Thanks for the links @"avon b7" The big advantages then seem to be on the backend for companies (lower latency, better coverage etc) and an internet chip in everything so what little privacy we have will be hacked or sold by Google! So far in my house the IoT has given us a doorbell, light controller, a thermostat, a roomba controller, Alexa and a fridge from Samsung with the promise that I can look inside to see what I need to buy when shopping (how many have ever really done that?). Certainly some small conveniences but not the next industrial revolution. I remain open to ideas but largely unconvinced that I really need it.
This is just it.
There are no smartphone benefits to 5G that I've seen anyone specifically articulate. The best they can do is talk about the differences in latency, connected devices, etc and then say something like "it's about the future and uses that have yet to be developed." Yet they can't articulate those uses because we evidently need a country full of 5G phones before they will be developed.
As near as I can tell, the true benefits of 5G will not be for smartphones. they will (potentially) be for other devices. Beyond that, the much of the improvements from 5G require infrastructure improvements to the internet backbone, not the modem in your phone. I think the Telecoms are hyping 5G just to get people to sign up for more expensive service so they can bankroll the upgrades.
Did you say the same going from 3G to 4G/LTE? You should have because the same rationale applies.
Hardly - just like the 5G rollout, the 4G LTE rollout actually happened later and much more slowly than the telecoms said it would. Just like 5G, the 4G modems took time to develop and mature, and the first iterations had lower performance and higher battery consumption.
Unlike 5G, there was a very clear need for 4G/LTE over 3G. LTE allowed streaming high quality video and the speed difference when using web apps was clearly apparent to even the most non-technical user. It also allowed Verizon subscribers to use data and talk simultaneously. All these benefits were things that consumers could use immediately and noticed immediately.
5G on the other hand has no such features. Decreased latency? The latency of 4G LTE is already low enough that it isn't an issue unless you're performing robotic surgery. Maybe it's important for gaming, but the number of users playing such games over their smartphones is trivial compared to the entire consumer base. Increased number of connections? That's necessary for the future and primarily for IoT. Will anyone with a smart phone notice? Nope. Increased speed? The blazing fast speeds that the telecoms are touting are only available in areas that already have solid LTE coverage and where speed isn't really an issue. Ok, maybe I can download the entire video in a few seconds rather than streaming it (assuming mmWave 5G is available). So what? If I have good LTE coverage I can stream it and it doesn't matter. I can't watch any faster. If I don't have good LTE coverage then odds are I'm not going to have good 5G coverage either and it's just going to be another empty promise of the telecoms.
Something else people completely gloss over - speed is only as good as the slowest bottleneck in your network. If you have a mm wave connection to the cell phone tower but the server you're connected to is overloaded it won't matter. If the internet backbone is overloaded by too many connections and doesn't have the capacity, it doesn't matter. If I have a 50 Mbit broadband connection to my home, it doesn't matter if my wifi 6 router can do 10 Gbit.
Again, show me an actual, real life benefit of smartphone 5G connectivity in the near term, not simply advertising hype or vague claims of 'future proofing.'
Thanks for the links @"avon b7" The big advantages then seem to be on the backend for companies (lower latency, better coverage etc) and an internet chip in everything so what little privacy we have will be hacked or sold by Google! So far in my house the IoT has given us a doorbell, light controller, a thermostat, a roomba controller, Alexa and a fridge from Samsung with the promise that I can look inside to see what I need to buy when shopping (how many have ever really done that?). Certainly some small conveniences but not the next industrial revolution. I remain open to ideas but largely unconvinced that I really need it.
This is just it.
There are no smartphone benefits to 5G that I've seen anyone specifically articulate. The best they can do is talk about the differences in latency, connected devices, etc and then say something like "it's about the future and uses that have yet to be developed." Yet they can't articulate those uses because we evidently need a country full of 5G phones before they will be developed.
As near as I can tell, the true benefits of 5G will not be for smartphones. they will (potentially) be for other devices. Beyond that, the much of the improvements from 5G require infrastructure improvements to the internet backbone, not the modem in your phone. I think the Telecoms are hyping 5G just to get people to sign up for more expensive service so they can bankroll the upgrades.
Did you say the same going from 3G to 4G/LTE? You should have because the same rationale applies.
Hardly - just like the 5G rollout, the 4G LTE rollout actually happened later and much more slowly than the telecoms said it would. Just like 5G, the 4G modems took time to develop and mature, and the first iterations had lower performance and higher battery consumption.
