Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I don't really see the point of higher speeds when iOS and crappy bogged-down websites make the experience so slow anyways.

Connection speed hasn't been the culprit in ages. Input-blocking and terrible UI, however, are endless thorns.
 
I honestly still don't know why is it so necessary 5G, when 4G+ is already giving us 300Mbps speeds...

Maybe on highly populated areas it will manage better lots of connections... That's the only benefit I can see. I'm happy with my 4G connection anyway.
Well some aplications will deffenetly benefit more from reduced round trip time than the increased speed
 
  • Like
Reactions: NetMage and Populus
90% of 5G deployment (all countries except U.S.) will be 3.5 GHz which is just another 4G spectrum so there is actually very little that will be different to worry about.
5G speed in sub-6 GHz bands is similar to 4G.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NetMage
We're all going to have cooked wieners with these in our pockets. :p
...or just go sterile.

In fact male fertility has reached historically low numbers in recent years but that could be due to a number of factors (environmental toxins, psychological, diet, etc..) unrelated to increased use of Wifi and cell phones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Altis
The folks defending 5G and claiming are no detrimental health effects simply do not know whether that is true or not. The fact of the matter is, we DON'T know what happens to the human body after long term exposure to 5G signals. Just as easily as you can say, "There aren't any long term studies proving that it's bad for you," I can rebuke with, "There aren't any long term studies proving that it's safe for you."

We need to be testing this stuff extensively before we broadcast it out over 62.7% of the population (that's just US residents living in cities; number expected to grow). But we don't. It isn't difficult to see what's wrong with that picture. This isn't tinfoil hat stuff. It's just common sense.
 
Out of curiosity, did the testing occur outside or inside? With such a tiny wavelength, I'm curious if 5G will work inside at all.
 
5G is totally hyped. It's mostly irrelevant for phones. 4G hasn't even been used to its full extent and compared to that 5G isn't a big step in terms of speed. The advantage of 5G are not in the consumer market...
2Gb/s is disgusting. Cat5e doesn’t even pump beyond gigabit.

Of course it’ll be a lot less with real-world usage and more users, but those sorts of speeds wirelessly is disgraceful.

I’ve got a facehugger Netgear Nighthawk X6 router and I haven’t seen faster than 900Mb/s over wireless with the best 802.11ac device. To get those speeds wirelessly, even in optimum settings, is practically immoral. **** that’s fast.
Actually, Cat5e is perfectly fine for 5GbE over short distance.
AC WiFi will soon be supplemented by AX WiFi which about doubles the speed, yet high speed WiFi requires expensive Multi MIMO, which most clients don't support.
I'm curious if 802.11ad every sees the light... that would push a couple gigabits over a line of sight connection (single room wifi).
 
  • Like
Reactions: NetMage and CarlJ
While that's impressive, it seems like massive overkill. Getting a rock-solid 50Mbps upload/download speed is more than enough to stream 4k video. Who is sending/receiving multi-gigabyte files on their phones?
 
More bandwidth in congested areas is gonna be the nice part.
That's really the point of 5G, IMO. As more and more people consume their media on phones or tablets, that bandwidth will be critical to keeping the infrastructure afloat. When I was with AT&T, I lived near a university. When school was in session, download speeds plummeted. When the students went away for the summer, speeds were fine. The more people who are on the network, the slower things get. So 5G should have enough headroom, at least until 8k video becomes the streaming standard.
 
You'll have that fast service year one, when standing under a tower with clear line of site.
And then year two and the amount of people connected to that tower doubles / triples and your speed dramatically falls off.

I know someone remembers how fast LTE "was" the first year the iPhone had it versus 6 months to a year later.
Probably not, as far as I understand thare us often a dead zone right under the tower iirc it exstends several meters arround it, allto that area is usual fenced in anyway
 
One aspect of 5G that I've not seen really discussed in this thread is the potential huge strides in latency performance. Things like automated vehicles are coming in our not too distant future and will need to be able to communicate with the grid and each other instantaneously.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NetMage
having suffered through years of 28.8 kbps dial up modem speeds, (which rarely even hit those speeds) I can really appreciate 2Gbps.
I did a lot of work on 2400bps dialup (after brief use of a 1200bps acoustic coupler), where one often typed ahead of what was being printed on the screen (was pretty good at fixing typos in vi before they'd appeared on the screen), and being able to do the equivalent of wired Ethernet (10mbps!) over the air is still pretty awesome - I remember when that seemed like science fiction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xpxp2002
For those who are on Verizon plan and want to get 5G, you need to get on their Above and Beyond Unlimited plan plus additional $10 on top.

I think it will be quite some time before we see widespread (mostly in larger cities) 5G service. As current 4G service, it is still inconsistent in speed and this needs to be addressed but who knows how much the carriers will invest in improving coverage. I have done speed tests during my travels and see inconsistencies in speed and signal and have yet to surpass 90mbps with my SE and generally avg 30mbps.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.