the Mediterranean), elevated temperatures and 'shade' (hills/mountains). There are technological challenges to be overcome and as government runs the communications show it also provides the solutions to any problems. It obliges local councils to facilitate solutions such as making urban infrastructure available to operators. It also obliges the operators to meet coverage targets.

    The foreseeable problems for 5G have actually been studied and mostly, legislation is in place but there are always unforseen issues to even the best thought out legislation.

    Here is an example:

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/may/19/revealed-5g-rollout-is-being-stalled-by-rows-over-lampposts

    However, where I live, the LED lamposts even have connections for the Christmas lights and sensors.

    Worldwide, YMMV but it is up to government to resolve the root issues.

    Most construction legislation here already includes communications requirements so I can see a time when 5G is literally pumped into our homes along with the DVB signal from rooftops and fibre from floor level.

    Out on the street, lamp posts, bus stops, flag poles and of course cell towers (free standing or building mounted) etc will cover our needs.

    Then there are CPE solutions too.
    Here in the U.S., for the past 40 years, we have operated increasingly under the hypothesis that government can't do anything right and private enterprise can't do anything wrong.
    So, 5G will be rolled out with little or no oversight -- so, I suspect that individual areas will either have to deal with an unregulated regional monopoly or pay excess rates so that all three carriers duplicate each other's efforts.

    In my case, the only thing blocking having 3 transmitters on every telephone pole will be that Verizon owns the poles and will decide if they want to share them or not.
    Yes, I've always found it weird that in the U.S I see lots if people complaining that their options are limited. Not being happy with their providers but not having any real alternatives either. I have no idea if that is the case for most people but that is definitely the impression you get from the outside.

    In my case I could swap to any of the big three operators (vodafone, Movistar, orange or their other brands, O2, Jazztel etc) or any of a host of competitive virtual operators that have no infrastructure of their own.
    Yes, we do have an increasing number of "virtual operators that have no infrastructure of their own".   But, since they piggy on the networks of the big 3/4, they are only marginally less expensive and a lot of it deals with usage caps and such.   For instance, I was using one of them but was juggling back and forth between usage caps.  But, since they were only marginally cheaper than T-Mobile and they didn't offer access to an LTE Apple Watch, I switched to an unlimited T-Mobile plan for just a few dollars more than the lowest from the virtual operator.

    Basically, wireless in the U.S. -- like its cable -- is an unregulated mess.
Sign In or Register to comment.