Unlike 5G, there was a very clear need for 4G/LTE over 3G. LTE allowed streaming high quality video and the speed difference when using web apps was clearly apparent to even the most non-technical user. It also allowed Verizon subscribers to use data and talk simultaneously. All these benefits were things that consumers could use immediately and noticed immediately.
5G on the other hand has no such features. Decreased latency? The latency of 4G LTE is already low enough that it isn't an issue unless you're performing robotic surgery. Maybe it's important for gaming, but the number of users playing such games over their smartphones is trivial compared to the entire consumer base. Increased number of connections? That's necessary for the future and primarily for IoT. Will anyone with a smart phone notice? Nope. Increased speed? The blazing fast speeds that the telecoms are touting are only available in areas that already have solid LTE coverage and where speed isn't really an issue. Ok, maybe I can download the entire video in a few seconds rather than streaming it (assuming mmWave 5G is available). So what? If I have good LTE coverage I can stream it and it doesn't matter. I can't watch any faster. If I don't have good LTE coverage then odds are I'm not going to have good 5G coverage either and it's just going to be another empty promise of the telecoms.
Something else people completely gloss over - speed is only as good as the slowest bottleneck in your network. If you have a mm wave connection to the cell phone tower but the server you're connected to is overloaded it won't matter. If the internet backbone is overloaded by too many connections and doesn't have the capacity, it doesn't matter. If I have a 50 Mbit broadband connection to my home, it doesn't matter if my wifi 6 router can do 10 Gbit.
Again, show me an actual, real life benefit of smartphone 5G connectivity in the near term, not simply advertising hype or vague claims of 'future proofing.'
Ok, so the world is spending many hundreds of billions -- probably many trillions -- to design, build and implement 5G -- and the U.S. is terrified that a Chinese company will win -- even though 5G has, as you claim, no value and no purpose. It's all a scam. Got it.
Could that be because Apple is lagging behind the other major vendors?
Your naysaying simply dooesn't hold up to the light of day. This isn't a single manufacturer or carrier pushing their product. It's the whole developed world rolling it out as quickly as they can as if their very existence depended on it. It's easy to dis any new product. People did the same with the horseless carriage and airplanes and space flight. But, others see through it and push ahead despite the naysayers.
Thanks for the links @"avon b7" The big advantages then seem to be on the backend for companies (lower latency, better coverage etc) and an internet chip in everything so what little privacy we have will be hacked or sold by Google! So far in my house the IoT has given us a doorbell, light controller, a thermostat, a roomba controller, Alexa and a fridge from Samsung with the promise that I can look inside to see what I need to buy when shopping (how many have ever really done that?). Certainly some small conveniences but not the next industrial revolution. I remain open to ideas but largely unconvinced that I really need it.
This is just it.
There are no smartphone benefits to 5G that I've seen anyone specifically articulate. The best they can do is talk about the differences in latency, connected devices, etc and then say something like "it's about the future and uses that have yet to be developed." Yet they can't articulate those uses because we evidently need a country full of 5G phones before they will be developed.
As near as I can tell, the true benefits of 5G will not be for smartphones. they will (potentially) be for other devices. Beyond that, the much of the improvements from 5G require infrastructure improvements to the internet backbone, not the modem in your phone. I think the Telecoms are hyping 5G just to get people to sign up for more expensive service so they can bankroll the upgrades.
Did you say the same going from 3G to 4G/LTE? You should have because the same rationale applies.
Hardly - just like the 5G rollout, the 4G LTE rollout actually happened later and much more slowly than the telecoms said it would. Just like 5G, the 4G modems took time to develop and mature, and the first iterations had lower performance and higher battery consumption.
Unlike 5G, there was a very clear need for 4G/LTE over 3G. LTE allowed streaming high quality video and the speed difference when using web apps was clearly apparent to even the most non-technical user. It also allowed Verizon subscribers to use data and talk simultaneously. All these benefits were things that consumers could use immediately and noticed immediately.
5G on the other hand has no such features. Decreased latency? The latency of 4G LTE is already low enough that it isn't an issue unless you're performing robotic surgery. Maybe it's important for gaming, but the number of users playing such games over their smartphones is trivial compared to the entire consumer base. Increased number of connections? That's necessary for the future and primarily for IoT. Will anyone with a smart phone notice? Nope. Increased speed? The blazing fast speeds that the telecoms are touting are only available in areas that already have solid LTE coverage and where speed isn't really an issue. Ok, maybe I can download the entire video in a few seconds rather than streaming it (assuming mmWave 5G is available). So what? If I have good LTE coverage I can stream it and it doesn't matter. I can't watch any faster. If I don't have good LTE coverage then odds are I'm not going to have good 5G coverage either and it's just going to be another empty promise of the telecoms.
