Verizon enables 5G uploads, 30% speed increase over 4G

AppleInsider

Verizon on Wednesday said that it has enabled 5G uploads in all of its current 5G markets in the U.S., though coverage in those areas might be limited.

A Verizon 5G sign at Mobile World Congress Americas in 2018. Credit: Verizon

While Verizon was among the first to roll out a functional 5G network in the U.S., the speedy protocol was restricted to data downloads with uploads handled by 4G LTE. That changed on Wednesday when the carrier enabled 5G uploads, saying customers will see an average 30% speed increase over LTE.

It's worth noting that a Verizon footnote points out that "5G upload coverage area differs from 5G download coverage area." The carrier didn't elaborate on what, exactly, that means.

Since it's still early in 5G's rollout, there are still some major caveats for most consumers. Verizon's 5G Ultra Wideband is only available in select parts of certain cities and requires a 5G-compatible smartphone. Apple is expected to release its first 5G-enabled iPhone sometime in 2020.

Verizon also announced that San Diego will become the 35th market to receive 5G Ultra Wideband service on May 28.

"Our customers' need for 5G is accelerating. We're building our 5G Ultra Wideband network to develop and enable the 5G innovations that will support the changing behavior of consumers, businesses and entire industries," said Verizon CTO Kyle Malady.

Verizon's low-band 5G networks, which will make up the second part of its 5G deployment, are due to launch later in 2020.

lkrupp

AppleInsider said:

Verizon on Wednesday said that it has enabled 5G uploads in all of its current 5G markets in the U.S., though coverage in those areas might be limited.


And that’s the money quote. May be limited.

Does Verizon charge extra for 5G service? If so, how much?

apple ][

I'm obviously not the target group for 5G, because I can't even remember uploading anything from my phone.

There are auto-upload functions on phones of course, like when you take a photo or video and it will get  auto-uploaded to the cloud to your iPhoto library, but I always make sure that all of that stuff is disabled if I'm taking pictures or shooting video with my phone outside, because I don't use unlimited data.

My current plan is 3GB a month I think, and that's plenty for me. I don't even end up using 1 GB of it probably. I do have unlimited data at home of course.

I've actually had unlimited data for my phone for free for a few months now, because of the virus crap, and I haven't bothered to use any of it. What am I supposed to do, walk around outside streaming 4K netflix on a phone for hours every day? No thanks.

lkrupp

apple ][ said:

I'm obviously not the target group for 5G, because I can't even remember uploading anything from my phone.

There are auto-upload functions on phones of course, like when you take a photo or video and it will get  auto-uploaded to the cloud to your iPhoto library, but I always make sure that all of that stuff is disabled if I'm taking pictures or shooting video with my phone outside, because I don't use unlimited data.

My current plan is 3GB a month I think, and that's plenty for me. I don't even end up using 1 GB of it probably. I do have unlimited data at home of course.

I've actually had unlimited data for my phone for free for a few months now, because of the virus crap, and I haven't bothered to use any of it. What am I supposed to do, walk around outside streaming 4K netflix on a phone for hours every day? No thanks.

The only use I’m interested in is fixed 5G wireless broadband with at least 1gigabit symmetrical service. Fiber is too expensive to deploy widely while sticking a 5G antenna on my roof is much more economical. 

chasm

All that hype, and what you actually get (apart from an upcharge for using 5G) is -- thus far -- a very modest increase in upload speeds over 4G that most users won't notice, because on (for example) uploading a photo it will make a difference of less than three seconds.

These carriers are dancing as fast as they can around the fact that "low-band" (sub-6GHz) 5G -- the kind 90+ percent of us are ever going to see -- is nothing more than a modest increase from LTE. You'll have to wait much longer (and be near the small and limited test sites) for mmWave to roll out and for some unknown breakthroughs to happen to overcome its many obstacles before you'll see any difference you would really and immediately notice as dramatically different than LTE.

I'm in no way against this technology, but the way it has been bamboozled through the corrupt FCC and hoodwinked public is absolutely shameful.

iOS_Guy80

lkrupp said:

AppleInsider said:

Verizon on Wednesday said that it has enabled 5G uploads in all of its current 5G markets in the U.S., though coverage in those areas might be limited.


