That is an iPhone and no it was not ultra wide. What I was getting at was UW was not delployed in my neighborhood. Im close to the freeway near a major shopping area and Verizon’s signal and coverage is trash in this area of chandler.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
AT&T and Verizon Now Rolling Out C-Band 5G Spectrum
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So we’ve been paying for 5G for almost a year being told we had it but we really didn’t? Is anyone else looking at it this way?
Anyone find/currently using/ have a real life ‘on the street’ example of the need for 5G yet?
Following weeks of delays due to concerns from the aviation industry, Verizon and AT&T were today able to begin deploying C-Band 5G spectrum to improve the availability of 5G connectivity for users across the United States.
AT&T's C-Band spectrum is live in limited parts of eight metro areas that include Austin, Chicago, Dallas Ft. Worth, Detroit, Houston, Jacksonville, Orlando, and South Florida. AT&T is taking a careful approach to the rollout, but the carrier says that C-Band spectrum will "expand rapidly" as part of a ramp up in its "thoughtful and efficient deployment." iPhone users who have access to AT&T's C-Band network or previously existing mmWave connectivity will see a "5G+" indicator in the iPhone's cellular status bar.
As for Verizon, the company earlier this month announced plans to expand its 5G Ultra Wideband service to 1,700 cities later in January, and that expansion started today with the launch of C-Band spectrum. Verizon users on Reddit are sharing details on where Verizon's 5G connectivity has suddenly improved, noting the locations where C-Band connectivity is live. Verizon users will see a "5G UW" indicator.
There are reports from across the country, including Los Angeles, Nashville, Salt Lake City, Chicago, Minneapolis, Rochester, and many other smaller cities. Verizon said that it expected the C-Band rollout to bring faster 5G speeds to more than 100 million people, but has not yet shared a C-Band coverage map.
AT&T's 5G+ and Verizon's 5G Ultra Wideband are up to 10x faster than LTE speeds and can hit upwards of a gigabit per second.
Verizon and AT&T are both limiting their C-Band deployment in areas that are near airport runways to give airlines and the FAA more time to figure out whether there are issues with airplane altimeters.
Earlier this week, major U.S. airlines penned an urgent letter warning that the 5G rollout could cause a "catastrophic" crisis resulting in cancelled, delayed, and diverted flights.
The FAA has implemented buffer zones around 50 major airports with wireless transmitters close to runways, but for the time being, AT&T and Verizon will block off a two mile zone around affected airports to address concerns.
Airlines and the two carriers have expressed frustrations over the FAA's lack of action, as the agency has had years to prepare. C-Band spectrum went up for auction in late 2020, with Verizon paying $45 billion and AT&T paying $23 billion for access.
"We are frustrated by the FAA's inability to do what nearly 40 countries have done, which is to safely deploy 5G technology without disrupting aviation services, and we urge it to do so in a timely manner," AT&T said in a statement.
Article Link: AT&T and Verizon Now Rolling Out C-Band 5G Spectrum
If it reduces ping times, I'll take it. Slow SSH sessions while tethering are frustrating, and people underestimate how much ping matters to webpage loading time.
I see. And wow. I totally spaced. I am tired. Maybe a glanced at some other post or picture. In my mind I remember seeing the "bubble-y" looking 5G icon like many Androids have. At second look... it is clearly an iPhone.
Yea I'm in North Central Phoenix and nothing at my house. I did get 5G UW when I went to the store at Central & Dunlap, but disappeared when I got to my neighborhood.
No?
If you’re seeing 5G, you had 5G. Higher speeds require more bandwidth. The lower spectrum channels have smaller slices of bandwidth - like Verizon’s big win in 700 mhz that gave them such promising LTE early on was 10 mhz down and 10 mhz up. The higher frequencies, like T Mobile’s EBS/BRS and this C-Band, allow channels at 100 mhz. Going further into mmWave, 24 ghz and up, you’re looking at channels 400 mhz wide. Hence, the name distinctions. Wider channels = more speed. The lower the frequency, the further it travels but slower speed; higher, shorter and shorter til it’s basically line of sight with mmWave but with multiple gig throughput.
Visible, US Mobile Also Get Verizon's New 5G System
US Mobile offers much cheaper single-line plans than Verizon, if you want to try the new network.
Sounds like it might be a mixed bag for awhile on the Verizon MVNOs.
While you have a decent general point, and they could stand to move a bit quicker at times, you have no idea about the testing that has to go into changes made in the aviation industry. Lives are literally at stake, potentially, with every change they make. If you've never watched the show Air Disasters, it could be worth a watch to help get a small glimpse of how even the smallest change can have potentially catastrophic consequences.
I'll be shocked if I get 5G by July. I remember when we got broadband cable. I had to buy an ISDN line to get decent download times, and I was told we were one of a few groups that even had that.
People joked that living here was close to being 'off the grid'. Not kidding...
People joked that living here was close to being 'off the grid'. Not kidding...
