In the mountains of Colorado, where I live, there is very little ATT or T-Mobile. Only Verizon works with anything close to an acceptable signal and only along main roads. My home requires a Network Extender. Local phone stores will tell complaining visitors that they should change their settings to 3G while in the area. A friend in the "cellular game" says that 5G and higher may never roll out in rural areas because it will require 5 times the number of towers and would take years to build. He says that the future is Starlink.
T-Mobile says your friend is wrong. They are rolling it out now. Not the mm-wave your friend is talking about but 5G nevertheless.
You really aren't cognizant of what 5G is being installed today by T-Mobile. It is really just existing 4G radio equipment repurposed for 5G, so the speeds people see as "5G" aren't going to be much faster than the 4G they had before, maybe 20% faster.
For the record, my community, a state capitol of 55,000, has a single 5G site located off of a freeway, next to a water treatment plant, 1/2 a mile from the town's single high school, and across from a National Guard facility. Great for them, I suppose.
That's not much of a buildout to date.
LOL... So you're saying that T-Mobile's 5G is simply another version of AT&T's 5G-E? Is that like another of your China conspiracy theories?
Well, since 5G has so far been pretty much a non-event, why should a 5G iPhone be any different?
5G coverage is fair at best, bordering on abysmal for Verizon, and the performance of the 5G networks is essentially on par with the 4G LTE ones. Why should we pay extra for any of it? If and when (emphasis on the ‘if’) the utopia of self driving cars that talk to each other actually comes to pass then maybe 5G will be useful. Right now it’s all hype.
As we both concluded on the same thread months ago, 5G's biggest growth isn't going to come from mobile users, so the carriers need to hype it as much as possible. And now this article shows that CEO McElfresh is "softening expectations." Don't get me wrong - 5G is impressive technology on the infrastructure side, but sadly those gains won't be fully realised by mobile users.
And mmWave will work best on physically large phones due to the multiple mmWave antennas (diversity) that must be crammed in to overcome the shadowing.
yup. It's impressive, just not for phones. Fortunately, the backend infrastructure will benefit everyone, no matter what technology they're using.
In the mountains of Colorado, where I live, there is very little ATT or T-Mobile. Only Verizon works with anything close to an acceptable signal and only along main roads. My home requires a Network Extender. Local phone stores will tell complaining visitors that they should change their settings to 3G while in the area. A friend in the "cellular game" says that 5G and higher may never roll out in rural areas because it will require 5 times the number of towers and would take years to build. He says that the future is Starlink.
T-Mobile says your friend is wrong. They are rolling it out now. Not the mm-wave your friend is talking about but 5G nevertheless.
We've been through this before. T-Mobile may say his friend is wrong, but T-Mobile's maps are also wrong, so his friend is probably right. The other catch with coverage - often times when I have 2 bars of T Mobile coverage I still struggle to load a simple web page, so even though I have 2 bars, they are pretty useless bars. They're not the only ones though. Verizon got censured by the better business bureau for misleading claims of coverage, too.
I'm trashing AT&T because, well, they are trash. One of America's top carriers, they first pulled a scam telling us they had 5G in wide distribution (it was 4G relabeled to 5G-E) and now telling us that, "Yeh, much of the rest of the world is moving to 5G, but you don't need it and should instead wait for their 6G (or will that be 6G-E?)"
If the U.S. is going to continue leading the world it has to lead -- not bullshit about it -- or try to maintain its leadership by suppressing those who are leading the way.
(And yes, I know you claim that T-Mobile's maps are complete lies because you once drove through a spot that didn't have T-Mobile coverage. Got it).
I’m an expat living in China. And it’s fair to say 5G is the normal here, all providers just put your account to 5G no cost difference, whilst it’s not mm wavelength I fail to see why I would need to download a Movie in 3seconds. 5G benefits are more about latency and responsive internet. WiFi everywhere if you desperately need to download an App.
Apple have to deliver here or be left out in the upgrades for year end. That’s Chinese New Year mass purchase rush. And expect a bigger uptake as huawei will run out of SoCs processors for their flagship phones
Yes, China invested in the future and, for them, the future is now. Here, we get excuses from one of our leading carriers.
Huawei running out of chips won't hold either them or China back for long. All it really does is give them incentive to develop their own -- which they are now doing. Anybody who believes they will sit back and be bullied into submission and defeat is a fool.
Trump's cold war policies are short term at best. In addition to becoming independent of the U.S. in technology it will push them to also become independent in finance and currency and that will not be good for the U.S. Not good at all. All Trump is doing is pumping his base for the next election by directing American fear and hate away from America's real enemies.
I've been accused of being "pro-China" and lately "anti-AT&T". The truth is: both myself and reality favor those who actually lead the way. Here we have a prime example: China led the way while AT&T spread lies, excuses and bullshit. Which one would you bet on or invest in? Bombast and bravado can only carry you so far. Eventually you have to back that up with results.
Translation: 'AT&T didn't invest in 5G and their 5G-E scam fooled no one. So, who needs it? who wants it? Shouldn't we all wait for them to bungle 6G the same way?'
But, I do agree with him that there won't be a mass rush to the iPhone 12's because they have 5G (except possibly in those countries like China who have already rolled it out nationwide). Instead, mostly it will prevent Apple from LOSING sales from those who simply don't want to invest in yesterday's 4G technology (you know, like AT&T did)
Every once in a while you get a ‘Like’ from me George.
This is what he doesn’t understand. I think this is going to be a massive upgrade cycle. I’m on a XS Max and I’m ready. There just wasn’t enough difference between it and the 11 Pro Max. I had an iPhone X and then upgraded a year later because I wanted a bigger screen. But the performance difference between my phone now and the 12 will be substantial.
I’m also on a XS Max. I can’t imagine the 12 offering any substantial performance over it. An upgraded camera would be nice, but speed? Still feels pretty peppy to me.
Got an iPhone 11 last year. I expect to use it for 4-5 years. So by 2024 I'll be getting something 5G capable, maybe it'll be out here by then, but not MM so even then I don't expect to see much if any difference.
Yep, that’s my plan. I’m still using my AW3 as well and completely happy with it.
He's speaking more from his own company's perspective than Apple's perspective.
For Apple, the release is massive because going through to the end of 2021 without 5G would have left the company embarrassed and killed sales in China.
They are already late to the party. Even with COVID it is estimated that 1 in 3 handset sales in China are already 5G and that number is increasing fast.
For iPhone users generally, it is also massive because this represents the first time 5G will be an option. Anyone who plans to keep their phone for three or more years should be thinking about 5G.
The dire situation in the US in terms of carrier infrastructure and the way the market is divided up make it an exception to some degree. Some people might be able to claim with relative certainty that 5G won't reach them within the lifespan of the phone.
I don't think the rest of the world will find itself in the same situation and many people will be making purchases with 5G in mind. Especially as 5G phones are now available in the lower cost bands. I'm confident that a sizeable chunk of iPhone users put off upgrading last year precisely because of 5G.
I live in a small town in the country and fibre is rolling out even here. The carrier installing everything will have to open its infrastructure to competitors for them to use. The same applies to those competitors too. The result is that I can switch to whatever company I choose in line with offers.
The same applies to 4 and 5G and 5G will reach me quicker than 4G took to reach me.
The big question is about disposable income around Christmas and job insecurity in 2021. Two COVID related factors that will obviously impact Apple to a degree.
Competitors will be in the same situation but will have 5G options at far lower price points.
No one is expecting a low cost 5G variant from Apple so if they produce one it will be a big surprise.
Yeah - I think the real problem is the cellular and internet infrastructure as a whole in the U.S. is behind. The U.S. is very different from Europe, so it's hard to draw direct comparisons, though. PC Magazine did some tests recently and 5G speeds were about on par with 4G LTE speeds with the exception of the handful of Verizon mm wave spots, and the 5G latencies in the US were better than 4G but not great. In contrast, 4G speeds in Canada were over twice as fast as anything in the U.S. - either 4G or 5G.
He's speaking more from his own company's perspective than Apple's perspective.
For Apple, the release is massive because going through to the end of 2021 without 5G would have left the company embarrassed and killed sales in China.
They are already late to the party. Even with COVID it is estimated that 1 in 3 handset sales in China are already 5G and that number is increasing fast.
For iPhone users generally, it is also massive because this represents the first time 5G will be an option. Anyone who plans to keep their phone for three or more years should be thinking about 5G.
The dire situation in the US in terms of carrier infrastructure and the way the market is divided up make it an exception to some degree. Some people might be able to claim with relative certainty that 5G won't reach them within the lifespan of the phone.
I don't think the rest of the world will find itself in the same situation and many people will be making purchases with 5G in mind. Especially as 5G phones are now available in the lower cost bands. I'm confident that a sizeable chunk of iPhone users put off upgrading last year precisely because of 5G.
I live in a small town in the country and fibre is rolling out even here. The carrier installing everything will have to open its infrastructure to competitors for them to use. The same applies to those competitors too. The result is that I can switch to whatever company I choose in line with offers.
The same applies to 4 and 5G and 5G will reach me quicker than 4G took to reach me.
The big question is about disposable income around Christmas and job insecurity in 2021. Two COVID related factors that will obviously impact Apple to a degree.
Competitors will be in the same situation but will have 5G options at far lower price points.
No one is expecting a low cost 5G variant from Apple so if they produce one it will be a big surprise.
Yeah - I think the real problem is the cellular and internet infrastructure as a whole in the U.S. is behind. The U.S. is very different from Europe, so it's hard to draw direct comparisons, though. PC Magazine did some tests recently and 5G speeds were about on par with 4G LTE speeds with the exception of the handful of Verizon mm wave spots, and the 5G latencies in the US were better than 4G but not great. In contrast, 4G speeds in Canada were over twice as fast as anything in the U.S. - either 4G or 5G.
I think there's more to it than just speed. As has been pointed out, there's latency as well.
But, perhaps more important is coverage: There are vast swaths of the U.S. without coverage -- even near major cities. And, no carrier in their right mind will be rolling out new coverage using last year's technology.
In addition, the the AT&T guy says that cable will always outperform wireless and technically that is likely a true statement. But, the cable coming into my house is nearly 40 years old. All a Comcast competitor has to do to to replace it is put 5G transmitter on one of the three poles surrounding my house and I can pick it up with an antenna.
Those trying to hold onto the old technologies are increasingly sounding like those who defended horses 100 some years ago. Sure a horse can go places that a car can't. But....
He's speaking more from his own company's perspective than Apple's perspective.
