5G means the end for all non-5G phones but will take forever to implement

[datum9]

5G is the beginning of the end for all non-5G phones... Including my all time favorite, LG V20.

Having said that, I am really skeptical about the implementation time frame. I don't believe it will take 1 or 2 years to saturate the coverage everywhere like they are promising. The same way 4G has it covered now.

To get to that level.. I wonder if it will take 4-5 years.
I think "5G in a year" is a marketing thing to sell phones. I think it's nice but now measured in addresses not cities and unless it gets 4G map, will remain irrelevant for a while. My guess in a year major cities will have isolated spots of 5G coverage. 99% of the time, you won't actually hit it. We don't have consistent 4G coverage, and I have the best network available.

It will take a long time to get 5G to where 4G is now. Years.
Yeah, I can see the light at the end of the tunnel but it's very faint.

Another reason why 5G phones do not make any sense now is because they are very expensive. Well over $1000 for S105G. Note 105G will be at least $1500. And there is no coverage.

Kind of like buying an 8K HDTV for $15,000.

 

[Rukbat]

You can still do 3G data with most carriers, especially in the US. We'll most likely still be able to do 4G data once 5G has been fully implemented (and maybe even 3G). I don't think 4G phones are on the way out - but a lot of people will be selling theirs and dropping the market down.

I agree with your timeframe - 4-5 years sounds about right. And then what do we, as users, see? Just faster downloads, and not many people use their phones to download full movies, do they?

 

[datum9]

We'll most likely still be able to do 4G data once 5G has been fully implemented

There isn't a question of ever not being able to use 4G even once 5G becomes commonly available... Of course the existing 4G infrastructure will be there for ages.

The value of 5G to most customers will be nil for the next 5 years, that is my prediction. What happens after that, I don't know.

Now *If* the current 4G map becomes saturated with 5G, its advantages become obvious. Netflix and such will become even more mainstream. I can think of 1000 and 1 applications. Smart devices, smart fridges, smart cars that need reliable bandwidth. Education online. Medical things. Telecommuting. A powerful 5G network might even obsolete hard wired cable like Verizon FIOS. That's just too expensive to penetrate rural areas. Now in rural areas, you are forced to rely on Hughes services as in the middle of nowhere that's all you can get. Satellite internet. I don't know if 5G can change that.
On the other hand, if 4G is not available in a certain area, then that's to say 5G will be profitable and available..
I will be happy if the 5G map matches the 4G map we have now, which is vastly incomplete.

 

[Morty2264]

I agree with you - more than a couple of years does sound accurate when one is talking about total 5G implementation. I can't say I'm super excited about it. I am sure it'll be good but I'm willing to wait in order for it to be implemented correctly.

 

[Mike Dee]

5G is the beginning of the end for all non-5G phones... Including my all time favorite, LG V20.

Having said that, I am really skeptical about the implementation time frame. I don't believe it will take 1 or 2 years to saturate the coverage everywhere like they are promising. The same way 4G has it covered now.

To get to that level.. I wonder if it will take 4-5 years.
I think "5G in a year" is a marketing thing to sell phones. I think it's nice but now measured in addresses not cities and unless it gets 4G map, will remain irrelevant for a while. My guess in a year major cities will have isolated spots of 5G coverage. 99% of the time, you won't actually hit it. We don't have consistent 4G coverage, and I have the best network available.

It will take a long time to get 5G to where 4G is now. Years.
Yeah, I can see the light at the end of the tunnel but it's very faint.

Another reason why 5G phones do not make any sense now is because they are very expensive. Well over $1000 for S105G. Note 105G will be at least $1500. And there is no coverage.

Kind of like buying an 8K HDTV for $15,000.

4G isn't going away anytime soon

 

[Eric Webb]

I agree with most posters. From an engineering standpoint alone, without an infrasturcture investment between the US Government and private industry on the scale of the 60s space program--we won't have locks and bridges repaired, much less regular broadband coverage or 5G service anytime soon.

Does anyone outside of major metropolitan areas today have consistent 1Gbit internet fiber, but rather lousy old pots DSL? Nada.