And that’s the money quote. May be limited.

Does Verizon charge extra for 5G service? If so, how much?

I have head $10 per month for each line that enables 5g. But who knows?  

dasanman69

iOS_Guy80 said:

lkrupp said:

AppleInsider said:

Verizon on Wednesday said that it has enabled 5G uploads in all of its current 5G markets in the U.S., though coverage in those areas might be limited.


And that’s the money quote. May be limited.

Does Verizon charge extra for 5G service? If so, how much?

I have head $10 per month for each line that enables 5g. But who knows?  

The same was said when LTE was rolled out 

GeorgeBMac

chasm said:

All that hype, and what you actually get (apart from an upcharge for using 5G) is -- thus far -- a very modest increase in upload speeds over 4G that most users won't notice, because on (for example) uploading a photo it will make a difference of less than three seconds.

These carriers are dancing as fast as they can around the fact that "low-band" (sub-6GHz) 5G -- the kind 90+ percent of us are ever going to see -- is nothing more than a modest increase from LTE. You'll have to wait much longer (and be near the small and limited test sites) for mmWave to roll out and for some unknown breakthroughs to happen to overcome its many obstacles before you'll see any difference you would really and immediately notice as dramatically different than LTE.

I'm in no way against this technology, but the way it has been bamboozled through the corrupt FCC and hoodwinked public is absolutely shameful.

Didn't they say almost exactly the same thing about LTE?   "No big deal, it won't change anything....', "Very limited....", "Few phones can use it...."

Blah, Blah and Blah....

But then, unlike the rest of the world, the U.S. is actively trying to block its implementation -- even trying to disconnect some 4G stuff.   So, for the U.S., you might be right.  Ain't it great when politics supersedes over science and technology?

payeco

apple ][ said:

I'm obviously not the target group for 5G, because I can't even remember uploading anything from my phone.

There are auto-upload functions on phones of course, like when you take a photo or video and it will get  auto-uploaded to the cloud to your iPhoto library, but I always make sure that all of that stuff is disabled if I'm taking pictures or shooting video with my phone outside, because I don't use unlimited data.

My current plan is 3GB a month I think, and that's plenty for me. I don't even end up using 1 GB of it probably. I do have unlimited data at home of course.

I've actually had unlimited data for my phone for free for a few months now, because of the virus crap, and I haven't bothered to use any of it. What am I supposed to do, walk around outside streaming 4K netflix on a phone for hours every day? No thanks.

TikTok and Instagram stories/IGTV are super popular with younger people. Here in NYC I see teens pretty much every day recording themselves that are obviously making content for TikTok or Instagram. That video uses a lot of data and I’m sure they’ll appreciate the faster upload speeds once they have have 5G in their area or a 5G phone.

payeco

chasm said:

All that hype, and what you actually get (apart from an upcharge for using 5G) is -- thus far -- a very modest increase in upload speeds over 4G that most users won't notice, because on (for example) uploading a photo it will make a difference of less than three seconds.

These carriers are dancing as fast as they can around the fact that "low-band" (sub-6GHz) 5G -- the kind 90+ percent of us are ever going to see -- is nothing more than a modest increase from LTE. You'll have to wait much longer (and be near the small and limited test sites) for mmWave to roll out and for some unknown breakthroughs to happen to overcome its many obstacles before you'll see any difference you would really and immediately notice as dramatically different than LTE.

I'm in no way against this technology, but the way it has been bamboozled through the corrupt FCC and hoodwinked public is absolutely shameful.

mmWave 5G is only ever going to happen in cities and perhaps the downtown areas of larger suburban towns. The cell density required for mmWave makes it unfeasible for widespread rollout outside of cities. The strategy for 5G will be mmWave for cities, mid band for dense suburbs and low band for exurbs and rural areas. Even though people on non high band 5G won’t notice a big increase in speed versus LTE, the increased spectral efficiency of 5G will make congestion less of an issue, which is what will enable fixed 5G wireless without data caps a reality for people currently unserved/underserved by wireline broadband. 