For Apple, the release is massive because going through to the end of 2021 without 5G would have left the company embarrassed and killed sales in China.
They are already late to the party. Even with COVID it is estimated that 1 in 3 handset sales in China are already 5G and that number is increasing fast.
For iPhone users generally, it is also massive because this represents the first time 5G will be an option. Anyone who plans to keep their phone for three or more years should be thinking about 5G.
The dire situation in the US in terms of carrier infrastructure and the way the market is divided up make it an exception to some degree. Some people might be able to claim with relative certainty that 5G won't reach them within the lifespan of the phone.
I don't think the rest of the world will find itself in the same situation and many people will be making purchases with 5G in mind. Especially as 5G phones are now available in the lower cost bands. I'm confident that a sizeable chunk of iPhone users put off upgrading last year precisely because of 5G.
I live in a small town in the country and fibre is rolling out even here. The carrier installing everything will have to open its infrastructure to competitors for them to use. The same applies to those competitors too. The result is that I can switch to whatever company I choose in line with offers.
The same applies to 4 and 5G and 5G will reach me quicker than 4G took to reach me.
The big question is about disposable income around Christmas and job insecurity in 2021. Two COVID related factors that will obviously impact Apple to a degree.
Competitors will be in the same situation but will have 5G options at far lower price points.
No one is expecting a low cost 5G variant from Apple so if they produce one it will be a big surprise.
Yeah - I think the real problem is the cellular and internet infrastructure as a whole in the U.S. is behind. The U.S. is very different from Europe, so it's hard to draw direct comparisons, though. PC Magazine did some tests recently and 5G speeds were about on par with 4G LTE speeds with the exception of the handful of Verizon mm wave spots, and the 5G latencies in the US were better than 4G but not great. In contrast, 4G speeds in Canada were over twice as fast as anything in the U.S. - either 4G or 5G.
I think there's more to it than just speed. As has been pointed out, there's latency as well.
But, perhaps more important is coverage: There are vast swaths of the U.S. without coverage -- even near major cities. And, no carrier in their right mind will be rolling out new coverage using last year's technology.
In addition, the the AT&T guy says that cable will always outperform wireless and technically that is likely a true statement. But, the cable coming into my house is nearly 40 years old. All a Comcast competitor has to do to to replace it is put 5G transmitter on one of the three poles surrounding my house and I can pick it up with an antenna.
Those trying to hold onto the old technologies are increasingly sounding like those who defended horses 100 some years ago. Sure a horse can go places that a car can't. But....
You're assuming the carriers are going to magically put up 5G transmitters where they have no infrastructure at all while they have other existing towers still on 4G. probably not a safe assumption.
Ultimately speed will be limited by the backbone. If the backbone is bottlenecked, it makes no difference how fast the connection to the tower is. That cable may be 40 years old, but it is still capable of providing more bandwidth than the majority of people need and also more bandwidth than their wifi router can handle, so for most it simply doesn't matter. If Verizon or some other company goes and puts mm Wave 5G antennas up in a neighborhood they could start offering internet service to compete with the local cable provider, but people would have to have a clear line of sight, get an external antenna/modem and Verizon would have to offer the service at competitive prices. That assumes there are poles up - all of the neighborhoods around me have buried utilities so that's not even an option. I've seen no one suggest that 5G-based internet access will play a significant role any time in the near future.
You keep trying to use hyperbole and talking about 5G being the future jet plane and 4G being a horse and buggy, but it's more like 4G is a Toyota Camry and 5G is a Tesla. Sure the Tesla is the future and generally better but it has some limitations and currently doesn't do anything the Camry doesn't do. When it's time to trade in my Camry I'll get a Tesla, but so far no one has been able to give any reason to do so beyond "because it's the FUTURE!!!!"
He's speaking more from his own company's perspective than Apple's perspective.
For Apple, the release is massive because going through to the end of 2021 without 5G would have left the company embarrassed and killed sales in China.
They are already late to the party. Even with COVID it is estimated that 1 in 3 handset sales in China are already 5G and that number is increasing fast.
For iPhone users generally, it is also massive because this represents the first time 5G will be an option. Anyone who plans to keep their phone for three or more years should be thinking about 5G.
The dire situation in the US in terms of carrier infrastructure and the way the market is divided up make it an exception to some degree. Some people might be able to claim with relative certainty that 5G won't reach them within the lifespan of the phone.
I don't think the rest of the world will find itself in the same situation and many people will be making purchases with 5G in mind. Especially as 5G phones are now available in the lower cost bands. I'm confident that a sizeable chunk of iPhone users put off upgrading last year precisely because of 5G.
I live in a small town in the country and fibre is rolling out even here. The carrier installing everything will have to open its infrastructure to competitors for them to use. The same applies to those competitors too. The result is that I can switch to whatever company I choose in line with offers.
The same applies to 4 and 5G and 5G will reach me quicker than 4G took to reach me.
The big question is about disposable income around Christmas and job insecurity in 2021. Two COVID related factors that will obviously impact Apple to a degree.
Competitors will be in the same situation but will have 5G options at far lower price points.
No one is expecting a low cost 5G variant from Apple so if they produce one it will be a big surprise.
Yeah - I think the real problem is the cellular and internet infrastructure as a whole in the U.S. is behind. The U.S. is very different from Europe, so it's hard to draw direct comparisons, though. PC Magazine did some tests recently and 5G speeds were about on par with 4G LTE speeds with the exception of the handful of Verizon mm wave spots, and the 5G latencies in the US were better than 4G but not great. In contrast, 4G speeds in Canada were over twice as fast as anything in the U.S. - either 4G or 5G.
I think there's more to it than just speed. As has been pointed out, there's latency as well.
But, perhaps more important is coverage: There are vast swaths of the U.S. without coverage -- even near major cities. And, no carrier in their right mind will be rolling out new coverage using last year's technology.
In addition, the the AT&T guy says that cable will always outperform wireless and technically that is likely a true statement. But, the cable coming into my house is nearly 40 years old. All a Comcast competitor has to do to to replace it is put 5G transmitter on one of the three poles surrounding my house and I can pick it up with an antenna.
Those trying to hold onto the old technologies are increasingly sounding like those who defended horses 100 some years ago. Sure a horse can go places that a car can't. But....
You're assuming the carriers are going to magically put up 5G transmitters where they have no infrastructure at all while they have other existing towers still on 4G. probably not a safe assumption.
Ultimately speed will be limited by the backbone. If the backbone is bottlenecked, it makes no difference how fast the connection to the tower is. That cable may be 40 years old, but it is still capable of providing more bandwidth than the majority of people need and also more bandwidth than their wifi router can handle, so for most it simply doesn't matter. If Verizon or some other company goes and puts mm Wave 5G antennas up in a neighborhood they could start offering internet service to compete with the local cable provider, but people would have to have a clear line of sight, get an external antenna/modem and Verizon would have to offer the service at competitive prices. That assumes there are poles up - all of the neighborhoods around me have buried utilities so that's not even an option. I've seen no one suggest that 5G-based internet access will play a significant role any time in the near future.
You keep trying to use hyperbole and talking about 5G being the future jet plane and 4G being a horse and buggy, but it's more like 4G is a Toyota Camry and 5G is a Tesla. Sure the Tesla is the future and generally better but it has some limitations and currently doesn't do anything the Camry doesn't do. When it's time to trade in my Camry I'll get a Tesla, but so far no one has been able to give any reason to do so beyond "because it's the FUTURE!!!!"
So you suggest that we, and the carriers, should invest in horse & buggy technology?
"Always listen to the experts and cynics. They'll tell you exactly what can't be done and why. So, knowing the pitfalls to avoid, you can proceed full steam ahead."
He's speaking more from his own company's perspective than Apple's perspective.
For Apple, the release is massive because going through to the end of 2021 without 5G would have left the company embarrassed and killed sales in China.
They are already late to the party. Even with COVID it is estimated that 1 in 3 handset sales in China are already 5G and that number is increasing fast.
For iPhone users generally, it is also massive because this represents the first time 5G will be an option. Anyone who plans to keep their phone for three or more years should be thinking about 5G.
The dire situation in the US in terms of carrier infrastructure and the way the market is divided up make it an exception to some degree. Some people might be able to claim with relative certainty that 5G won't reach them within the lifespan of the phone.
I don't think the rest of the world will find itself in the same situation and many people will be making purchases with 5G in mind. Especially as 5G phones are now available in the lower cost bands. I'm confident that a sizeable chunk of iPhone users put off upgrading last year precisely because of 5G.
I live in a small town in the country and fibre is rolling out even here. The carrier installing everything will have to open its infrastructure to competitors for them to use. The same applies to those competitors too. The result is that I can switch to whatever company I choose in line with offers.
The same applies to 4 and 5G and 5G will reach me quicker than 4G took to reach me.
The big question is about disposable income around Christmas and job insecurity in 2021. Two COVID related factors that will obviously impact Apple to a degree.
Competitors will be in the same situation but will have 5G options at far lower price points.
No one is expecting a low cost 5G variant from Apple so if they produce one it will be a big surprise.
Yeah - I think the real problem is the cellular and internet infrastructure as a whole in the U.S. is behind. The U.S. is very different from Europe, so it's hard to draw direct comparisons, though. PC Magazine did some tests recently and 5G speeds were about on par with 4G LTE speeds with the exception of the handful of Verizon mm wave spots, and the 5G latencies in the US were better than 4G but not great. In contrast, 4G speeds in Canada were over twice as fast as anything in the U.S. - either 4G or 5G.
I think there's more to it than just speed. As has been pointed out, there's latency as well.
But, perhaps more important is coverage: There are vast swaths of the U.S. without coverage -- even near major cities. And, no carrier in their right mind will be rolling out new coverage using last year's technology.
In addition, the the AT&T guy says that cable will always outperform wireless and technically that is likely a true statement. But, the cable coming into my house is nearly 40 years old. All a Comcast competitor has to do to to replace it is put 5G transmitter on one of the three poles surrounding my house and I can pick it up with an antenna.
Those trying to hold onto the old technologies are increasingly sounding like those who defended horses 100 some years ago. Sure a horse can go places that a car can't. But....
You're assuming the carriers are going to magically put up 5G transmitters where they have no infrastructure at all while they have other existing towers still on 4G. probably not a safe assumption.
