Though until the networks actually distribute this widely the feature itself is a huge meh.
T-Mobile is -- and its rolling out the spectrum everybody agrees will be on all iPhone 12's.
Here is their 5G today. While it still has a ways to go, it is simply not accurate to say that 5G coverage does not exist. It's here and it's growing quickly.
No, it won't replace 4G, not for years anyway. But it will supplement it. I would not want to invest in a phone limited to only 4G -- unless i intended to buy a new phone next year and wasn't worried about trade-in values.
Yeah - that map is not exactly accurate. I have T mobile, around the Twin Cities it's reasonable, but in Wisconsin there are many areas where you get zero coverage. No bars. My daughter goes to school in Madison and we had to switch her account to Verizon because T Mobile was completely unusable there. Now, if you find some evidence that their 5G coverage is magically orders of magnitude better than the 4G coverage, get back to us, otherwise this map means nothing.
I feel like a lot of commenters either didn't read the article, or didn't read it very closely: the headline alone makes it clear that this is only talking about one "flavour" of mm (millimetre) wave 5G, not all of "5G."
Despite numerous articles here and elsewhere on the web about the difference between sub-6ghz and mmwave, the commenters above largely seem believe the story is about only one model of iPhone 12 being able to do "5G." That is flat-out wrong.
Mmwave "5G" is not rolling out. Anywhere. It's in the early testing stages and has a LOT of serious obstacles that make it untenable for 99.9 percent of consumers. To use the seriously fast "mmwave" 5G, you have to a) be very close to and b) have a completely unobstructed line of sight to the mmwave tower. It does not work indoors, it does not work if its raining, it doesn't work if there's literally anything between you and that nearby tower. Boy is it fast, but I think most of us would agree those are some pretty serious limitations. In addition to being incredibly easily blocked (a falling leaf would do the job), it has extremely limited range.
Now sub-6ghz "5G" (i.e. the one that is actually rolling out nationwide) is waaaaaay slower than mmwave, but it is still a small improvement (maybe 30 percent in ideal conditions) over current LTE speeds, and offers other back-end efficiencies (like more capacity per tower) that will improve your overall experience somewhat compared to LTE. That's good, hurrah, bring it on and all that. But due to vast overhyping by the industry, everyone thinks they're going to get "mmwave" type speeds everywhere they go when they're on "5G," and nothing could be further from the truth. You're getting sub-6 speeds, which is good -- but most people will barely notice the modest speed increase.
So, to be clear about this report: it is saying all models of the iPhone 12 will be able to work with the common form of 5G, and it's a nice little improvement over LTE. Only one model -- the Pro Max -- may be able to handle the incredibly few hotspots of mmwave "5G". Now that you know the difference, this rumour makes much more sense.
I'm waiting for an actual comparison and demonstration of the benefits of 5G. You are absolutely correct in the 4th paragraph, and all the back end benefits are what most people will see, but will they be noticeable? Every 5G 'test' I've seen is simply standing close to a mmWave antenna and checking download speeds. Most of us don't spend a lot of time with unobstructed views of these antennae, so it's meaningless. Furthermore, many of the benefits of 5G require an upgraded network backbone, something that everyone will benefit from.
The other comparison that would be nice is battery drain between 5G and 4G. If your battery drains 40% faster so you can get your web page 50 msec sooner that's not a very good trade off.
And yes. Human body resistance, biomagnetism, all neural communication and synapsis based on electron exchange - electricity, all scientificly proven. I don’t care about your denialism, but thinking what all this means in relation with waves is beneficial.
you are using the traditional tactic of taking a small part of the argument that is proven and generalizing it to a larger argument that is unproven. It doesn't work that way.
Though until the networks actually distribute this widely the feature itself is a huge meh.
T-Mobile is -- and its rolling out the spectrum everybody agrees will be on all iPhone 12's.
Here is their 5G today. While it still has a ways to go, it is simply not accurate to say that 5G coverage does not exist. It's here and it's growing quickly.
