Isn't it significantly faster than 4G? Rural broadband roll out in the UK has been very slow. Full 5G coverage would solve that problem very easily.
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.
BT to Expand 5G to Entire UK by 2028 Using Drones, Satellites, and Portable Cells, Will End 3G Service by 2023
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It can only solve any such problem if it is installed. Why do we accept the idea that 5G will provide better coverage within a very few years than 4G does around twleve years after its launch started?
Full anything coverage would solve the problem.
Can we expect the coverage to be based on population by residence? With empty fields, mountains, beaches, forests, counting as zero population as no-one lives there? Though they appear to promise 100% of land area, if they miss extrmely sparsely populated areas, will anyone get upset and withdraw their licences or fine them?
And it really should have to cover at least a few miles out to sea.
Tired of reading this. The UK is about as urbanised as any other country, the US included. Size is not as important as covering the areas where people actually live and the US has more than enough resources to actually do this. Yet it doesn't.
We're only accepting it (at the moment) because the telcos have said they are going all-out with 5G coverage. Yes, 4G has been around for 12 years and coverage can still be spotty, but the additional benefits of the speed of 5G seems to have given the telcos a bit of fire to get the coverage up and running properly.
I live in the UK and have worked from home for the last 11 years. We've moved house several times in that period, and the limitations of internet access has been very obvious when finding a house. 4G home broadband doesn't really seem to have taken off here, but several providers are already offering 5G home broadband. This is obviously limited to big metropolitan areas at the moment, but if I could get 5G home broadband way out in the country, that would be fantastic.
(I should say that my 5G interest really is just for home broadband. I'm not really into phones! But the UK government had committed to rural broadband rollout over the next however many years, so it seems like 5G could really help with that).
Any one thinks that telecoms building their own network is wasteful of resources and there should be a unified network by the government and from then it leases/rents to telecom services? Or maybe just turn telecom into a utility, a goverment controlled system like water and electricity. The savings can be passed on to the consumer or in building better network.
I really see its a waste of money to be 4x the antennas and wires for each telecom.
I really see its a waste of money to be 4x the antennas and wires for each telecom.
Depends on your carrier's implementation strategy. Some carrier decide to use new spectrum with lower range for 5G. Some uses lower end spectrum for range. The benefits isn't obvious at first, but once the spectrum refarm and other things are in place 5G will definitely be better than 4G. Comparatively speaking. So it is definitely not a "scam".
But if you are not tech oriented, or have specific needs, most people should just follow their usual upgrade cycle to a new 5G phone rather than jumping on board specifically because of 5G.
Did you happen to miss that Southern Water were fined £90 million the other day? They preferred to pocket the money rather than do what they were being paid for - processing sewage. So they just poured untreated sewage into the sea and put the money into their bonuses and dividends.
Or that several pharmaceutical companies have just been fined £260 million for overcharging the NHS for genuinely essential medicines? By exploiting a loophole.
Afraid, I think the government is far too compromised for us to trust in them managing anything. Not even when all the work is (supposed to be) done by others and all they really have to do is a) check work is done; b) pay a reasonable price.
Below I have pasted a map of 4G coverage near me from my carrier (Three). People live, work, travel, holiday, etc., across the whole area. 5G would be blank (possibly a tiny, tiny area at the extreme bottom right corner.) 3G is much, much better - possibly over 90%.
I'd like to see some sort of requirement for the companies to achieve some large percentage of land (and sea) coverage over the whole country before they start on the next generation.
If they won't build their own, they could enable roaming in poorly covered areas at no charge to customers. And if they did that, we might see something much closer to 100% coverage.
Be careful what you wish for-BT installed fibre to the cabinet a couple of years ago and I get 62/18mbs. Earlier this year gigaclear came along and installed fibre to the premises. Great I thought but they made a complete hash of this including using moles in advance so they didn’t have to dig up the road, then promptly loosing the plans of of the ducting so they had to dig up the roads anyway, as well as leaving exposed fibre cables in the roadside verges and ditches. Now we all know what will happen the next time the farmer comes along and clears the ditch…
Plus £49 per month (after the 18 month promotion) for 300mbs seems extortionate, especially when I know that someone will cut the wire at some point…
Sorry but that’s simply not true. The UK population density is 725 people per square mile, the US is 86. Only three states plus DC have a higher population density. Even if you exclude Alaska you wouldn’t come close.
Who cares about the UK? I care about Wales and we have around 381 per square mile. Or, as many prefer, about 147 per square kilometre.
Do you never travel to other parts of the UK? You’re missing out massively.
Seven states plus DC have a higher population density.
Used miles as I assume Weckart is American, and generally they can’t cope with the metric system. 😉
Very rarely do we go anywhere very far away.
But don't think I am unaware - I have lived in at least six different cities and maybe a couple of dozen towns and villages across Great Britain (not just a week or two - months or years) - as well as two extended times abroad. I used to drive hundreds of miles a week. I think I have visited every county.