Ultimately speed will be limited by the backbone. If the backbone is bottlenecked, it makes no difference how fast the connection to the tower is. That cable may be 40 years old, but it is still capable of providing more bandwidth than the majority of people need and also more bandwidth than their wifi router can handle, so for most it simply doesn't matter. If Verizon or some other company goes and puts mm Wave 5G antennas up in a neighborhood they could start offering internet service to compete with the local cable provider, but people would have to have a clear line of sight, get an external antenna/modem and Verizon would have to offer the service at competitive prices. That assumes there are poles up - all of the neighborhoods around me have buried utilities so that's not even an option. I've seen no one suggest that 5G-based internet access will play a significant role any time in the near future.
You keep trying to use hyperbole and talking about 5G being the future jet plane and 4G being a horse and buggy, but it's more like 4G is a Toyota Camry and 5G is a Tesla. Sure the Tesla is the future and generally better but it has some limitations and currently doesn't do anything the Camry doesn't do. When it's time to trade in my Camry I'll get a Tesla, but so far no one has been able to give any reason to do so beyond "because it's the FUTURE!!!!"
So you suggest that we, and the carriers, should invest in horse & buggy technology?
"Always listen to the experts and cynics. They'll tell you exactly what can't be done and why. So, knowing the pitfalls to avoid, you can proceed full steam ahead."
Actually I’m suggesting that you learn to make a rational argument Based on facts. If the only way you can make your point is with histrionics and hyperbole you probably don’t have much of a point to make.
Well, since 5G has so far been pretty much a non-event, why should a 5G iPhone be any different?
5G coverage is fair at best, bordering on abysmal for Verizon, and the performance of the 5G networks is essentially on par with the 4G LTE ones. Why should we pay extra for any of it? If and when (emphasis on the ‘if’) the utopia of self driving cars that talk to each other actually comes to pass then maybe 5G will be useful. Right now it’s all hype.
As we both concluded on the same thread months ago, 5G's biggest growth isn't going to come from mobile users, so the carriers need to hype it as much as possible. And now this article shows that CEO McElfresh is "softening expectations." Don't get me wrong - 5G is impressive technology on the infrastructure side, but sadly those gains won't be fully realised by mobile users.
And mmWave will work best on physically large phones due to the multiple mmWave antennas (diversity) that must be crammed in to overcome the shadowing.
yup. It's impressive, just not for phones. Fortunately, the backend infrastructure will benefit everyone, no matter what technology they're using.
In the mountains of Colorado, where I live, there is very little ATT or T-Mobile. Only Verizon works with anything close to an acceptable signal and only along main roads. My home requires a Network Extender. Local phone stores will tell complaining visitors that they should change their settings to 3G while in the area. A friend in the "cellular game" says that 5G and higher may never roll out in rural areas because it will require 5 times the number of towers and would take years to build. He says that the future is Starlink.
T-Mobile says your friend is wrong. They are rolling it out now. Not the mm-wave your friend is talking about but 5G nevertheless.
We've been through this before. T-Mobile may say his friend is wrong, but T-Mobile's maps are also wrong, so his friend is probably right. The other catch with coverage - often times when I have 2 bars of T Mobile coverage I still struggle to load a simple web page, so even though I have 2 bars, they are pretty useless bars. They're not the only ones though. Verizon got censured by the better business bureau for misleading claims of coverage, too.
I'm trashing AT&T because, well, they are trash. One of America's top carriers, they first pulled a scam telling us they had 5G in wide distribution (it was 4G relabeled to 5G-E) and now telling us that, "Yeh, much of the rest of the world is moving to 5G, but you don't need it and should instead wait for their 6G (or will that be 6G-E?)"
If the U.S. is going to continue leading the world it has to lead -- not bullshit about it -- or try to maintain its leadership by suppressing those who are leading the way.
(And yes, I know you claim that T-Mobile's maps are complete lies because you once drove through a spot that didn't have T-Mobile coverage. Got it).
Didn't TMobile get fined for deceiving customers with false ringtones.
T-Mobile USA has agreed to pay a $40 million fine after admitting that
it failed to complete phone calls in rural areas and used "false ring
tones" that created the appearance that the calls were going through and
no one was picking up.
T-Mobile admitted to inserting fake ring tones into “hundreds of millions” of the doomed calls,
presumably to make the caller believe either that the phone was ringing
at the receiver’s residence or business (and, presumably, that no one
was picking up), or that the local terminating carrier was at fault,
according to the agency.
I'd rather have some faked 5G symbol and be able to complete calls then
this nonsense. I am currently a TMobile customer who was a long time
former AT&T customer btw.
I live in a spot where TMobile coverage is horrendous! I am almost within eyeshot of a tower and my coverage is terrible inside my home and the surrounding area. Which is completely opposite of my coverage with the same phone same address when I was AT&T. I get false rings with TMobile ( it appears to ring on my end but the caller has no record of a call from me, same thing happens with sms texts)
I also have friends who use TMobile for business and have the same problem.. calls never received. Email documents never go through etc.. ) slow slow data speeds and loading webpages. Building penetration is a joke also compared to AT&T atleast where I live and work.. I have used both services when I was working from the office and after switching to TMobile there were spots in my one floor building that I had barely a bar of signal or was unable to load a page or make a call.
I live in the Lehigh Valley in PA with a population of about 841K so I am not in the middle of nowhere. Tm maps may not be a lie but the coverage isn't as complete as the map makes it seem in experience over the last 3 years.
Just for reference I get a new iPhone every year and my current phone goes to my GF who has AT&T. I have actually popped her SIM out recently and put it in my 11 Pro Max with the same results..
He's speaking more from his own company's perspective than Apple's perspective.
For Apple, the release is massive because going through to the end of 2021 without 5G would have left the company embarrassed and killed sales in China.
They are already late to the party. Even with COVID it is estimated that 1 in 3 handset sales in China are already 5G and that number is increasing fast.
For iPhone users generally, it is also massive because this represents the first time 5G will be an option. Anyone who plans to keep their phone for three or more years should be thinking about 5G.
The dire situation in the US in terms of carrier infrastructure and the way the market is divided up make it an exception to some degree. Some people might be able to claim with relative certainty that 5G won't reach them within the lifespan of the phone.
I don't think the rest of the world will find itself in the same situation and many people will be making purchases with 5G in mind. Especially as 5G phones are now available in the lower cost bands. I'm confident that a sizeable chunk of iPhone users put off upgrading last year precisely because of 5G.
I live in a small town in the country and fibre is rolling out even here. The carrier installing everything will have to open its infrastructure to competitors for them to use. The same applies to those competitors too. The result is that I can switch to whatever company I choose in line with offers.
The same applies to 4 and 5G and 5G will reach me quicker than 4G took to reach me.
The big question is about disposable income around Christmas and job insecurity in 2021. Two COVID related factors that will obviously impact Apple to a degree.
Competitors will be in the same situation but will have 5G options at far lower price points.
No one is expecting a low cost 5G variant from Apple so if they produce one it will be a big surprise.
Yeah - I think the real problem is the cellular and internet infrastructure as a whole in the U.S. is behind. The U.S. is very different from Europe, so it's hard to draw direct comparisons, though. PC Magazine did some tests recently and 5G speeds were about on par with 4G LTE speeds with the exception of the handful of Verizon mm wave spots, and the 5G latencies in the US were better than 4G but not great. In contrast, 4G speeds in Canada were over twice as fast as anything in the U.S. - either 4G or 5G.
I think there's more to it than just speed. As has been pointed out, there's latency as well.
But, perhaps more important is coverage: There are vast swaths of the U.S. without coverage -- even near major cities. And, no carrier in their right mind will be rolling out new coverage using last year's technology.
In addition, the the AT&T guy says that cable will always outperform wireless and technically that is likely a true statement. But, the cable coming into my house is nearly 40 years old. All a Comcast competitor has to do to to replace it is put 5G transmitter on one of the three poles surrounding my house and I can pick it up with an antenna.
Those trying to hold onto the old technologies are increasingly sounding like those who defended horses 100 some years ago. Sure a horse can go places that a car can't. But....
You're assuming the carriers are going to magically put up 5G transmitters where they have no infrastructure at all while they have other existing towers still on 4G. probably not a safe assumption.
Ultimately speed will be limited by the backbone. If the backbone is bottlenecked, it makes no difference how fast the connection to the tower is. That cable may be 40 years old, but it is still capable of providing more bandwidth than the majority of people need and also more bandwidth than their wifi router can handle, so for most it simply doesn't matter. If Verizon or some other company goes and puts mm Wave 5G antennas up in a neighborhood they could start offering internet service to compete with the local cable provider, but people would have to have a clear line of sight, get an external antenna/modem and Verizon would have to offer the service at competitive prices. That assumes there are poles up - all of the neighborhoods around me have buried utilities so that's not even an option. I've seen no one suggest that 5G-based internet access will play a significant role any time in the near future.
You keep trying to use hyperbole and talking about 5G being the future jet plane and 4G being a horse and buggy, but it's more like 4G is a Toyota Camry and 5G is a Tesla. Sure the Tesla is the future and generally better but it has some limitations and currently doesn't do anything the Camry doesn't do. When it's time to trade in my Camry I'll get a Tesla, but so far no one has been able to give any reason to do so beyond "because it's the FUTURE!!!!"
So you suggest that we, and the carriers, should invest in horse & buggy technology?
"Always listen to the experts and cynics. They'll tell you exactly what can't be done and why. So, knowing the pitfalls to avoid, you can proceed full steam ahead."
Actually I’m suggesting that you learn to make a rational argument Based on facts. If the only way you can make your point is with histrionics and hyperbole you probably don’t have much of a point to make.
If you believe that reality is actually histrionics then, well, good luck with your horse and buggy.
Well, since 5G has so far been pretty much a non-event, why should a 5G iPhone be any different?
5G coverage is fair at best, bordering on abysmal for Verizon, and the performance of the 5G networks is essentially on par with the 4G LTE ones. Why should we pay extra for any of it? If and when (emphasis on the ‘if’) the utopia of self driving cars that talk to each other actually comes to pass then maybe 5G will be useful. Right now it’s all hype.
As we both concluded on the same thread months ago, 5G's biggest growth isn't going to come from mobile users, so the carriers need to hype it as much as possible. And now this article shows that CEO McElfresh is "softening expectations." Don't get me wrong - 5G is impressive technology on the infrastructure side, but sadly those gains won't be fully realised by mobile users.
And mmWave will work best on physically large phones due to the multiple mmWave antennas (diversity) that must be crammed in to overcome the shadowing.
yup. It's impressive, just not for phones. Fortunately, the backend infrastructure will benefit everyone, no matter what technology they're using.
