Verizon Testing Super Fast 5G Service With Customers in 11 Cities

Zarathustra[H]

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
37,358
Fortune is reporting today that Verizon plans to test 5G service with customers in 11 cities around the U.S. This is pretty cool, you might say, but why do we really need it? Carriers don't even seem to be making the most out of the speeds current 4G LTE technologies promise. Isn't 5G just a faster, lower latency next generation mobile network step?

The answer to that is both yes, and no. A story we covered last week linked to a presentation by Nokia President and CEO Rajeev Suri on the importance of 5G for the future of mobile technologies, and why the greater bandwidth and latency will change the possibilities of what we can accomplish with mobile networks. If you are a skeptic like me, watching the video below may go a long way to explaining the "why" of 5G.

Personally I am still more comfortable with the old philosophy, of making wired whatever can be made wired, and only using wireless technologies for temporary applications that absolutely need to be mobile, but at least now I understand what the hubbub is about.

Working with partners Samsung and Ericsson, Verizon said on Wednesday it will offer the free trials to selected customers in Ann Arbor, Atlanta, Bernardsville, N.J., Brockton, Mass., Dallas, Denver, Houston, Miami, Sacramento, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. in the first half of the year. Verizon has built out several hundred cell sites with 5G transmitters capable of reaching several thousand customer homes and businesses.
 
Would be excited about this if any mobile games took advantage of the processing power of the pretty powerful mini-computer in my pocket, much less what increased bandwidth would enable, instead of being micro-transaction laden garbage. It will take you 13 years to build these troops unless you pay us $100...which the guy down the street instead paid $1,000 for and immediately wiped them out! Yay! :punch:
 
Yes, yes yes! Wait. No unlimited or the Unlimited* plan? No thanks. If they are upgrading and making things faster, etc., but not accounting for people using more data, then I'm out. I love fast network speeds, but putting a cap on usage blows.

I'd rather go 4G with unlimited data, no throttling, etc., for a low cost. Get that, and you have my axe.
 
Well for a lot of the non cable carriers, their goal is to eliminate fiber and direct lines to the home and go all wireless.

Well, pretty much ATT and Verizon.
 
Balkroth said:
Well for a lot of the non cable carriers, their goal is to eliminate fiber and direct lines to the home and go all wireless.

Well, pretty much ATT and Verizon.
Click to expand...


I would hate that. I do not trust wireless tech. Maybe for something silly like a phone when I'm out and about, but not for something I rely on likely home network.

Wired or bust!
 
To be honest you're probably going to get faster speeds in the coming short future than over wired lines, and they're not going to do it over as wide of networks, but further than what they do over small cell style things.
 
Balkroth said:
To be honest you're probably going to get faster speeds in the coming short future than over wired lines, and they're not going to do it over as wide of networks, but further than what they do over small cell style things.
Click to expand...
That's how Google wants to handle access points.
 
That's gonna be lower than an ap event think of a medium cell that can handle 800-1k users over a 1km range

-Edit I guess it's still an AP.
 
Balkroth said:
To be honest you're probably going to get faster speeds in the coming short future than over wired lines, and they're not going to do it over as wide of networks, but further than what they do over small cell style things.
Click to expand...


That's awful. Sure, eventually wireless will catch up with current broadband speeds and surpass them if that's what the ISP's focus on, but I am more concerned with reliability and security. I don't trust wireless in the slightest.
 
There are two things I find myself non inclined to get excited about this.

1) Data caps remain pathetic and expensive. Doesn't matter how fast it is if it costs $10-$15/gig.

2) The Wireless home, first LMAO, second I don't give a shit if they can give me 10GBe in my home if the latency is higher than 30ms. I have yet to ever see a single implementation of wireless tech that had below a 100ms Ping. My response to that is simply "Get Fucked".

