I am willing to change my mind if somebody proves why we need to upgrade but (and as much as I love new tech) "if ain't broken dont touch it", if anything just make it cheaper.
IMHO, 5G is not so much about speed as it is about latency and better handling of devices in high density areas. Regarding the speed aspect, keep in mind that most smartphones (which are the primary 4G connected devices) are not equipped with modems that can reach the speed limits of 4G. They certainly could, but that would kill battery life. I expect something similar with 5G (although one the promises of 5G is lower power consumption). VoIP over 3G is often terrible. It's better on 4G, but, in my experience, it's often hit and miss. Having improved latency and speed means VoIP (and video calls) are, theoretically, less of a gamble.
(My experience with 3G/4G is a single datapoint and should not be taken too seriously, evidently)
However, cheap 4G is a good option for areas that have decent cell coverage but poor broadband (I refer to the usual copper lines for DSL). 5G can make the situation better, if only by making 4G cheaper. Deploying 5G means that an operator may have to upgrade their backbone ... which is good for 4G users too.
You are correct but that will happen again with 5G and then with 6G and so on. After a period all networks will saturate.
I'm not sure if I'm right about this, but I think one solution could be to increase the network density with the deployment of small cell networks that provide a better local coverage and bandwitdh. A few companies like nokia [1] and ericsson [2] are taking that route.That also requires upgradation on hardware form the operator but at least spares the customer from buying a new equipment.
[1] https://networks.nokia.com/products/small-cells
[2]https://www.ericsson.com/en/networks/offerings/small-cells/o...
I am a software researcher in the field and I do not think this is the case. Most 5G deployments for the foreseeable future will be on 3.5Ghz. I do not think mmWave (30Ghz+) has been accepted for commercial use in any country. In fact, in many roadmaps mmWave is referred to as 5G NR (new radio), which to my understanding was left for later deployments. To give you an idea why: the mmWave receivers and transmitters (at my current facility) are the size of a door. I think the problem is shrinking those doors to fit your smartphone, but then again, I do not work on the physical layer nor have much insight regarding regulations.
RF bands 5G: n261 (27.5-28.35 GHz); n260 (37-40 GHz)
4G: B2, B4, B5, B13, B46, B48, B66
Verizon launched 5G New Radio (Nonstandalone) at 28 GHz with 400 megahertz of TDD spectrum — which doesn’t include the LTE anchor carrier, SRG said. Based on its initial survey, the firm estimated that there are close to 100 5G nodes in downtown Minneapolis, although it had yet to confirm how many of those were on-air. Each node has two Ericsson AIR 5121 5G radios, according to SRG.
https://www.motorola.com/us/products/moto-mods/moto-5g#specs
https://www.rcrwireless.com/20190405/test-and-measurement/pu...
It leaves more spectrum for 4G communications.
What I personally don't get about the whole 5G-craziness is why we (as a society made up of humans in contrast to consumers which fill the pockets of shareholders) need it? Today, we face a number of challenges which all result from our lifestyle requiring an unsustainable amount of ressources/releasing a massive amount of substances (be it fungicides (candida auris up front here recently), antibiotics or CO2).
Why do we "have to" go for artifical, industry-driven growth again, when we really should focus on increasing the efficiency (or even forgo implementation of ressource-using technology)? And 5G will entail a massive increase in power-consumption (more bandwith), the number of cell-"towers" [most frequencies applicable to WANs are already utilized – a lot of the promise of increased network performance now lays on microcells (e.g. every bus stop get's a basestation)] [1] and requirements on the network-clients (why stop at low-latency, if we can sell you 4K-video calls for your 8K-display...).
As for the "health effects": I believe that for classic networks the effects are negligible (though it's hard to reliably do studies on this. It's like with Dieselgate and the health issues...). What happens on the long term if you move around a city where every surveillance camera has a wideband (think radar and microwaves), 5-10W transmitter, beamforming that power to the receiving device unaware of any obstructions such as various bodyparts, which are definitely affected. I guess this is really something you should study (even industry agrees [2]). BEFORE DEPLOYMENT. Additionally the whole beamforming stuff with microwaves opens up really interesting possibilities: how about hacking your surveillance cameras+the basestation and then frying the eyes of some commuters sitting idly around. And with most of the devices operating completely on software and increasingly being single sourced, such stunts are becoming relatively easy to pull of.
[1] https://www.lightreading.com/mobile/5g/power-consumption-5g-... - "sponsored by Cisco Juniper Qualcomm"
[2] https://www.infineon.com/dgdl/Infineon-Health%20Effects%20of...
Looking at the bigger picture, and counting in energy savings innovations on the basestation/network level, and so on, it might not be a clear-cut "5G spends more energy".