In the mountains of Colorado, where I live, there is very little ATT or T-Mobile. Only Verizon works with anything close to an acceptable signal and only along main roads. My home requires a Network Extender. Local phone stores will tell complaining visitors that they should change their settings to 3G while in the area. A friend in the "cellular game" says that 5G and higher may never roll out in rural areas because it will require 5 times the number of towers and would take years to build. He says that the future is Starlink.
T-Mobile says your friend is wrong. They are rolling it out now. Not the mm-wave your friend is talking about but 5G nevertheless.
We've been through this before. T-Mobile may say his friend is wrong, but T-Mobile's maps are also wrong, so his friend is probably right. The other catch with coverage - often times when I have 2 bars of T Mobile coverage I still struggle to load a simple web page, so even though I have 2 bars, they are pretty useless bars. They're not the only ones though. Verizon got censured by the better business bureau for misleading claims of coverage, too.
I'm trashing AT&T because, well, they are trash. One of America's top carriers, they first pulled a scam telling us they had 5G in wide distribution (it was 4G relabeled to 5G-E) and now telling us that, "Yeh, much of the rest of the world is moving to 5G, but you don't need it and should instead wait for their 6G (or will that be 6G-E?)"
If the U.S. is going to continue leading the world it has to lead -- not bullshit about it -- or try to maintain its leadership by suppressing those who are leading the way.
(And yes, I know you claim that T-Mobile's maps are complete lies because you once drove through a spot that didn't have T-Mobile coverage. Got it).
Didn't TMobile get fined for deceiving customers with false ringtones.
T-Mobile USA has agreed to pay a $40 million fine after admitting that
it failed to complete phone calls in rural areas and used "false ring
tones" that created the appearance that the calls were going through and
no one was picking up.
T-Mobile admitted to inserting fake ring tones into “hundreds of millions” of the doomed calls,
presumably to make the caller believe either that the phone was ringing
at the receiver’s residence or business (and, presumably, that no one
was picking up), or that the local terminating carrier was at fault,
according to the agency.
I'd rather have some faked 5G symbol and be able to complete calls then
this nonsense. I am currently a TMobile customer who was a long time
former AT&T customer btw.
I live in a spot where TMobile coverage is horrendous! I am almost within eyeshot of a tower and my coverage is terrible inside my home and the surrounding area. Which is completely opposite of my coverage with the same phone same address when I was AT&T. I get false rings with TMobile ( it appears to ring on my end but the caller has no record of a call from me, same thing happens with sms texts)
I also have friends who use TMobile for business and have the same problem.. calls never received. Email documents never go through etc.. ) slow slow data speeds and loading webpages. Building penetration is a joke also compared to AT&T atleast where I live and work.. I have used both services when I was working from the office and after switching to TMobile there were spots in my one floor building that I had barely a bar of signal or was unable to load a page or make a call.
I live in the Lehigh Valley in PA with a population of about 841K so I am not in the middle of nowhere. Tm maps may not be a lie but the coverage isn't as complete as the map makes it seem in experience over the last 3 years.
Just for reference I get a new iPhone every year and my current phone goes to my GF who has AT&T. I have actually popped her SIM out recently and put it in my 11 Pro Max with the same results..
So, T-Mobile got a wrist slap? Ok....
For me, T-Mobile works great - I have had only great service from them! Plus, I'm saving a bundle over what AT&T would try to rip me off for. But, even if they charged the same as T-Mobile I wouldn't sign with those crooks: Previously, after I replaced my paid off phone with one I had purchased in full from Apple, they STILL INSISTED ON CHARGING ME FOR A PHONE I HAD PURCHASED!
And now they're making excuses because they never invested in modern technology and want us to keep using their out of date garbage -- at exorbitant prices.
He's speaking more from his own company's perspective than Apple's perspective.
For Apple, the release is massive because going through to the end of 2021 without 5G would have left the company embarrassed and killed sales in China.
They are already late to the party. Even with COVID it is estimated that 1 in 3 handset sales in China are already 5G and that number is increasing fast.
For iPhone users generally, it is also massive because this represents the first time 5G will be an option. Anyone who plans to keep their phone for three or more years should be thinking about 5G.
The dire situation in the US in terms of carrier infrastructure and the way the market is divided up make it an exception to some degree. Some people might be able to claim with relative certainty that 5G won't reach them within the lifespan of the phone.
I don't think the rest of the world will find itself in the same situation and many people will be making purchases with 5G in mind. Especially as 5G phones are now available in the lower cost bands. I'm confident that a sizeable chunk of iPhone users put off upgrading last year precisely because of 5G.
I live in a small town in the country and fibre is rolling out even here. The carrier installing everything will have to open its infrastructure to competitors for them to use. The same applies to those competitors too. The result is that I can switch to whatever company I choose in line with offers.
The same applies to 4 and 5G and 5G will reach me quicker than 4G took to reach me.
The big question is about disposable income around Christmas and job insecurity in 2021. Two COVID related factors that will obviously impact Apple to a degree.
Competitors will be in the same situation but will have 5G options at far lower price points.
No one is expecting a low cost 5G variant from Apple so if they produce one it will be a big surprise.
Yeah - I think the real problem is the cellular and internet infrastructure as a whole in the U.S. is behind. The U.S. is very different from Europe, so it's hard to draw direct comparisons, though. PC Magazine did some tests recently and 5G speeds were about on par with 4G LTE speeds with the exception of the handful of Verizon mm wave spots, and the 5G latencies in the US were better than 4G but not great. In contrast, 4G speeds in Canada were over twice as fast as anything in the U.S. - either 4G or 5G.
I think there's more to it than just speed. As has been pointed out, there's latency as well.
But, perhaps more important is coverage: There are vast swaths of the U.S. without coverage -- even near major cities. And, no carrier in their right mind will be rolling out new coverage using last year's technology.
In addition, the the AT&T guy says that cable will always outperform wireless and technically that is likely a true statement. But, the cable coming into my house is nearly 40 years old. All a Comcast competitor has to do to to replace it is put 5G transmitter on one of the three poles surrounding my house and I can pick it up with an antenna.
Those trying to hold onto the old technologies are increasingly sounding like those who defended horses 100 some years ago. Sure a horse can go places that a car can't. But....
You're assuming the carriers are going to magically put up 5G transmitters where they have no infrastructure at all while they have other existing towers still on 4G. probably not a safe assumption.
Ultimately speed will be limited by the backbone. If the backbone is bottlenecked, it makes no difference how fast the connection to the tower is. That cable may be 40 years old, but it is still capable of providing more bandwidth than the majority of people need and also more bandwidth than their wifi router can handle, so for most it simply doesn't matter. If Verizon or some other company goes and puts mm Wave 5G antennas up in a neighborhood they could start offering internet service to compete with the local cable provider, but people would have to have a clear line of sight, get an external antenna/modem and Verizon would have to offer the service at competitive prices. That assumes there are poles up - all of the neighborhoods around me have buried utilities so that's not even an option. I've seen no one suggest that 5G-based internet access will play a significant role any time in the near future.
You keep trying to use hyperbole and talking about 5G being the future jet plane and 4G being a horse and buggy, but it's more like 4G is a Toyota Camry and 5G is a Tesla. Sure the Tesla is the future and generally better but it has some limitations and currently doesn't do anything the Camry doesn't do. When it's time to trade in my Camry I'll get a Tesla, but so far no one has been able to give any reason to do so beyond "because it's the FUTURE!!!!"
So you suggest that we, and the carriers, should invest in horse & buggy technology?
"Always listen to the experts and cynics. They'll tell you exactly what can't be done and why. So, knowing the pitfalls to avoid, you can proceed full steam ahead."
Low band = broad coverage at 4G speeds, 5G about 20% improvement over 4G
Midband = half the coverage of 4G at speeds around 200Mbps T-Mobile has midband because Sprint owned the bulk of 2.5 Ghz spectrum, but most of that bandwidth is still at 4G technology
High band = the speeds and latency of mmwave that have been overhyped to sell users on 5G, very little buildout, or utility at this time, for the bulk of users.
" As T-Mobile CTO Neville Ray wrote mmWave 5G "will never materially scale beyond small pockets of 5G hotspots in dense urban environments." He has an axe to grind, but he's not wrong about that. Even with beamforming directing the signal right to your device, for practical purposes mmWave will only work in cities. On the road, in the suburbs, and the country, we'll never see mmWave."
Let's say, though, that you've got a 5G phone and you're sure you can get 5G service – what kind of performance can you really expect? According to Washington Post tech columnist Geoffrey A. Fowler, you can expect to see a "diddly squat" 5G performance. That sounds about right.
And, technically speaking what are diddly squat speeds? Try "AT&T with 32Mbps with the 5G phone and 34Mbps on the 4G one. On T-Mobile, I got 15Mbps on the 5G phone and 13Mbps on the 4G one." He wasn't able to check Verizon. That's not a typo, by the way. His 4G phone was faster than his 5G phone.
It wasn't just him, since he lives in that technology backwater known as the San Francisco bay area. He checked with several national firms tracking 5G performance. They found that all three major US telecom networks' 5G isn't that much faster than 4G."
He's speaking more from his own company's perspective than Apple's perspective.
For Apple, the release is massive because going through to the end of 2021 without 5G would have left the company embarrassed and killed sales in China.
They are already late to the party. Even with COVID it is estimated that 1 in 3 handset sales in China are already 5G and that number is increasing fast.
For iPhone users generally, it is also massive because this represents the first time 5G will be an option. Anyone who plans to keep their phone for three or more years should be thinking about 5G.
The dire situation in the US in terms of carrier infrastructure and the way the market is divided up make it an exception to some degree. Some people might be able to claim with relative certainty that 5G won't reach them within the lifespan of the phone.
I don't think the rest of the world will find itself in the same situation and many people will be making purchases with 5G in mind. Especially as 5G phones are now available in the lower cost bands. I'm confident that a sizeable chunk of iPhone users put off upgrading last year precisely because of 5G.
I live in a small town in the country and fibre is rolling out even here. The carrier installing everything will have to open its infrastructure to competitors for them to use. The same applies to those competitors too. The result is that I can switch to whatever company I choose in line with offers.
The same applies to 4 and 5G and 5G will reach me quicker than 4G took to reach me.
The big question is about disposable income around Christmas and job insecurity in 2021. Two COVID related factors that will obviously impact Apple to a degree.
Competitors will be in the same situation but will have 5G options at far lower price points.
No one is expecting a low cost 5G variant from Apple so if they produce one it will be a big surprise.