No, it won't replace 4G, not for years anyway. But it will supplement it. I would not want to invest in a phone limited to only 4G -- unless i intended to buy a new phone next year and wasn't worried about trade-in values.
Yeah - that map is not exactly accurate. I have T mobile, around the Twin Cities it's reasonable, but in Wisconsin there are many areas where you get zero coverage. No bars. My daughter goes to school in Madison and we had to switch her account to Verizon because T Mobile was completely unusable there. Now, if you find some evidence that their 5G coverage is magically orders of magnitude better than the 4G coverage, get back to us, otherwise this map means nothing.
LOL.... So, you fell into a black hole -- possibly because your phone is not 5G capable. So therefor 5G has no value. Got it.
The truth is: no carrier is expanding 4G and instead focusing entirely on 5G. Why would they invest in what is quickly becoming obsolete?
So, while Verizon & AT&T seem to be focusing on urban areas, T-Mobile seems to be expanding its coverage out into suburban and more rural areas using sub-6Ghz. They seem to be doing that partly as an upgrade but also to provide broader coverage.
I suspect T-Mobile is following the same strategy China already employed to cover most of their country.
Though until the networks actually distribute this widely the feature itself is a huge meh.
T-Mobile is -- and its rolling out the spectrum everybody agrees will be on all iPhone 12's.
Here is their 5G today. While it still has a ways to go, it is simply not accurate to say that 5G coverage does not exist. It's here and it's growing quickly.
No, it won't replace 4G, not for years anyway. But it will supplement it. I would not want to invest in a phone limited to only 4G -- unless i intended to buy a new phone next year and wasn't worried about trade-in values.
Yeah - that map is not exactly accurate. I have T mobile, around the Twin Cities it's reasonable, but in Wisconsin there are many areas where you get zero coverage. No bars. My daughter goes to school in Madison and we had to switch her account to Verizon because T Mobile was completely unusable there. Now, if you find some evidence that their 5G coverage is magically orders of magnitude better than the 4G coverage, get back to us, otherwise this map means nothing.
LOL.... So, you fell into a black hole -- possibly because your phone is not 5G capable. So therefor 5G has no value. Got it.
The truth is: no carrier is expanding 4G and instead focusing entirely on 5G. Why would they invest in what is quickly becoming obsolete?
So, while Verizon & AT&T seem to be focusing on urban areas, T-Mobile seems to be expanding its coverage out into suburban and more rural areas using sub-6Ghz. They seem to be doing that partly as an upgrade but also to provide broader coverage.
I suspect T-Mobile is following the same strategy China already employed to cover most of their country.
Once again your reading comprehension is lacking, Georgie. Look at the map and look at my post - the map claims there is 4G coverage over all of Wisconsin. There’s not. I lose signal For miles at a time driving on I94 and major state highways. There are large areas of Madison where you get no signal when standing on the street. If they don’t have 4G coverage, how are they going to have 5G? And if if the map is totally worthless for 4G, why should we trust it at all for 5G, unless it serves to support an argument that otherwise falls flat? (BTW - Have you confirmed the coverage with a 5G phone? If not, you have no standing)
Though until the networks actually distribute this widely the feature itself is a huge meh.
T-Mobile is -- and its rolling out the spectrum everybody agrees will be on all iPhone 12's.
Here is their 5G today. While it still has a ways to go, it is simply not accurate to say that 5G coverage does not exist. It's here and it's growing quickly.
No, it won't replace 4G, not for years anyway. But it will supplement it. I would not want to invest in a phone limited to only 4G -- unless i intended to buy a new phone next year and wasn't worried about trade-in values.
Yeah - that map is not exactly accurate. I have T mobile, around the Twin Cities it's reasonable, but in Wisconsin there are many areas where you get zero coverage. No bars. My daughter goes to school in Madison and we had to switch her account to Verizon because T Mobile was completely unusable there. Now, if you find some evidence that their 5G coverage is magically orders of magnitude better than the 4G coverage, get back to us, otherwise this map means nothing.
