The 5G air interface will make a difference only for stadiums, racecourse and similar. The main and more useful aspects of it are easier to manage infrastructure. It's of no advantage for ordinary mobile compared to 4G. Even 4G in a 5MHz channel is about the same as 3G if both have 5 users. Each user would get about 1/5th of the claimed max speed if signal was perfect. The 3G uses inefficient CDMA, which was first used for secure point to point military encryption. The USA 2G used that, typically a 1MHz channel, but Europe 2G used the superior GSM, but only 200 kHz channels. Qualcomm and others with CDMA patents got the obsolete 3G agreed. The problem with CDMA is that as more users are added the cell shrinks and some are dropped. With 20 users, the GSM or 4G users get about 1/20th each if all else is equal. But with CDMA-1 / EVDO (USA 2G) and 3G, with 20 users the cell is about 1/4 the area and speed per user could be 1/40th. So that is why 4G was brought in. Also 3G ONLY has 5MHz channels, the 4G can do 5, 10 or 20 MHz. Also 4G can now use two channels from different masts. The quoted maximum speed is of course the totally rare 16x peak 3G speed, assuming NO other users on TWO mast sectors and a perfect signal.
Speed on EVERY WIRELESS system drops with distance. Double distance = 1/4 speed. Shannon - Nyquist Law, proposed as a theory in 1948. It's mathematics. It can't be beaten.
So the ONLY way 5G can go faster and for more people (at best, with a perfect protocol EVERY wireless system is shared, so 10 users get a piece of speed each!) is a higher band with wider channels. BUT PHYSICS! The BEST bands are 900MHz and 1800MHz (1.8 GHz). The 2.1 GHz is much less reach and more easily blocked. Compare 2.4GHz and 5.8 GHz WiFi. The higher WiFi band is almost useless outside the room and is best for an open plan office. The 2.4 GHz WiFi will work to the garden workshop / shed, if there are facing windows (airpoint in house & phone in shed).
The 800 MHz is poor because the cell size is too big. The 700 MHz should have stayed with TV for 4G. It's huge uncontrollable cells and only good if you are only one of a couple of users.
The 5G infrastructure and a real 5 G phone allows calls and data to move between bands and even WiFi, GSM and 3G without dropping the call or connection. In theory. The big channels are on higher bands than are any use for mobile. Great for a stadium or racecourse.
Quote:
|
Some talk about using it to get from the hub to the house rather than send someone out to run wire.
|
Pointless for delivery to home in rural, we've had brilliant dedicated point to point as good as fibre with dishes for years and point to many cheaply using rooftop aerials at speeds between ADSL2+ and VDSL, real broadband, for over 15 years!
Anywhere that has wired Electricity can have fibre. It's cheaper now to install fibre than copper phone cable and less likely to be stolen. Almost no scrap value.
So 5G only helps stadiums, racecourses and Mobile Telcos PR. The real infrastructure features save them a little money and make user experience more reliable. Any office or cafe replacing Fibre/cable/DSL fed WiFi by mobile Operator 5G is going to have the same or worse performance and a much bigger bill, or the cafe people wil be using up their allowance.
Even unlimited mobile is not. There is no such thing. There HAS to be a fair use clause to clobber the heavy users because then other people are sometimes not even getting connected and might change operator. Want the best mobile? Check they have masts or a mast sharing agreement in your area. Then pick from ones that offer lower caps, or no unlimited. Maybe even ones that DON'T offer a top of the range phone free. The customers are paying on the data charges. Or the operator is skimping on mast rollout. There are no free phones.
This was apparently produced in 2009. The predictions about 4G turned out to be true:
http://www.radioway.info/comparewireless/