Appleish

30%? - BFD. I thought it was going to be in the hundreds of percent?

apple ][

payeco said:

TikTok and Instagram stories/IGTV are super popular with younger people. Here in NYC I see teens pretty much every day recording themselves that are obviously making content for TikTok or Instagram. That video uses a lot of data and I’m sure they’ll appreciate the faster upload speeds once they have have 5G in their area or a 5G phone.

I know what instagram is (owned by Facebook now I believe) and I've heard of TikTok before, but I had no idea what it was used for exactly so I just looked it up:

TikTok is a video-sharing social networking service owned by ByteDance, a Chinese company founded in 2012 by Zhang Yiming. It is used to create short dance, lip-sync, comedy and talent videos.

I guess that explains why I've never been on TikTok.

GeorgeBMac

payeco said:

chasm said:

All that hype, and what you actually get (apart from an upcharge for using 5G) is -- thus far -- a very modest increase in upload speeds over 4G that most users won't notice, because on (for example) uploading a photo it will make a difference of less than three seconds.

These carriers are dancing as fast as they can around the fact that "low-band" (sub-6GHz) 5G -- the kind 90+ percent of us are ever going to see -- is nothing more than a modest increase from LTE. You'll have to wait much longer (and be near the small and limited test sites) for mmWave to roll out and for some unknown breakthroughs to happen to overcome its many obstacles before you'll see any difference you would really and immediately notice as dramatically different than LTE.

I'm in no way against this technology, but the way it has been bamboozled through the corrupt FCC and hoodwinked public is absolutely shameful.

mmWave 5G is only ever going to happen in cities and perhaps the downtown areas of larger suburban towns. The cell density required for mmWave makes it unfeasible for widespread rollout outside of cities. The strategy for 5G will be mmWave for cities, mid band for dense suburbs and low band for exurbs and rural areas. Even though people on non high band 5G won’t notice a big increase in speed versus LTE, the increased spectral efficiency of 5G will make congestion less of an issue, which is what will enable fixed 5G wireless without data caps a reality for people currently unserved/underserved by wireline broadband. 

The suburbs in my area are filled with telephone poles every 100 feet of so.   They are owned by Verizon and recently inspected, repaired and replaced by them -- likely to be sure they are strong enough to hold that "mmWave" transmitter you say 90% of us will never see.

Enjoy your 4G!

payeco

GeorgeBMac said:

payeco said:

chasm said:

All that hype, and what you actually get (apart from an upcharge for using 5G) is -- thus far -- a very modest increase in upload speeds over 4G that most users won't notice, because on (for example) uploading a photo it will make a difference of less than three seconds.

These carriers are dancing as fast as they can around the fact that "low-band" (sub-6GHz) 5G -- the kind 90+ percent of us are ever going to see -- is nothing more than a modest increase from LTE. You'll have to wait much longer (and be near the small and limited test sites) for mmWave to roll out and for some unknown breakthroughs to happen to overcome its many obstacles before you'll see any difference you would really and immediately notice as dramatically different than LTE.

I'm in no way against this technology, but the way it has been bamboozled through the corrupt FCC and hoodwinked public is absolutely shameful.

mmWave 5G is only ever going to happen in cities and perhaps the downtown areas of larger suburban towns. The cell density required for mmWave makes it unfeasible for widespread rollout outside of cities. The strategy for 5G will be mmWave for cities, mid band for dense suburbs and low band for exurbs and rural areas. Even though people on non high band 5G won’t notice a big increase in speed versus LTE, the increased spectral efficiency of 5G will make congestion less of an issue, which is what will enable fixed 5G wireless without data caps a reality for people currently unserved/underserved by wireline broadband. 

The suburbs in my area are filled with telephone poles every 100 feet of so.   They are owned by Verizon and recently inspected, repaired and replaced by them -- likely to be sure they are strong enough to hold that "mmWave" transmitter you say 90% of us will never see.

Enjoy your 4G!