LOL.... So, you fell into a black hole -- possibly because your phone is not 5G capable. So therefor 5G has no value. Got it.
The truth is: no carrier is expanding 4G and instead focusing entirely on 5G. Why would they invest in what is quickly becoming obsolete?
So, while Verizon & AT&T seem to be focusing on urban areas, T-Mobile seems to be expanding its coverage out into suburban and more rural areas using sub-6Ghz. They seem to be doing that partly as an upgrade but also to provide broader coverage.
I suspect T-Mobile is following the same strategy China already employed to cover most of their country.
Once again your reading comprehension is lacking, Georgie. Look at the map and look at my post - the map claims there is 4G coverage over all of Wisconsin. There’s not. I lose signal For miles at a time driving on I94 and major state highways. There are large areas of Madison where you get no signal when standing on the street. If they don’t have 4G coverage, how are they going to have 5G? And if if the map is totally worthless for 4G, why should we trust it at all for 5G, unless it serves to support an argument that otherwise falls flat? (BTW - Have you confirmed the coverage with a 5G phone? If not, you have no standing)
I see a lot of black on that map that you seem to be ignoring. You can call it worthless all you want. But that doesn't change the fact that 5G is being rolled out by T-Mobile in a big way -- which is what the map was meant to show (not some local coverage areas that you are complaining about)
Though until the networks actually distribute this widely the feature itself is a huge meh.
T-Mobile is -- and its rolling out the spectrum everybody agrees will be on all iPhone 12's.
Here is their 5G today. While it still has a ways to go, it is simply not accurate to say that 5G coverage does not exist. It's here and it's growing quickly.
No, it won't replace 4G, not for years anyway. But it will supplement it. I would not want to invest in a phone limited to only 4G -- unless i intended to buy a new phone next year and wasn't worried about trade-in values.
Yeah - that map is not exactly accurate. I have T mobile, around the Twin Cities it's reasonable, but in Wisconsin there are many areas where you get zero coverage. No bars. My daughter goes to school in Madison and we had to switch her account to Verizon because T Mobile was completely unusable there. Now, if you find some evidence that their 5G coverage is magically orders of magnitude better than the 4G coverage, get back to us, otherwise this map means nothing.
LOL.... So, you fell into a black hole -- possibly because your phone is not 5G capable. So therefor 5G has no value. Got it.
The truth is: no carrier is expanding 4G and instead focusing entirely on 5G. Why would they invest in what is quickly becoming obsolete?
So, while Verizon & AT&T seem to be focusing on urban areas, T-Mobile seems to be expanding its coverage out into suburban and more rural areas using sub-6Ghz. They seem to be doing that partly as an upgrade but also to provide broader coverage.
I suspect T-Mobile is following the same strategy China already employed to cover most of their country.
Once again your reading comprehension is lacking, Georgie. Look at the map and look at my post - the map claims there is 4G coverage over all of Wisconsin. There’s not. I lose signal For miles at a time driving on I94 and major state highways. There are large areas of Madison where you get no signal when standing on the street. If they don’t have 4G coverage, how are they going to have 5G? And if if the map is totally worthless for 4G, why should we trust it at all for 5G, unless it serves to support an argument that otherwise falls flat? (BTW - Have you confirmed the coverage with a 5G phone? If not, you have no standing)
I see a lot of black on that map that you seem to be ignoring. You can call it worthless all you want. But that doesn't change the fact that 5G is being rolled out by T-Mobile in a big way -- which is what the map was meant to show (not some local coverage areas that you are complaining about)
Not really much black along I-94. Or in Madison, or on any of the other roads I’ve been on where I’ve had no signal. You are still missing the point that even if “5G is being rolled out by T-Mobile in a big way,” the coverage is so poor that it’s worthless. It’s exactly like Verizon saying they have 5G in Minneapolis when there’s really only 10 square blocks with 5G. Technically true, but meaningless from a user perspective.