They are in the process of running Fiber down my street right now. My incentive to move anywhere has dropped to nearly Zero.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
2) The Wireless home, first LMAO, second I don't give a shit if they can give me 10GBe in my home if the latency is higher than 30ms. I have yet to ever see a single implementation of wireless tech that had below a 100ms Ping. My response to that is simply "Get Fucked".
Click to expand...

You should watch the embedded video. There is an entire segment in it about how 5G reduces latency down to single digits, and how this is needed for many future realtime applications.
 
Balkroth said:
That's gonna be lower than an ap event think of a medium cell that can handle 800-1k users over a 1km range

-Edit I guess it's still an AP.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how google plans to solve the AP issues. Just that their new direction over installing fiber.
 
Seriously who cares about super speed. Customers rather have decent speed with no expensive data caps ffs. I don't give a fuck if I can download at 10GB on my phone when I got to pay $10+ a GB or pay insanely amount for the so called "Unlimited" data plans.
 
Balkroth said:
Well for a lot of the non cable carriers, their goal is to eliminate fiber and direct lines to the home and go all wireless.

Well, pretty much ATT and Verizon.
Click to expand...

"Wireless' isn't anything I'd want to have to depend on for my internet at home. Even if they solved many of the problems with delivering reliable wireless access... it's AT&T and Verizon, so after you burn through the data cap in 24 hours, you are on the hook for a boatload of cash.

I have time warner and its reasonably prices, zero caps, and I might have 1 outage a year. I of course have wireless .ac throughout the house, but it never gets used because I can feel the difference while browsing/watching movies/gaming. Spent a weekend running gigabit ethernet in the house, and it was so worth it.

The only things that actually use wireless anything in my house are my phone and my tablet.

I despise both AT&T and Verizon... because they will never come close to offering 100% unlimited, uncapped, rock solid connections. i pay $50/month and get a 120Mbit pipe to do whatever I want with, no questions asked, no gimmicks, no plans, no rates, no caps. Even if they do offer something comparable, it's only temporary. (look at the flip-flopping they've been doing with the "unlimited" plan. To this day neither of them actually know what the basic definition of that term means.
 
The whole point of 5G is that it has so much more bandwith that data caps are not required to limit consumption. ISP:s know well the limitations of 4G - if a few hundred people download stuff constantly at a link point the system pretty much goes to its knees.

Fortunately I live in a country with a low population density and I have gone fully wireless. I have two LTE-advanced routers plugged to a load balancer and they serve all my familys connection needs.

5G will reduce ping times considerably which is one of the weak points in 4G gaming.
 
Balkroth said:
their goal is to eliminate fiber and direct lines to the home and go all wireless.
Click to expand...
What people don't realise is that 5G *requires* more fibre. Without it, 5G can't exist.

in other words... they have to build out with fibre to make 5G work and at this point.. yolu may as well just use FTTH!

Anyone with half a brain knows that wireless tech is no substitute for fixed line infrastructure (and actually requires fixed line fibre to function.. duh!). Wirless is simply an aditional choice to use in certain scenarios... but Joe Public believes every "New Tech will take over the world" 'news' release on the internet so they just love posting this fake news all over the place. (the fake part is how wireless will be used instead of fixed line (fibre to teh home))
 
vegeta535 said:
Seriously who cares about super speed. Customers rather have decent speed with no expensive data caps ffs. I don't give a fuck if I can download at 10GB on my phone when I got to pay $10+ a GB or pay insanely amount for the so called "Unlimited" data plans.
Click to expand...
Not only that.. but also wirless is prone to congestion due to his limited bandwidth (whtich is usually shown due to over selling the connection to to many users).

Both of these are inherent problems with wireless and will ramain for what seems to be indefinitately due to the limited bandwidth of wireless!!

you don't get these limitations with fibre...
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
There is an entire segment in it about how 5G reduces latency down to single digits
Click to expand...

LTE can have really low latency now (if the network design is done properly.). Which is usually isn't because although its capable of single digit latency's its usually the rest of the network design that cripples it in a big way. Usually this isn';t the case for FTTH. Its capable of 3ms ping even with a less than perfect network design.