Something else people completely gloss over - speed is only as good as the slowest bottleneck in your network. If you have a mm wave connection to the cell phone tower but the server you're connected to is overloaded it won't matter. If the internet backbone is overloaded by too many connections and doesn't have the capacity, it doesn't matter. If I have a 50 Mbit broadband connection to my home, it doesn't matter if my wifi 6 router can do 10 Gbit.
Again, show me an actual, real life benefit of smartphone 5G connectivity in the near term, not simply advertising hype or vague claims of 'future proofing.'
I would like to run through a couple of those points from a different viewpoint.
Hardly - just like the 5G rollout, the 4G LTE rollout actually happened later and much more slowly than the telecoms said it would. Just like 5G, the 4G modems took time to develop and mature, and the first iterations had lower performance and higher battery consumption.
What timeframe were you counting on? The telecoms had/have to wait on industry standards and frequency availability. Both issues are completely beyond the control of any telecom. Also NSA 5G makes use of slightly upgraded LTE equipment, making it easier to roll out 5G than 4G while lengthening the lifespan of LTE equipment. 5G is far faster to physically deploy and everything associated with running the equipment is cheaper. Many units take up less space, consume less energy, can be installed by a single operator without cranes etc. Energy consumption savings can be huge over the lifespan of the new hardware. 5G combined with AI is already squeezing even more efficiency out of equipment.
Unlike 5G, there was a very clear need for 4G/LTE over 3G. LTE allowed streaming high quality video and the speed difference when using web apps was clearly apparent to even the most non-technical user. It also allowed Verizon subscribers to use data and talk simultaneously. All these benefits were things that consumers could use immediately and noticed immediately.
There is very much a clear need for 5G over LTE. A clear example is with cars and the infrastructure surrounding them. None of what is planned for V2X is possible over LTE. The latency is obviously a key element here.
Then there is the numerical side. Here is a crazy theoretical use case from a few years ago which I've mentioned a few times here. One of the biggest problems of salmon farmers is lice. With 5G you could put a sensor on each fish to track lice infestation and treat it. That is not possible over LTE.
On the subject of latency, gaming and the few people using mobile gaming, I think the likelihood of more people taking advantage of mobile, HD gaming depends precisely on the technology being able to provide the experience. As 5G rolls out I imagine more people will begin to use the service.
On the subject of mobile streaming over direct download I'd say the need to stream will boil down to the capacity on your device. If you have the spare capacity it doesn't make sense to stream - especially on the move. mmWave isn't necessary to be able to get an ultra fast download. mmWave will simply be even faster. There is something a little strange in this area, though. I've posted a couple of videos here of real 5G (non-mmWave commercial 5G in Europe) and they have been noticeably faster than the speeds I'm seeing from the U.S. I hear that AT&T will be increasing speed by year end so it will be worth looking at that again to see how U.S commercial 5G speeds stack up against speeds from other countries.
Either way, I think it is a mistake to try and separate handset hardware (phones and cell towers) and industry (IoT and infrastructure). It is all part of the same multifaceted technology and handsets will see the benefits of 5G without the user knowing they exist. Network slicing is definitely one of those cases. Other elements will be more apparent.
If you happen to live in a smart city (I work in one) you are going to notice changes sooner than others. If you happen to live in an area where no 5G coverage is planned in the short to mid term then all this is irrelevant but, through necessity, these rollouts focus on population density. I live in a rural area but I will be getting 5G in less time than it took to go from 4G to 5G. In part this is due to politics and government trying to reduce the so-called digital divide.
In fact my area was recently upgraded to 4G+, no doubt in preparation for 5G at some future date. I have a Huawei TubeStar 900m from my home.
Here is a local piece of anecdotal information. We have a serious problem where I live, where there are twice as many residents as there are registered citizens. This is important as regional government distributes resources based on population size. This means we don't get enough police, hospitals, schools, infrastructure financing etc because half our resident population is officially invisible.
We also recycle plastics, paper, glass, commercial packaging, organic waste, oils, old furniture, electronics, clothes etc. All free.