If I didn’t have first hand knowledge of T-Mobile’s coverage in WI I might be inclined to think differently, but because I know how poor the true coverage is I know that the map is worthless.
Though until the networks actually distribute this widely the feature itself is a huge meh.
T-Mobile is -- and its rolling out the spectrum everybody agrees will be on all iPhone 12's.
Here is their 5G today. While it still has a ways to go, it is simply not accurate to say that 5G coverage does not exist. It's here and it's growing quickly.
No, it won't replace 4G, not for years anyway. But it will supplement it. I would not want to invest in a phone limited to only 4G -- unless i intended to buy a new phone next year and wasn't worried about trade-in values.
Yeah - that map is not exactly accurate. I have T mobile, around the Twin Cities it's reasonable, but in Wisconsin there are many areas where you get zero coverage. No bars. My daughter goes to school in Madison and we had to switch her account to Verizon because T Mobile was completely unusable there. Now, if you find some evidence that their 5G coverage is magically orders of magnitude better than the 4G coverage, get back to us, otherwise this map means nothing.
LOL.... So, you fell into a black hole -- possibly because your phone is not 5G capable. So therefor 5G has no value. Got it.
The truth is: no carrier is expanding 4G and instead focusing entirely on 5G. Why would they invest in what is quickly becoming obsolete?
So, while Verizon & AT&T seem to be focusing on urban areas, T-Mobile seems to be expanding its coverage out into suburban and more rural areas using sub-6Ghz. They seem to be doing that partly as an upgrade but also to provide broader coverage.
I suspect T-Mobile is following the same strategy China already employed to cover most of their country.
Once again your reading comprehension is lacking, Georgie. Look at the map and look at my post - the map claims there is 4G coverage over all of Wisconsin. There’s not. I lose signal For miles at a time driving on I94 and major state highways. There are large areas of Madison where you get no signal when standing on the street. If they don’t have 4G coverage, how are they going to have 5G? And if if the map is totally worthless for 4G, why should we trust it at all for 5G, unless it serves to support an argument that otherwise falls flat? (BTW - Have you confirmed the coverage with a 5G phone? If not, you have no standing)
I see a lot of black on that map that you seem to be ignoring. You can call it worthless all you want. But that doesn't change the fact that 5G is being rolled out by T-Mobile in a big way -- which is what the map was meant to show (not some local coverage areas that you are complaining about)
Not really much black along I-94. Or in Madison, or on any of the other roads I’ve been on where I’ve had no signal. You are still missing the point that even if “5G is being rolled out by T-Mobile in a big way,” the coverage is so poor that it’s worthless. It’s exactly like Verizon saying they have 5G in Minneapolis when there’s really only 10 square blocks with 5G. Technically true, but meaningless from a user perspective.
If I didn’t have first hand knowledge of T-Mobile’s coverage in WI I might be inclined to think differently, but because I know how poor the true coverage is I know that the map is worthless.
Because you choose to not believe what it says --- that T-Mobile is rolling out 5G and already has a decent sized chunk of the U.S. covered -- only makes it worthless to you.
Though until the networks actually distribute this widely the feature itself is a huge meh.
T-Mobile is -- and its rolling out the spectrum everybody agrees will be on all iPhone 12's.
Here is their 5G today. While it still has a ways to go, it is simply not accurate to say that 5G coverage does not exist. It's here and it's growing quickly.
No, it won't replace 4G, not for years anyway. But it will supplement it. I would not want to invest in a phone limited to only 4G -- unless i intended to buy a new phone next year and wasn't worried about trade-in values.
