The Race To 5G is Over - Now It's Time To Pay the Bill (theverge.com) 84
Networks spent years telling us that 5G would change everything. But the flashiest use cases are nowhere to be found -- and the race to deploy the tech was costly in more ways than one. From a report: At CES in 2021, 5G was just about everywhere you looked. It was the future of mobile communications that would propel autonomous vehicles, remote surgery, and AR into reality. The low latency! The capacity! It'll change everything, we were told. Verizon and AT&T wrote massive checks for new spectrum licenses, and T-Mobile swallowed another network whole because it was very important to make the 5G future happen as quickly as possible and win the race.
CES 2024 is just around the corner, and while telecom executives were eager to shout about 5G to the rafters just a few years ago, you'll probably be lucky to hear so much as a whisper about it this time around. While it's true that 5G has actually arrived, the fantastic use cases we heard about years ago haven't materialized. Instead, we have happy Swifties streaming concert footage and a new way to get internet to your home router. These aren't bad things! But deploying 5G at the breakneck speeds required to win an imaginary race resulted in one fewer major wireless carrier to choose from and lots of debt to repay. Now, network operators are looking high and low for every bit of profit they can drum up -- including our wallets.
If there's a poster child for the whole 5G situation in the US, it's Verizon: the loudest and biggest spender in the room. The company committed $45.5 billion to new spectrum in 2021's FCC license auction -- almost twice as much as AT&T. And we don't have to guess whether investors are asking questions about when they'll see a return -- they asked point blank in the company's most recent earnings call. CEO Hans Vestberg fielded the question, balancing the phrases "having the right offers for our customers" and "generating the bottom line for ourselves," while nodding to "price adjustments" that also "included new value" for customers. It was a show of verbal gymnastics that meant precisely nothing.
CES 2024 is just around the corner, and while telecom executives were eager to shout about 5G to the rafters just a few years ago, you'll probably be lucky to hear so much as a whisper about it this time around. While it's true that 5G has actually arrived, the fantastic use cases we heard about years ago haven't materialized. Instead, we have happy Swifties streaming concert footage and a new way to get internet to your home router. These aren't bad things! But deploying 5G at the breakneck speeds required to win an imaginary race resulted in one fewer major wireless carrier to choose from and lots of debt to repay. Now, network operators are looking high and low for every bit of profit they can drum up -- including our wallets.
If there's a poster child for the whole 5G situation in the US, it's Verizon: the loudest and biggest spender in the room. The company committed $45.5 billion to new spectrum in 2021's FCC license auction -- almost twice as much as AT&T. And we don't have to guess whether investors are asking questions about when they'll see a return -- they asked point blank in the company's most recent earnings call. CEO Hans Vestberg fielded the question, balancing the phrases "having the right offers for our customers" and "generating the bottom line for ourselves," while nodding to "price adjustments" that also "included new value" for customers. It was a show of verbal gymnastics that meant precisely nothing.
The scam of 5G (Score:3, Interesting)
When you think of an MOBILE Internet connection, there are always two factors that define it: transfer speed and distance to "router".
Well, 5G is a mere scam because it gives you more transfer speed but the distance is VASTLY reduced.
Basically, you can consider 5G not as a "new technology" but a speed-tuned 3G, having your movement drastically limited.
Re:The scam of 5G (Score:5, Insightful)
5G was supposed to be more two-pronged. T-Mobile has tons of 600MHz spectrum. And AT&T and Verizon has 700MHz. But I don't really see much of it out in the real world. Even if I do see it, I think they might put it in a handful or rural towers but it should be right there on the same tower as the high band.
Ultra-wideband isn't really for big cities. It's for big buildings and parking lots. You need LOTS of them and you have to run LOTS of fiber to make it happen. Unlike the national fiber networks that handle the big towers, you need to really build out last-mile fiber for the ultra wideband. Which only makes sense if you're also selling residential fiber in the same town.
