Here's the 5G Glossary Every American is Apparently Going To Need (lightreading.com) 73
T-Mobile last week introduced the market's newest 5G moniker: "Ultra Capacity." The label, writes blog LightReading, will stew alongside "5G Ultra Wideband," "Extended Range 5G," "5G+," "5Ge," "5GTF," "5G Nationwide" and plain-old "5G" in the US wireless industry, ensuring that if American mobile customers aren't confused yet, it's only a matter of time before they're hopelessly bewildered by operators' thesaurus-toting marketing executives. So here's that 5G lexicon everyone is apparently going to need, the blog reports:
5G Ultra Capacity: This is the new brand that T-Mobile is applying to its 5G network running in the midband 2.5GHz spectrum it acquired from Sprint, as well as its highband, millimeter wave (mmWave) spectrum. The operator said customers with "5G Ultra Capacity" phones and coverage can expect speeds around 300 Mbit/s up to peaks of 1 Gbit/s.
5G Ultra Wideband: This is the label Verizon has applied to its 5G network running in its own mmWave spectrum. Due to the physics of signal propagation in such spectrum, mmWave transmitters can't reach receivers that are more than a few thousand feet away.
5G+: This is the label AT&T has applied to its own mmWave network. However, the operator appears to be focusing its energies on 5G in other spectrum bands.
Extended Range 5G: This is the label T-Mobile has given to its 5G network in its lowband 600MHz spectrum, which supports slower speeds than mmWave or midband networks. As you can imagine, given the name, signals in Extended Range 5G go much, much further than signals in mmWave spectrum, again due to the physics of signal propagation in lowband spectrum like 600MHz. Verizon and AT&T also operate extensive lowband 5G networks.
5G Nationwide: This is the label Verizon has applied to its lowband 5G network. It's similar to T-Mobile's "Extended Range 5G," although T-Mobile has dedicated some 600MHz spectrum to 5G while Verizon is using a technology called Dynamic Spectrum Sharing (DSS) to put both 4G and 5G signals in its lowband spectrum.
5Ge: This is the moniker AT&T gave to its 4G LTE network in 2018, sparking plenty of controversy. The action allowed AT&T to quickly offer 5G icons to most of its customers without actually having to deploy a 5G network that adheres to the 3GPP's official 5G technology standard.
5GTF: This is the technology label that Verizon tacitly applied to its initial 5G Home fixed wireless service running in its mmWave spectrum. The network initially did not work on the official 3GPP 5G technology standard and instead worked on a derivation developed by Verizon and its vendors. However, Verizon has since shifted its 5G Home service to the official 3GPP 5G standard.
5G: This is the catch-all label that operators are applying to whatever their marketing teams haven't gotten their fingers on yet. T-Mobile used "5G" for a while until it introduced "Ultra Capacity," and AT&T still uses "5G" for its lowband 5G network.
5G Ultra Capacity: This is the new brand that T-Mobile is applying to its 5G network running in the midband 2.5GHz spectrum it acquired from Sprint, as well as its highband, millimeter wave (mmWave) spectrum. The operator said customers with "5G Ultra Capacity" phones and coverage can expect speeds around 300 Mbit/s up to peaks of 1 Gbit/s.
5G Ultra Wideband: This is the label Verizon has applied to its 5G network running in its own mmWave spectrum. Due to the physics of signal propagation in such spectrum, mmWave transmitters can't reach receivers that are more than a few thousand feet away.
5G+: This is the label AT&T has applied to its own mmWave network. However, the operator appears to be focusing its energies on 5G in other spectrum bands.
Extended Range 5G: This is the label T-Mobile has given to its 5G network in its lowband 600MHz spectrum, which supports slower speeds than mmWave or midband networks. As you can imagine, given the name, signals in Extended Range 5G go much, much further than signals in mmWave spectrum, again due to the physics of signal propagation in lowband spectrum like 600MHz. Verizon and AT&T also operate extensive lowband 5G networks.
5G Nationwide: This is the label Verizon has applied to its lowband 5G network. It's similar to T-Mobile's "Extended Range 5G," although T-Mobile has dedicated some 600MHz spectrum to 5G while Verizon is using a technology called Dynamic Spectrum Sharing (DSS) to put both 4G and 5G signals in its lowband spectrum.
5Ge: This is the moniker AT&T gave to its 4G LTE network in 2018, sparking plenty of controversy. The action allowed AT&T to quickly offer 5G icons to most of its customers without actually having to deploy a 5G network that adheres to the 3GPP's official 5G technology standard.
5GTF: This is the technology label that Verizon tacitly applied to its initial 5G Home fixed wireless service running in its mmWave spectrum. The network initially did not work on the official 3GPP 5G technology standard and instead worked on a derivation developed by Verizon and its vendors. However, Verizon has since shifted its 5G Home service to the official 3GPP 5G standard.
