Here in the UK where you can't get much more than 25Gb on a mobile data tarrif there is likely to be little point with 5G at those speeds as you'd be able to use it in a few minutes. I'd love to ditch my landline and broadband and just switch to 4G broadband as the speeds I can get are about the same and it means not paying for calls I don't use.
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 to Begin Testing 5G, 10-100 Times Faster Than 4G LTE
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I've always wondered what legitimate cell phone users would use such a fast pipeline for. I'm not talking about bit-torrenting files, bootlegging videos, or using your mobile data plan for your home internet. I'd rather see ATT improve their networks, add features (where the hell is my wifi calling on my Note 5?!!?), etc etc. Now if ATT brings back "unlimited" and lets us tether our home then I'm all for it, but I highly doubt that will ever happen.
If you accidentally click on an HD video ... and the speed is so fast that it instantly loads the entire video ... that is definitely a scenario in which you could accidentally blow right through your data cap.
We have the same problem, and have been using WiFi calling for about a year before getting a Microcell. The problem with WiFi is that it's shared spectrum with other devices. Your home and office WiFi network (as a whole) will slow down to the speed which the furthest device can connect reliably to the network.
WiFi networks will automatically re-negotiate speed to increase speeds. If your on a phone, and you move your head, there will often be a noticable blip, as the network re-negotiates speed. Lost voice packets become much more apparent in HDVoice calls, and I've even noticed people talk like chipmunks when 3 or 4 seconds of voice data can be delivered reliably across unlicensed airwaves.
So let's look at WiFi and the standard.
First, the newest WiFi standard is 802.11ac can be configured to use up to 160Mhz in the 5GHz band. Using 160Mhz of total air space for internet is near to the total amount of airwaves Verizon has IN TOTAL over it's entire network. 802.11ac is designed for distances of 230 feet indoors.
To compare, and on AT&T, a microcell/femtocell usually provides a 5x5MHz channel (10Mhz total) dedicated only to devices you approve. Voice is very low-bandwidth; only needing 60-70kb/s. Your Microcell uses AT&T airwaves and spectrum, which is NOT shared with other consumer devices like cordless phones, microwave ovens, wireless security cameras, WiFi Boosters, and other devices which may interfere with spectrum and the same airwaves WiFi uses.
How blips happen.
So, when interference is detected, WiFi will disconnect/drop and re-negotiate to a new speed, new channel selection isn't automatic for most consumer-grade routers. Generally this takes less than a second. WiFi 802.11ac 5GHz standards alone may negotiate to speeds of 65, 130, 195, 260, 390, 520, 585, 650, 780, or 866.7 (or 58.5, 117, 175.5, 234, 351, 468, 702, 780 if the Guard Interval is disabled on the WiFi network). WiFi calling is worthless on a network with a booster attached. Depending on WiFi router manufacturer, a noisy channel isn't re-selected unless you unplug your router.
People whom have a WiFi 802.11ac router that has 802.11b/g/n enabled for older devices like a laptop, an iPad 3 or AppleTV won't be able to reliably use WiFi calling. As devices connect, and even attempt to logon (WPA2 negotiation) the router can re-negotiate to an earlier standard such as 802.11b/g/n, and in-turn slow everything on the wireless network down further. So, when b/g/n/ac standards are also enabled on a router (often the default), the router may re-negotiate across an additional 20 speeds in the WiFi standard- 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, 120, 135, 150 / 802.11n with guard band enabled= 13.5, 27, 40.5, 54, 81, 108, 121.5, 135; 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48, 55 for 802.11g, and 1, 2, 5.5, 11 for 802.11n.
In total, this means up to 30 different speeds would need to be negotiated and re-negotiated on a newer router (like the one sales person at BestBuy or T-Mobile said you needed to make a reliable phone call... right..?) and the likelihood of unreliable calling grows exponentially.
How to fix these pain point problems.
802.11 standards were not built for services that require QoS like voice phone calls. My experience has been that it's best to use a Microcell, which only negotiates a LTE connection on spectrum licensed to the provider.
The best way to handle these issues is actually very simple- Don't sell service to people whom can't get a signal. In situations were a customer has to bear the costs of an ill-designed network exists, those customers whom can't get a signal should be a priority for network expansion and investment. As a customer, it's also best to choose companies that make it a company priority (in investment) to fix network coverage problems instead of giving out band-aids and a crutch in the form of Microcells and also expect customers to use WiFi calling. By piggybacking on DSL/cable and broadband networks for making a phone call, the service doesn't work on its own.
What a carrier can do.