There are container islands no more than 200m from any house. There is a plan to lock these containers and provide each official resident with an electronic key so they can open the containers. Anyone without a key will have to leave their waste somewhere else and run the risk of a fine.
We already have studies of water and electricity use and waste generation but this initiative will allow the local council to put a finely grained number to residents who aren't officially registered.
This is a classic use case for 5G and I'm sure that at some point in the future, that key will be my (5G) phone.
My phone and facial recognition will also be how I get on public transport and many other things.
Hardly - just like the 5G rollout, the 4G LTE rollout actually happened later and much more slowly than the telecoms said it would. Just like 5G, the 4G modems took time to develop and mature, and the first iterations had lower performance and higher battery consumption.
Unlike 5G, there was a very clear need for 4G/LTE over 3G. LTE allowed streaming high quality video and the speed difference when using web apps was clearly apparent to even the most non-technical user. It also allowed Verizon subscribers to use data and talk simultaneously. All these benefits were things that consumers could use immediately and noticed immediately.
5G on the other hand has no such features. Decreased latency? The latency of 4G LTE is already low enough that it isn't an issue unless you're performing robotic surgery. Maybe it's important for gaming, but the number of users playing such games over their smartphones is trivial compared to the entire consumer base. Increased number of connections? That's necessary for the future and primarily for IoT. Will anyone with a smart phone notice? Nope. Increased speed? The blazing fast speeds that the telecoms are touting are only available in areas that already have solid LTE coverage and where speed isn't really an issue. Ok, maybe I can download the entire video in a few seconds rather than streaming it (assuming mmWave 5G is available). So what? If I have good LTE coverage I can stream it and it doesn't matter. I can't watch any faster. If I don't have good LTE coverage then odds are I'm not going to have good 5G coverage either and it's just going to be another empty promise of the telecoms.
Something else people completely gloss over - speed is only as good as the slowest bottleneck in your network. If you have a mm wave connection to the cell phone tower but the server you're connected to is overloaded it won't matter. If the internet backbone is overloaded by too many connections and doesn't have the capacity, it doesn't matter. If I have a 50 Mbit broadband connection to my home, it doesn't matter if my wifi 6 router can do 10 Gbit.
Again, show me an actual, real life benefit of smartphone 5G connectivity in the near term, not simply advertising hype or vague claims of 'future proofing.'
Ok, so the world is spending many hundreds of billions -- probably many trillions -- to design, build and implement 5G -- and the U.S. is terrified that a Chinese company will win -- even though 5G has, as you claim, no value and no purpose. It's all a scam. Got it.
Could that be because Apple is lagging behind the other major vendors?
Your naysaying simply dooesn't hold up to the light of day. This isn't a single manufacturer or carrier pushing their product. It's the whole developed world rolling it out as quickly as they can as if their very existence depended on it. It's easy to dis any new product. People did the same with the horseless carriage and airplanes and space flight. But, others see through it and push ahead despite the naysayers.
You might want to rethink your position.
As usual, you respond to nothing actually written and instead make up histrionic scenarios in your head so I won't bother to respond other than to suggest you actually read and respond to what people write.
Thanks for the links @"avon b7" The big advantages then seem to be on the backend for companies (lower latency, better coverage etc) and an internet chip in everything so what little privacy we have will be hacked or sold by Google! So far in my house the IoT has given us a doorbell, light controller, a thermostat, a roomba controller, Alexa and a fridge from Samsung with the promise that I can look inside to see what I need to buy when shopping (how many have ever really done that?). Certainly some small conveniences but not the next industrial revolution. I remain open to ideas but largely unconvinced that I really need it.
This is just it.
There are no smartphone benefits to 5G that I've seen anyone specifically articulate. The best they can do is talk about the differences in latency, connected devices, etc and then say something like "it's about the future and uses that have yet to be developed." Yet they can't articulate those uses because we evidently need a country full of 5G phones before they will be developed.
As near as I can tell, the true benefits of 5G will not be for smartphones. they will (potentially) be for other devices. Beyond that, the much of the improvements from 5G require infrastructure improvements to the internet backbone, not the modem in your phone. I think the Telecoms are hyping 5G just to get people to sign up for more expensive service so they can bankroll the upgrades.
Did you say the same going from 3G to 4G/LTE? You should have because the same rationale applies.
Hardly - just like the 5G rollout, the 4G LTE rollout actually happened later and much more slowly than the telecoms said it would. Just like 5G, the 4G modems took time to develop and mature, and the first iterations had lower performance and higher battery consumption.
