Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
So, no data caps for $50 a month but there are data caps for mobile at more money per month?

Once your phone can receive (share) this 5G, beat "the man" by switching to a VOIP app for phone & texting. Buy this plan for home use, leverage it for mobile use too using a VOIP app to take over phone (and texting) service.

I basically do close to this now using the AT&T data-only $25 for 2GB for 3 months plan, making my iPad Mini double as my phone and texting device too (earbuds + mic for phone). In wifi zones, it uses wifi for calls, texts and obviously data. Outside of wifi zones, it uses that AT&T cellular data-only plan. A VOIP app- Google Hangouts in my case- offers the phone and texting functionality. All other apps see data service as data service. Net result: instead of $4X-$8X/month for talk + text + data I'm on the equivalent of < $9/month (up to $100 for the AT&T cellular plan PER YEAR). Those with whom I call or text can't tell that it's a Mini doing the job on my end. For my purposes, this all works great and if MUCH cheaper than any cell phone setup and plan.

If a cell phone is going to be able to utilize this 5G at home, it's going to be able to use this 5G on the road too. If so, a whole slew of VOIP apps may become much more popular for the money-saving minded among us. If 5G is basically the "dumb" wireless broadband pipe we've imagined all these years, the ability to keep prices of tapping into that pipe high seems like they will be challenged.

One other wrinkle: family plans. It seems U.S. family plans from all carriers revolve around extracting about $80-125 per month for a family of 4. However, this new offering is going to serve up 5G data for ALL of the devices in a household, just like anyone's existing broadband feeds all of the devices in a household. So using the above with VOIP apps on ALL of the household mobile devices, does one dose of $50 or $70 take care of all home broadband needs AND the whole family's mobile needs too? As they do now, each VOIP device will have it's own phone number, all could be sharing this unlimited* broadband at home (and away from home too). Why have family plans anymore? Why have cellular plans PLUS broadband at home plans? Does one broadband plan at $50 or $70 cover all bases?

That written: it is going to be fun watching the players like Verizon do a fancy dance trying to preserve the "as is" while also rolling out this too. I'm guessing they are going to modify this 5G at home to support this offering while offering it another way to cellular devices on the road to prevent the above from being possible. Heaven forbid that technological advancements using the public's airwaves could result in lower costs to that public.
 
Last edited:
Out of interest just how bad are Comcast?

Just wondering as they’ve made a bid to purchase Sky in the UK from what little I’ve read up on it.
Let’s see... I went to the Xfinity store a month ago to start internet service. They asked me if I wanted to have a credit check and pay a $100 deposit or, in the alternative, provide a credit card for monthly payment. I told the guy I absolutely did NOT want a credit check because my wife and I were in the process of buying a home and I didn’t want a drop in credit score. The guy said no problem, charged my credit card $1 to prove it works, and then I was off to my apartment.

A couple of days later, after countless support calls because service was far slower than I was paying for (and I’d seen previously at this address), I noticed a $100 charge for a deposit, and not one but TWO credit checks on my record. As a result, my credit score dropped into the next lowest credit score band for our home loan and we lost the home we wanted.

The rep also created multiple accounts with Comcast that confused even the support people and made it very difficult to navigate online account management. This company is, by far, the worst performing business entity I’ve ever encountered
 
I feel terrible for those who don’t have a choice. Charter Spectrum is the fastest option but AT&T U-verse offers 60 Mbs up / 10 down where I’m at which is fine for my wife and I to stream in HD/4K to two devices. It just sucks having to switch back and fourth ever few years to get the best deal.

Where we are, it's either the lone broadband company or DSL. $45/month for 5/1, to 50/5 for $90/month, all the way up to 200/10 for $120/month. Terrible options.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Macaholic868
This really should have been a soft launch without a big marketing campaign.

But then they wouldn't be able to trick people into thinking they're first to deploy 5G! I mean, they technically may be, but it's not 5G like people are thinking of 5G. It's all a marketing ploy to make people think Verizon doesn't sucks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: justperry
5G has the potential to be a game changer; as it offers an alternative to wiring the last mile to each customer. The challenge is where to put antennas, due to distance issues. I don't know if repeaters work, but if they do a central antenna could use customer devices as repeaters as well to increase coverage.

TMobile has already bought a TV provider and announced 5G plans; which will put them in direct competition with cable providers. The high infrastructure costs and regulation made competition difficult with the current model, this changes that. In addition, companies sitting on lots of cash such as Google and Apple could enter the market as well, either on their own, as a MVNO, or buy buying a mobile operator. Buying ATT, for example, would not only give Apple a mobile network but also a lot of content. Apple has ~250 billion dollars in cash, they could buy carrier, pin off what they don't want, and still have ore cash than some countries. If they didn't want to touch the cash they could issue more stock for a purchase; which given their stock price might be a better option.
 
Out of interest just how bad are Comcast?

Just wondering as they’ve made a bid to purchase Sky in the UK from what little I’ve read up on it.