In leafy suburbs even having transmitters every 100 feet or so may not be enough. Leaves on a tree are enough to block mmWave signals. Seriously. Additionally, the amount of customers that can be served per cell site will be an issue. In a city you can put a a cell site every hundred feet and serve potentially hundreds of local residents and thousands when foot traffic is taken into account, without as much potential for interference from trees. In the suburbs a cell site every hundred feet would in most instances serve less than 10 people because of the distance between homes and the amount of foot traffic the average suburban neighborhood street sees. In many suburbs you’re asking companies to invest thousands of dollars to create a cell site to serve a single home, which likely wouldn’t utilize it much since most suburban homes have wireline broadband and WiFi anyway. That provider could just as effectively serve an entire neighborhood with one mid band spectrum cell site providing people with hundreds of megabits of speed.

jdb8167

payeco said:

GeorgeBMac said:

payeco said:

chasm said:

All that hype, and what you actually get (apart from an upcharge for using 5G) is -- thus far -- a very modest increase in upload speeds over 4G that most users won't notice, because on (for example) uploading a photo it will make a difference of less than three seconds.

These carriers are dancing as fast as they can around the fact that "low-band" (sub-6GHz) 5G -- the kind 90+ percent of us are ever going to see -- is nothing more than a modest increase from LTE. You'll have to wait much longer (and be near the small and limited test sites) for mmWave to roll out and for some unknown breakthroughs to happen to overcome its many obstacles before you'll see any difference you would really and immediately notice as dramatically different than LTE.

I'm in no way against this technology, but the way it has been bamboozled through the corrupt FCC and hoodwinked public is absolutely shameful.

mmWave 5G is only ever going to happen in cities and perhaps the downtown areas of larger suburban towns. The cell density required for mmWave makes it unfeasible for widespread rollout outside of cities. The strategy for 5G will be mmWave for cities, mid band for dense suburbs and low band for exurbs and rural areas. Even though people on non high band 5G won’t notice a big increase in speed versus LTE, the increased spectral efficiency of 5G will make congestion less of an issue, which is what will enable fixed 5G wireless without data caps a reality for people currently unserved/underserved by wireline broadband. 

The suburbs in my area are filled with telephone poles every 100 feet of so.   They are owned by Verizon and recently inspected, repaired and replaced by them -- likely to be sure they are strong enough to hold that "mmWave" transmitter you say 90% of us will never see.

Enjoy your 4G!

In leafy suburbs even having transmitters every 100 feet or so may not be enough. Leaves on a tree are enough to block mmWave signals. Seriously. 

Walls are enough to block mmWave if you are too far away from the transmitter. The house I currently live in has inner walls that block a lot of my 5 GHz WiFi signal. I had to move the access point to provide more line of sight to get a good signal in some parts of the house. I don’t see how they put enough mmWave antennas up to cover every customer even in a densely populated suburb where I live. I think 5G is important but I doubt that mmWave will be. The cost will be prohibitive.

GeorgeBMac

payeco said:

GeorgeBMac said:

payeco said:

chasm said:

All that hype, and what you actually get (apart from an upcharge for using 5G) is -- thus far -- a very modest increase in upload speeds over 4G that most users won't notice, because on (for example) uploading a photo it will make a difference of less than three seconds.

These carriers are dancing as fast as they can around the fact that "low-band" (sub-6GHz) 5G -- the kind 90+ percent of us are ever going to see -- is nothing more than a modest increase from LTE. You'll have to wait much longer (and be near the small and limited test sites) for mmWave to roll out and for some unknown breakthroughs to happen to overcome its many obstacles before you'll see any difference you would really and immediately notice as dramatically different than LTE.

I'm in no way against this technology, but the way it has been bamboozled through the corrupt FCC and hoodwinked public is absolutely shameful.

mmWave 5G is only ever going to happen in cities and perhaps the downtown areas of larger suburban towns. The cell density required for mmWave makes it unfeasible for widespread rollout outside of cities. The strategy for 5G will be mmWave for cities, mid band for dense suburbs and low band for exurbs and rural areas. Even though people on non high band 5G won’t notice a big increase in speed versus LTE, the increased spectral efficiency of 5G will make congestion less of an issue, which is what will enable fixed 5G wireless without data caps a reality for people currently unserved/underserved by wireline broadband. 