Unlike 5G, there was a very clear need for 4G/LTE over 3G. LTE allowed streaming high quality video and the speed difference when using web apps was clearly apparent to even the most non-technical user. It also allowed Verizon subscribers to use data and talk simultaneously. All these benefits were things that consumers could use immediately and noticed immediately.
5G on the other hand has no such features. Decreased latency? The latency of 4G LTE is already low enough that it isn't an issue unless you're performing robotic surgery. Maybe it's important for gaming, but the number of users playing such games over their smartphones is trivial compared to the entire consumer base. Increased number of connections? That's necessary for the future and primarily for IoT. Will anyone with a smart phone notice? Nope. Increased speed? The blazing fast speeds that the telecoms are touting are only available in areas that already have solid LTE coverage and where speed isn't really an issue. Ok, maybe I can download the entire video in a few seconds rather than streaming it (assuming mmWave 5G is available). So what? If I have good LTE coverage I can stream it and it doesn't matter. I can't watch any faster. If I don't have good LTE coverage then odds are I'm not going to have good 5G coverage either and it's just going to be another empty promise of the telecoms.
Something else people completely gloss over - speed is only as good as the slowest bottleneck in your network. If you have a mm wave connection to the cell phone tower but the server you're connected to is overloaded it won't matter. If the internet backbone is overloaded by too many connections and doesn't have the capacity, it doesn't matter. If I have a 50 Mbit broadband connection to my home, it doesn't matter if my wifi 6 router can do 10 Gbit.
Again, show me an actual, real life benefit of smartphone 5G connectivity in the near term, not simply advertising hype or vague claims of 'future proofing.'
I would like to run through a couple of those points from a different viewpoint.
Hardly - just like the 5G rollout, the 4G LTE rollout actually happened later and much more slowly than the telecoms said it would. Just like 5G, the 4G modems took time to develop and mature, and the first iterations had lower performance and higher battery consumption.
What timeframe were you counting on? The telecoms had/have to wait on industry standards and frequency availability. Both issues are completely beyond the control of any telecom. Also NSA 5G makes use of slightly upgraded LTE equipment, making it easier to roll out 5G than 4G while lengthening the lifespan of LTE equipment. 5G is far faster to physically deploy and everything associated with running the equipment is cheaper. Many units take up less space, consume less energy, can be installed by a single operator without cranes etc. Energy consumption savings can be huge over the lifespan of the new hardware. 5G combined with AI is already squeezing even more efficiency out of equipment.
Unlike 5G, there was a very clear need for 4G/LTE over 3G. LTE allowed streaming high quality video and the speed difference when using web apps was clearly apparent to even the most non-technical user. It also allowed Verizon subscribers to use data and talk simultaneously. All these benefits were things that consumers could use immediately and noticed immediately.
There is very much a clear need for 5G over LTE. A clear example is with cars and the infrastructure surrounding them. None of what is planned for V2X is possible over LTE. The latency is obviously a key element here.
Then there is the numerical side. Here is a crazy theoretical use case from a few years ago which I've mentioned a few times here. One of the biggest problems of salmon farmers is lice. With 5G you could put a sensor on each fish to track lice infestation and treat it. That is not possible over LTE.
On the subject of latency, gaming and the few people using mobile gaming, I think the likelihood of more people taking advantage of mobile, HD gaming depends precisely on the technology being able to provide the experience. As 5G rolls out I imagine more people will begin to use the service.
On the subject of mobile streaming over direct download I'd say the need to stream will boil down to the capacity on your device. If you have the spare capacity it doesn't make sense to stream - especially on the move. mmWave isn't necessary to be able to get an ultra fast download. mmWave will simply be even faster. There is something a little strange in this area, though. I've posted a couple of videos here of real 5G (non-mmWave commercial 5G in Europe) and they have been noticeably faster than the speeds I'm seeing from the U.S. I hear that AT&T will be increasing speed by year end so it will be worth looking at that again to see how U.S commercial 5G speeds stack up against speeds from other countries.
Either way, I think it is a mistake to try and separate handset hardware (phones and cell towers) and industry (IoT and infrastructure). It is all part of the same multifaceted technology and handsets will see the benefits of 5G without the user knowing they exist. Network slicing is definitely one of those cases. Other elements will be more apparent.
If you happen to live in a smart city (I work in one) you are going to notice changes sooner than others. If you happen to live in an area where no 5G coverage is planned in the short to mid term then all this is irrelevant but, through necessity, these rollouts focus on population density. I live in a rural area but I will be getting 5G in less time than it took to go from 4G to 5G. In part this is due to politics and government trying to reduce the so-called digital divide.