Yeah - that map is not exactly accurate. I have T mobile, around the Twin Cities it's reasonable, but in Wisconsin there are many areas where you get zero coverage. No bars. My daughter goes to school in Madison and we had to switch her account to Verizon because T Mobile was completely unusable there. Now, if you find some evidence that their 5G coverage is magically orders of magnitude better than the 4G coverage, get back to us, otherwise this map means nothing.
LOL.... So, you fell into a black hole -- possibly because your phone is not 5G capable. So therefor 5G has no value. Got it.
The truth is: no carrier is expanding 4G and instead focusing entirely on 5G. Why would they invest in what is quickly becoming obsolete?
So, while Verizon & AT&T seem to be focusing on urban areas, T-Mobile seems to be expanding its coverage out into suburban and more rural areas using sub-6Ghz. They seem to be doing that partly as an upgrade but also to provide broader coverage.
I suspect T-Mobile is following the same strategy China already employed to cover most of their country.
Once again your reading comprehension is lacking, Georgie. Look at the map and look at my post - the map claims there is 4G coverage over all of Wisconsin. There’s not. I lose signal For miles at a time driving on I94 and major state highways. There are large areas of Madison where you get no signal when standing on the street. If they don’t have 4G coverage, how are they going to have 5G? And if if the map is totally worthless for 4G, why should we trust it at all for 5G, unless it serves to support an argument that otherwise falls flat? (BTW - Have you confirmed the coverage with a 5G phone? If not, you have no standing)
I see a lot of black on that map that you seem to be ignoring. You can call it worthless all you want. But that doesn't change the fact that 5G is being rolled out by T-Mobile in a big way -- which is what the map was meant to show (not some local coverage areas that you are complaining about)
Not really much black along I-94. Or in Madison, or on any of the other roads I’ve been on where I’ve had no signal. You are still missing the point that even if “5G is being rolled out by T-Mobile in a big way,” the coverage is so poor that it’s worthless. It’s exactly like Verizon saying they have 5G in Minneapolis when there’s really only 10 square blocks with 5G. Technically true, but meaningless from a user perspective.
If I didn’t have first hand knowledge of T-Mobile’s coverage in WI I might be inclined to think differently, but because I know how poor the true coverage is I know that the map is worthless.
Because you choose to not believe what it says --- that T-Mobile is
rolling out 5G and already has a decent sized chunk of the U.S. covered
-- only makes it worthless to you. As with all maps, if you are interested in a small section, say part of a city, you look at local maps, not national ones.
Though until the networks actually distribute this widely the feature itself is a huge meh.
T-Mobile is -- and its rolling out the spectrum everybody agrees will be on all iPhone 12's.
Here is their 5G today. While it still has a ways to go, it is simply not accurate to say that 5G coverage does not exist. It's here and it's growing quickly.
No, it won't replace 4G, not for years anyway. But it will supplement it. I would not want to invest in a phone limited to only 4G -- unless i intended to buy a new phone next year and wasn't worried about trade-in values.
Yeah - that map is not exactly accurate. I have T mobile, around the Twin Cities it's reasonable, but in Wisconsin there are many areas where you get zero coverage. No bars. My daughter goes to school in Madison and we had to switch her account to Verizon because T Mobile was completely unusable there. Now, if you find some evidence that their 5G coverage is magically orders of magnitude better than the 4G coverage, get back to us, otherwise this map means nothing.
LOL.... So, you fell into a black hole -- possibly because your phone is not 5G capable. So therefor 5G has no value. Got it.
The truth is: no carrier is expanding 4G and instead focusing entirely on 5G. Why would they invest in what is quickly becoming obsolete?
So, while Verizon & AT&T seem to be focusing on urban areas, T-Mobile seems to be expanding its coverage out into suburban and more rural areas using sub-6Ghz. They seem to be doing that partly as an upgrade but also to provide broader coverage.
I suspect T-Mobile is following the same strategy China already employed to cover most of their country.