5G still requires cell towers interconnected by fiber cables. We live 10 miles west of Chapel Hill, NC, and till can't get *any* cell phone coverage except via "network extenders" which connect to cellular infrastructure over--wait--12 Mbps DSL.

Moving to the Denver/Boulder area should solve that issue (note: parts of RDU do have 200Mbps or better internet bandwidth). But farmers in Kansas should be able to use fast internet now or 5G soon to control their "smart" combines and other machinery. At least we could use more satellite bandwidth...

But the real shame is our falling behind China and even Europe with the underpinnings of any current or future protocol: quantum networking. Using the fundamental properties of physics, that is, photon particle entanglement, we need to ensure all these protocols are safe at the basic data link layer.

All this means is that entangled photons, read or changed by particle detectors, are no longer pairs of particles with the same attributes. Thus, they've been compromised and the transmission can be stopped and retransmitted. No need for complex encryption/decryption schemes to provide global secure networking using any communications protocol--whether CDMA or TCP/IP or GSM or whatever.

It may seem like science fiction, and Einstein would stomp about with Bohr on why "spooky action at a distance" isn't real. However, the Chinese right now have a prototype network running from low altitude satellites right now (Nova March, 2019).

So, it's bad enough we have the most expensive internet delivery in the world, and are behind in even 4G technology. But to lag behind secure networking in an area of physics where we've collected the most Nobel Prizes is just shameful.

Oh, but is it "infrasturcture week" again? My bad. Seriously, confront your congresscritters about this issue. We don't need to license this technology from other countries.

Excuse the passionate rant.

 

[Mike Dee]

I agree with most posters. From an engineering standpoint alone, without an infrasturcture investment between the US Government and private industry on the scale of the 60s space program--we won't have locks and bridges repaired, much less regular broadband coverage or 5G service anytime soon.

Does anyone outside of major metropolitan areas today have consistent 1Gbit internet fiber, but rather lousy old pots DSL? Nada.

5G still requires cell towers interconnected by fiber cables. We live 10 miles west of Chapel Hill, NC, and till can't get *any* cell phone coverage except via "network extenders" which connect to cellular infrastructure over--wait--12 Mbps DSL.

Moving to the Denver/Boulder area should solve that issue (note: parts of RDU do have 200Mbps or better internet bandwidth). But farmers in Kansas should be able to use fast internet now or 5G soon to control their "smart" combines and other machinery. At least we could use more satellite bandwidth...

But the real shame is our falling behind China and even Europe with the underpinnings of any current or future protocol: quantum networking. Using the fundamental properties of physics, that is, photon particle entanglement, we need to ensure all these protocols are safe at the basic data link layer.

All this means is that entangled photons, read or changed by particle detectors, are no longer pairs of particles with the same attributes. Thus, they've been compromised and the transmission can be stopped and retransmitted. No need for complex encryption/decryption schemes to provide global secure networking using any communications protocol--whether CDMA or TCP/IP or GSM or whatever.

It may seem like science fiction, and Einstein would stomp about with Bohr on why "spooky action at a distance" isn't real. However, the Chinese right now have a prototype network running from low altitude satellites right now (Nova March, 2019).

So, it's bad enough we have the most expensive internet delivery in the world, and are behind in even 4G technology. But to lag behind secure networking in an area of physics where we've collected the most Nobel Prizes is just shameful.

Oh, but is it "infrasturcture week" again? My bad. Seriously, confront your congresscritters about this issue. We don't need to license this technology from other countries.

Excuse the passionate rant.

You any relation to Inter Webb?

 

[dangerousfen]

I'm in the u UK and live just 5 miles from the town of Shrewsbury. Vodafone UK cannot deliver any signal at all at this location, forcing me to purchase their Sure Signal box which only delivers 3g.

In fact, there is no signal from any carrier here.

5g? Dream on.

It's just the same as the HS2 project, look after a few city dwellers instead of fixing the existing rail network.

Rant over.

 

[eshropshire]

The main use of 5G in phones for the next few years will be people running speed tests and posting them on the internet.

For IOT and other technologies 5G will be game changing.

 

[Fr0gburp3r]

So with 5G rolling out, will carriers still compress photos and videos through MMS?

