
Choosing the Wrong Lane in the Race to 5G - Osiris30
https://www.wired.com/story/choosing-the-wrong-lane-in-the-race-to-5g/
======
learc83
High band internet just isn't very practical as a replacement for wired
internet in most of the country, but everyone wants ignore our broadband
infrastructure issues because 5g will save us.

~~~
rocqua
Using smaller cells is great for servicing more people on the same frequency.
When signals don't go as far, you have fewer other people to contend with for
space to send. In the real high-density places, this makes a lot of sense. If
you can stick with bigger cells, that is obviously cheaper.

~~~
learc83
In the majority of the country that isn't high density, high band doesn't make
sense and point of the article is that there isn't enough mid band frequencies
being auctioned off.

------
youeseh
Did anyone else think there was a race?

How about just 4G? Can we get consistent nationwide 4G? I'd be pretty happy
with that.

~~~
krn
In my tiny EU country, 4G already covers 99% of the population and unlimited
data plans for homes are available from 19 EUR / month. Yet, nobody is talking
about 5G or the urgent need for it.

~~~
rubber_duck
> In my tiny EU country, 4G already covers 99% of the population and unlimited
> data plans for homes are available from 19 EUR / month.

Mine as well - in peak hours you're lucky to get close to 1MB/s in two bigger
cities I've lived in. Also latency spikes even when the bandwidth is OK. Don't
know how much 5G will help with all of this but 4G is not a good option as a
primary internet connection if you work online and any upgrades would be very
welcome.

~~~
sho
That sounds like the backhaul is congested, which 5G won't do anything about
at all. The good news is, it's likely much easier to upgrade the backhaul than
it is to change up all the radio hardware - it's simply a decision your mobile
provider/ISP has taken to _not_ do it.

------
jorblumesea
The military owns that part of the wireless spectrum. The DoD did a study
which said the military should cede control of it for that reason. This is one
of the main reasons the US hasn't adopted 5G in the “sub-6” space (3 and 4 GHz
bands primarily).

The strategic problem is that the US will be fundamentally different from the
rest of the world, basically ceding 5G ownership to China. No one will want to
go along with our broken 5g spectrum adoption and the US will find it hard to
get cheap components. Along with a host of other issues like national
security, integration with other nations etc.

[https://media.defense.gov/2019/Apr/04/2002109654/-1/-1/0/DIB...](https://media.defense.gov/2019/Apr/04/2002109654/-1/-1/0/DIB_5G_STUDY_04.04.19.PDF)

One thing this opinion article got wrong is the US govt is trying to make more
spectrum available via a plan called 5G FAST. So it's not like the problem is
being entirely ignored. There are plans to open up huge blocks of the spectrum
to companies.

[https://www.fcc.gov/5G](https://www.fcc.gov/5G)

It is likely that the future of 5G in the US is a mix of spectrum, some
providing the ultra fast connections for urban areas and mid range spectrum
for more spread out areas. But it's looking like we will surely lose the race
to become a leader in that space.

------
djhaskin987
> The United States, however, has made zero mid-band spectrum available at
> auction for the 5G economy.

This is simply not true. Being an employee of Dish at the time, I happen to
know that Dish spent over a billion dollars buying spectrum in the 600 Mhz
(low-mid) range in 2018 and they were told they must monetize the spectrum by
2020 if they wish to keep it. Dish has a strong hold on rural America and is
definitely keeping them in mind when it comes to 5G.

------
Havoc
>They are also not penetrating walls or windows, making indoor coverage
difficult.

Not even windows? That's just straight up bizarre. I foresee a frustrating
future of a billion small blind spots ahead for our American friends. Sorry
guys.

Fast internet is cool. Fast patchy internet is not.

~~~
tjoff
Modern windows can greatly interfere with wireless signals. I believe many
make use of a very small (barely noticeable) metal mesh which can break havoc
with wireless signals.

Manufacturers are likely aware of the issue and test for it but still, I get
better wifi through the wall to my house rather than through a large window
with line of sight to the accesspoint.

~~~
Arbalest
Curious about the mesh, what purpose does it achieve? Strength, insulation,
shatter resistance, shatter size control? Are there any documented examples of
the technology that I could read about?

~~~
tjoff
All info I've read has been in swedish and don't remember where. But unless my
memory fails me the purpose is heat insolation.

A quick google suggested that it can also used for fire safety, to increase
strength and resist large temperature differences. But that's not the type of
mesh I'm thinking of (it seemed those meshes were quite noticeable).

------
craftinator
I'm actually quite happy with 4G. I can't watch 4k streaming videos on my
phone... Which I don't want to do anyways. I don't think we actually need
another iteration.

------
canada_dry
Going with millimeter wavelength in cell signals could result in some
interesting ancillary uses. Reminded me of this:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQm_7aPjBUM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQm_7aPjBUM)

~~~
7952
It would be great for deploying thousands of cheap surveillance devices. A
camera on every street lamp?

------
1kGarand
This article is strange enough that I suspect astroturfing.

The reason 5G is being deployed in 24GHz is because we don’t have wide enough
blocks elsewhere. The 800MHz and 1.9 GHz spectrums have existing services
cellular services, and putting 5G there would have to block off spectrum that
would otherwise be used by older technologies. This would increase congestion
for existing users while very few people would be on 5G.

Unlike other countries, US govt does not force phase out of services—we still
have 2G service in many parts of the rural us, and cell companies aren’t going
to upgrade them voluntarily.

Eventually most of the handsets would be compatible with 5G, then 800MHz-2GHz
bands will be converted over to 5G. This happened with LTE and 3G before that.

Maybe this article is being pushed by telcos, who wants the current TV
frequency reallocated to them. Of course the broadcasters want to hang on to
those to provide 4K TV over the air service.

~~~
tomohawk
According to this:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2G](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2G)

2G is already decommissioned for AT&T, and Verizon is this year. Next year is
T-Mobile.

My experience is that 2G is nowhere to be found anywhere, and 3G also seems to
be being phased out. Places I would get 3G signals last year are now all 4G.

~~~
OkGoDoIt
I still occasionally get 2G signal. Mostly EDGE when I am in suburban GA, and
occasionally GPRS. I’m on T-Mobile.

It would be awesome if I instead got 3G or 4G signal, but I’m worried if 2G is
shut off I’ll be left with no signal at all.

~~~
solarkraft
I strongly suspect that they won't let new coverage holes happen. They already
have the stations anyway.

------
MegaButts
There is no 'G' after the 5 in the title (I only clicked the link because I
had no idea what the title meant).

~~~
Scoundreller
It’s basically a joke in Canada: our providers charge so much per gb that
nobody compares or complains about speeds.

So much wasted capacity...

~~~
woah
I’m guessing that people in the city are effectively subsidizing access for
Canada’s many far flung remote areas. Unless the carriers offer separate plans
that only work in the city, this is what’s going on.