5G: This is the catch-all label that operators are applying to whatever their marketing teams haven't gotten their fingers on yet. T-Mobile used "5G" for a while until it introduced "Ultra Capacity," and AT&T still uses "5G" for its lowband 5G network.
Who let them in here (Score:5, Funny)
I knew we shouldn't have let the people in charge of the USB consortium take over cellular network standards and naming.
Re: (Score:2)
the cartel that runs your telcos.
Who ever decided that umpteen different 4G bands were a good idea so a handset tuned for one competing network will run suboptimally on another?
Lizard people, that's who.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The umpteen bands are due to different regulations in different countries, different histories of spectrum allocations, various chunks of spectrum allocated to higher priority uses (like satellite and airplane navigation signals in the 1200-1500 MHz range, with mobile phone signals on both sides) and the fact that it's hard to make antennas -- much less tiny antennas -- that are almost spectrally flat across many octaves of frequencies.
It's not obvious that band assignments would end up that much different
Re: (Score:2)
5Ge: This is the moniker AT&T gave to its 4G LTE network in 2018, sparking plenty of controversy.
I don't see what the problem with this naming was, AT&T clearly marked it as "5G ersatz" [oxfordify.com], which is exactly what it was:
ersatz ADJECTIVE
(of a product) made or used as a substitute, typically an inferior one, for something else
not real or genuine
Andrew S. Tanenbaum (Score:3)
Re: Who let them in here (Score:2)
So you want them to 5GTFO?
Oh, look, another acronym!
Re: (Score:2)
They are already working on the successors:
5G Ultra Wideband
5G Super Ultra Wideband
5G Super Ultra Wideband+
5G Super Ultra Wideband+ Gen2
5G Super Ultra Wideband+ Gen2x2
5.2G Super Ultra Wideband+ Gen2x2. (What happened to 5.1G? We don't talk about that anymore out of respect).
Re: (Score:2)
We just press 'F' and move on.
There should be someone that monitors this (Score:5, Insightful)
If only there was some sort of agency that could set standards that the big providers would have to meet for their advertising labels. Perhaps on the federal level? It could be a commission that oversaw these big providers of communication services to make sure that when they label something as "5G" it would have to fulfill certain criteria, thus protecting the populace from misleading labels and false advertising. It would also need enough clout to make the providers tremble should they be caught breaking these rules.
Of course, to make sure that this agency works on behalf of the people it would be important that it was staffed by personnel with no competing interests or stakes in the welfare of the big service providers.
It sounds like a good idea I think.
Re: (Score:2)
If only there was some sort of agency that could set standards that the big providers would have to meet for their advertising labels. Perhaps on the federal level? It could be a commission that oversaw these big providers of communication services to make sure that when they label something as "5G" it would have to fulfill certain criteria, thus protecting the populace from misleading labels and false advertising. It would also need enough clout to make the providers tremble should they be caught breaking these rules.
Of course, to make sure that this agency works on behalf of the people it would be important that it was staffed by personnel with no competing interests or stakes in the welfare of the big service providers.
It sounds like a good idea I think.
Sounds wonderful. Also sounds like a pipe dream. How can this be effectively monitored without abuse?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How can this be effectively monitored without abuse?
The same way it's monitored in every other country which doesn't have to put up with this kind of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
FCC - yet another worthless federal bureaucracy. But keep throwing money at it. Eventually they will get it right.
Re: (Score:1)
Ridiculous! Don’t you know that government is the problem; government is the enemy; government screws up everything it touches.
Obviously the unhindered free market will solve all of our ills — just look at all the choices it’s giving us for 5G!
Wait...
Tmobile (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I'd like them to include the definition of (Score:3)
"Unlimited"
Since it of course doesn't mean anything close to what it actually should.
6G will be worse (Score:3)
When we get 6G, I expect each of those terms to split into a further two or three and thereby double or triple the number of terms.
For example, 5G Ultra Wideband will become 5G Ultra Wideband Narrow and 5G Ultra Wideband Wider. 5GTF will evolve to 5GTFB and 5GTFO.
Re: (Score:2)
When we get 6G, I expect each of those terms to split into a further two or three and thereby double or triple the number of terms.
For example, 5G Ultra Wideband will become 5G Ultra Wideband Narrow and 5G Ultra Wideband Wider. 5GTF will evolve to 5GTFB and 5GTFO.
6G??!? ! I'm talkin about 7G abs son.
All the glossary they need (Score:3)
"Does your phone have the new speed thingy?".
"Yes".
Re: (Score:2)
I can stream video right now on my phone. Is the speed difference with 5G going to be noticeable?