I already posted this, but the vast majority of the money spent on 5G was spent on locking up the spectrum from competitors.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The scam of 5G (Score:2)
I leave the phone in my luggage (Score:2)
BAM! - and I think that was my charger. Buzzes flight attendant You may want to have a quick look down in the cargo hold...
Re: (Score:2)
5G opened up new frequencies and new coding that improved efficiency. The idea is to deploy it in busy areas, where the short range isn't an issue but the high performance is very welcome.
Re:The scam of 5G (Score:5, Interesting)
5G opened up new frequencies and new coding that improved efficiency. The idea is to deploy it in busy areas, where the short range isn't an issue but the high performance is very welcome.
Sure, except that in a lot of the busy/dense areas where people aren't far from a tower - ie urban housing, urban business districts, large suburban residential developments, and concentrated suburban mall/strip retail - people also are already on their home Wi-Fi, their work Wi-Fi, or the retail/Starbucks/etc. Wi-Fi.
I'm continually surprised that more people don't ask why we're all good with an ISP corporation running one big pipe to a 500-unit apartment complex, and then charging 500 residents for 500 individual activation fees, installation fees, equipment fees, cable recovery fee, user services fees, federal fee-reduction fee-offset-fee fee, covfefe, etc. for 500 WAPs that are each less than 30ft away from at least 6 other WAPs, and you can pick up 40 SSIDs sitting on your couch. That's millions of tons of duplicated infrastructure which, at the point of service delivery, gets turned into EM spectrum and floods through all the walls anyway.
Some 28yo kid moving into the urban core for their job is the 5th person to live in apartment 3475B in the past decade. Comcast/ATT/etc. aren't laying new pipe for every resident every move. The service/infrastructure is the exact same service/infrastructure they sold to the previous 4 residents. All Comcast/ATT/etc. are doing is updating their billing record. But they get to keep inflating the plan prices AND charging all the fees as if it's 1997 and they are paying to send a Wichita County Lineman out to lay cable from the street and a geeksquaddie to spend an hour inside your home connecting your modem, router, computer, and verifying your connection.
I've been very resistant to agreeing with the people who insist that Internet access itself - categorically - is a public utility and should be regulated as such or even nationalized. But for 100 million people who live in dense metropolitan areas in 2023, the infrastructure and functionality are becoming pretty similar to water and electricity. Turn on the tap and water comes out. Nobody goes to the apartment leasing office and asks, "Do the units here have sinks and showers, and does your building have plumbing that connects to the sinks and bathrooms to carry water into an apartment?"
Re: (Score:1)
You can be picky about VPN and use it for things you feel comfortable doing.
Just do a little research and you can find one run by some ideological sperg westerner. One of mine I watch the owner post on the internet and as someone with a feel for nerd personalities he reads like someone who wouldn’t spy on you, lie about log retention, or hand your information over without being legally compelled.
Not that that is a ton of assurance but its enough that Ill give them a bunch of mostly encrypted and bori
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest I'd rather my cellular connection work than try the local WiFi. It's a shame 5G micro base stations aren't something they will deploy in shops.
Re: (Score:2)
Fun fact, the governing document since "3G" is the 3GPP standard. It keeps being revised and expanded, hence 4G and 5G in marketing speak, but it has all just been an evolution, not a revolution. If you look at existing bands 5G and 4G are pretty similar. Encoding is a little more efficient, and there is more flexibility to better handle coexistence of very low rate and very high rate users. As a user, unless you are trying to re-download your entire movie library, you will never notice.
Bigger additions
Re: (Score:2)
If you look at existing bands 5G and 4G are pretty similar.
Re-use of existing frequencies is a serious effort within cellular wireless companies. Why?
No more frequency spectrum is being created. Seriously. Ok, that is a spin on an old joke but it is true.