I think you're a victim of the fallacy of eternal growth thaught for years by capitalist and communist economists alike (and even picked up by most green movements around the globe). If you realize that our consumption is way above it's sustainable limit, the only way to prove that we have really evolved from the barbarism of a pack of wolves is to try everything possible to fold back consumption into this limit.
And since we start crossing some irreversibility thresholds, this means acting now. So we should start cutting consumption and innovate existing technologies so that they become more efficient, instead of increasing consumption and hoping (which roots back to religion – it's kind of interesting that in a time of the decline of classic, philosophical religions, most of the people have adopted blind trust into technology, which does not recognise hardship or offer any consolence in it) for some random technological breakthrough (which would then need years to be adapted on scale – of course we can still search (R&D is not that big of a polluter (except for nukes))). I really would like to see some calculations for "the bigger picture", which show that 5G and the entailing consumption frenzy will bring us nearer to a sustainable society.
Practically for remote-controlled exvacators: why can't you just put a remote control-terminal ontop of the next fibre-"hub"? 5G (or at least the part, where you build small cells with high-frequency-bands) won't be deployed in Alaska anytime soon and this is something which you can easily add on todays infrastructure once you realize that it's actually beneficial. Maybe you should also take a step back on exvacation – with steel and concrete making up about 15% of carbon-dioxide emissions, I doubt that reducing transportation for construction workers (in industrialized countries, I doubt that any construction "worker" in China or Arabia has a car...) has anywhere near the same impact as a 5% reduction in construction.
But that is what 5G basically is, no?
And no, I don't think I'm a "victim of the fallacy of eternal growth". System-wise, any system that relies solely on continuing growth to keep itself going is certainly brittle and will start to contract or collapse once the prerequisites of increased growth are disturbed, or removed.
Furthermore, I don't think it is meaningful to abandon technological advancement just because some people think that people expect a global climate change deus ex machina from a university or corporate lab.
On the contrary, technology can really help, and I don't mean this in a blindly religious sense. We need solutions which scale and we don't currently have them. The solutions won't appear out of thin air or by magical thinking, they have to be willed out of the laws of physics and chemistry and mathematics and so on.
A good example is technology for capturing carbon dioxide at a price of under 100 USD a tonne. Add Fischer-Tropsch to that and you have fuel.
The slight problem is that the system which produces these advancements and, more importantly, can scale them to planet-wide scales is precisely the system that feeds on "eternal growth". If one disturbs or destroys that system, possible beneficial solutions won't be able to spread to all corners of the planet, thereby hindering the adoption of an innovation that takes non-trivial components to build.
To get out of that dilemma, the system must be transformed. Decentralization and distribution of for example manufacturing is required: once it's possible to print a functioning solar panel in your garage and use it to power your house, we're heading in the right direction.
Also, it's not just one dimension of waiting for technological advancements. "Reduce consumption", farm your own food, use your computer only on weekends, never fly anywhere, these will also work.
4G sucks at coverage and handset count is nowhere near enough to justify 4G hardware and power consumption in most places.
3G yes, it sort of fell through between 2G and 4G - smaller coverage compared to 2G, smaller data throughput compared to 4G.
I don't have an answer to your question so I'm just speculating over here and it's quite possible that I'm wrong
I think as soon as that happens (someone shuts off a network) someone else will set up new networks to provide the old service.
Open source technologies exist to set up base stations right now [1]
I think we're headed towards an open spectrum future. Soon most communication could take place on unliscenced networks [2]. Or more and more networks could become unliscenced.
The G networks are not the only way to communicate. It is also important to note that the G networks are now simply internet enablers.
I don't have any data on this but I'd love a comparision of telephony and data services on use today. How much data people use in calling vs using Facebook for example?
Also consider that all telephony comapnies are betting big on IOT.How many IOT devices works on a G network?
If you have a modern device all you need is WiFi.
That however does not mean that telephone companies would cease to exist. Someone still has to provide infrastructure. They just won't have to spend so much on acquiring liscence s. Which also means more competition from unliscenced providers.
Device manufacturers would be able to work on a common network technology stack.
By the way I don't have anything against 5g. I also don't quite understand health implications so I'm unqalified to talk about it. But I don't like having to buy a new device just to use a new network.
I'm not sure which consumers you're worried about here but it's likely not any real consumers.
https://elisa.fi/kauppa/#!/nettiliittymat/mobiililaajakaista (Finnish)
Edit: looks like DNA's 4G Max plans go up to at least 880Mbps based on users' speedtest results: https://bbs.io-tech.fi/threads/nettiliittymaesi-taemaenhetki... (Finnish - the 15ms+ ones are from 4G)
8k on a mobile device doesn't seem all that logical imho. 720p or 1080p is already pretty good on a tiny screen.
This makes logical sense, but isn't the case in my experience. Many games look noticeably better on my Switch's 720p screen than on my larger 1080p monitor, despite running at native resolution (720p handheld vs 1080p docked) on each.