> We need signal that goes farther, not faster.

5G can potentially help with that when deployed on existing spectrum, because increased transmission rates reduces airtime utilization, and some cells adjust their range based on utilization. It might not help much, depending on current utilization and terrain and what not, but it'll probably help some, and I imagine carriers will do gradual deployments of that to lower density areas when there's enough handsets that support it and base station equipment is cost reduced enough. I don't think it's going to be fast, but I don't think it'll be on the long, long time scale.

Of course, 5G on the new high frequency spectrum is unlikely to be useful in low density areas, and is unlikely to be deployed. Also, I think AT&T has plans to declare their LTE coverage to be 5G :P

200k city here, don't see it happening any time soon.

70,000 city here. 5G pole went up outside my window last week. Tried to get the pole moved but not successful :(

They say here (from within the past 15 mins):

https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/10/13/210785...

> Verizon 5G Nationwide service is available today to more than 200 million people in 1,800 cities around the US.

I'm sure there's some trickery going on here, though?

There's really 3 types of 5G: ultra-wideband, mid-band, and low-band. Ultra-wideband is the 5G you hear about most, with gigabit speeds but you have to be within direct line of sight to the cell site. There's also mid-band and low-band, which have similar ranges to LTE and can deliver a few hundred megabits instead of gigabits, and can handle problems like congestion better.

There's a lot going on there like "5G service in city X!" where they really mean "we have an antenna mounted at the ballpark to cover a high density use case."

Sure. But at this point even just one 5G base station each for 1.8k cities/towns is a pretty decent step up.

available in 1,800 cities doesn't mean coverage in 1,800 cities - a lot of venue coverage is being counted