Once again your reading comprehension is lacking, Georgie. Look at the map and look at my post - the map claims there is 4G coverage over all of Wisconsin. There’s not. I lose signal For miles at a time driving on I94 and major state highways. There are large areas of Madison where you get no signal when standing on the street. If they don’t have 4G coverage, how are they going to have 5G? And if if the map is totally worthless for 4G, why should we trust it at all for 5G, unless it serves to support an argument that otherwise falls flat? (BTW - Have you confirmed the coverage with a 5G phone? If not, you have no standing)
I see a lot of black on that map that you seem to be ignoring. You can call it worthless all you want. But that doesn't change the fact that 5G is being rolled out by T-Mobile in a big way -- which is what the map was meant to show (not some local coverage areas that you are complaining about)
Not really much black along I-94. Or in Madison, or on any of the other roads I’ve been on where I’ve had no signal. You are still missing the point that even if “5G is being rolled out by T-Mobile in a big way,” the coverage is so poor that it’s worthless. It’s exactly like Verizon saying they have 5G in Minneapolis when there’s really only 10 square blocks with 5G. Technically true, but meaningless from a user perspective.
If I didn’t have first hand knowledge of T-Mobile’s coverage in WI I might be inclined to think differently, but because I know how poor the true coverage is I know that the map is worthless.
Because you choose to not believe what it says --- that T-Mobile is
rolling out 5G and already has a decent sized chunk of the U.S. covered
-- only makes it worthless to you. As with all maps, if you are interested in a small section, say part of a city, you look at local maps, not national ones.
LOL - your last statement simply makes my point. You argue the map is accurate, then say you need to use a different map to get actual data, meaning the first map is not accurate.
No - I choose to believe my actual first hand experience with T-mobile’s coverage instead of a map made by the marketing department. Yes I’m extrapolating my experience in MN and WI to the larger area, but if the map is inaccurate in 2 states, please explain why it will be more accurate in the rest.
Though until the networks actually distribute this widely the feature itself is a huge meh.
T-Mobile is -- and its rolling out the spectrum everybody agrees will be on all iPhone 12's.
Here is their 5G today. While it still has a ways to go, it is simply not accurate to say that 5G coverage does not exist. It's here and it's growing quickly.
No, it won't replace 4G, not for years anyway. But it will supplement it. I would not want to invest in a phone limited to only 4G -- unless i intended to buy a new phone next year and wasn't worried about trade-in values.
Yeah - that map is not exactly accurate. I have T mobile, around the Twin Cities it's reasonable, but in Wisconsin there are many areas where you get zero coverage. No bars. My daughter goes to school in Madison and we had to switch her account to Verizon because T Mobile was completely unusable there. Now, if you find some evidence that their 5G coverage is magically orders of magnitude better than the 4G coverage, get back to us, otherwise this map means nothing.
LOL.... So, you fell into a black hole -- possibly because your phone is not 5G capable. So therefor 5G has no value. Got it.
The truth is: no carrier is expanding 4G and instead focusing entirely on 5G. Why would they invest in what is quickly becoming obsolete?
So, while Verizon & AT&T seem to be focusing on urban areas, T-Mobile seems to be expanding its coverage out into suburban and more rural areas using sub-6Ghz. They seem to be doing that partly as an upgrade but also to provide broader coverage.
I suspect T-Mobile is following the same strategy China already employed to cover most of their country.
Once again your reading comprehension is lacking, Georgie. Look at the map and look at my post - the map claims there is 4G coverage over all of Wisconsin. There’s not. I lose signal For miles at a time driving on I94 and major state highways. There are large areas of Madison where you get no signal when standing on the street. If they don’t have 4G coverage, how are they going to have 5G? And if if the map is totally worthless for 4G, why should we trust it at all for 5G, unless it serves to support an argument that otherwise falls flat? (BTW - Have you confirmed the coverage with a 5G phone? If not, you have no standing)
I see a lot of black on that map that you seem to be ignoring. You can call it worthless all you want. But that doesn't change the fact that 5G is being rolled out by T-Mobile in a big way -- which is what the map was meant to show (not some local coverage areas that you are complaining about)
Not really much black along I-94. Or in Madison, or on any of the other roads I’ve been on where I’ve had no signal. You are still missing the point that even if “5G is being rolled out by T-Mobile in a big way,” the coverage is so poor that it’s worthless. It’s exactly like Verizon saying they have 5G in Minneapolis when there’s really only 10 square blocks with 5G. Technically true, but meaningless from a user perspective.