This is something that has happened here in AUS. But i wont go into it... its depressing and i'm to drained as it is! :p
 
HoffY said:
What people don't realise is that 5G *requires* more fibre. Without it, 5G can't exist.

in other words... they have to build out with fibre to make 5G work and at this point.. yolu may as well just use FTTH!
Click to expand...

There's a huge difference between upgrading existing fiber runs to towers and running FTTH, this is a very poor comparison.
 
HoffY said:
What people don't realise is that 5G *requires* more fibre. Without it, 5G can't exist.

in other words... they have to build out with fibre to make 5G work and at this point.. yolu may as well just use FTTH!

Anyone with half a brain knows that wireless tech is no substitute for fixed line infrastructure (and actually requires fixed line fibre to function.. duh!). Wirless is simply an aditional choice to use in certain scenarios... but Joe Public believes every "New Tech will take over the world" 'news' release on the internet so they just love posting this fake news all over the place. (the fake part is how wireless will be used instead of fixed line (fibre to teh home))
Click to expand...
Yea, I work with the companies, I know what they want to do.
 
With absurdly low cap.

It's like going from a "hot"-rodded piece of trash to a proper V8 sports car to a V12 hypercar...while still only receiving 1 gallon of gasoline.
 
After watching the video it appears that the true goal of 5g is to make sure everything in the country is connected to the internet?

Can you imagine the damage a hacker could do if they hacked the controls of a construction crane?

No thanks.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
You should watch the embedded video. There is an entire segment in it about how 5G reduces latency down to single digits, and how this is needed for many future realtime applications.
Click to expand...

I've heard all kinds of promises over the decades in respect to wireless technology. Promises mind you that never came even remotely close to reality. Color me extremely skeptical until I actually see it working in Real Time.
 
HoffY said:
What people don't realise is that 5G *requires* more fibre. Without it, 5G can't exist.

in other words... they have to build out with fibre to make 5G work and at this point.. yolu may as well just use FTTH!

Anyone with half a brain knows that wireless tech is no substitute for fixed line infrastructure (and actually requires fixed line fibre to function.. duh!). Wirless is simply an aditional choice to use in certain scenarios... but Joe Public believes every "New Tech will take over the world" 'news' release on the internet so they just love posting this fake news all over the place. (the fake part is how wireless will be used instead of fixed line (fibre to teh home))
Click to expand...
While yes you need more infrastructure as far as back bone, but how do you compare bringing fiber to a few hundreds of "centralized" points versus stringing wire to hundreds of thousands of buildings?

And yes we all know the having a solid connection is "better" than a wireless one, however 99.9% of the population don't need that level of "better"
 
sfsuphysics said:
While yes you need more infrastructure as far as back bone, but how do you compare bringing fiber to a few hundreds of "centralized" points versus stringing wire to hundreds of thousands of buildings?

And yes we all know the having a solid connection is "better" than a wireless one, however 99.9% of the population don't need that level of "better"
Click to expand...

It sucks to time and time again, across every field I am interested in being the 0.1% who cares, and who can't get the product he wants because no one else does.
 
sfsuphysics said:
And yes we all know the having a solid connection is "better" than a wireless one, however 99.9% of the population don't need that level of "better"
Click to expand...

Yeah. Just like most people didn't need those new fangled automobiles, the horse and cart was totes fine and will do 99.9% of the population for ever!
 
Well looks like its time for me to convert back to Verizon. Goodbye overly congested Tmobile.
 
Interesting. Denver is getting this, the new T-Mobile 5G service, and Google's new wireless initiative too.
 
While I prefer wired, wireless will likely be the future for a lot of people. When your broadband is either 1.2mbs DSl or satellite, 5G wireless would be great (depending on caps). Also for the eventual autonomous cars you will need bandwidth for the vehicles to talk to each other and to infrastructure wirelessly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top