In fact my area was recently upgraded to 4G+, no doubt in preparation for 5G at some future date. I have a Huawei TubeStar 900m from my home.
Here is a local piece of anecdotal information. We have a serious problem where I live, where there are twice as many residents as there are registered citizens. This is important as regional government distributes resources based on population size. This means we don't get enough police, hospitals, schools, infrastructure financing etc because half our resident population is officially invisible.
We also recycle plastics, paper, glass, commercial packaging, organic waste, oils, old furniture, electronics, clothes etc. All free.
There are container islands no more than 200m from any house. There is a plan to lock these containers and provide each official resident with an electronic key so they can open the containers. Anyone without a key will have to leave their waste somewhere else and run the risk of a fine.
We already have studies of water and electricity use and waste generation but this initiative will allow the local council to put a finely grained number to residents who aren't officially registered.
This is a classic use case for 5G and I'm sure that at some point in the future, that key will be my (5G) phone.
My phone and facial recognition will also be how I get on public transport and many other things.
@"avon b7" - first thank you for writing a reasoned response. It seems few people can do that here.
What timeframe were you counting on? I'm not counting on any specific one; I was more responding to people who were saying '5G is here NOW! we have to have a 5G handset, like yesterday!' My reference is the U.S. since that's where I live. Over a year ago people were already claiming '5G is here now.' Well here we are, 1 year later and AT&T is just announcing that they are rolling it out in 10 cities. Verizon has something like 30 markets, but that availability is only in *parts* of those markets. When 4G LTE rolled out people were making the same claims and it took years for it to become widely available. Perhaps 5G will go more quickly - I have nothing against that, I'm simply basing my statement on the history of network upgrades and what I've seen so far with 5G. It may be that the roll out accelerates - as you say, the telecoms have some intrinsic incentives to upgrade the network. Time will tell. Either way, LTE devices will not instantly become obsolete; we are just now seeing the sunsetting of the 3G network about 10 years after 4G started to roll out.
There is very much a clear need for 5G over LTE.... I don't dispute the need for 5G. If you read my comment, you'll see it was specifically in regards to smartphones. 4G LTE allowed very clear, instant advantages on smartphones that people were waiting to use. All of the uses I've seen for 5G are either non-smartphone uses or uses that have yet to be developed. As far as HD Gaming goes, whether that becomes a major use and driver of 5G adoption remains to be seen. but it is still a potential use for a small, niche market. (I readily admit that It's also a bit of a chicken and an egg argument.) I am quite a skeptic when it comes to such capabilities, though. We've been promised a whole new world of VR for about 10 years now and have seen little.
On the subject of mobile streaming over direct download I'd say the need to stream will boil down to the capacity on your device. somewhat - I think it more boils down to the reliability of the network. If you have a consistent network connection then there is no need to download instead of stream. I liken it to WiFi in your house. As long as you're connected, it doesn't matter whether you're streaming vs downloading and watching locally.
Either way, I think it is a mistake to try and separate handset hardware (phones and cell towers) and industry (IoT and infrastructure). I don't totally agree with that - I think you're right, much like 'computers,' people will see benefits without actually knowing they exist. These benefits will not occur overnight and many will likely not even require the user to have a 5G phone. Perhaps you can't separate the handset hardware, but you can't say that none of the improvements can occur unless everyone has a 5G phone. IoT involves phone handsets somewhat but is more about the 'things,' not the phones.
Apart from higher prices what benefits will 5G actually bring most customers?
Zero.
This yet another rinse repeat on the part of carriers to avoid becoming utilities who's prices continuously go down.
Nothing meaningful has changed in cellular data since 3G. Coverage is still poor. Data is still heavily limited and throttled. It's very expensive. People still use it as little as possible for as few tasks as possible.
5G is nothing but greed, and them outing themselves on what their intentions are.
3G 4G LTE
- None of these networks ever reached a respectable coverage/distribution before being abandoned for the next thing. - None of these ever reached anywhere near theoretical speeds before being abandoned for the next thing.
What we should be doing is firming up LTE (after all it is called LONG TERM EVOLUTION) and increasing coverage, increasing capacity to reach closer to peak speeds. Lowering prices so that it becomes something reasonable.
But the carriers have no interest in that, as they see it as the end of the charade they've been engaged in for the last decade.