The suburbs in my area are filled with telephone poles every 100 feet of so.   They are owned by Verizon and recently inspected, repaired and replaced by them -- likely to be sure they are strong enough to hold that "mmWave" transmitter you say 90% of us will never see.

Enjoy your 4G!

In leafy suburbs even having transmitters every 100 feet or so may not be enough. Leaves on a tree are enough to block mmWave signals. Seriously. Additionally, the amount of customers that can be served per cell site will be an issue. In a city you can put a a cell site every hundred feet and serve potentially hundreds of local residents and thousands when foot traffic is taken into account, without as much potential for interference from trees. In the suburbs a cell site every hundred feet would in most instances serve less than 10 people because of the distance between homes and the amount of foot traffic the average suburban neighborhood street sees. In many suburbs you’re asking companies to invest thousands of dollars to create a cell site to serve a single home, which likely wouldn’t utilize it much since most suburban homes have wireline broadband and WiFi anyway. That provider could just as effectively serve an entire neighborhood with one mid band spectrum cell site providing people with hundreds of megabits of speed.

But that's the thing:   They wouldn't have to create a "cell site".   The "site" was created decades ago when the telephone pole was put up, electrified and strung with fiber optic cable.  All they have to do is install a transmitter on it.   Very cheap.   Very simple.

As for blockages:   I have 3 poles with unblocked line-of-sight within 100 feet of my house.

payeco

GeorgeBMac said:

payeco said:

GeorgeBMac said:

payeco said:

chasm said:

All that hype, and what you actually get (apart from an upcharge for using 5G) is -- thus far -- a very modest increase in upload speeds over 4G that most users won't notice, because on (for example) uploading a photo it will make a difference of less than three seconds.

These carriers are dancing as fast as they can around the fact that "low-band" (sub-6GHz) 5G -- the kind 90+ percent of us are ever going to see -- is nothing more than a modest increase from LTE. You'll have to wait much longer (and be near the small and limited test sites) for mmWave to roll out and for some unknown breakthroughs to happen to overcome its many obstacles before you'll see any difference you would really and immediately notice as dramatically different than LTE.

I'm in no way against this technology, but the way it has been bamboozled through the corrupt FCC and hoodwinked public is absolutely shameful.

mmWave 5G is only ever going to happen in cities and perhaps the downtown areas of larger suburban towns. The cell density required for mmWave makes it unfeasible for widespread rollout outside of cities. The strategy for 5G will be mmWave for cities, mid band for dense suburbs and low band for exurbs and rural areas. Even though people on non high band 5G won’t notice a big increase in speed versus LTE, the increased spectral efficiency of 5G will make congestion less of an issue, which is what will enable fixed 5G wireless without data caps a reality for people currently unserved/underserved by wireline broadband. 

The suburbs in my area are filled with telephone poles every 100 feet of so.   They are owned by Verizon and recently inspected, repaired and replaced by them -- likely to be sure they are strong enough to hold that "mmWave" transmitter you say 90% of us will never see.

Enjoy your 4G!

In leafy suburbs even having transmitters every 100 feet or so may not be enough. Leaves on a tree are enough to block mmWave signals. Seriously. Additionally, the amount of customers that can be served per cell site will be an issue. In a city you can put a a cell site every hundred feet and serve potentially hundreds of local residents and thousands when foot traffic is taken into account, without as much potential for interference from trees. In the suburbs a cell site every hundred feet would in most instances serve less than 10 people because of the distance between homes and the amount of foot traffic the average suburban neighborhood street sees. In many suburbs you’re asking companies to invest thousands of dollars to create a cell site to serve a single home, which likely wouldn’t utilize it much since most suburban homes have wireline broadband and WiFi anyway. That provider could just as effectively serve an entire neighborhood with one mid band spectrum cell site providing people with hundreds of megabits of speed.

But that's the thing:   They wouldn't have to create a "cell site".   The "site" was created decades ago when the telephone pole was put up, electrified and strung with fiber optic cable.  All they have to do is install a transmitter on it.   Very cheap.   Very simple.