In general Comcast products are good-to-great. If one steps back and turns off their biases, where Comcast services are available, one can generally get the fastest broadband from them and pretty good TV service too. They also offer a pretty solid alternative to landline voice and are now offering an interesting option for cellular service too.

Why Comcast can be cast as practically the devil has to do with abusing their relationships with their customers. Often Comcast has a practical monopoly in their service area... so they exploit that they are the only game in town. For example, pricing where Comcast is the ONLY option tends to be much higher than the next town over where Comcast has some competition.

And Comcast has a lucrative habit of accidentally sneaking fees into bills. For example, I've owned my own cable modem for many years now but every once in a while the modem rental fee will "oops!" be snuck into the Comcast bill. In short: you have to aggressively watch your bill every month and be ready to pounce when they try such shenanigans. If they "oops" sneak it in and you don't notice, it won't ever "oops" sneak right out again on it's own. All Comcast "oops" is revenue positive for Comcast.

Comcast is in the business of appearing to punish longer-term customers by offering best prices to brand new customers. Hang around for a while and promotional discounts expire, jacking up the bill for the exact same service. However, quit them for even 30 days and, using the exact same cable with the exact same hardware, Comcast is ready to give you the lower rates again. While special enticements for new customers is not exactly a unique practice, such practices always conflict with a customer loyalty perception. Comcast doesn't have to send out a crew or spend customer service time setting up an existing customer again- does it really make sense to (seemingly) "punish" loyalty with higher prices? And those who just roll over and accept it will then be reminded of it over and over via endless commercial volume pitching cheaper rates for the exact service one has... like being bitten by mosquitos over and over but not (seemingly) able to do anything about it... while brand new customers are handed mosquito spray (that will work for a short period of time only for them).

When there is a dispute over fees, it's often a full-on battle (even WAR) to get it corrected. They appear to use the car salesman escalation approach where you may go over the issue with one level for a while and then they need to escalate you to the next level to address it. All tends to start over again at that next level. Ultimately, they may need to pass you to the next level to address the problem. Etc. In short: be prepared to spend upwards of a few hours to resolve what is seemingly a simple problem if resolution involves Comcast making less money from you by correcting their own mistake. All along the hand-offs, they'll be pitching additional services too.

And so on. Basically, Comcast has enjoyed a long, successful history of exploiting customers that generally can't easily switch to some other source. As such, they're somewhat programmed to be that way. The game is not about delivering more for less but maximizing how much they can extract out of every customer by any means possible. Customers must then spend time & energy trying to work that kind of game to their maximum advantage. Why? Because they can't easily just drop Comcast and switch to someone else.

This 5G news means that for the first time in many years to even a decade+ for some, Comcast broadband will have real competition rolling out in what is previously monopoly-like zones. Comcast (Xfinity) cable will be that much more pressured by the ability to switch to streaming video service options over 5G too. Comcast Voice will face VOIP voice service challenges over this wireless pipe too. Etc. As such, Comcast is likely to suddenly find a way to significantly ramp up wired broadband speeds to match or beat 5G speeds for comparable pricing. Those who begrudgingly use Comcast now- like me- can look forward to how legit competition here will likely force Comcast to make some meaningful improvements for customers WITHOUT the price-jacking shenanigans. Else, for the first time for many, people can flex a near-atrophied consumer muscle in this area and actually switch to something else for home broadband/cable/voice, fully jettisoning Comcast double or triple play plans as "punishment" for years of accumulated aggravation & frustration with Comcast practices.

Verizon, AT&T, etc are often cast a comparable "devil" too. So this is basically a bunch of customer-exploiting companies finding themselves having to compete with each other. Personally, I wouldn't envision switching from one devil (Comcast) to another (say Verizon in this case) as a true win in terms of who one is dealing with for these kinds of services... so I see this as more of a lessor of 2+ evils play, instead of punishing an evil player by switching to (NOT) a saint. Conceptually, for a while anyway, the consumer has a legit chance at tangibly benefiting here.

As always, competition is good. Bring on 5G broadband and a competitive benefit for all. From that perspective, hopefully EVERY cell provider- even the smaller players like Cricket and Tracphone- roll out 5G broadband at home services.
 
Last edited:
Not much, not many normal consumers understand the 5GHz Wifi, how it helps them, and what's needed to access it, if this catches on it'll quickly become the "standard" that people think about when somebody mentions it.

There is no reason to use 5GHz routers except for transfering files locally, the 2.4GHz band gives you speed up to 600Mbps which is fast enough for anything today and actually faster than probably 99% of all people ISPs speed. 5GHz gives the disadvantage of short signal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ignatius345
There is no reason to use 5GHz routers except for transfering files locally, the 2.4GHz band gives you speed up to 600Mbps which is fast enough for anything today and actually faster than probably 99% of all people ISPs speed. 5GHz gives the disadvantage of short signal.
There are the theoretical speed and then there are practical differences.
 
