The problem is that most BTSs have weak links in remote locations, and it will become a problem to manage the increasing density of such devices in this places.

I've read that 5g will allow for more divices/bts and larger coverange, but I still don't understand how that will be possible.

edit: some numbers from here https://twitter.com/Gabeuk/status/1099709788676636672 --

> Challenges of 5G deployment, according to Zhengmao Li, EVP China Mobile (biggest operator on the world).

> 1. 5G needs 3 X base stations for same coverage as LTE due to higher frequencies

> 2. Power consumption of a 5G base staion is 3 X LTE

> 3. 5G base station costs 4 X price of LTE

so, 1/3 the coverage at 4x the price

IDK, I'm just an analyst so I'm waiting for the internal spec sheets, until then I can only speculate, but I don't see anyone too exited about it.

IMHO most clients will be happy with an average of 40mbps and decent latencies, which is somewhat difficult to achieve consistently in many places.

But I also know that competitors will force us to get onto 5g with marketing stunts. There is already a large ISP marketing LTE as 5g so...

Edit: Frequencies depend more on regulation than anything else, and the spectrum in Spain is not really open for many experiments. Also more power consumption will be a problem In remote places. Maybe we could use more solar arrays, but that's increasing the cost further and adding complexity.

I've seen about ~20 of my friend switching to 5G phones, partially because Youtube buffers when seeing 1080p videos on the 4G network.

Pretty often?̊̈ I think I'm watching 1080p videos on my data plan at least 3~4 times a week?

5G doesn't solve a bandwidth problem, it solves a latency problem. 4G has a latency of ~50ms, 5G is more like 1ms. 50ms is noticeable in areas like remote robot control, video conferencing, remote surgery, IoT, remote control vehicles (not on the roads).

That's not true or am I misunderstanding something?

"Latency was more consistent than the other measures across the 4G networks tested (an average of 53.1 milliseconds)."

I do work for a UK mobile company and was in a presentation about exactly this. 5G means more realtime.

Yes, 4G _can_ do lower latency, but in general it doesn't, especially in built up areas, where 5G beamforming outperforms .

Whether we think we need it or not, why would we willingly give up the chance to capture value from the next emerging tech?

The U.S. isn't saying "we don't need it." The U.S. is saying, "We're a massively large country with a lot of currently underserved areas. How about we concentrate on finishing the 2G, 3G, and 4G rollouts; and we'll do 5G when and where it makes sense?"

The United States isn't Luxembourg. We're not going to cover entire nation with a few dozen base stations. You're talking about hundreds of thousands of stations.

Plus, how far "behind" can any country be since the first large scale deployment (according to Wikipedia) was only three months ago?

This isn't an all or nothing thing. We can continue 4G roll out in rural areas while 5G gets kicked off. If we wait until the entire US is ready for 5G we'll have lost the race. Which is exactly what the article points out. It's a winner take all game.

Look at the current state of the internet. The US is a leader in cloud services, yet many rural areas lack fast internet. One doesn't preclude the other.

The argument that the US should cede leadership in the tech space because some places don't need 5G (may never need it, or are not ready for it) is absurd.

edit: please read this: https://media.defense.gov/2019/Apr/04/2002109654/-1/-1/0/DIB...

But we've saturated our sensory inputs, and now nobody really knows what to do with faster last-mile speeds. The networking companies tried pitching everyone on the idea that VR/AR would be the next big thing and require major investment in 5G. But that was hogwash, and networking speed is not what's holding back VR adoption.

> Whether we think we need it or not, why would we willingly give up the chance to capture value from the next emerging tech?

Because we have a limited amount of resources for investment? Because we can weigh the pros and cons and future potential, and allocate money towards things we actually need?

It's pretty clear that most people saying "we don't need 5g" or "we have better things to do" are completely wrong. The implications of losing the 5G race are enormous, from economic to national security. To the point where some are calling for a "Manhattan project" for wireless.

Based on the comments I've seen here, the public is completely misinformed and ignorant of the stakes.

I've worked in telecom and for the DOD. There are many people in these organizations whose careers depend on continual telecom infrastructure upgrades, and so they spend their days writing reports like these. They're filled with scare tactics about being left behind, but there's virtually no substantive discussion about the tangible benefits of 5G. There's some vague references to IOT, but this just further discredits the report IMO because IOT data tends to be small, adoption of IOT tends to be overstated, and I've seen no compelling evidence that IOT is threatening to exhaust the capacity of our network infrastructure.

The actual threat here is that there are only three cellular networking companies (Huawei, Ericsson, Nokia), none of which are US-based, and Huawei has taken the lead. But buying a bunch of Ericsson/Nokia equipment and rolling out 5G is not going to fix this.

