AT&T’s “5G E” network is not true 5G | Hacker News Reader

AT&T’s “5G E” network is not true 5G

techcrunch.com

63 pointssahin39 comments

Open articleView on HN

This is not the first time AT&T has pretended to have a newer network than their infrastructure actually provides.

https://slate.com/technology/2012/03/4g-vs-3g-beware-of-the-...

Off-topic:

Slate trying to comply with GDPR by forcing you to agree.

Nice try Slate.

> TechCrunch is a Verizon Media company

AT&T should also purchase some big news blog and write about lying in Verizon "Unlimited" plans...

Relevant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18157869

The linked article from before it was suspended: https://web.archive.org/web/20181007202929/https://medium.co...

if you read a little further down on in the comments section, you'd see that the article is pretty much a clickbait/FUD piece, and the author has a history of writing clickbait/FUD articles.

"TechCrunch is a Verizon Media company"

Regardless, I've generally come to expect nothing less from cell companies, and I guess big tech companies in general?

Cant wait until actual 5G comes out, assuming it won't be too much more expensive than current 4G plans.

Current 4G plans aren't "actual" 4G either.

This should serve as another strong example why mobile operating systems should be completely decoupled from carriers.

Is this going to happen each and every time a new standard comes by.

Did this also not happen with 4G LTE?

I suppose the difference being that the use of the "E" wasn't approved by the regulating body like the use of LTE was?

Not that anyone cares, but last time Sprint/Clearwire 4G WiMax was 4 Mbps while AT&T/T-Mobile 3G HSPA was faster than 4 Mbps, giving Sprint an unfair marketing advantage. Labeling HSPA as "4G" reduced customer confusion in some sense.

That's still technically lying; the network info that shows on the phone screen doesn't represent how fast the network is, just what protocol/network it's using. Consumers regarding `4g = faster than 3g` is solely due to how 4g was marketed.

It would be easier to simy redefine 4g than to convince the world at large that 4g isn't indicative of network speeds.

We call it "4G LTE" instead of just "4G" ... because T-Mobile and AT&T labeled 3G HSPA+ as "4G" ... because Sprint's WiMAX was a fourth-generation technology but wasn't very good, so it was slower than decent 3G.

Similarly, when 5G is first available, it won't be very good, and really good 4G LTE will actually be faster. So AT&T is pre-emptively calling good 4G "5G".

It sure would be nice if consumers would understand that "5G" is not always better than "4G", it's just different, and one day will probably be better, but not today, not even this year. But marketing won't risk it, they'll just re-number and re-name, and make sure everyone is properly confused.

Was Sprint's Wimax, which they called 4G before they rolled out 4G/LTE, better than or inferior to 3G HSPA+?

WiMax was slower than HSPA+ (both under ideal conditions, of course).

The standards bodies are different. "4G" was an aspirational marketing label created by a standards body that doesn't actually develop the technical standards. The relevant technical standards are 5G-NR (new radio) and LTE Advance Pro, which are developing along parallel tracks implementing key technologies in common.

Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18736378

this sounds like exactly the sort of thing a functioning FCC should be able to stamp out right quick.

should, but won't.

That supposes that there is an actual definition of "5g" that anyone could be held to

5G is a specific ITU standard, just like 4G was. https://itu.int/dms_pub/itu-r/opb/rep/R-REP-M.2410-2017-PDF-...

Lying in marketing is common-place in the USA, nothing new here.

Some countries (Australia, NZ) have very strict laws about this.

Probably more of an FTC issue. This is about marketing and advertising, not a technology.

Things like this piss me off way more than I should allow them to. And now the cable industry is coming with "10G".

Everything[0] is just BS now-a-days.

[0] Obviously not "everything", but the amount of BS is staggering.

This may seem like a naive question but since I'm currently in my job search (email is in my profile), I care a lot about it: is there any big company that isn't up to unethical shenanigans?

For almost every industry and/or major player in a particular industry that I look at, I get the idea that there are at least some unethical things going on at best. At worst the planet is being destroyed.

Which industries / companies are clean(ish)? I'd like to apply for those.

We probably never get to hear about clean companies because they aren't doing anything "news worthy" (e.g. destroying the world).

If I were searching, I'd fantasize about working at Cognitect, though I'm not qualified. Their biggest scandal seems to be daring to sell a proprietary database.

Having worked in/seen the internals of lots of companies, I'd say there's just varying levels of dirty...

Tons, but they're all really boring.

For example the company that likely makes the carpet you walk on everyday if you're in A class office space is made by a company that's had a carbon neutral 2020 goal since 2007, and is in line to meet that goal now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interface,_Inc.

Patagonia is likely another one you've heard of. (Or i've fallen for their marketing hook line and sinker)

So what if carriers enable 5G-ish radio access, but still use a 4G core network? This is an inevitable transition strategy.

Should they still market this as some kind of progress towards 5G, or wait until "5G is finished" (which doesn't happen because there is always a next release...)?

So what if carriers enable 5G-ish radio access, but still use a 4G core network?

As a customer is there any way to notice? If it uses NR and delivers promised 1 Gbps speed (downhill with a tailwind) who cares what the core network is.

This article declares the tautology that 5G Evolution is not the same as 5G.

I mean, "5G Evolution" is an AT&T specific trademark specifically designed to mislead consumers.

Because of course it isn’t.

> Disclosure: Tech Crunch is a Verizon Media company

And just curious, who decides what “5G-e” means? Since it’s supposedly a “beefed up 4G” then that implies that it’s more advanced than 4G. So it is an improved system. Would “4G Plus” have made the author happier?

Disclosure: I am a reasonably happy Verizon customer so I really don’t care what AT&T names their network in their marketing materials.

Is it too much to expect that TechCrunch should prove in their article that the phone is still on 4G when it says it's on 5G? They are declaring a conspiracy, it's their job to provide evidence. I feel like not providing any evidence is wildly lazy journalism.

We're talking about phones that have no 5G radio and thus are obviously not 5G; there's nothing to prove.

It's all over the internet, so you should be complaining more about this being the next tier above blog spam rather than taking this as TechCrunch's journalism.

That being said, AT&T isn't currently shipping any 5G capable handsets, so a 5G logo popping up on any of their phones is arguably a lie. According to AT&T's stated intentions, they're rebranding LTE with most of the latest extensions as "5Ge" and real 5G will be branded "5G+". None of this is particularly hidden information.

Additionally, none of this is new, AT&T is known for faking this information, like displaying LTE when it might be able to see a tower that's LTE capable, but you're not able to connect to LTE.

ah yes, "e" and "+", the two speeds.

Just like High Speed, and Full Speed.

Here's an article from 2 weeks ago, with a much larger discussion and the evidence you're asking for. Not sure how this current article is better than the older one. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18736378

Reply on news.ycombinator.com