This could have an impact, but that was not what I was referring to.
Static areas can be targeted, and equipment placed specifically to get the promised speeds in small area. 5G will suck for true mobile, especially at the beginning and/or out of urban areas because the 5G coverage would have to be in a much broader area than
I don't know if I can agree to this. While fibre optic cables are relatively cheap, there is much more that goes into running them than you might think. Not only is there equipment in-between runs, there is the cost to install the cable and equipment.
It is incredibly costly to run cable underground, as 10-15 years ago, Verizon learned this with expanding its FiOS service, laying fibre isn't cheap, they slowed their expansion dramatically. They required 2-year agreements from its new customers, and I read that it still was not paying for the expansion cost even with the 2-year agreements.
I can't say for sure that one is cheaper than the other, but I know that building a wired infrastructure to everyone's home is very expensive.
This is true for 5G mobile service, but not necessarily true for a targeted static location.
I am curious, were did you see this?
I have read the opposite, that due to the slow rollouts of 5G because of the more "tower" that you mentioned, that many places worried that they would be skipped over by the networks do to the investment costs.
Yes, this is true for having a mobile 5G connection, like the OP mentioned with a 5G MBP.
But, this isn't the case with static locations, because the equipment to provide that small coverage will targeted, unlike a broad coverage area of mobile use.
I have seen this too, but according to Verizon, they have not seen any weather related issues with their 5G at home service.
I completely agree. It would make much more sense to have LTE than 5G, due to the much greater coverage, and that didn't happen. It will most likely never happen for 5G either.