Yeah - I think the real problem is the cellular and internet infrastructure as a whole in the U.S. is behind. The U.S. is very different from Europe, so it's hard to draw direct comparisons, though. PC Magazine did some tests recently and 5G speeds were about on par with 4G LTE speeds with the exception of the handful of Verizon mm wave spots, and the 5G latencies in the US were better than 4G but not great. In contrast, 4G speeds in Canada were over twice as fast as anything in the U.S. - either 4G or 5G.
I think there's more to it than just speed. As has been pointed out, there's latency as well.
But, perhaps more important is coverage: There are vast swaths of the U.S. without coverage -- even near major cities. And, no carrier in their right mind will be rolling out new coverage using last year's technology.
In addition, the the AT&T guy says that cable will always outperform wireless and technically that is likely a true statement. But, the cable coming into my house is nearly 40 years old. All a Comcast competitor has to do to to replace it is put 5G transmitter on one of the three poles surrounding my house and I can pick it up with an antenna.
Those trying to hold onto the old technologies are increasingly sounding like those who defended horses 100 some years ago. Sure a horse can go places that a car can't. But....
You're assuming the carriers are going to magically put up 5G transmitters where they have no infrastructure at all while they have other existing towers still on 4G. probably not a safe assumption.
Ultimately speed will be limited by the backbone. If the backbone is bottlenecked, it makes no difference how fast the connection to the tower is. That cable may be 40 years old, but it is still capable of providing more bandwidth than the majority of people need and also more bandwidth than their wifi router can handle, so for most it simply doesn't matter. If Verizon or some other company goes and puts mm Wave 5G antennas up in a neighborhood they could start offering internet service to compete with the local cable provider, but people would have to have a clear line of sight, get an external antenna/modem and Verizon would have to offer the service at competitive prices. That assumes there are poles up - all of the neighborhoods around me have buried utilities so that's not even an option. I've seen no one suggest that 5G-based internet access will play a significant role any time in the near future.
You keep trying to use hyperbole and talking about 5G being the future jet plane and 4G being a horse and buggy, but it's more like 4G is a Toyota Camry and 5G is a Tesla. Sure the Tesla is the future and generally better but it has some limitations and currently doesn't do anything the Camry doesn't do. When it's time to trade in my Camry I'll get a Tesla, but so far no one has been able to give any reason to do so beyond "because it's the FUTURE!!!!"
So you suggest that we, and the carriers, should invest in horse & buggy technology?
"Always listen to the experts and cynics. They'll tell you exactly what can't be done and why. So, knowing the pitfalls to avoid, you can proceed full steam ahead."
Low band = broad coverage at 4G speeds, 5G about 20% improvement over 4G
Midband = half the coverage of 4G at speeds around 200Mbps T-Mobile has midband because Sprint owned the bulk of 2.5 Ghz spectrum, but most of that bandwidth is still at 4G technology
High band = the speeds and latency of mmwave that have been overhyped to sell users on 5G, very little buildout, or utility at this time, for the bulk of users.
" As T-Mobile CTO Neville Ray wrote mmWave 5G "will never materially scale beyond small pockets of 5G hotspots in dense urban environments." He has an axe to grind, but he's not wrong about that. Even with beamforming directing the signal right to your device, for practical purposes mmWave will only work in cities. On the road, in the suburbs, and the country, we'll never see mmWave."
Let's say, though, that you've got a 5G phone and you're sure you can get 5G service – what kind of performance can you really expect? According to Washington Post tech columnist Geoffrey A. Fowler, you can expect to see a "diddly squat" 5G performance. That sounds about right.
And, technically speaking what are diddly squat speeds? Try "AT&T with 32Mbps with the 5G phone and 34Mbps on the 4G one. On T-Mobile, I got 15Mbps on the 5G phone and 13Mbps on the 4G one." He wasn't able to check Verizon. That's not a typo, by the way. His 4G phone was faster than his 5G phone.
It wasn't just him, since he lives in that technology backwater known as the San Francisco bay area. He checked with several national firms tracking 5G performance. They found that all three major US telecom networks' 5G isn't that much faster than 4G."
He's speaking more from his own company's perspective than Apple's perspective.
For Apple, the release is massive because going through to the end of 2021 without 5G would have left the company embarrassed and killed sales in China.
They are already late to the party. Even with COVID it is estimated that 1 in 3 handset sales in China are already 5G and that number is increasing fast.
For iPhone users generally, it is also massive because this represents the first time 5G will be an option. Anyone who plans to keep their phone for three or more years should be thinking about 5G.
The dire situation in the US in terms of carrier infrastructure and the way the market is divided up make it an exception to some degree. Some people might be able to claim with relative certainty that 5G won't reach them within the lifespan of the phone.
I don't think the rest of the world will find itself in the same situation and many people will be making purchases with 5G in mind. Especially as 5G phones are now available in the lower cost bands. I'm confident that a sizeable chunk of iPhone users put off upgrading last year precisely because of 5G.
I live in a small town in the country and fibre is rolling out even here. The carrier installing everything will have to open its infrastructure to competitors for them to use. The same applies to those competitors too. The result is that I can switch to whatever company I choose in line with offers.
The same applies to 4 and 5G and 5G will reach me quicker than 4G took to reach me.
The big question is about disposable income around Christmas and job insecurity in 2021. Two COVID related factors that will obviously impact Apple to a degree.
Competitors will be in the same situation but will have 5G options at far lower price points.
No one is expecting a low cost 5G variant from Apple so if they produce one it will be a big surprise.
Yeah - I think the real problem is the cellular and internet infrastructure as a whole in the U.S. is behind. The U.S. is very different from Europe, so it's hard to draw direct comparisons, though. PC Magazine did some tests recently and 5G speeds were about on par with 4G LTE speeds with the exception of the handful of Verizon mm wave spots, and the 5G latencies in the US were better than 4G but not great. In contrast, 4G speeds in Canada were over twice as fast as anything in the U.S. - either 4G or 5G.
I think there's more to it than just speed. As has been pointed out, there's latency as well.
But, perhaps more important is coverage: There are vast swaths of the U.S. without coverage -- even near major cities. And, no carrier in their right mind will be rolling out new coverage using last year's technology.
In addition, the the AT&T guy says that cable will always outperform wireless and technically that is likely a true statement. But, the cable coming into my house is nearly 40 years old. All a Comcast competitor has to do to to replace it is put 5G transmitter on one of the three poles surrounding my house and I can pick it up with an antenna.
Those trying to hold onto the old technologies are increasingly sounding like those who defended horses 100 some years ago. Sure a horse can go places that a car can't. But....
You're assuming the carriers are going to magically put up 5G transmitters where they have no infrastructure at all while they have other existing towers still on 4G. probably not a safe assumption.
Ultimately speed will be limited by the backbone. If the backbone is bottlenecked, it makes no difference how fast the connection to the tower is. That cable may be 40 years old, but it is still capable of providing more bandwidth than the majority of people need and also more bandwidth than their wifi router can handle, so for most it simply doesn't matter. If Verizon or some other company goes and puts mm Wave 5G antennas up in a neighborhood they could start offering internet service to compete with the local cable provider, but people would have to have a clear line of sight, get an external antenna/modem and Verizon would have to offer the service at competitive prices. That assumes there are poles up - all of the neighborhoods around me have buried utilities so that's not even an option. I've seen no one suggest that 5G-based internet access will play a significant role any time in the near future.
You keep trying to use hyperbole and talking about 5G being the future jet plane and 4G being a horse and buggy, but it's more like 4G is a Toyota Camry and 5G is a Tesla. Sure the Tesla is the future and generally better but it has some limitations and currently doesn't do anything the Camry doesn't do. When it's time to trade in my Camry I'll get a Tesla, but so far no one has been able to give any reason to do so beyond "because it's the FUTURE!!!!"
So you suggest that we, and the carriers, should invest in horse & buggy technology?
"Always listen to the experts and cynics. They'll tell you exactly what can't be done and why. So, knowing the pitfalls to avoid, you can proceed full steam ahead."
Low band = broad coverage at 4G speeds, 5G about 20% improvement over 4G
Midband = half the coverage of 4G at speeds around 200Mbps T-Mobile has midband because Sprint owned the bulk of 2.5 Ghz spectrum, but most of that bandwidth is still at 4G technology
High band = the speeds and latency of mmwave that have been overhyped to sell users on 5G, very little buildout, or utility at this time, for the bulk of users.
" As T-Mobile CTO Neville Ray wrote mmWave 5G "will never materially scale beyond small pockets of 5G hotspots in dense urban environments." He has an axe to grind, but he's not wrong about that. Even with beamforming directing the signal right to your device, for practical purposes mmWave will only work in cities. On the road, in the suburbs, and the country, we'll never see mmWave."
Let's say, though, that you've got a 5G phone and you're sure you can get 5G service – what kind of performance can you really expect? According to Washington Post tech columnist Geoffrey A. Fowler, you can expect to see a "diddly squat" 5G performance. That sounds about right.
And, technically speaking what are diddly squat speeds? Try "AT&T with 32Mbps with the 5G phone and 34Mbps on the 4G one. On T-Mobile, I got 15Mbps on the 5G phone and 13Mbps on the 4G one." He wasn't able to check Verizon. That's not a typo, by the way. His 4G phone was faster than his 5G phone.
It wasn't just him, since he lives in that technology backwater known as the San Francisco bay area. He checked with several national firms tracking 5G performance. They found that all three major US telecom networks' 5G isn't that much faster than 4G."
He's speaking more from his own company's perspective than Apple's perspective.
For Apple, the release is massive because going through to the end of 2021 without 5G would have left the company embarrassed and killed sales in China.
They are already late to the party. Even with COVID it is estimated that 1 in 3 handset sales in China are already 5G and that number is increasing fast.
For iPhone users generally, it is also massive because this represents the first time 5G will be an option. Anyone who plans to keep their phone for three or more years should be thinking about 5G.
The dire situation in the US in terms of carrier infrastructure and the way the market is divided up make it an exception to some degree. Some people might be able to claim with relative certainty that 5G won't reach them within the lifespan of the phone.
I don't think the rest of the world will find itself in the same situation and many people will be making purchases with 5G in mind. Especially as 5G phones are now available in the lower cost bands. I'm confident that a sizeable chunk of iPhone users put off upgrading last year precisely because of 5G.
I live in a small town in the country and fibre is rolling out even here. The carrier installing everything will have to open its infrastructure to competitors for them to use. The same applies to those competitors too. The result is that I can switch to whatever company I choose in line with offers.