Re: (Score:1)
Good question. 4k video while all the tracking apps drain your bank account? Maybe it's not about what you will notice, but what you won't.
No, it doesn't. Also, no glossery later (Score:2)
I don't have a 5G phone now. 4G is fast enough for me. When I eventually get a 5G phone, all this stupid shit will be done and all 5G phones and towers will be compatible with one standard.
All I want is a telephone (Score:1, Offtopic)
One with real buttons, just enough screen to display a telephone number, and a real mouthpiece and earpiece.
You know, to work as a telephone. That is all I want or need. I am perfectly happy with my (I think) "2-G" flip-phone right now but I guess that goes pfft in a month or two.
No camera. No web browser. No stupid touch-screen. (I worked on touch screens from 1984 to 1990 and they were a horrible idea for most purposes then and still are.) Instead a battery life in months, since it's almost always
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Hardly anyone uses a phone to make calls anymore. Texting (in any form) is more efficient.
Re: (Score:2)
But serious business deals are done with phone calls or videoconferencing, not texting. Email provides the next tier for that.
Re: All I want is a telephone (Score:2)
On what planet is typing letters at a a tenth of speaking speed on a interface so ridiculoisly SHITTY that it needs autocorrect so you don't look like you can't hit half the keys "efficient"??
You're not even transporting 10% of the infomation content of a physical contact! Are you a robot without emotions or what? Don't you even notice that readers always understand what you wrote as if you said it with *their* current mood.
I bet you're one of those pasty basement dwellers who actually *like* remote working
Re: (Score:2)
On what planet is typing letters at a a tenth of speaking speed on a interface so ridiculoisly SHITTY that it needs autocorrect so you don't look like you can't hit half the keys "efficient"??
On planet earth, where a brief phone call takes 5 minutes because of pleasantries, and a brief text message takes 10 seconds to type.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Texting (in any form) is more efficient."
Maybe for chit chat, but not necessarily for work. When you need answers and those answers raise more questions, you know (or maybe you don't) like in a real conversation...you're gonna take much longer texting those. That doesn't help if you're in any kind of rush to get answers.
Re:All I want is a telephone (Score:4)
I don't think you can gauge either texts or calls as more efficient. They both have strengths and weaknesses as a communication medium.
Phone calls by their very nature require preempting most other activities and generally mean interrupting whatever the other party is doing as both parties need to be active participants. Text messages can be asymmetrical; they do not require that each party be actively engaged at the same time. Text messages have a greater 'permanence' than spoken conversations (it's easy to forget a detail someone relayed via spoken word, much easier to recall a message text). Both permanence and reduced interruption are arguable efficiencies of texting.
On the other hand, there are certainly activities that are better handled via a call. Anything that requires a significant amount of back and forth (such as troubleshooting tech) or when a time is sensitive and an immediate response is necessary are more efficiently handled by a call.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say one was more efficient, only contradicting GP's claim that texting is "in any form", more so. Your last two sentences are exactly the intended message.
I'll disagree with this though...Phone calls don't require any preemption. They can be scheduled, and if it's an interruption, it's entirely up to the receiver to decide to answer or not.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want a telephone, you can get a telephone. [amazon.co.uk]. In fact, any phone from the last 20 years still does work with telephone calls.
However, most people obviously don't want just a telephone anymore. Why are you even commenting here on a top is irrelevant to you ?
Re: (Score:2)
"Any phone from the last 20 years still does work with telephone calls."
Not true. Verizon's CDMA 3G service ends this month. So I had to get a new phone. And I had to change phone companies because their shiny new 4G tower is behind a hill. And, despite everything both sides claimed, my phone number wasn't portable. It wasn't portable last time either.
On the silver lining side, that does throw the spammers off for awhile.
Re: (Score:2)
The phones themselves do work. Your provider is choosing to end the service. That is slightly different. In any case, most of the world uses GSM so this seems to be a very specific local problem to where you are.
It's like horse carriages - they still do actually work. There is very little point complaining about the lack of stables for your horses everywhere you go. The world has moved on to gas stations - and there are is a good reason for it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Check out the "Mudita Pure". It's a minimalist 4G phone that's just finishing up dev and will be shipping in April.
If you wanted that you'd have sought it. (Score:2)
The simple phones for seniors market is large and growing.
In the time you spent posting you could have found a suitable device. Search "simple phones for seniors" + the name of your carrier if you prefer to stay with them for convenience.
Re: (Score:1)
I only need one. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I was thinking the same thing. Early last year I was upgrading to a new phone and they were trying to push a 5G model on me. Nope. I know damn well that it's going to be years before it's built out enough to be worthwhile, and at the time, it was only faster than 4G in very, very limited places and under perfect conditions.
I'll move to 5G in 3-4 years. At which point I'll be saying no to 6G most likely.