Comments
Unlike 5G, there was a very clear need for 4G/LTE over 3G. LTE allowed streaming high quality video and the speed difference when using web apps was clearly apparent to even the most non-technical user. It also allowed Verizon subscribers to use data and talk simultaneously. All these benefits were things that consumers could use immediately and noticed immediately.
5G on the other hand has no such features. Decreased latency? The latency of 4G LTE is already low enough that it isn't an issue unless you're performing robotic surgery. Maybe it's important for gaming, but the number of users playing such games over their smartphones is trivial compared to the entire consumer base. Increased number of connections? That's necessary for the future and primarily for IoT. Will anyone with a smart phone notice? Nope. Increased speed? The blazing fast speeds that the telecoms are touting are only available in areas that already have solid LTE coverage and where speed isn't really an issue. Ok, maybe I can download the entire video in a few seconds rather than streaming it (assuming mmWave 5G is available). So what? If I have good LTE coverage I can stream it and it doesn't matter. I can't watch any faster. If I don't have good LTE coverage then odds are I'm not going to have good 5G coverage either and it's just going to be another empty promise of the telecoms.
Something else people completely gloss over - speed is only as good as the slowest bottleneck in your network. If you have a mm wave connection to the cell phone tower but the server you're connected to is overloaded it won't matter. If the internet backbone is overloaded by too many connections and doesn't have the capacity, it doesn't matter. If I have a 50 Mbit broadband connection to my home, it doesn't matter if my wifi 6 router can do 10 Gbit.
Again, show me an actual, real life benefit of smartphone 5G connectivity in the near term, not simply advertising hype or vague claims of 'future proofing.'
Hardly - just like the 5G rollout, the 4G LTE rollout actually happened later and much more slowly than the telecoms said it would. Just like 5G, the 4G modems took time to develop and mature, and the first iterations had lower performance and higher battery consumption.
What timeframe were you counting on? The telecoms had/have to wait on industry standards and frequency availability. Both issues are completely beyond the control of any telecom. Also NSA 5G makes use of slightly upgraded LTE equipment, making it easier to roll out 5G than 4G while lengthening the lifespan of LTE equipment. 5G is far faster to physically deploy and everything associated with running the equipment is cheaper. Many units take up less space, consume less energy, can be installed by a single operator without cranes etc. Energy consumption savings can be huge over the lifespan of the new hardware. 5G combined with AI is already squeezing even more efficiency out of equipment.
Unlike 5G, there was a very clear need for 4G/LTE over 3G. LTE allowed streaming high quality video and the speed difference when using web apps was clearly apparent to even the most non-technical user. It also allowed Verizon subscribers to use data and talk simultaneously. All these benefits were things that consumers could use immediately and noticed immediately.
There is very much a clear need for 5G over LTE. A clear example is with cars and the infrastructure surrounding them. None of what is planned for V2X is possible over LTE. The latency is obviously a key element here.
Then there is the numerical side. Here is a crazy theoretical use case from a few years ago which I've mentioned a few times here. One of the biggest problems of salmon farmers is lice. With 5G you could put a sensor on each fish to track lice infestation and treat it. That is not possible over LTE.
On the subject of latency, gaming and the few people using mobile gaming, I think the likelihood of more people taking advantage of mobile, HD gaming depends precisely on the technology being able to provide the experience. As 5G rolls out I imagine more people will begin to use the service.
On the subject of mobile streaming over direct download I'd say the need to stream will boil down to the capacity on your device. If you have the spare capacity it doesn't make sense to stream - especially on the move. mmWave isn't necessary to be able to get an ultra fast download. mmWave will simply be even faster. There is something a little strange in this area, though. I've posted a couple of videos here of real 5G (non-mmWave commercial 5G in Europe) and they have been noticeably faster than the speeds I'm seeing from the U.S. I hear that AT&T will be increasing speed by year end so it will be worth looking at that again to see how U.S commercial 5G speeds stack up against speeds from other countries.
Either way, I think it is a mistake to try and separate handset hardware (phones and cell towers) and industry (IoT and infrastructure). It is all part of the same multifaceted technology and handsets will see the benefits of 5G without the user knowing they exist. Network slicing is definitely one of those cases. Other elements will be more apparent.
If you happen to live in a smart city (I work in one) you are going to notice changes sooner than others. If you happen to live in an area where no 5G coverage is planned in the short to mid term then all this is irrelevant but, through necessity, these rollouts focus on population density. I live in a rural area but I will be getting 5G in less time than it took to go from 4G to 5G. In part this is due to politics and government trying to reduce the so-called digital divide.