Since existing frequency spectrum that is usable (mmWave can be used, but it's not very practical) in cellular wireless the BIG CORPs spend lots of time on re-farming their existing spectrum. Re-farming makes sense because the carrier already "owns" a license to use that spectrum. Yeah, it is the sh1tz for people w
5G was always a scam. (Score:1)
I remember the hype when it was coming out. It will revolutionize everything! I heard it over and over but when presses nobody could tell me why.
There were answers I’d have accepted but I never heard them or saw them. 5G allows for ludicrous speeds but to this day the theoretical limits of 3G are still adequate for most users mobile needs let alone 4G which is just dandy.
The real benefit is the lower range allowing for fewer people to share a tower but good luck selling that. It sounds bad and mos
Re: 5G was always a scam. (Score:2)
I remember the exact same marketing speak about 4G a little over a decade ago. Hi def video, low latency gaming, blah blah. that's why I when I read the same arguments for 5G I knew it was going to be a disappointment. and it was.
I also remember apps to conveniently downgrade your phone to 3G because 4G was unusable when they first started rolling it out.
Re: (Score:1)
It definitely meant something (Score:3)
"It was a show of verbal gymnastics that meant precisely nothing."
It definitely meant something. They're going to have to raise prices.
Re: (Score:2)
It definitely meant something. They're going to have to raise prices.
If Verizon could make more money at a higher price point, they'd already be doing it.
A company sets prices as a balance between revenue per customer and the number of customers. Too low, and they're leaving money on the table. Too high, and they lose market share.
If Verizon already prices to maximize profit, they will lose market share and see profits decline if they raise prices.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Companies charge what the market will bear, usually only when there is profit at least under the term of the contract. When they're losing money, they have no choice but to raise prices.
In this case, Verizon clearly made a huge investment that isn't paying off as quickly as they planned. So, '"having the right offers for our customers" and "generating the bottom line for ourselves," while nodding to "price adjustments" that also "included new value" for customers. ' means they're going to come up wit
Re: (Score:2)
And if it's not enough, the CEO will shoot that bear and butcher it for his freezer, then deploy his golden parachute.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Companies charge what the market will bear, usually only when there is profit at least under the term of the contract.
There's a bit of economic nuance you missed. "The market" isn't monolithic: some people will pay more, others not. Companies charge what they think is the profit-maximizing price. Let's be pedantically accurate.
When they're losing money, they have no choice but to raise prices.
Or stop offering the product, or reduce the cost to produce the product (which is essentially what this thread is about). Companies typically have lots of ways to react when they want to improve margins.
In this case, Verizon clearly made a huge investment that isn't paying off as quickly as they planned. So, '"having the right offers for our customers" and "generating the bottom line for ourselves," while nodding to "price adjustments" that also "included new value" for customers. ' means they're going to come up with some marketing gimmick to convince customers of some imaginary "added value" to justify their new/higher price. He just couldn't say that last part out loud.
Yup. As a customer, I don't give a rat's a$$ how much it costs you to produce the product. If you
Re: (Score:2)
When they're losing money, they have no choice but to raise prices.
Or offer discounts to attract new customers.
Or discontinue the product.
Or upsell additional services.
Or whatever. But the naive belief that "higher prices mean more profit" is not generally true.
If it was, why would companies wait until they are losing money to raise prices? Why not raise prices all the time?
Re: (Score:3)
How long before we see '5G recovery fee' tacked on to the bottom of our bill?
I'm leaving Verizon, because the price I pay for what I get is ridiculous. I've never needed much data, so I had a low data plan for a long time. But they've started adding 'fees' to my bill to get me to go their even more (and unnecessary to me) 'unlimited' data plans. Seriously, a $12 'PLAN RATE ADJUSTMENT MULTI' fee tacked onto a $35 plan?
Well, it worked, and I'm moving... to another low price carrier. Bye-bye.
Re: (Score:2)
It definitely meant something. They're going to have to raise prices.
And that's a great example of how "cost" and "price" don't necessarily relate to each other. "Price" has to do with value delivered to customers. If 5G truly adds no value to customers, there ought to be no way to raise prices (in a competitive market). I don't care at all how much AT&T or Verizon paid, that's a them problem.