 

[Ned2350]

The main use of 5G in phones for the next few years will be people running speed tests and posting them on the internet.

I figured the main use would be infill of areas that need towers and congestion relief for highly congested areas, like nightlife strips, airports and downtowns.

 

[tgm1024]

Well keep in mind that there will almost certainly be very few "5G only" towers being made. The tower density requirement is much higher for 5G, and any 5G tower going up will almost certainly be following at least dual signal disciplines because:

1. The two technologies do not require Collision Arbitration. From what little I've been able to read that's not from non-science press, they simply don't sword fight for the same space.

2. The data trunk to and from the emitter is already there in spades if they have 5G working on it.

3. Ever increasingly solid 4G coverage in the short term will drive sales well.

So basically, as 5G limps along, the "tightness" of the 4G mesh should become increasingly stellar.

 

[Almeuit]

So with 5G rolling out, will carriers still compress photos and videos through MMS?

RCS is what will fix that -- not 5G.

 

[Almeuit]

End for all 4G phones? Tad dramatic IMO. They just aren't going to randomly stop working. I mean hell 3G is finally being shut down at the end of this year by Verizon so I highly doubt LTE is just going to magically disappear right away. It wouldn't make sense.

 

[JnEricsonx]

So what happens when I go through a area where 4G is damn near non-existant? It does happen, I will look down at times at my phone and it says 3G....

 

[Almeuit]

So what happens when I go through a area where 4G is damn near non-existant? It does happen, I will look down at times at my phone and it says 3G....

It means you won't have a signal, or may roam if they have agreements, or something of that nature. They are going re-purpose the spectrum for LTE so they could fix some of the gaps.

 

[cardboard60]

Funny

I was at Verizon a couple months ago.
I asked that very question
Asked that 3G was out 1st, then 4G came out and both 3G and 4G worked on the same phone

Verizon said they are still a year or more getting very much 5G up.
And in the out laying cities they will have to rely on 4G for people to use.

5G don't shoot as far as 4G.
They have to try and reflect some of the 5G that they are still working on.

And that 4G will still work with 5G phones.

What is being phased out probably by the end of this year is 3G.
So I have been told something totally different on the phones than what I am hearing on the internet from a lot of people guessing.

 

[anon(10181084)]

Another roadblock to 5G rollout is that you have a bunch of uninformed conspiracy theorists claiming that 5G is "dangerous". I really wish those people would except scientific fact.

Radio signals might be labelled as "potentially carcinogenic", but the same goes for coffee (LOL!). On the other hand, radio waves themselves cannot directly cause cancer because they are non-ionizing waves. That WHO label is most likely due to some extreme case of radio-induced heating causing some alleged "evidence" of cancer (AFAIK anything can heat damage DNA, including light, if you use insane power levels). If you keep the power down within safe levels you are safe. So long as a device is exposes you to less than 1.6W/kg, you don't need to worry (body exposure on the S10 5G is 1.59, and the head exposure is less than a third of that). I can go on and on about why cellphones are safe, but that is not really for this thread.

We won't get widespread 5G coverage until the conspiracy theorists stop raising anti-5G protests.

 

[Rukbat]

Remember - the higher frequency 5G signals will be much shorter range, meaning that, unless people are ready to see mini- or micro-cells every few powerline poles, we're still going to be on 4G in those areas, or we'll have 5G, but not at insane speeds, just the encoding. The speed from the only tower in town will be pretty much the same on 800MHz whether it's 4G or 5G. ("5G" doesn't mean "high speed" or "high frequency", it's just the way the data is encoded on the carrier wave, like AM and FM. And most people don't even know if the audio on TV is AM or FM, so we also won't see any difference between lower frequency 4G and 5G. It's only at the higher frequencies, where there's more bandwidth available [10% of 10GHz is a lot more spectrum than 10% of 800MHz], that we can have wider bandwidth [read higher speed] signals.)

 

[bembol]

I just watched Michael Fisher's take on 5G. "Fast but finicky.

I get it's amazing but there's a price for speed and up here majority are feeling the pain with insane data plans. I mean you really have to put an effort if you want a decent plan. Most can't be bothered.

I can't even imagine how much carriers will charge for this privilege.