The same applies to 4 and 5G and 5G will reach me quicker than 4G took to reach me.
The big question is about disposable income around Christmas and job insecurity in 2021. Two COVID related factors that will obviously impact Apple to a degree.
Competitors will be in the same situation but will have 5G options at far lower price points.
No one is expecting a low cost 5G variant from Apple so if they produce one it will be a big surprise.
Yeah - I think the real problem is the cellular and internet infrastructure as a whole in the U.S. is behind. The U.S. is very different from Europe, so it's hard to draw direct comparisons, though. PC Magazine did some tests recently and 5G speeds were about on par with 4G LTE speeds with the exception of the handful of Verizon mm wave spots, and the 5G latencies in the US were better than 4G but not great. In contrast, 4G speeds in Canada were over twice as fast as anything in the U.S. - either 4G or 5G.
I think there's more to it than just speed. As has been pointed out, there's latency as well.
But, perhaps more important is coverage: There are vast swaths of the U.S. without coverage -- even near major cities. And, no carrier in their right mind will be rolling out new coverage using last year's technology.
In addition, the the AT&T guy says that cable will always outperform wireless and technically that is likely a true statement. But, the cable coming into my house is nearly 40 years old. All a Comcast competitor has to do to to replace it is put 5G transmitter on one of the three poles surrounding my house and I can pick it up with an antenna.
Those trying to hold onto the old technologies are increasingly sounding like those who defended horses 100 some years ago. Sure a horse can go places that a car can't. But....
You're assuming the carriers are going to magically put up 5G transmitters where they have no infrastructure at all while they have other existing towers still on 4G. probably not a safe assumption.
Ultimately speed will be limited by the backbone. If the backbone is bottlenecked, it makes no difference how fast the connection to the tower is. That cable may be 40 years old, but it is still capable of providing more bandwidth than the majority of people need and also more bandwidth than their wifi router can handle, so for most it simply doesn't matter. If Verizon or some other company goes and puts mm Wave 5G antennas up in a neighborhood they could start offering internet service to compete with the local cable provider, but people would have to have a clear line of sight, get an external antenna/modem and Verizon would have to offer the service at competitive prices. That assumes there are poles up - all of the neighborhoods around me have buried utilities so that's not even an option. I've seen no one suggest that 5G-based internet access will play a significant role any time in the near future.
You keep trying to use hyperbole and talking about 5G being the future jet plane and 4G being a horse and buggy, but it's more like 4G is a Toyota Camry and 5G is a Tesla. Sure the Tesla is the future and generally better but it has some limitations and currently doesn't do anything the Camry doesn't do. When it's time to trade in my Camry I'll get a Tesla, but so far no one has been able to give any reason to do so beyond "because it's the FUTURE!!!!"
So you suggest that we, and the carriers, should invest in horse & buggy technology?
"Always listen to the experts and cynics. They'll tell you exactly what can't be done and why. So, knowing the pitfalls to avoid, you can proceed full steam ahead."
Low band = broad coverage at 4G speeds, 5G about 20% improvement over 4G
Midband = half the coverage of 4G at speeds around 200Mbps T-Mobile has midband because Sprint owned the bulk of 2.5 Ghz spectrum, but most of that bandwidth is still at 4G technology
High band = the speeds and latency of mmwave that have been overhyped to sell users on 5G, very little buildout, or utility at this time, for the bulk of users.
" As T-Mobile CTO Neville Ray wrote mmWave 5G "will never materially scale beyond small pockets of 5G hotspots in dense urban environments." He has an axe to grind, but he's not wrong about that. Even with beamforming directing the signal right to your device, for practical purposes mmWave will only work in cities. On the road, in the suburbs, and the country, we'll never see mmWave."
Let's say, though, that you've got a 5G phone and you're sure you can get 5G service – what kind of performance can you really expect? According to Washington Post tech columnist Geoffrey A. Fowler, you can expect to see a "diddly squat" 5G performance. That sounds about right.
And, technically speaking what are diddly squat speeds? Try "AT&T with 32Mbps with the 5G phone and 34Mbps on the 4G one. On T-Mobile, I got 15Mbps on the 5G phone and 13Mbps on the 4G one." He wasn't able to check Verizon. That's not a typo, by the way. His 4G phone was faster than his 5G phone.
It wasn't just him, since he lives in that technology backwater known as the San Francisco bay area. He checked with several national firms tracking 5G performance. They found that all three major US telecom networks' 5G isn't that much faster than 4G."
Keep flogging that horse....
Keep spewing misinformation...
That's what Georgie does best. He can't make an actual argument so he has to be content with straw man arguments, hyperbole and misinformation. It's not really worth confronting him with facts.
He's speaking more from his own company's perspective than Apple's perspective.
For Apple, the release is massive because going through to the end of 2021 without 5G would have left the company embarrassed and killed sales in China.
They are already late to the party. Even with COVID it is estimated that 1 in 3 handset sales in China are already 5G and that number is increasing fast.
For iPhone users generally, it is also massive because this represents the first time 5G will be an option. Anyone who plans to keep their phone for three or more years should be thinking about 5G.
The dire situation in the US in terms of carrier infrastructure and the way the market is divided up make it an exception to some degree. Some people might be able to claim with relative certainty that 5G won't reach them within the lifespan of the phone.
I don't think the rest of the world will find itself in the same situation and many people will be making purchases with 5G in mind. Especially as 5G phones are now available in the lower cost bands. I'm confident that a sizeable chunk of iPhone users put off upgrading last year precisely because of 5G.
I live in a small town in the country and fibre is rolling out even here. The carrier installing everything will have to open its infrastructure to competitors for them to use. The same applies to those competitors too. The result is that I can switch to whatever company I choose in line with offers.
The same applies to 4 and 5G and 5G will reach me quicker than 4G took to reach me.
The big question is about disposable income around Christmas and job insecurity in 2021. Two COVID related factors that will obviously impact Apple to a degree.
Competitors will be in the same situation but will have 5G options at far lower price points.
No one is expecting a low cost 5G variant from Apple so if they produce one it will be a big surprise.
Yeah - I think the real problem is the cellular and internet infrastructure as a whole in the U.S. is behind. The U.S. is very different from Europe, so it's hard to draw direct comparisons, though. PC Magazine did some tests recently and 5G speeds were about on par with 4G LTE speeds with the exception of the handful of Verizon mm wave spots, and the 5G latencies in the US were better than 4G but not great. In contrast, 4G speeds in Canada were over twice as fast as anything in the U.S. - either 4G or 5G.
I think there's more to it than just speed. As has been pointed out, there's latency as well.
But, perhaps more important is coverage: There are vast swaths of the U.S. without coverage -- even near major cities. And, no carrier in their right mind will be rolling out new coverage using last year's technology.
In addition, the the AT&T guy says that cable will always outperform wireless and technically that is likely a true statement. But, the cable coming into my house is nearly 40 years old. All a Comcast competitor has to do to to replace it is put 5G transmitter on one of the three poles surrounding my house and I can pick it up with an antenna.
Those trying to hold onto the old technologies are increasingly sounding like those who defended horses 100 some years ago. Sure a horse can go places that a car can't. But....
You're assuming the carriers are going to magically put up 5G transmitters where they have no infrastructure at all while they have other existing towers still on 4G. probably not a safe assumption.
Ultimately speed will be limited by the backbone. If the backbone is bottlenecked, it makes no difference how fast the connection to the tower is. That cable may be 40 years old, but it is still capable of providing more bandwidth than the majority of people need and also more bandwidth than their wifi router can handle, so for most it simply doesn't matter. If Verizon or some other company goes and puts mm Wave 5G antennas up in a neighborhood they could start offering internet service to compete with the local cable provider, but people would have to have a clear line of sight, get an external antenna/modem and Verizon would have to offer the service at competitive prices. That assumes there are poles up - all of the neighborhoods around me have buried utilities so that's not even an option. I've seen no one suggest that 5G-based internet access will play a significant role any time in the near future.
You keep trying to use hyperbole and talking about 5G being the future jet plane and 4G being a horse and buggy, but it's more like 4G is a Toyota Camry and 5G is a Tesla. Sure the Tesla is the future and generally better but it has some limitations and currently doesn't do anything the Camry doesn't do. When it's time to trade in my Camry I'll get a Tesla, but so far no one has been able to give any reason to do so beyond "because it's the FUTURE!!!!"
So you suggest that we, and the carriers, should invest in horse & buggy technology?
"Always listen to the experts and cynics. They'll tell you exactly what can't be done and why. So, knowing the pitfalls to avoid, you can proceed full steam ahead."
Low band = broad coverage at 4G speeds, 5G about 20% improvement over 4G
Midband = half the coverage of 4G at speeds around 200Mbps T-Mobile has midband because Sprint owned the bulk of 2.5 Ghz spectrum, but most of that bandwidth is still at 4G technology
High band = the speeds and latency of mmwave that have been overhyped to sell users on 5G, very little buildout, or utility at this time, for the bulk of users.
" As T-Mobile CTO Neville Ray wrote mmWave 5G "will never materially scale beyond small pockets of 5G hotspots in dense urban environments." He has an axe to grind, but he's not wrong about that. Even with beamforming directing the signal right to your device, for practical purposes mmWave will only work in cities. On the road, in the suburbs, and the country, we'll never see mmWave."
Let's say, though, that you've got a 5G phone and you're sure you can get 5G service – what kind of performance can you really expect? According to Washington Post tech columnist Geoffrey A. Fowler, you can expect to see a "diddly squat" 5G performance. That sounds about right.
And, technically speaking what are diddly squat speeds? Try "AT&T with 32Mbps with the 5G phone and 34Mbps on the 4G one. On T-Mobile, I got 15Mbps on the 5G phone and 13Mbps on the 4G one." He wasn't able to check Verizon. That's not a typo, by the way. His 4G phone was faster than his 5G phone.
It wasn't just him, since he lives in that technology backwater known as the San Francisco bay area. He checked with several national firms tracking 5G performance. They found that all three major US telecom networks' 5G isn't that much faster than 4G."
He's speaking more from his own company's perspective than Apple's perspective.
For Apple, the release is massive because going through to the end of 2021 without 5G would have left the company embarrassed and killed sales in China.
They are already late to the party. Even with COVID it is estimated that 1 in 3 handset sales in China are already 5G and that number is increasing fast.
For iPhone users generally, it is also massive because this represents the first time 5G will be an option. Anyone who plans to keep their phone for three or more years should be thinking about 5G.