If I didn’t have first hand knowledge of T-Mobile’s coverage in WI I might be inclined to think differently, but because I know how poor the true coverage is I know that the map is worthless.
Because you choose to not believe what it says --- that T-Mobile is
rolling out 5G and already has a decent sized chunk of the U.S. covered
-- only makes it worthless to you. As with all maps, if you are interested in a small section, say part of a city, you look at local maps, not national ones.
LOL - your last statement simply makes my point. You argue the map is accurate, then say you need to use a different map to get actual data, meaning the first map is not accurate.
No - I choose to believe my actual first hand experience with T-mobile’s coverage instead of a map made by the marketing department. Yes I’m extrapolating my experience in MN and WI to the larger area, but if the map is inaccurate in 2 states, please explain why it will be more accurate in the rest.
LOL.... So, you want a national map roughly 1 mile wide and 1/2 mile deep so it can show every dust spec of the U.S.
OK.... But don't hold your breath. Wait! On second thought....
And yes. Human body resistance, biomagnetism, all neural communication and synapsis based on electron exchange - electricity, all scientificly proven. I don’t care about your denialism, but thinking what all this means in relation with waves is beneficial.
You, "thinking what this all means": "5G mmWaves ..it warps aura like hell (alot of tai-chi needed to repair it). Expect more ADHDs, sleep disorders, more aggressivity.. for children especially"
I'm not denying that the human body utilizes electricity, just your horseshit conclusions about how it is affected by radio waves. Tai chi repairing an aura? Give me a break. Leave it to the experts, please.
Comments
I'm waiting for an actual comparison and demonstration of the benefits of 5G. You are absolutely correct in the 4th paragraph, and all the back end benefits are what most people will see, but will they be noticeable? Every 5G 'test' I've seen is simply standing close to a mmWave antenna and checking download speeds. Most of us don't spend a lot of time with unobstructed views of these antennae, so it's meaningless. Furthermore, many of the benefits of 5G require an upgraded network backbone, something that everyone will benefit from.
The other comparison that would be nice is battery drain between 5G and 4G. If your battery drains 40% faster so you can get your web page 50 msec sooner that's not a very good trade off.
you are using the traditional tactic of taking a small part of the argument that is proven and generalizing it to a larger argument that is unproven. It doesn't work that way.
If I didn’t have first hand knowledge of T-Mobile’s coverage in WI I might be inclined to think differently, but because I know how poor the true coverage is I know that the map is worthless.
Because you choose to not believe what it says --- that T-Mobile is rolling out 5G and already has a decent sized chunk of the U.S. covered -- only makes it worthless to you.
Because you choose to not believe what it says --- that T-Mobile is rolling out 5G and already has a decent sized chunk of the U.S. covered -- only makes it worthless to you. As with all maps, if you are interested in a small section, say part of a city, you look at local maps, not national ones.
No - I choose to believe my actual first hand experience with T-mobile’s coverage instead of a map made by the marketing department. Yes I’m extrapolating my experience in MN and WI to the larger area, but if the map is inaccurate in 2 states, please explain why it will be more accurate in the rest.
You, "thinking what this all means": "5G mmWaves ..it warps aura like hell (alot of tai-chi needed to repair it). Expect more ADHDs, sleep disorders, more aggressivity.. for children especially"
I'm not denying that the human body utilizes electricity, just your horseshit conclusions about how it is affected by radio waves. Tai chi repairing an aura? Give me a break. Leave it to the experts, please.