And in the county where I live population density drops to 200 per square mile. Something like Indiana or North Carolina, from where I looked.
Last edited:
Again, tired of reading this. Do you honestly think that the entire population of the US is spread evenly across its geography? Over 80% of the population (more like 85%) of developed countries lives in compact urban centres. The US is no exception. You can cover that at least without having to worry about putting a mast up Mt Rushmore or in the northern fringes of Alaska. Population density isn't telling you much except that you have a large country, most of which is unpopulated.
To recap on what was said:
Of course overall population density makes a difference. As 827538 notes in the original quote where population density in the UK is very low such as remote areas of Scotland mobile coverage is still better than the US because our lowest density/remotest areas will still be far higher than the lowest in the US. We are more ‘urbanised’ even in our rural areas.
Last edited:
I would dispute that. During the US election a heat map was put out showing where people lived in the US showing a neat contrast between land and vote concentration. Even in rural areas, most people clustered around small to large townships. There are relatively few people living isolated on remote farmsteads in either country.
You could also look at the likes of Finland and Sweden with smaller population densities than even the vast US and with more challenging geography for the most part. They seem to have cracked it at a much lower cost to the consumer. I don't think the population density argument cuts it these days, if it ever did. The problem lies elsewhere.
Cost is, I think, a separate issue. We have a heavily regulated market (although slightly less now we are outside the EU). My understanding is that Americans prefer a free market…
In terms of comparisons you want to compare with areas that have similar population densities. These could be countries or regions
The free market is not favouring the consumer, either in cost or coverage. That is the issue.
Population density is not the issue. Never has been.
There has long been a tendency for low population density areas to be last to receive each step up for mobile coverage. (Assuming they ever get the step, that is!)
Below a certain level, the number using it would be so small as not to justify the investment. And, when each network has to install their own services the companies will be estimating on the basis of their customers - real/actual or projected, permanent or passing through. The more networks, the fewer potential customers, the less likely coverage will be to get installed. Unless external pressures are brought to bear - such as licence conditions.
This is behind my argument that we need in-country roaming for low-density areas. If you live in a big city, market forces an dictate the coverage to a considerable extent. (I say "big" because my nearest city has absolutely zero 4G coverage and barely adequate 3G. It is, though, the smallest city in the country.)
Sorry rereading this post from earlier last night you kind of repeat what I’m saying.
827538 stated that when driving in remote areas of the UK there is always reasonable coverage but that is because in those areas there is almost always dispersed (or nucleated) settlement nearby because the UK population density is higher everywhere. Even in our remotest locations. The only place I know of that you could drive for miles and not see settlement is along the A82 across Rannoch Moor and Glen Coe. Maybe 20-30 minutes before passing by a village. And even here you have a both a main road and a passenger railway line crossing the moor. As you travel through most of the Highlands and Islands (the remotest parts of the UK) you will pass villages and small settlements fairly regularly because the population (which is higher than in parts of the US) is spread across most of the area.
827538 also says that driving through the US you can travel for ‘hours and hours’ with no signal. But thats hardly surprising given that seven geographically large (and some cases contiguous) states in the US (Idaho, New Mexico, the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming and Alaska) have a lower population overall population density than the Highland area and, as you point out above, in many of these states the population is concentrated in the cities and towns. So when driving for ‘hours and hours’ across these states it would be fairly easy not to pass many settlements and pick up reception. In the Highland area the only ‘large’ town is Inverness which urban area accounts for about 25% of the population of this area. The remaining 75% live in the remaining small towns and dispersed villages located across the entire area.
Having the goverment give tenders to private companies and watch them from far is a death sentence. I meant communication would be operated by the government like the IRS or Royal Mail I guess!?
Royal Mail plc is a "private" company - as in, with shareholders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Mail
Most UK utilities are private - in the same sense. Governments over the years have privatised many things that they used to directly control - for doctrinaire reasons. Ironically, the pandemic has forced renationalisation of the railway system (most of it).
BT used to be part of the GPO , up until privatisation it was government controlled and was wallowing cash cow for said government.
You could have any colour phone you liked as long as it was one of the 1 or 2 colours that when on the fitters van.
BT is probably in a better place now in the way it was let loose vs still under government control but certainly don't need government running it or taking control. Especially this government.
BT has the tools to do the job. Look to the management why not I suppose.
You could have any colour phone you liked as long as it was one of the 1 or 2 colours that when on the fitters van.
BT is probably in a better place now in the way it was let loose vs still under government control but certainly don't need government running it or taking control. Especially this government.
BT has the tools to do the job. Look to the management why not I suppose.
I am not sure where it is better(public or private) because in the US people complain a lot about AT&T, Comcast, and health care prices, but either way I meant the infrastructure itself is government owned and then the telecoms can rent it from the government and sell it to the people, then you pick the better telecom based on service