The dire situation in the US in terms of carrier infrastructure and the way the market is divided up make it an exception to some degree. Some people might be able to claim with relative certainty that 5G won't reach them within the lifespan of the phone.
I don't think the rest of the world will find itself in the same situation and many people will be making purchases with 5G in mind. Especially as 5G phones are now available in the lower cost bands. I'm confident that a sizeable chunk of iPhone users put off upgrading last year precisely because of 5G.
I live in a small town in the country and fibre is rolling out even here. The carrier installing everything will have to open its infrastructure to competitors for them to use. The same applies to those competitors too. The result is that I can switch to whatever company I choose in line with offers.
The same applies to 4 and 5G and 5G will reach me quicker than 4G took to reach me.
The big question is about disposable income around Christmas and job insecurity in 2021. Two COVID related factors that will obviously impact Apple to a degree.
Competitors will be in the same situation but will have 5G options at far lower price points.
No one is expecting a low cost 5G variant from Apple so if they produce one it will be a big surprise.
Yeah - I think the real problem is the cellular and internet infrastructure as a whole in the U.S. is behind. The U.S. is very different from Europe, so it's hard to draw direct comparisons, though. PC Magazine did some tests recently and 5G speeds were about on par with 4G LTE speeds with the exception of the handful of Verizon mm wave spots, and the 5G latencies in the US were better than 4G but not great. In contrast, 4G speeds in Canada were over twice as fast as anything in the U.S. - either 4G or 5G.
I think there's more to it than just speed. As has been pointed out, there's latency as well.
But, perhaps more important is coverage: There are vast swaths of the U.S. without coverage -- even near major cities. And, no carrier in their right mind will be rolling out new coverage using last year's technology.
In addition, the the AT&T guy says that cable will always outperform wireless and technically that is likely a true statement. But, the cable coming into my house is nearly 40 years old. All a Comcast competitor has to do to to replace it is put 5G transmitter on one of the three poles surrounding my house and I can pick it up with an antenna.
Those trying to hold onto the old technologies are increasingly sounding like those who defended horses 100 some years ago. Sure a horse can go places that a car can't. But....
You're assuming the carriers are going to magically put up 5G transmitters where they have no infrastructure at all while they have other existing towers still on 4G. probably not a safe assumption.
Ultimately speed will be limited by the backbone. If the backbone is bottlenecked, it makes no difference how fast the connection to the tower is. That cable may be 40 years old, but it is still capable of providing more bandwidth than the majority of people need and also more bandwidth than their wifi router can handle, so for most it simply doesn't matter. If Verizon or some other company goes and puts mm Wave 5G antennas up in a neighborhood they could start offering internet service to compete with the local cable provider, but people would have to have a clear line of sight, get an external antenna/modem and Verizon would have to offer the service at competitive prices. That assumes there are poles up - all of the neighborhoods around me have buried utilities so that's not even an option. I've seen no one suggest that 5G-based internet access will play a significant role any time in the near future.
You keep trying to use hyperbole and talking about 5G being the future jet plane and 4G being a horse and buggy, but it's more like 4G is a Toyota Camry and 5G is a Tesla. Sure the Tesla is the future and generally better but it has some limitations and currently doesn't do anything the Camry doesn't do. When it's time to trade in my Camry I'll get a Tesla, but so far no one has been able to give any reason to do so beyond "because it's the FUTURE!!!!"
So you suggest that we, and the carriers, should invest in horse & buggy technology?
"Always listen to the experts and cynics. They'll tell you exactly what can't be done and why. So, knowing the pitfalls to avoid, you can proceed full steam ahead."
Low band = broad coverage at 4G speeds, 5G about 20% improvement over 4G
Midband = half the coverage of 4G at speeds around 200Mbps T-Mobile has midband because Sprint owned the bulk of 2.5 Ghz spectrum, but most of that bandwidth is still at 4G technology
High band = the speeds and latency of mmwave that have been overhyped to sell users on 5G, very little buildout, or utility at this time, for the bulk of users.
" As T-Mobile CTO Neville Ray wrote mmWave 5G "will never materially scale beyond small pockets of 5G hotspots in dense urban environments." He has an axe to grind, but he's not wrong about that. Even with beamforming directing the signal right to your device, for practical purposes mmWave will only work in cities. On the road, in the suburbs, and the country, we'll never see mmWave."
Let's say, though, that you've got a 5G phone and you're sure you can get 5G service – what kind of performance can you really expect? According to Washington Post tech columnist Geoffrey A. Fowler, you can expect to see a "diddly squat" 5G performance. That sounds about right.
And, technically speaking what are diddly squat speeds? Try "AT&T with 32Mbps with the 5G phone and 34Mbps on the 4G one. On T-Mobile, I got 15Mbps on the 5G phone and 13Mbps on the 4G one." He wasn't able to check Verizon. That's not a typo, by the way. His 4G phone was faster than his 5G phone.
It wasn't just him, since he lives in that technology backwater known as the San Francisco bay area. He checked with several national firms tracking 5G performance. They found that all three major US telecom networks' 5G isn't that much faster than 4G."
Keep flogging that horse....
Keep spewing misinformation...
That's what Georgie does best. He can't make an actual argument so he has to be content with straw man arguments, hyperbole and misinformation. It's not really worth confronting him with facts.
I understand, to one so deeply steeped in propaganda and misinformation, reality has to sound very strange.
He's speaking more from his own company's perspective than Apple's perspective.
For Apple, the release is massive because going through to the end of 2021 without 5G would have left the company embarrassed and killed sales in China.
They are already late to the party. Even with COVID it is estimated that 1 in 3 handset sales in China are already 5G and that number is increasing fast.
For iPhone users generally, it is also massive because this represents the first time 5G will be an option. Anyone who plans to keep their phone for three or more years should be thinking about 5G.
The dire situation in the US in terms of carrier infrastructure and the way the market is divided up make it an exception to some degree. Some people might be able to claim with relative certainty that 5G won't reach them within the lifespan of the phone.
I don't think the rest of the world will find itself in the same situation and many people will be making purchases with 5G in mind. Especially as 5G phones are now available in the lower cost bands. I'm confident that a sizeable chunk of iPhone users put off upgrading last year precisely because of 5G.
I live in a small town in the country and fibre is rolling out even here. The carrier installing everything will have to open its infrastructure to competitors for them to use. The same applies to those competitors too. The result is that I can switch to whatever company I choose in line with offers.
The same applies to 4 and 5G and 5G will reach me quicker than 4G took to reach me.
The big question is about disposable income around Christmas and job insecurity in 2021. Two COVID related factors that will obviously impact Apple to a degree.
Competitors will be in the same situation but will have 5G options at far lower price points.
No one is expecting a low cost 5G variant from Apple so if they produce one it will be a big surprise.
Yeah - I think the real problem is the cellular and internet infrastructure as a whole in the U.S. is behind. The U.S. is very different from Europe, so it's hard to draw direct comparisons, though. PC Magazine did some tests recently and 5G speeds were about on par with 4G LTE speeds with the exception of the handful of Verizon mm wave spots, and the 5G latencies in the US were better than 4G but not great. In contrast, 4G speeds in Canada were over twice as fast as anything in the U.S. - either 4G or 5G.
I think there's more to it than just speed. As has been pointed out, there's latency as well.
But, perhaps more important is coverage: There are vast swaths of the U.S. without coverage -- even near major cities. And, no carrier in their right mind will be rolling out new coverage using last year's technology.
In addition, the the AT&T guy says that cable will always outperform wireless and technically that is likely a true statement. But, the cable coming into my house is nearly 40 years old. All a Comcast competitor has to do to to replace it is put 5G transmitter on one of the three poles surrounding my house and I can pick it up with an antenna.
Those trying to hold onto the old technologies are increasingly sounding like those who defended horses 100 some years ago. Sure a horse can go places that a car can't. But....
You're assuming the carriers are going to magically put up 5G transmitters where they have no infrastructure at all while they have other existing towers still on 4G. probably not a safe assumption.
Ultimately speed will be limited by the backbone. If the backbone is bottlenecked, it makes no difference how fast the connection to the tower is. That cable may be 40 years old, but it is still capable of providing more bandwidth than the majority of people need and also more bandwidth than their wifi router can handle, so for most it simply doesn't matter. If Verizon or some other company goes and puts mm Wave 5G antennas up in a neighborhood they could start offering internet service to compete with the local cable provider, but people would have to have a clear line of sight, get an external antenna/modem and Verizon would have to offer the service at competitive prices. That assumes there are poles up - all of the neighborhoods around me have buried utilities so that's not even an option. I've seen no one suggest that 5G-based internet access will play a significant role any time in the near future.
You keep trying to use hyperbole and talking about 5G being the future jet plane and 4G being a horse and buggy, but it's more like 4G is a Toyota Camry and 5G is a Tesla. Sure the Tesla is the future and generally better but it has some limitations and currently doesn't do anything the Camry doesn't do. When it's time to trade in my Camry I'll get a Tesla, but so far no one has been able to give any reason to do so beyond "because it's the FUTURE!!!!"
So you suggest that we, and the carriers, should invest in horse & buggy technology?
"Always listen to the experts and cynics. They'll tell you exactly what can't be done and why. So, knowing the pitfalls to avoid, you can proceed full steam ahead."
Low band = broad coverage at 4G speeds, 5G about 20% improvement over 4G
Midband = half the coverage of 4G at speeds around 200Mbps T-Mobile has midband because Sprint owned the bulk of 2.5 Ghz spectrum, but most of that bandwidth is still at 4G technology
High band = the speeds and latency of mmwave that have been overhyped to sell users on 5G, very little buildout, or utility at this time, for the bulk of users.
" As T-Mobile CTO Neville Ray wrote mmWave 5G "will never materially scale beyond small pockets of 5G hotspots in dense urban environments." He has an axe to grind, but he's not wrong about that. Even with beamforming directing the signal right to your device, for practical purposes mmWave will only work in cities. On the road, in the suburbs, and the country, we'll never see mmWave."
Let's say, though, that you've got a 5G phone and you're sure you can get 5G service – what kind of performance can you really expect? According to Washington Post tech columnist Geoffrey A. Fowler, you can expect to see a "diddly squat" 5G performance. That sounds about right.
And, technically speaking what are diddly squat speeds? Try "AT&T with 32Mbps with the 5G phone and 34Mbps on the 4G one. On T-Mobile, I got 15Mbps on the 5G phone and 13Mbps on the 4G one." He wasn't able to check Verizon. That's not a typo, by the way. His 4G phone was faster than his 5G phone.