Not so much the Fiber but the Alcatel-Lucent ONT. The 600MHz LTE Band 71 has 30 Watts per channel so it does have an impact with installs close to the transmit antenna. Any install within 1000-1500 feet near the tower.
It's all good. The problem is they say they have it up and running in many places and neighborhoods but ones where you'd expect them to have it in, don't have it.
It's used at lower power but that's not necessarily an issue. For example this spectrum was previously used by satellite operators with zero guard band. Now they are operating with a large guard band in place. If anything there should be less interference even if the plane was right over a cell tower broadcasting at full power.
THEY HAVE, did you not read what I originally said? The telecoms have agreed to an even larger exclusion zone than in France or Japan with an even larger guard band. This is the biggest case of lazy bureaucratic ass covering I've ever seen and a mix of sheer incompetence and laziness from the useless FAA.
It's up to the FAA and Airbus/Boeing to make sure their aircraft are safe to fly in even unexpected electromagnetic radiation situations. The telecoms have done nothing wrong. I'm an Electronics and Electrical Engineer so I actually understand this stuff. My opinion of the FAA continues to sink lower and lower.
I don't understand how you can say this caught the FAA off guard? This was planned to happen for years and years. They don't just repurpose spectrum over night on a whim. I wouldn't be surprised if this had been in the plans for a decade or more.
I agree with this but this post has good information.
@Bryan Bowler
U.S. Airlines Warn of 'Catastrophic' Crisis With Impending 5G Rollout, AT&T and Verizon Agree to Delay Around Airports
I am very short on time this week, but as a pilot, I will attempt to answer a few of the questions being posted here. The FAA is tasked with protecting public safety. The band being rolled out by AT&T and Verizon is right next to the frequencies used by the special altimeter systems that we...forums.macrumors.com
Coming at it from a pilot's perspective is good but as an electronic and electrical engineer I can actually understand what is going on.
The FAA has had YEARS to plan for this and did little to nothing until the last moment. Whilst I agree completely with safety first, this is not a safety issue. I bet everyone on this thread had no idea this spectrum was previously used by satellite operators with ZERO GUARD BAND. Whilst now it is being operated with a large guard band in place. If anything the situation is now safer than it was previously.
While it is true a/c are required to shield systems from EMI, that doesn't absolve tower operators from ensuring that there isn't leakage outside of the allowable operating frequency. If there is, it is the transmitters responsibility to fix it. If the issue is transmission within the assigned frequency cause interference then its an a/c issue.
I suspect the truth is somewhere between the two groups stated positions as far as what the problem is and how to fix. It appears the FAA has already ok'd some radar altimeters for use where 5G Is also in use.
So here's my question - in your opinion, is the issue signal leakage outs side of the assigned frequencies or r/a issues with the assigned frequencies even if they are within the licensed band and allowable power level?
As I understand it, part of the issue is how he transmitters are positioned on the towers vs how satellite communications operated in those bands; resulting in the concerns. Other countries have established exclusion zones around airports, set lower power levels and made directional changes to antennas to mitigate interference. I suspect the end result will be some sort of similar setup in the US, which, IIRC, some operators are already soing on a voluntary basis.
At any rate, this should have been resolved when the spectrum was sold, not when the rollout started.
Logan isn't on the list of airports that was to have a buffer zone around it so it's unlikely that either AT&T or Verizon were planning to put C-band in that area. Further, the buffer zone is only 2 miles from the airport perimeter. With that said, I have not seen any C-band in the areas of Boston where I've been yesterday and today.
I live in "THE HOOD". LOL. Maryvale. (West Phoenix)... and I have it on my street!
Say that after seeing my speed tests on 5G I posted earlier in this thread. 2.10Mb down and 0.02Mb up is NOT 5G speeds not even close.
Speed isn’t guaranteed. If you were on 5G when you got the speed, it was on 5G. I mean… there isn’t any other way to explain it to you - your 1 bar of service says a lot though. I get 150/50 on low band 5G. But 800/30 on UC. Why’s the upload better on the lower frequency? I must not be on 5G I guess when it says UC. Right?
Do you, maybe, see a problem with that logic? Hint: look up Friis' equation.
This is also why nobody cares that all that existing satellite service is being packed into the 4.0-4.2GHz band, right next to the radar altimeter band. Satellites are in orbit.
No, they have not. The French have an exclusion zone around airports that US regulations do not, they have not licensed the band from 3.8-3.98GHz for 5G use which the US has, and they have authorized transmissions at lower power and with different antenna orientations than US regulations.
For the next 6 months only, the carriers have agreed to essentially follow French regulations around US airports. If the US regulations were more stringent, that concession would make no sense.
That is correct. That is why the FAA prohibited low visibility approach at high risk airports for aircraft without certified equipment.
This has been planned since March 2020. Not years. Certainly not years and years. Caught off guard might be the wrong turn of phrase, but the aviation industry is being asked to update a piece of safety critical hardware faster than design/test/international certification cycles allow.
Hmm... Maybe. But you seem to be missing some key concepts and substituting your gut feel for data you can actually seek and know.
Last edited: