This is false FUD that keeps being repeated. It's not true. No iPhone ever has had a baseband with DMA access to my knowledge, and modern Qualcomm devices have advanced IOMMU systems to firewall away the baseband from the rest of system memory. I'm sure some phones somewhere existed where the baseband was privileged, but it's not the norm.
Companies like Purism keep repeating this lie (their marketing is outright false) to sell you less secure "free" phones that actually have a larger attack surface for the giant proprietary baseband blob. On the Librem 5, the baseband is connected via USB, and they don't have USB device filtering enabled, so the baseband is exposed to the entire Linux kernel USB device driver attack surface. We know that's full of exploitable vulnerabilities, just ask any USB device developer how many times they've run into a kernel panic by accident. That's much worse than an embedded baseband with a single purpose shared memory interface and proper DMA restrictions.
Please research this stuff before continuing to propagate this myth. It doesn't help users' freedom nor security to have it being parroted over and over again.
It's completely standard practice for SoCs to have IOMMUs these days. E.g. the Apple M1 has over a dozen coprocessors doing various things and sharing memory, but only the GPU coprocessor has access to OS memory (because it manages GPU page tables; we're working on figuring out exactly what the risks are with that one). Everything else is firewalled off.
Well, most of them anyway. The one in the Librem 5 does not AIUI.
Either way, what's relevant to the thread is that the firmware is a closed-source binary blob that we scarcely have access to, so unless someone does the thing to unlock it, we're ~nowhere on a cheap LTE debugger. GNURadio might have something to say about that but maybe the hackers out in Shenzen (where LTE is 'less' patent encumbered) have different/better tools/options that we never hear about.
Test equipment suppliers are MORE than happy to hand you very expensive test equipment on very expensive leases. They're not the bottleneck.
Such a thing doesn't exist because it's a complex technical problem which requires uncommon system engineering knowledge followed by a complex technical problem which requires uncommon VLSI design knowledge.
All to produce something which then will require an expensive, complicated dance to get certified with the carriers.
However, if you did produce such an open source chip, the Chinese suppliers would definitely jump on it. You just wouldn't make any money.
The "G"s are driven by marketing and hype - "5G" is better than "4G" and promises a pile of use-cases that haven't materialised. It's pointless even trying to dispel the hype. 1ms latency was heralded, 10 Gbit throughput, etc etc. You can't really do a round-trip measured to the radio (across just the air interface) yet with 1ms latency, let alone 1ms to anywhere meaningful. I'm reminded of Carmack's famous statement [0] about latency.
ARPU (average revenue per user) is not going up, at least in the European markets I'm aware of. Customers were not willing to pay more for 4G or 5G. In fact, I think many are ending up paying less - I negotiated a better deal this time around than last time around (anecdote, n=1, but far from alone) - competition is tight in a 4-operator market.
I don't think patents are necessarily driving the push - the push comes from operators competing to win churn from rivals. This comes from a race to the bottom on price. As soon as someone has "5G", everyone needs it, whether it's really 5G, or just 4G with the string changed on the screen [1]. "Another G" helps drive sales, and coverage helps drive sales. The operators drive the market, as they own the relationship with the customer. Vendors sell whatever operators want, and try to help them make a more compelling differentiated product (which is a dumb pipe now...) - they have fought over "fastest" and "coverage", now they are fighting over "lowest latency" and "best experience" and "most reliable"...
Ultimately, LTE is going nowhere fast, in my view. It varies by market, but will still be the underlying dominant tech for a few more years - unless you are on T Mobile USA or one of a few other carriers, your 5G is "non-standalone" and fully reliant on the 4G network and radios - the 5G cell is carrier-aggregated in as extra capacity. In early systems, uplink was only over 4G, so the only place the 5G radio was used for was downlink. Therefore I'm not convinced it's really patents that drive this, rather marketing and attempts to differentiate and sell to win over others' churn in a reasonably competitive marketplace with limited barriers to switching, and huge cross/up-sell opportunity when you do win a customer.
[0] https://twitter.com/id_aa_carmack/status/193480622533120001
[1] https://www.xda-developers.com/att-fake-5ge-icon-added-aosp/
I only got it because I had to move house during covid and didn't want to risk having to wait weeks for a connection. However I didn't expect it to be as good as it is. So good that I never bothered with getting fibre. I can also just take my 5G router if I move house again, or use the 5G SIM in my dual SIM phone if I'm travelling.
The other two (massive machine to machine communications, and ultra reliable low latency communications) were more intended for buzzword-laden visions of robotic surgery and internet of everything.
Neither has really materialised like in the brochure. As you say, the speeds for consumer services are great - likely you'd get similarly good speeds with properly deployed 4G, since it can deliver 1 Gbit in theory with enough carrier aggregation. The new 5G spectrum helps a bit if you're in an urban area.
Nobody is going to use 5G to carry out surgery - you'll need real backhaul for any serious distance to get to the place the doctor is (otherwise they could do the surgery directly or using existing robotic equipment in the room), and if you are relying on backhaul, why not just lay fibre to the robot and avoid the risks. You really don't want a latency spike or jamming attack when operating on someone!
Many of the benefits claimed from massive machine to machine communications will need standalone 5G to come about - then slicing and other industrial facing features will start to emerge.
In the meantime though, you rightly point out that 5G serves as effective competition for fixed line connectivity, and that is no bad thing to stimulate roll-out and give some market price pressure.
Though I LOL'd hard finding out some of the deployments are tactical comms in us military
In general, we are 5x-10x bandwidth with a minor increase in latency and 80% less $.
For larger offices, we’re looking at it as a backup path for a few use cases.
Another part is gross simplification of many protocol aspects and moving of "central office" to data center. 5G for example AFAIK makes mandatory what has been slowly been introduced since UMTS, that is a full IP telephony stack. It was already pushed hard on LTE but was optional (and later sold to users as VoLTE).
Among other things it allows all phones to easily use "WiFi calling" or connecting anything to the network so long as you can route an IPsec connection to provider edge. (anyone remembers ugly special SMS Sending cards full of sim carriers, used by paid text suppliers?)