So in short, 5G isn't particularly better than 4G all else being equal, but it is a prerequisite to expanding and improving service in ways that matter.
Does that sound right?
Does that sound right?
But even with the tech, it's probably not enough to handle the demand they are hoping for, hence they spectrum buying spree they have been on lately.
It goes back to the Shannon law talked about here, you either have to build more cells to make the signal better (better signal lets you pack more bps per hz, or you need more spectrum. Both are expensive, and most of them are doing both.
and only £20/month more for 10x download, 10x upload speed of the fixed line connnextion
5G — Vodafone £50/month ex VAT, 350-390mbps down, 40mbps up, 30ms RTT (and stable)
Cell tower occasionally goes offline but in general the Vodafone connection is way better than the fixed line one
As far as I can remember anyone on BT (or rebranded BT) gets dumped into their backbone that then exits onto the internet in a couple of places but it’s a while since I looked at it
Is your experience of US connections based on connections in large metro areas, rather than rural ones?
Looking at a Twitter search for people's 'Speedtest' results, though, provides anecdata. People in all sorts of countries seem to enjoy sub 10ms on even modest connections (e.g. https://twitter.com/grailph/status/1507258781574778883), whereas in the UK even a "good" connection gets a 10-15ms lag baked in.
I'm currently testing Smarty (Three sub brand). £16/month, unlimited data, 30 days contract. Just outside my front door: https://www.celsoazevedo.com/files/random/Screenshot_2022032...
But I live in the basement of an old building... signal sucks inside, so I'm stuck with a 65/15Mbps FTTC connection (also with PlusNet).
Funnily when we move to our current address the VF tower was a 2G infill so we switched to Three for better coverage and throughout