For companies like AT&T and Verizon who provide microcells, they already know the address where coverage is terrible, and those areas should be on a hotlist for network expansion. Customers are forced to pay a third party for service the provider shouldn't be able to brand itself. Maybe it should be more accurate; with additional fine-print. Something like "T-Mobile service powered by Verizon FiOS" or "AT&T service powered by Comcast cable" or something along those lines.
Last edited:
I am not a fan of BPL (broadband power line) as it has been way to noisy and the FCC and most power utilities have effectively abandoned the concept due to way too much side-band noise across existing power infrastructure.
I prefer hard wired power and Ethernet out of the Apple TV due to efficiency issues.
Yeah, because $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
[doublepost=1455303701][/doublepost]
Do you work for AT&T?
When 3G came out, it was barely faster than 2.5G (Edge). When 4G came out, it was barely faster than 3G. When 4G LTE came out, it was barely faster than 4G. I expect the pattern to resume with "5G" being nothing more than marketing for many years.
I've seen 7MB/second download speeds on T-Mobile 4G LTE. That's faster than the 50Mbps Verizon FIOS I have at home. I can't see a real-world use for this anytime soon.
I've seen 7MB/second download speeds on T-Mobile 4G LTE. That's faster than the 50Mbps Verizon FIOS I have at home. I can't see a real-world use for this anytime soon.
Not only that, but the faster your handset can download data, the sooner the modem can be disabled, saving your battery.
Or does longer battery life endanger your data plan, too?
That's not how data works. But leave it to MR members to fail fantastically at something else simple as this.
[doublepost=1455306733][/doublepost]
200/20 here for $30 a month on TWC, sounds like you need to negotiate.
Don't be fooled by the pretty little map that they color code to show everywhere they have LTE coverage. I often take 30 across Indiana and Ohio, as well as 69 north from Fort Wayne to the 80/90 toll road on my way to Chicago and only pick up LTE when skirting the outsides of big cities on the way. I can travel the other way through OH and then take 71 up to Cleveland and be missing out on LTE most of that way. This is all on Verizon. Even where I live I am still getting 1x. Not even 3G. They show most of that area completely covered in LTE on their map coverage.
Except it's not true as explained above several times. The logic of members here is astoundingly sad.
[doublepost=1455307108][/doublepost]
Which is what people are replying to the idiocy of the original comment. Faster speed =/= faster usage of data, there are various mitigating factors.
While I get your point, not everyone's experience is the same. I routinely get much faster speeds than you on LTE. And with my home 50mbps internet.
4G was barely released in 2009. And when I purchased my iPhone 5 in 2012, I had it in my home neighborhood, but as soon as I drove 15 minutes to another city, I was back on edge. And this is Los Angeles. Apple usually holds off features for upgrades, but their rollout of the iPhone 5 was in congruence with rollout coverage of 4G towers. A 4G iPhone wouldn't have done me any good in '09, '10, and possibly much of '11.We got 4G back in 2009 and iPhone 5 was the first iPhone to support it in 2012..
We get 5G 2020 and if they choose to lag behind 3 years again, the iPhone 5G (or "10" or "X") in 2023?
What would really be a game changer is if wireless carriers would figure out how to upgrade their capacity and price it competitively so they could compete with wired carriers. Imagine if you could choose between wireless broadband vs Comcast for your home Internet? We might finally have real competition.
neat speeds... so I think the take away here is that mobile carriers data speeds will always be faster than a fixed internet connection... Even current NBN is only 100Mbps. But like everything, no one will really get those speeds from carries unless u test via speedtest app at 2am like i do
The most i can get is only 20MB on iPhone 6 at that time .....
Fixed line will always be better due to latency..... Your gonna get that anyway, but if would be lower with fix line.
The most i can get is only 20MB on iPhone 6 at that time .....
Fixed line will always be better due to latency..... Your gonna get that anyway, but if would be lower with fix line.
When you can mow through your monthly allocation of data in 10 minutes, that is exactly how it works. As well, if you believe that websites, apps, and videos will not get more data intensive with these new technologies - hence blowing through your data allocation faster - then it's possible there is a little bit of willful ignorance going on.
Leave it to Master Level Trolls to fail fantastically at understanding something as simple as that.
Apparently you don't have a clue as to what VZW considers "the sticks." Try living in the concentrated suburbs (less than 10 miles from downtown) of a metro area with 2.5 million people and not be able to get a signal, then have VZW tell you that you live in a "fringe" area.
That is TWC Maxx and it's incredibly limited currently... But they're expanding its footprint this year considerably, and a lot of states approving the Charter merger are making it a requirement for their approval - even though Charter doesn't offer a price point that low currently.
Why would they get more intensive? The biggest offenders of data use - video and enriched content - have been consistently working in the opposite direction. Better encryption and smaller files.
People are just moving more of their media consumption to the internet. That's their own evolution, rather than the websites evolution.