Great job (Score:3)
They spent billions buying spectrum. But that doesn't do much but lock out potential competition. To actually move things forward they need sufficient towers actually using the tech, especially on the low frequency side of things for extended range. I still very rarely see 600MHz T-Mobile signal despite them spending billions. Despite needing higher capacity / higher bandwidth links, part of the promise of 5G was finally filling the dead spots in the middle of nowhere with the lower band spectrum. Failing even at that, I think.
5G requires so many more towers to work effectively - and they will have to license space on buildings near high traffic areas for those high capacity links. And somehow run fiber backhaul to them when the businesses already there don't even have fiber available.
I see a lot of 5G UC towers (on T-Mobile's network) that spend all their capacity just managing the huge number of idle phones on them. When connected, my phone can't even make/receive calls because of all the noise. I have to force it to LTE. And of course UC requires far more towers anyway because of the higher frequencies used and I don't think that's happening.
Re: Great job (Score:2)
I think there's still a few metro areas with a UHF station that hasn't officially vacated channels 38 to 51 yet, and T-mobile can't start using 600mhz in that area until the last paperwork & certification related to the incumbent UHF channel's relocation is done. AFAIK, the actual move is done, but the paperwork is still in progress.
Re: (Score:2)
When connected, my phone can't even make/receive calls because of all the noise. I have to force it to LTE
Are you sure that's even it? I also disabled 5g because it would act connected but with zero throughput most of that time, and not just places where there were lots of other phones like concerts. It was just simply un-usable as an internet connection for me, and seemed like there were some rather fundamental real-world problems with the current setup that the companies aren't admitting to.
Re: (Score:2)
Phone calls are all treated as data on 5G so yeah - I'm sure it was exactly zero throughout too. I don't really mean SNR when I say noise but more an excess of setup/negotiation chatter that eats up all available bandwidth.
"It's Over"?! (Score:2)
false advertising is tolerated (Score:2)
I dont think Ive ever got more than a 10mbit download speed from a 5g connection, straight up con. If they cant make money even when theyre allowed to swindle people theyve got no hope
Re: (Score:1)
I dont think Ive ever got more than a 10mbit download speed from a 5g connection, straight up con. If they cant make money even when theyre allowed to swindle people theyve got no hope
I've hit over 20mbps on a "4G LTE" connection. It's not common, but I've seen it.
Real-time available-to-you bandwidth depends on a lot of things, not the least of which is congestion at the nearest tower.
Re: (Score:2)
its like buying a pound of sugar and getting a sachet, except thats an ISPs business model - advertise one speed, deliver a much lower one, shrug your shoulders, collect your winnings
Re: (Score:2)
I regularly get 40-50M on 4G. I don't even have a 5G phone, plenty of people have wireless ISPs nearing gigabit though. It just matters how many channels you have available. Even with multiplexing and better SNR, you first of all have to contend with 10-20y old tech often on the same frequencies and lots of obstructions and other talkers which all introduce their own issues. There are limited ways of making it better, the usual answer is more frequency spectrums or turn up the power, but you're running out
Re: (Score:2)
I got a 30mbit download over a 4g link.
Mind you, this was a dedicated data link, sold with the express ability to get 30mbit/6mbit. I have a hunch that they know they'll get people throw their mobile modems right into their face if they don't deliver, while people in a cellphone usually don't even know how fast their connection is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Is that a practical use or speed test? My 5g connection speed test to around 45mb down though I am in San Diego, so maybe we have better coverage.
"Flashiest use cases" (Score:3)
I dunno, I think I can quantitatively confirm my phone pulls in fully two more G's than my last phone did.
Re: (Score:2)
That only depends on how fast you can throw it.
One use case: High-density "fixed" wireless (Score:3, Insightful)
In high-density areas that are poorly served by land-lines or whose land-line monopoly or duopoly is overpriced due to lack of competition, putting high-bandwidth, low-range towers every half-block or so can provide good coverage to non-mobile customers and put price pressure on the land-line providers.
