Everyone is all hyped up about 5G and its "potential" for IoT which means carriers could offer cheaper plans making it viable for these devices to come with a cellular connection out of the box.

But I agree, on a technical level, 5G isn't necessary for this. In fact, given the low data rate and non-interactivity of it (it doesn't really matter if the screenshot takes 10 minutes to transfer) they could even get away with GPRS or EDGE.

The slower protocols usually get the more penetrating frequencies since they’re better optimized for getting a link in the first place.

I think the real push for 5G is that it could replace physical infrastructure and regulators only have policies for forcing availability of physical infrastructure. At least in Canada anyway.

Funny enough, 5G is not much better than 4G other than 1000x device density. There is no 1000x increase in population on the horizon, but IoThieves is around the corner.

> IoThieves

Hah, love it! I’m buying a TV today actually, I’ll use this when I have to convince the Micro Center guys that a dumb TV is really what i want

The signal should travel through walls better.

It’s wider bandwidth and faster nitrate so it should be cheaper.

All things equal with both factors above it should take less power (if for nothing else radio is on shorter time).

If not part of the spec itself, it likely will coincide with from the get go.

I have to agree that IoT (bleh. Coming from someone with an in-development connected device) will only become bigger with 5G.

> The signal should travel through walls better.

I'm pretty sure this is exactly the opposite: the shorter wavelength signals in 5G are line of sight, much more so than 4G.

While the higher frequencies (shorter wavelengthS) dont penetrate as well, they’re less likely to be impacted by obstructions because of narrower fresnel zones.

In other words, you don’t need your antennas to be as tall to get around curvature of earth (or that building in the way) with higher frequencies.

So one tall tower and a bunch of receivers on the ground in the desert: 5.8ghz is probably a better choice than 2.4.

Of course there are other factors.

I think this is why there is a decidedly specific marketing push talking about how 5G is going to really bring high speed to rural areas.

Its slightly subtle, but not so much, in the commercials - but you can see that its there - and I believe its a CYA thing.

Now imagine when 5G is mature, and coverage is blanketed AND the Drone ID legislation is passed.

I think the reality is that 5G could would enable telecoms to bypass physical to the home infrastructure entirely, further locking you into them.

Until regulators force them to become dumb pipes; as they often have for physical infrastructure.