Not to mention the security implications from both angles. As an end user do you want random cell phone traffic egressing through your network. And that easily opens up the network to cell site spoofing moreso than they already are.
A big reason LTE, GSM, evdo etc were successfull was because the full stack, from the backbone to endpoint/user was managed by the carrier.
Offloading that to home users who actively put routers in between interference sources like windows, fridges, washers/dryers and then tey and extend their signal with repeaters is a questionable goal at best.
Why? You could easily enforce a policy that only who use your fiber network at home qualify for these femtocells. Considering that majority of backbone fiber is an oligopoly already, this wouldn't be an issue.
> Most users home routers are garbage for latency and loss sensitive applications, of which voice would qualify.
Do you have any source on this claim? IP network has become just as fast and resiliant as the pure teleco network (reason why 5G is based on IP in the first place). IP calls from Facetime, Google Duo, Skype, Zoom, Whatsapp and others work just as good as regular calls if you have decent coverage. And you can easily implement QoS for calls through your own network, which is what the old 3G/4G tech was already doing.
> And that easily opens up the network to cell site spoofing moreso than they already are
How common is WiFi spoofing in your experience?
> A big reason LTE, GSM, evdo etc were successfull was because the full stack, from the backbone to endpoint/user was managed by the carrier
The reason they had to do that was because IP stack wasn't good enough 2 decades or even a decade ago. Unless you are in a 3rd world country, IP network is just as good as 3G/4G stack today.
> Offloading that to home users who actively put routers in between interference sources like windows, fridges, washers/dryers and then tey and extend their signal with repeaters is a questionable goal at best.
Okay, you might want to revisit that thought couple of years from now :)
There are limited markets where verizon or att offer both broadband and cell service.
And the other big cell carriers don’t have a broadband market.
To your other point. Most gpon modems are arris or some other brand all in ones these days that carry voip converters/cable television and then normal tcpip traffic. They are bought to maximize profits and rental fees and not with packet forwarding in mind. There are acceptable levels of loss and latency on residential networks that don’t generally carry over to campus or business services.
Add in they also run dns, dhcp and firewalling and often some “extra” parental controls and sometimes a vlan for guest access.
It’s not the residnetial customers fault for the placement either. But most demarcs for telco and internet, even in new construction is in a utility room that is generally right next to other utilities. At least in single family homes.
In apartments sure they may be better placed but still often next to the air handler. And give. The range of 5g, the first floor or two is all that matters.
[1]the biggest difference of 4G over WiFi is concentrated coordination , but this could be achieved for Wi-Fi too.
* The higher data density of 5G per spectrum allows you to just upgrade towers instead of having to place more dense towers with 4G. This is the "5G is cheaper" point as it allows you to avoid having to build more towers.
* Due to the increase in data demand in some few places places, you'll have to place 5G towers very densely to meet it, more densely than in the age of 4G. Not because of the technology just because it's now a different era where demand has increased even more.
So this seems like only a theoretical possibility since in practice they'll just have faster towers instead of fewer of them.
> Due to the increase in data demand in some few places places, you'll have to place 5G towers very densely to meet it, more densely than in the age of 4G. Not because of the technology just because it's now a different era where demand has increased even more.
For millimeter wave it is because of the technology. Those frequencies don't penetrate as well so regardless of how many users there are or how much bandwidth they're using, the towers have to be closer to the devices which means you need more of them.
With constant demand, you can service a higher amount of people with the same tower density thanks to 5G. If the number of customers is increasing, it means you get more money but you only have to upgrade the towers instead of having to put them more densely. That's how it's cheaper.
> For millimeter wave it is because of the technology.
Good point.
Also helps when FRBNY in conjunction with the Tresury dept via state street and blackrock is buying their HY bonds (TMUS US87264AAT25 [Ba3], S US85207UAK16 [B1], CTL US156700BC99 [Ba3], LVLT US527298BF96 [Ba3], VOD US92857WBQ24 [Ba1] for just a few examples, all trading way over par) on you, the taxpayers behalf, on leverage, in the secondary market and thus helping to lower their ongoing borrowing costs.
No gross mis-allocation of resources or moral hazards as far as one eyes can see… surely the companies will use these funds much better this time for capex… lol
Perhaps if VC's funded many more things to the same notional as the uncollaterized debt extended globally (not "valuations", not re extending to the same companies after previous funding from the same one), I would agree to degree , if they faced 100% loss of value extended if the endeavors they funded didn't pan out (not considering firesales of assets that may have been used in such endeavors during the bankruptcy/liquidation process).