I'm thinking about that poor neighborhood with lots of residents that the land-line providers are ignoring because they would rather spend money on the new high-priced neighborhoods and apartments going up across town.
It also gives higher bandwidth for customers who are "cellular only" but who live or work in such a location.
Now, all of this assumes things that may not always be true, such as capacity exceeding demand, good reception from where-ever the customers are/nothing blocking the signal, etc. etc.
Re: (Score:2)
But if you're running last-mile fiber to neighborhoods, you already are doing most of the work to offer fiber to the home. If it was going to get a good return on the former, it would get a better return on the latter for not much more spend. So it either costs too much to pay off or they have limited crews available to run the fiber and those guys are already working on the high priced neighborhoods.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that digging holes and stringing fiber is expensive. Most ISPs are offering low costs in rural areas by both subsidy and the fact most copper was laid by the tax payer decades ago and most fiber was ran by commercial companies from the 90s when large customers that could actually afford it. You can get a fiber ISP for businesses, but people don't want to pay out of pocket, so they petition government who then raises everyone's prices through the FCC but then the FCC pockets the money and neve
Re: (Score:2)
But why would I put up more towers in poor neighborhoods where there is no competition. They can either accept my 1kbit/sec connection or have no internet whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just poor neighborhoods. My own neighborhood is upper-middle-class, and there is no real competition. I welcome competition from "fixed" wireless.
I feel ripped off (Score:2)
5G was supposed to give me awesome Magneto powers. And still nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
What a waste.
5G is WORSE! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of places where I had 5 bars of LTE before and now struggle with dropped calls and 1 bar.
I think the scam here is that the same tower is steering you to a bad 5G signal for marketing purposes (they want you to see that newer icon on your screen) when they probably still have that high powered LTE available. Just go into your phone settings and turn off 5G temporarily whenever you need to.
3G, Telematics, 2G, and emergency services (Score:2)
is causing enormous problems with various telematics hardware built with 3G modems
This.
Personally, I think 2G/voice and text should be required nationwide to support emergency services. As far as telematics goes, if you don't care about latency and the data rate is in the kilobits-per-second range or less, you can use a 2G voice channel. If you really don't care about latency and the bandwidth is very low, you can use 2G SMS messages to communicate.
Backhaul (Score:5, Informative)
I see a 5G Verizon signal in a nearby town and still get 64kbps on average because it's massively oversold and it's a low-income town with many renters so almost nobody has fixed line Internet.
They don't get any discount on monthly fees, just terrible service with more tower capacity and no bandwidth.
It's the same on a 4G phone and it was the same on a 3G phone back in the day.
Elsewhere I get reasonable data but it's wildly variable and 5G is only last-mile.
Re: (Score:2)
If I see 5G on my phone, it usually means I have essentially no data (Verizon) unless its a full 5 bars on the indicator. It's very bad. If I see 4G, I know it's working. What's most telling is that several years ago Verizon removed the software options on the newer phones to switch off 5G and only use 4G. The whole situation is ridiculous as during the 4G only era the Verizon network was probably the best.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
It's a shame they wasted so much money ripping out perfectly for Huawei equipment. Might have been able to pay for better deployment otherwise.
Race is over (Score:2)
New race has begun. That's kind of how these things progress.
Tech leapfrogs along. Ever Improving
Limited use cases (Score:3)
Re:Limited use cases (Score:5, Interesting)
This is my use case. I have many clients in industrial areas which will NEVER get fiber, are still stuck on 15/1mbit DSL as the best internet option. But can get 5g 50/50mbit internet. or better.
So yeah, its ass for phones but at least it DOES have a use case.
I'm shocked... (Score:2)
A few seconds later... Hey wow! GenAI's going to change everything! It's revolutionary but beware because jobs & SKYNET!!!... Blah, blah, blah...