This is another example (Score:3)
Of what happens when marketers get ahold of engineering terms. Marketers don't care about humanity they only want to sell them things, and of course they want to be competitive so if their company doesn't sell services a 5G network, then they can still sell you one.
The average human doesn't have the time or mental resources to keep track of it all and the marketers know this.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen engineers not recognize that their own product was on sale once marketing got ahold of it. I suspect that's the case with 5G. The non-expert humans don't stand a chance.
Re: This is another example (Score:2)
Yeah, and if engineers get to pick the direction, the feel helpless, and just create an even more polished perfect ... oil lamp.
But yeah, at least they are still humans and not marketers, I'll give you that.
Obligatory Dilbert (Score:2)
https://dilbert.com/strip/2011... [dilbert.com]
5GL - that is the real mode (Score:2)
It's not speed unless it is ludicrous speed.
5G Ludicrous.
or
Fast and Furious 5G.
Confusing? Yes. Do we care? No. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
In the end, its mostly all a marketing gimmick anyway with current needs.
You think it's a marketing gimmick because you think it's about you. It's not. The overwhelming majority of changes 5G introduced has zero to do with your phone, beyond maybe having your phone work in a stadium.
The whole point of 5G was to unify and take over other wireless services while at the same time offering reliable orders of magnitude increases in device count. 5G isn't about your phone being faster, it's about your phone still working when there's 1000 other devices pinging the tower. It's about de
Oh, thats where he went ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Windows needed a lot of slightly different versions to try to justify lots of different price points to maximize revenue from each customer. All these various 5Gs are price gimmicks to confuse customers about what their phone supports and who they can pay for it to go how fast. Convincing Joe that he needs to switch providers to make the best use of his new phone is different from convincing Joe to spend another $100 because he might need built in LDAP support.
AT&T (Score:2)
5G+: This is the label AT&T has applied to its own mmWave network.
Also known as "6Ge" ... :-)
5Ge: This is the moniker AT&T gave to its 4G LTE network in 2018, sparking plenty of controversy. The action allowed AT&T to quickly offer 5G icons to most of its customers without actually having to deploy a 5G network that adheres to the 3GPP's official 5G technology standard.
[ Waiting for 640G -- that'll be enough for anyone. ]
Missing one! (Score:3)
Meanwhile... (Score:1)
...who cares about 5g? Honestly, if your phone didn't tell you the network you were on, would you be able to tell? I couldn't, and I doubt most others could either. Maybe if I were doing something specific and was actively looking for characteristics of a 5g network, but honestly? I don't know that I care that much.
I appreciate 5g may have industrial applications that make it exciting, but it's little more than a marketing gimmick for the consumer end user.
Re: Meanwhile... (Score:2)
Yeah, with LTE I could tell, since it finally delivered packet-routed voice to calls don't drop your mobile Internet connection amymore.
Which was promised to us with UMTS from the very beginning, mind you. (And blocked by freey telco thugs seeing their lock-in monopoly die.)
Re: (Score:1)
Ya, LTE was absolutely an upgrade from a consumer stand point.
5G, however, isn't.
This is an abomination against nature. (Score:3)
Nerds should not have to learn marketing terms. Marketers should have to learn nerd terms.
Re: (Score:2)
While I don't like it either, marketers aren't here to make us happy. There here to sell product, and if nerds were good at it, we wouldn't have marketers.
CB (Score:2)
What you will actually need to communicate wirelessly.
everything and nothing (Score:2)
So everything and nothing is 5G. Putting marketingoids in charge of our technology and infrastructure is just elaborate theft.
I don't need it, I need signal strength (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Just map it and burn! (Score:2)
What is needed is a global high resolution map overlay keyed for actual latency, speed and service name based on crowd sourced data from actual subscribers. 5G is supposed to provide 1ms latency and be good for use while in motion, so certain applications will depend on that. Apart from that it is more important to build enough infrastructure that we can remove bandwidth charges and caps; this will enable the other critical apps. If the FCC does nothing else it should require this data to be made available
Next week: 6G (Score:1)
5G Crap (Score:2)
My 4S would drop calls on T-mobile. They refused to look at their network. They told me to buy 5G. Bought an Android 5G and months later have not used 5G yet.
Put the 4S on Claro in Panama. Its 3-4G only. Now the 4S works perfectly. It downloads 3X faster than T-mobile ever. US carriers have so screwed American cellphone user’s in the States.
AT&T (Score:1)
5Ge: This is the moniker AT&T gave to its 4G LTE network in 2018, sparking plenty of controversy. The action allowed AT&T to quickly offer 5G icons to most of its customers without actually having to deploy a 5G network that adheres to the 3GPP's official 5G technology standard.
still a trash company, i see.