That’s like arguing that improvements in mobile CPUs don’t matter because if you continuously pegged your CPU, you’d quickly run out of battery. Most consumer usage is bursty. In the era of single web pages that take up 5-10MB, going from 30 Mbps to 300 Mbps offers a marked improvement in user experience.
> In the era of single web pages that take up 5-10MB, going from 30 Mbps to 300 Mbps offers a marked improvement in user experience.
I know the consumer can't change that. But the one at fault here is the bloated 10MB web app. It is incredibly wasteful to build an entirely new network infrastucture + new chips in order to let web devs include useless 2MB javascript frameworks.
The size of websites is based on the speed of the average users internet. If we were still on 3G no website would bundle 10MB of js. As soon as the average user gets 300Mbps mobile internet half of the internet will bundle 50MB of JS and another 50MB of wasm to power 400 tracking scrips that can use the new cpu power on phones.
Also, the the overall available bandwidth of the system is one of the key factors behind the data cap, so we can expect the cap to increase in general when 5G rolls out. That means this line of"current data cap makes 5G useless" thinking is short-sighted.
So you think wireless companies will spend billions of dollars upgrading their infrastructure to 5G only to later increase your monthly caps so that you will be able to pay less monthly? Keep dreaming. The reality is that they will use 5G to increase your monthly payments somehow.
I didn't say anything about paying less or wireless companies not wanting to recoup their cost. So you're not refuting anything I said.
But now that you brought up the topic of price, the most likely scenario is that we'll end up paying about the same with more bandwidth / less latency, and we'll collectively use more bandwidth wirelessly. That's how 2G->3G->4G all worked out, and that's how it worked out for broadband home internet as well (DSL to Cable to Fiber or others). The cost has remained largely similar. You seem to think the price has somehow always gone up after each generation. The data doesn't support that view:
Of course at each generational switch, there might be slight premium for the new one temporarily, especially during the early phase of the rollout (what else is new?) but in the end they all came down, as the majority of the infrastructure switches over. Contrary to what you seem to think, companies can't charge arbitrary price - the demand drops if you increase the price too much, and the existing infrastructure (of potentially other companies) put a ceiling on how much you can charge even with the new infrastructure. Sure, while the new infrastructure provides better functionality, they will be able to charge more compared to the existing. That will determine how fast the companies can rollout the new infrastructure, not the other way around like you imply.
> increase your monthly caps so that you will be able to pay less monthly
You're not going to pay less monthly because you're going to want to stay on the higher caps when the experience is better. YouTube will no longer be capped to 480p so you will use more video streaming bandwidth, etc.
The wireless companies are also looking to eat the wireline companies' lunch. They want you to cancel Comcast for 5G. For that they'll have to have higher caps.
For that, they'll have to get rid of caps. At least for me; I dont have one. And none of this "first 25gb is fast" nonsense. Wifi is where I dont have to worry about how much data I use, so I can download my 30gb vm image. By doing so, I only have to buy a gig of data a month and only use 200mb of that. 5g has the capability to handle it, or if it doesn't, maybe it's not the future after all. At least not for home internet.
For power users like us it will never be a replacement. But I know plenty of people who already use 4G as their home internet. The complain about congestion during the evening and hitting their cap at the end of the month, and some switch to fiber. Going from a 30 GB to a 300 GB cap, they would be serves perfectly.
Single-threaded download still stinks. Maybe the new HTTP stuff will make it better, maybe not. Google drive is one of the few sites that maxes out a fast internet connection single-threaded; until others adopt those tweaks, why bother? I believe they have a better TCP control algorithm plus some other stuff?