As for blockages:   I have 3 poles with unblocked line-of-sight within 100 feet of my house.

It’s actually not that cheap. The equipment itself isn’t that cheap. In addition to the equipment there are labor costs for installing, testing and tuning the equipment. Plus, there are costs associated with permits to install this equipment. Verizon may own the poles but in many jurisdictions they still need to be permitted to install new equipment on them.

I’m not sure why you’re arguing about this though. The carriers have laid out their 5G strategies already. I’m not speculating here. They’ve said mmWave is for cities, mid band is for suburbs and low band is for rural areas. 

GeorgeBMac

payeco said:

GeorgeBMac said:

payeco said:

GeorgeBMac said:

payeco said:

chasm said:

All that hype, and what you actually get (apart from an upcharge for using 5G) is -- thus far -- a very modest increase in upload speeds over 4G that most users won't notice, because on (for example) uploading a photo it will make a difference of less than three seconds.

These carriers are dancing as fast as they can around the fact that "low-band" (sub-6GHz) 5G -- the kind 90+ percent of us are ever going to see -- is nothing more than a modest increase from LTE. You'll have to wait much longer (and be near the small and limited test sites) for mmWave to roll out and for some unknown breakthroughs to happen to overcome its many obstacles before you'll see any difference you would really and immediately notice as dramatically different than LTE.

I'm in no way against this technology, but the way it has been bamboozled through the corrupt FCC and hoodwinked public is absolutely shameful.

mmWave 5G is only ever going to happen in cities and perhaps the downtown areas of larger suburban towns. The cell density required for mmWave makes it unfeasible for widespread rollout outside of cities. The strategy for 5G will be mmWave for cities, mid band for dense suburbs and low band for exurbs and rural areas. Even though people on non high band 5G won’t notice a big increase in speed versus LTE, the increased spectral efficiency of 5G will make congestion less of an issue, which is what will enable fixed 5G wireless without data caps a reality for people currently unserved/underserved by wireline broadband. 

The suburbs in my area are filled with telephone poles every 100 feet of so.   They are owned by Verizon and recently inspected, repaired and replaced by them -- likely to be sure they are strong enough to hold that "mmWave" transmitter you say 90% of us will never see.

Enjoy your 4G!

In leafy suburbs even having transmitters every 100 feet or so may not be enough. Leaves on a tree are enough to block mmWave signals. Seriously. Additionally, the amount of customers that can be served per cell site will be an issue. In a city you can put a a cell site every hundred feet and serve potentially hundreds of local residents and thousands when foot traffic is taken into account, without as much potential for interference from trees. In the suburbs a cell site every hundred feet would in most instances serve less than 10 people because of the distance between homes and the amount of foot traffic the average suburban neighborhood street sees. In many suburbs you’re asking companies to invest thousands of dollars to create a cell site to serve a single home, which likely wouldn’t utilize it much since most suburban homes have wireline broadband and WiFi anyway. That provider could just as effectively serve an entire neighborhood with one mid band spectrum cell site providing people with hundreds of megabits of speed.

But that's the thing:   They wouldn't have to create a "cell site".   The "site" was created decades ago when the telephone pole was put up, electrified and strung with fiber optic cable.  All they have to do is install a transmitter on it.   Very cheap.   Very simple.

As for blockages:   I have 3 poles with unblocked line-of-sight within 100 feet of my house.

It’s actually not that cheap. The equipment itself isn’t that cheap. In addition to the equipment there are labor costs for installing, testing and tuning the equipment. Plus, there are costs associated with permits to install this equipment. Verizon may own the poles but in many jurisdictions they still need to be permitted to install new equipment on them.

I’m not sure why you’re arguing about this though. The carriers have laid out their 5G strategies already. I’m not speculating here. They’ve said mmWave is for cities, mid band is for suburbs and low band is for rural areas. 

Really?   Then why did Verizon spend millions buying, inspecting and renovating all those telephone poles?  

... Your details are a prime example of the saying:
"When you want to do something big always ask the experts first.   They'll tell you what can't be done and why.  That way you know what pitfalls to avoid."