5G; Do we really need it?

[dangerousfen]

I really don't understand all this hype about 5g. Where I live I probably won't get it for at least 4 years.

Most of my friends and relatives use Wi-Fi everywhere. In the UK we have Wi-Fi in our homes, pubs, restaurants, shopping centers and supermarkets. So where are we going to benefit from 5g?

We all latch on to Wi-Fi wherever we can to save on data charges and only use carrier data for texts and phone calls. 4g is still perfect for this. In fact 3g is quite adequate.

Am I missing something?

 

[SpookDroid]

Yup. Missing 5G being more efficient in crowded areas and better building penetration (on top of benefiting from the faster speeds). Just because you don't rely on it doesn't mean you shouldn't be excited for a tech leap.

 

[dangerousfen]

Yup. Missing 5G being more efficient in crowded areas and better building penetration (on top of benefiting from the faster speeds). Just because you don't rely on it doesn't mean you shouldn't be excited for a tech leap.

What? For making phone calls and texting? You have to be joking. It's just another excuse for the big tech companies to prize more more cash from your pocket.

 

[anon(50597)]

I really don't understand all this hype about 5g. Where I live I probably won't get it for at least 4 years.

Most of my friends and relatives use Wi-Fi everywhere. In the UK we have Wi-Fi in our homes, pubs, restaurants, shopping centers and supermarkets. So where are we going to benefit from 5g?

We all latch on to Wi-Fi wherever we can to save on data charges and only use carrier data for texts and phone calls. 4g is still perfect for this. In fact 3g is quite adequate.

Am I missing something?

You’re not missing anything but the hype.
In the U.S., many early adapters are finding 5g speeds slower than LTE. Also I do not believe, from what I’ve read, that building penetration is better. Some carriers are charging more to use it also.

 

[dangerousfen]

You’re not missing anything but the hype.
In the U.S., many early adapters are finding 5g speeds slower than LTE. Also I do not believe, from what I’ve read, that building penetration is better. Some carriers are charging more to use it also.

Yes T, as I said earlier, it's all about big corporations squeezing more cash out of us. The manufacturers will charge an additional £100 for a 5g compliant phone which won't do anything to help me with my usage. I would really like to upgrade to the new Nokia 7.3 but I refuse to pay that additional sum for something that's of little or no use.

 

[anon(50597)]

Yes T, as I said earlier, it's all about big corporations squeezing more cash out of us. The manufacturers will charge an additional £100 for a 5g compliant phone which won't do anything to help me with my usage. I would really like to upgrade to the new Nokia 7.3 but I refuse to pay that additional sum for something that's of little or no use.

Are you forced to pay for a 5g plan if you want to only use the phone as 4g?

 

[Mooncatt]

As of right now in the U.S, it's all hype. 5G can help with capacity, but that's more future proofing than anything (congestion isn't much of an issue). You can stream pretty much anything on 4G LTE, with the only limitations being either artificial carrier throttling or signal strength.

Other advancements will come as the technology matures, but there is no real functional reason to seek out a 5G phone/plan right now.

 

[dangerousfen]

Are you forced to pay for a 5g plan if you want to only use the phone as 4g?

No, I'm not forced to take out a 5g plan. I was referring to the additional £100 cost added to a the purchase price of a new 5g enabled phone. I buy my phones outright. I don't buy through a carrier.

 

[L0n3N1nja]

As of right now in the U.S, it's all hype. 5G can help with capacity, but that's more future proofing than anything (congestion isn't much of an issue). You can stream pretty much anything on 4G LTE, with the only limitations being either artificial carrier throttling or signal strength.

Other advancements will come as the technology matures, but there is no real functional reason to seek out a 5G phone/plan right now.

I'm still over 200 miles from a 5G tower, doesn't matter what carrier. I recently checked coverage maps out of curiosity.

 

[anon(50597)]

No, I'm not forced to take out a 5g plan. I was referring to the additional £100 cost added to a the purchase price of a new 5g enabled phone. I buy my phones outright. I don't buy through a carrier.

I do too.
It then comes down to whether you feel the extra cost brings you a decent upgrade. There's not much we can do to get around the fact all future phones will be 5g, just when we want to dive in.

 

[Laura Knotek]

The way I see it is that by the time I'm ready to upgrade true 5g will be available everywhere. Until that time I don't see any reason to spend extra money for faux 5g that isn't even available where I spend most of my time.

 

[J Dubbs]

The way I see it is that by the time I'm ready to upgrade true 5g will be available everywhere. Until that time I don't see any reason to spend extra money for faux 5g that isn't even available where I spend most of my time.

Preach it sister

 

[Kizzy Catwoman]

I feel the same way. 5g isn't available where I live or even near it. I am alolso in the UK. I am happy to stay on 4g and wifi for now and see no need for a 5g phone. The upgrades on phones are not that impressive either. The iPhone 12 is much more expensive in £ than it is in ＄ even after taxes and yet we don't even get millimetre wave in the phones compared to the US. It is just a way of ripping off consumers who don't know any better. In the UK the S20 was available in 4g because even Samsung knows that 5g is unavailable in most places and give the option to save an extra £100 on a device.

 

[J Dubbs]

5G's just a ploy to drive up phone prices and try and get people excited about the "shiny new toy" that is 5G. If it works or not now isn't even relevant, it's getting people excited enough to spend more money. And as usual it'll be a one way trip up the payment ladder, in our monthly bills and phone prices

 

[JnEricsonx]

I've been in New York Comic Con with tens of thousands of people, a lot using their phones/tablets/etc, never had much problem with the internet. Not sure how much faster you need than 4G, but I could be wrong.

 

[dangerousfen]

Very interesting. We all seem to be on the same wavelength. Excuses the pun.

 

[anon(50597)]

I've been in New York Comic Con with tens of thousands of people, a lot using their phones/tablets/etc, never had much problem with the internet. Not sure how much faster you need than 4G, but I could be wrong.

Exactly. It's not like 4g/LTE is suddenly not going to work or not be good enough to do 99.999% of what peoploe use smartphones for.

 

[Climb14er]

For anyone who remembers in the mid 90's the transition from analog to digital, it took three to five plus years, depending where you lived to actually use digital with success. The phones went from analog to analog-digital hybrid to digital. In many areas, analog was the king until the carriers actually got rid of it.

Right now, there's a 5G TAX on the phones with most folks using LTE and WIFI with great success virtually all the time. Add in the proprietary claims of Verizon that their UW is the 5G to have... I'm sitting on the sidelines, like many others, using LTE to excellent satisfaction.

 

[davidnc]

The last selling point to me is if a phone is 5G compatible. Ha, 5G compatibility doesn't even make the top 10 list

 

[Rukbat]

Yup. Missing 5G being more efficient in crowded areas and better building penetration

That just part of the hype. While mmWave signals might penetrate better (they most likely won't, based on many years of 10GHz experience [we've had equipment on 10GHz for decades], we'll have to wait to see), 5G itself, a change in encoding of the signals, won't change penetration at all. That's about like saying that if you speak French instead of English, the signals will penetrate buildings better.

More efficiency in crowded areas, higher speeds, more bandwidth (which aren't exactly the same thing), yes, but "better building penetration" is just hype.

In many areas, analog was the king until the carriers actually got rid of it.

That's because of the power difference. Most of the better analog phone at the end were running at least 200mw, twice the power of most digital-only phones of the time, some transmitted even more power. The building penetration was much better. Some of us clung to those phones until the last minute.