In fact my area was recently upgraded to 4G+, no doubt in preparation for 5G at some future date. I have a Huawei TubeStar 900m from my home.
Here is a local piece of anecdotal information. We have a serious problem where I live, where there are twice as many residents as there are registered citizens. This is important as regional government distributes resources based on population size. This means we don't get enough police, hospitals, schools, infrastructure financing etc because half our resident population is officially invisible.
We also recycle plastics, paper, glass, commercial packaging, organic waste, oils, old furniture, electronics, clothes etc. All free.
There are container islands no more than 200m from any house. There is a plan to lock these containers and provide each official resident with an electronic key so they can open the containers. Anyone without a key will have to leave their waste somewhere else and run the risk of a fine.
We already have studies of water and electricity use and waste generation but this initiative will allow the local council to put a finely grained number to residents who aren't officially registered.
This is a classic use case for 5G and I'm sure that at some point in the future, that key will be my (5G) phone.
My phone and facial recognition will also be how I get on public transport and many other things.
@"avon b7" - first thank you for writing a reasoned response. It seems few people can do that here.
What timeframe were you counting on?
I'm not counting on any specific one; I was more responding to people who were saying '5G is here NOW! we have to have a 5G handset, like yesterday!' My reference is the U.S. since that's where I live. Over a year ago people were already claiming '5G is here now.' Well here we are, 1 year later and AT&T is just announcing that they are rolling it out in 10 cities. Verizon has something like 30 markets, but that availability is only in *parts* of those markets. When 4G LTE rolled out people were making the same claims and it took years for it to become widely available. Perhaps 5G will go more quickly - I have nothing against that, I'm simply basing my statement on the history of network upgrades and what I've seen so far with 5G. It may be that the roll out accelerates - as you say, the telecoms have some intrinsic incentives to upgrade the network. Time will tell. Either way, LTE devices will not instantly become obsolete; we are just now seeing the sunsetting of the 3G network about 10 years after 4G started to roll out.
There is very much a clear need for 5G over LTE....
I don't dispute the need for 5G. If you read my comment, you'll see it was specifically in regards to smartphones. 4G LTE allowed very clear, instant advantages on smartphones that people were waiting to use. All of the uses I've seen for 5G are either non-smartphone uses or uses that have yet to be developed. As far as HD Gaming goes, whether that becomes a major use and driver of 5G adoption remains to be seen. but it is still a potential use for a small, niche market. (I readily admit that It's also a bit of a chicken and an egg argument.) I am quite a skeptic when it comes to such capabilities, though. We've been promised a whole new world of VR for about 10 years now and have seen little.
On the subject of mobile streaming over direct download I'd say the need to stream will boil down to the capacity on your device.
somewhat - I think it more boils down to the reliability of the network. If you have a consistent network connection then there is no need to download instead of stream. I liken it to WiFi in your house. As long as you're connected, it doesn't matter whether you're streaming vs downloading and watching locally.
Either way, I think it is a mistake to try and separate handset hardware (phones and cell towers) and industry (IoT and infrastructure).
I don't totally agree with that - I think you're right, much like 'computers,' people will see benefits without actually knowing they exist. These benefits will not occur overnight and many will likely not even require the user to have a 5G phone. Perhaps you can't separate the handset hardware, but you can't say that none of the improvements can occur unless everyone has a 5G phone. IoT involves phone handsets somewhat but is more about the 'things,' not the phones.
This yet another rinse repeat on the part of carriers to avoid becoming utilities who's prices continuously go down.
Nothing meaningful has changed in cellular data since 3G. Coverage is still poor. Data is still heavily limited and throttled. It's very expensive. People still use it as little as possible for as few tasks as possible.
5G is nothing but greed, and them outing themselves on what their intentions are.
3G
4G
LTE
- None of these networks ever reached a respectable coverage/distribution before being abandoned for the next thing.
- None of these ever reached anywhere near theoretical speeds before being abandoned for the next thing.
What we should be doing is firming up LTE (after all it is called LONG TERM EVOLUTION) and increasing coverage, increasing capacity to reach closer to peak speeds. Lowering prices so that it becomes something reasonable.
But the carriers have no interest in that, as they see it as the end of the charade they've been engaged in for the last decade.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/14/senators-propose-over-1-billion-for-5g-alternatives-to-chinas-huawei.html