I worked for one of the three companies in Silicon Valley for several years. They paid a non-competitive salary with no stock options, and eventually the skilled people left for greener pastures. The company survives on hiring naive recent graduates who are here on Visas and have limited job mobility. I don't have high expectations for them, and the U.S. buying more 5G equipment from them will not fix the underlying problems.

Widespread 5G adoption is coming whether you like it or not. So, we can either accept the reality of the situation or stubbornly lose out to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. I truly don't understand your position here.

If it's not superior or not needed, why does it matter? That's literally the joke from the movie Canadian Bacon: "Why are the Canadians so advanced in zamboni technology?" That being part of the public reason to invade Canada.

You're also making a "keeping up with the Joneses" argument.

"Oh my God, they have it! I need it to! Or I might be left behind!"

"What is it?"

"I don't know, but I know I have to have it!"

Japan is pretty advanced in toilet tech too. That's WAY more useful at this point. Slap some AI into that with your phone so they track what you eat and can predict when you're going to take a shit. Then, it'll pre-warm the toilet seat for you.

Compared to 4G, I'm not going to die waiting an extra few seconds to watch a youtube video while bored at the DMV because I forgot to bring a book. It would be nice for telecom and municipalities to maintain current infrastructure better so they can reduce costs. A savings that should go to users. Instead of always buying new shit when they just paid off the old equipment.

Are you suggesting we make a massive investment in Ericsson/Nokia 5G equipment and roll it out nationwide? That's costing us billions, not making us billions. For technology that may never provide any significant benefit.

Or that we manufacture 5G in-house? No U.S. company makes cellular infrastructure. Even if we could somehow incentivize a company to do so (which again, would likely cost us many billions), they could never do so in time. We could buy out Ericsson or Nokia, but they're now well behind Huawei, there's no obvious buyer, they're mostly situated overseas, and would likely be a poor investment.

If you have limited resources, why not spend it on NASA or universal healthcare instead? What about the ROI there? Why not spend it on funding the NIH, the EPA, or subsidies for green energy?

Once 5g is ubiquitous, hardwired internet connections will go the way of dedicated sound and video cars. Why would anyone want to deal with cable or dsl when everything already runs over IP anyways and they already have a phone plan?

to be used by... other phones

>A lot of laptops come with sim slots

really only useful if you're working on a train or something because most stationary places you'd use a laptop at has wifi.

>Is a tablet a phone? What about a phone that has a usb-c port that can drive display port (or UltraGig) and supports bluetooth peripherals?

Not sure where you're trying to get at here, but everything you've described is already covered by your prior point about laptops.

>Why would anyone want to deal with cable or dsl when everything already runs over IP anyways and they already have a phone plan?

data caps? I'd take a 1TB data cap on cable/dsl over an "unlimited" 5g plan with some arbitrary FUP.

    Why would anyone want to deal with cable or dsl when everything
    already runs over IP anyways and they already have a phone plan?

In South Korea, many people are very excited in 5G as our current 4G LTE-A speed (about 50 ~ 80 Mbps) is considered 'not-enough'.

Generally, 4G networks are (at least in Korea) about 1/10 ~ 1/2 of the general WLAN speeds (100Mbps ~ 1Gbps), and I believe that cellular networks have a long way to go to be as fast as WLANs.

Here's something that people never say anymore: So what?

Who cares if YouTube lags on 4G? So what if you have to wait eight seconds for buffering. Does it really matter if you see SD or HD video instead of 4K video on a three-inch cell phone screen?

No, it doesn't.

There are a lot of people unlike you, and please don't assume that they all have the same patience that you can give to Youtube.

Well, iPhone XS Max is 6.5 inch, Galaxy Note 9 is 6.3 inch, Galaxy S10 Plus is 6.4 inch. Most phones used in South Korea are at least 5 inch or bigger.

Korea's 1440x2960 counts 11.68% out of all smartphone users, 1440x2560 counts 19.03%. 1080x1920 counts 29.21%.

That's 60% of all smartphone users.

Then, there comes the need for 1080p/HDR mobile videos (think Netflix!).

Awesome. But the article is about the United States.

Korea's 1440x2960 counts 11.68% out of all smartphone users

2960x1440 on a 6.5-inch phone is 506dpi, which is more than the human eye can see. So you're either a marketing victim, or trying to impress your friends, or both.

I stand by my assertion that you don't "need" (your word) 4K on a phone.

So, no, unless you are an insect, you cannot tell the difference between 720p and 4K on a mobile phone. It's all just showing off for your friends.