It wasn't just him, since he lives in that technology backwater known as the San Francisco bay area. He checked with several national firms tracking 5G performance. They found that all three major US telecom networks' 5G isn't that much faster than 4G."
Keep flogging that horse....
Keep spewing misinformation...
LOL.... So 5G is a hoax too?
I use the word "hype" for good reason wrt 5G marketing,
You use "hoax" as a response because you don't actually have the understanding of what 5G is to actually make an intelligent argument.
Funny, you are exactly like your nemesis Donald Trump in that regard.
He's speaking more from his own company's perspective than Apple's perspective.
For Apple, the release is massive because going through to the end of 2021 without 5G would have left the company embarrassed and killed sales in China.
They are already late to the party. Even with COVID it is estimated that 1 in 3 handset sales in China are already 5G and that number is increasing fast.
For iPhone users generally, it is also massive because this represents the first time 5G will be an option. Anyone who plans to keep their phone for three or more years should be thinking about 5G.
The dire situation in the US in terms of carrier infrastructure and the way the market is divided up make it an exception to some degree. Some people might be able to claim with relative certainty that 5G won't reach them within the lifespan of the phone.
I don't think the rest of the world will find itself in the same situation and many people will be making purchases with 5G in mind. Especially as 5G phones are now available in the lower cost bands. I'm confident that a sizeable chunk of iPhone users put off upgrading last year precisely because of 5G.
I live in a small town in the country and fibre is rolling out even here. The carrier installing everything will have to open its infrastructure to competitors for them to use. The same applies to those competitors too. The result is that I can switch to whatever company I choose in line with offers.
The same applies to 4 and 5G and 5G will reach me quicker than 4G took to reach me.
The big question is about disposable income around Christmas and job insecurity in 2021. Two COVID related factors that will obviously impact Apple to a degree.
Competitors will be in the same situation but will have 5G options at far lower price points.
No one is expecting a low cost 5G variant from Apple so if they produce one it will be a big surprise.
Yeah - I think the real problem is the cellular and internet infrastructure as a whole in the U.S. is behind. The U.S. is very different from Europe, so it's hard to draw direct comparisons, though. PC Magazine did some tests recently and 5G speeds were about on par with 4G LTE speeds with the exception of the handful of Verizon mm wave spots, and the 5G latencies in the US were better than 4G but not great. In contrast, 4G speeds in Canada were over twice as fast as anything in the U.S. - either 4G or 5G.
I think there's more to it than just speed. As has been pointed out, there's latency as well.
But, perhaps more important is coverage: There are vast swaths of the U.S. without coverage -- even near major cities. And, no carrier in their right mind will be rolling out new coverage using last year's technology.
In addition, the the AT&T guy says that cable will always outperform wireless and technically that is likely a true statement. But, the cable coming into my house is nearly 40 years old. All a Comcast competitor has to do to to replace it is put 5G transmitter on one of the three poles surrounding my house and I can pick it up with an antenna.
Those trying to hold onto the old technologies are increasingly sounding like those who defended horses 100 some years ago. Sure a horse can go places that a car can't. But....
You're assuming the carriers are going to magically put up 5G transmitters where they have no infrastructure at all while they have other existing towers still on 4G. probably not a safe assumption.
Ultimately speed will be limited by the backbone. If the backbone is bottlenecked, it makes no difference how fast the connection to the tower is. That cable may be 40 years old, but it is still capable of providing more bandwidth than the majority of people need and also more bandwidth than their wifi router can handle, so for most it simply doesn't matter. If Verizon or some other company goes and puts mm Wave 5G antennas up in a neighborhood they could start offering internet service to compete with the local cable provider, but people would have to have a clear line of sight, get an external antenna/modem and Verizon would have to offer the service at competitive prices. That assumes there are poles up - all of the neighborhoods around me have buried utilities so that's not even an option. I've seen no one suggest that 5G-based internet access will play a significant role any time in the near future.
You keep trying to use hyperbole and talking about 5G being the future jet plane and 4G being a horse and buggy, but it's more like 4G is a Toyota Camry and 5G is a Tesla. Sure the Tesla is the future and generally better but it has some limitations and currently doesn't do anything the Camry doesn't do. When it's time to trade in my Camry I'll get a Tesla, but so far no one has been able to give any reason to do so beyond "because it's the FUTURE!!!!"
So you suggest that we, and the carriers, should invest in horse & buggy technology?
"Always listen to the experts and cynics. They'll tell you exactly what can't be done and why. So, knowing the pitfalls to avoid, you can proceed full steam ahead."
Low band = broad coverage at 4G speeds, 5G about 20% improvement over 4G
Midband = half the coverage of 4G at speeds around 200Mbps T-Mobile has midband because Sprint owned the bulk of 2.5 Ghz spectrum, but most of that bandwidth is still at 4G technology
High band = the speeds and latency of mmwave that have been overhyped to sell users on 5G, very little buildout, or utility at this time, for the bulk of users.
" As T-Mobile CTO Neville Ray wrote mmWave 5G "will never materially scale beyond small pockets of 5G hotspots in dense urban environments." He has an axe to grind, but he's not wrong about that. Even with beamforming directing the signal right to your device, for practical purposes mmWave will only work in cities. On the road, in the suburbs, and the country, we'll never see mmWave."
Let's say, though, that you've got a 5G phone and you're sure you can get 5G service – what kind of performance can you really expect? According to Washington Post tech columnist Geoffrey A. Fowler, you can expect to see a "diddly squat" 5G performance. That sounds about right.
And, technically speaking what are diddly squat speeds? Try "AT&T with 32Mbps with the 5G phone and 34Mbps on the 4G one. On T-Mobile, I got 15Mbps on the 5G phone and 13Mbps on the 4G one." He wasn't able to check Verizon. That's not a typo, by the way. His 4G phone was faster than his 5G phone.
It wasn't just him, since he lives in that technology backwater known as the San Francisco bay area. He checked with several national firms tracking 5G performance. They found that all three major US telecom networks' 5G isn't that much faster than 4G."
Keep flogging that horse....
Keep spewing misinformation...
LOL.... So 5G is a hoax too?
I use the word "hype" for good reason wrt 5G marketing,
You use "hoax" as a response because you don't actually have the understanding of what 5G is to actually make an intelligent argument.
Funny, you are exactly like your nemesis Donald Trump in that regard.
LOL.... So 5G is a hoax too? You should really tell all those carriers and countries investing billions and billions into it. Oh! and don't forget to email Tim and tell him there's no need to add 5G into the iPhone 12 -- it's all hoax.
Comments
LOL... So you're saying that T-Mobile's 5G is simply another version of AT&T's 5G-E? Is that like another of your China conspiracy theories?
I’m also on a XS Max. I can’t imagine the 12 offering any substantial performance over it. An upgraded camera would be nice, but speed? Still feels pretty peppy to me.
Yep, that’s my plan. I’m still using my AW3 as well and completely happy with it.
Ultimately speed will be limited by the backbone. If the backbone is bottlenecked, it makes no difference how fast the connection to the tower is. That cable may be 40 years old, but it is still capable of providing more bandwidth than the majority of people need and also more bandwidth than their wifi router can handle, so for most it simply doesn't matter. If Verizon or some other company goes and puts mm Wave 5G antennas up in a neighborhood they could start offering internet service to compete with the local cable provider, but people would have to have a clear line of sight, get an external antenna/modem and Verizon would have to offer the service at competitive prices. That assumes there are poles up - all of the neighborhoods around me have buried utilities so that's not even an option. I've seen no one suggest that 5G-based internet access will play a significant role any time in the near future.
You keep trying to use hyperbole and talking about 5G being the future jet plane and 4G being a horse and buggy, but it's more like 4G is a Toyota Camry and 5G is a Tesla. Sure the Tesla is the future and generally better but it has some limitations and currently doesn't do anything the Camry doesn't do. When it's time to trade in my Camry I'll get a Tesla, but so far no one has been able to give any reason to do so beyond "because it's the FUTURE!!!!"
T-Mobile admitted to inserting fake ring tones into “hundreds of millions” of the doomed calls, presumably to make the caller believe either that the phone was ringing at the receiver’s residence or business (and, presumably, that no one was picking up), or that the local terminating carrier was at fault, according to the agency.
If you believe that reality is actually histrionics then, well, good luck with your horse and buggy.
https://www.computerworld.com/article/3575510/at-this-point-5g-is-a-bad-joke.html
I believe this guy over you.
Low band = broad coverage at 4G speeds, 5G about 20% improvement over 4G
Midband = half the coverage of 4G at speeds around 200Mbps T-Mobile has midband because Sprint owned the bulk of 2.5 Ghz spectrum, but most of that bandwidth is still at 4G technology
High band = the speeds and latency of mmwave that have been overhyped to sell users on 5G, very little buildout, or utility at this time, for the bulk of users.
" As T-Mobile CTO Neville Ray wrote mmWave 5G "will never materially scale beyond small pockets of 5G hotspots in dense urban environments." He has an axe to grind, but he's not wrong about that. Even with beamforming directing the signal right to your device, for practical purposes mmWave will only work in cities. On the road, in the suburbs, and the country, we'll never see mmWave."
Let's say, though, that you've got a 5G phone and you're sure you can get 5G service – what kind of performance can you really expect? According to Washington Post tech columnist Geoffrey A. Fowler, you can expect to see a "diddly squat" 5G performance. That sounds about right.
And, technically speaking what are diddly squat speeds? Try "AT&T with 32Mbps with the 5G phone and 34Mbps on the 4G one. On T-Mobile, I got 15Mbps on the 5G phone and 13Mbps on the 4G one." He wasn't able to check Verizon. That's not a typo, by the way. His 4G phone was faster than his 5G phone.
It wasn't just him, since he lives in that technology backwater known as the San Francisco bay area. He checked with several national firms tracking 5G performance. They found that all three major US telecom networks' 5G isn't that much faster than 4G."
Keep flogging that horse....
LOL.... So 5G is a hoax too?
I understand, to one so deeply steeped in propaganda and misinformation, reality has to sound very strange.
You use "hoax" as a response because you don't actually have the understanding of what 5G is to actually make an intelligent argument.
Funny, you are exactly like your nemesis Donald Trump in that regard.
LOL.... So 5G is a hoax too? You should really tell all those carriers and countries investing billions and billions into it. Oh! and don't forget to email Tim and tell him there's no need to add 5G into the iPhone 12 -- it's all hoax.