Re: (Score:2)
I find interesting how many completely technologically illiterate people picked up on the whole "they're lying" component, but not on why, and that was used to create the whole 5G chip in the body vaccine stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really old people still have GSM chips, its quite sad
It Helded Carriers not Customers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly
Re: (Score:2)
What it helped was bandwidth congestion
This actually seems like a customer benefit to me. The carriers weren't dragging their feet, somehow artificially limiting bandwidth in congested areas. The 4G standard literally reached its limits in some of those places. If 5G helped that, then it did help individual customers who found that they could get good connections in places where they couldn't before.
4G LTE is fast enough (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Uploads are still LTE (Score:2)
This is the US, so yo know... (Score:2)
5G is not a measurement (Score:1)
The "G" in 5G is not the force of gravity, it is not a speed.
5G is the fifth generation of the entire architecture. How towers work, how phones work. How they talk to each other. What infrastructure is in the tower (e.g. servers and CDNs now) and how it is secured. What frequencies are supported, and who can run equipment (such as private commercial networks).
5G towers are entirely software and are directional. They reclaimed all the old frequencies, and now switch down to LTE or Edge as needed for those in
The hype was so bad. I am glad it is over. (Score:1)
Well obviously... (Score:2)
6G is the answer!
Re: (Score:2)
The promised performance of 6G (46x the bandwidth of 5G) is such a large increment that it might actually yield useful results.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. One problem with increased wireless data speeds, is that it tends to shorten the range.
And then maybe, nobody really wants their toasters and recliners connected to the internet.
For the record: (Score:1)
I told you so.
Change the code (Score:2)
My ISP increases the bill by $5 every 18 months and gives me another 20GB of data. That's an extra 4 movies or 5 games to download each month. At some point it's like buying air by the room, I'm actually not getting anything.
The building code needs to change. Imagine if a US landlord charged you extra for having a PSTN phone in your home, or having water outlets in your home: Everyone would be horrified but they and the ISP are allowed to charge for network cables. Worse, the US government pays for net
5G (Score:2)
I don't pay any extra for 5G.
I sometimes have it available.
I rarely use it to any advantage when it is available.
Having it "there" is great, if I happen to have it, be in the right place, have a pressing need for that facility and can make full use of it without having to do anything special.
Given the number of times that's come up, not paying any extra for the capability on my SIM is about the right price.
Now, consider that for 5 years I lived exclusively off 4G - including all my CCTV, VPN, home-automatio
I dunno, but... (Score:1)
I see the self-drive taxis/buses as good use-cases, and it seems like sat-nav with real-time traffic signals (& associated routing) wouldn't happen without low latency 5G.
Well, like I said, I'm mostly ignorant of if 5G is key to such things, but that's my impression.
Also, ive had a 5G phone since 2019 and 5G is often quite a bit faster than my (admittedly lowest-cost) fibre broadband connection, and more reliable too. I easily get 100s of Mbps, no problem. I often wonder why I bother with broadband - wh
5G sucks (Score:3)
Re: 5G sucks (Score:1)
Come on (Score:1)
Come on we all know that Huawei owns most of the copyrights for 5G, the US Government wanted to shut them down, hoping that they would come up for sale, but they didn't so now we have to pay.
6G should be interesting (Score:2)
It's something like 46x faster than 5G, which might actually achieve the results promised for 5G.
Air insulation (Score:2)
What "flashy" use cases? (Score:2)
Interesting that the article keeps repeating the phrase "flashiest of use cases" without actually naming any of them.
On Qualcomm's web site https://www.qualcomm.com/5g/wh... [qualcomm.com] list some under "How will 5G affect me?":: "...especially in the areas of virtual reality (VR), the IoT, and artificial intelligence (AI)."
Those are flashy all right. But what exactly does 5G have to do with those "use cases"?
- VR: Who cares? Clearly, Meta hasn't been able to get people interested in the "Metaverse." Maybe with 5G they