There is no reason to use 5GHz routers except for transfering files locally, the 2.4GHz band gives you speed up to 600Mbps which is fast enough for anything today and actually faster than probably 99% of all people ISPs speed. 5GHz gives the disadvantage of short signal.
Band congestion is the reason. I live in a townhouse. There are 30-40 2.4 GHz access points within range of my living room, all sharing 11 channels, of which only 3 don’t overlap. I’ll be LUCKY to get 15 Mbps using 802.11n on 2.4. Meanwhile, the 5 GHz band is pretty clear because it has less range, so I see fewer neighbors. Hitting 700 Mbps on 802.11ac is no problem.
 
I'm in if it means significantly more upload than the ~40mbps I get on Spectrum's "gigabit" service. (To be fair though, at least I get fairly close to that on downloads.)
 
I get consistent <50ms ping over LTE already. I can use mobile hotspot to play Xbox One online without lag right now. Why would a new technology that should technically offer lower latency actually offer a worse experience than the existing tech?

A disclaimer: I have T-Mobile and live in a top-10 metropolitan area, so obviously your mileage may vary.

i'm in LA. i definitely feel lag when playing online games at home over LTE (home wifi was down one time). full bars too.
 
Band congestion is the reason. I live in a townhouse. There are 30-40 2.4 GHz access points within range of my living room, all sharing 11 channels, of which only 3 don’t overlap. I’ll be LUCKY to get 15 Mbps using 802.11n on 2.4. Meanwhile, the 5 GHz band is pretty clear because it has less range, so I see fewer neighbors. Hitting 700 Mbps on 802.11ac is no problem.
This is the reason I shut off my 2.4 when we lived in an apartment. Now it covers my whole house with no noticeable drops. The only device that was bound to 2.4 was my tv and having a xbox attached to it negates that issue. Plus my wife would randomly connect to the 2.4 while I was on the 5 and complain about speed differences... One band made that much easier to deal with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: seinman
This is the reason I shut off my 2.4 when we lived in an apartment. Now it covers my whole house with no noticeable drops. The only device that was bound to 2.4 was my tv and having a xbox attached to it negates that issue. Plus my wife would randomly connect to the 2.4 while I was on the 5 and complain about speed differences... One band made that much easier to deal with.

The only reason I keep 2.4 running is for legacy devices. I have a wireless printer that's 2.4ghz 802.11g only. And occasionally my brother in law brings his older iPad over that does 802.11n but only on 2.4. Everything else I have on the 5ghz networks (one that does N-only, one that does AC-only).
 
I wonder how much confusion there's going to be between 5G and 5GHz (WiFi), especially when it comes to home service.

That's no where near as bad as the whole data labeling. Your RAM, your HDD, your SSD are all in MBs (Megabytes), GBs (Gigabytes), TBs (Terabytes), etc. But when you are shopping for an ISP and they're spouting out what speeds they offer, it's all in Mb/s (Megabits/sec) and Gb/s (Gigabits/sec). Not confusing at all. But what's even worse is that any application that you are using to actually download files (web browsers, torrents, etc.), they are all in KB/sec (Kilobytes/sec) and MB/sec (Megabytes/sec). Of course, the ISPs do this because larger numbers look better.

When people ask me what speed internet I have, I just tell them it's about 8MB/s, as that's the actual rate I'm getting. I don't tell them that I supposedly get 70Mb/s because it's confusing and not even really accurate.

But if that hasn't be a huge issue for the masses, 5G vs 5GHz isn't going to be one at all.

And just in case there are people reading this that didn't understand my point. 1 MB (Megabyte) = 8 Mb (Megabit), 1 GB (Gigabyte) = 8 Gb (Gigabit), etc. Therefore, companies advertising 1 Gigabit speeds, you'd only be getting ~125 Gigabyte/sec peaks.
 
Where we are, it's either the lone broadband company or DSL. $45/month for 5/1, to 50/5 for $90/month, all the way up to 200/10 for $120/month. Terrible options.

Yeah that’s terrible because you really don’t have a viable second option. For DSL priced that aggressively you’d have to really hate your broadband provider and be willing to put up with an inferior product at an outrageous price simply out of spite. That’s not a choice.
 
Yeah that’s terrible because you really don’t have a viable second option. For DSL priced that aggressively you’d have to really hate your broadband provider and be willing to put up with an inferior product at an outrageous price simply out of spite. That’s not a choice.

Those prices I listed were for broadband...
 
More competition is good, I'm glad to see 5g competing with cable.

I've been using 4G AT&T Network Nighthawk M1 on the $29/mo unlimited grandfathered plan as my home internet for 2 years now. I don't get 5g speeds, I get about 30mbps download / 8mbps upload which is all I need for all my devices. If I go on a vacation I can take it with me.

My local options of Century Link and Cox Cable are 2-3x's more expensive and cap my data.
 
There is no reason to use 5GHz routers except for transfering files locally, the 2.4GHz band gives you speed up to 600Mbps which is fast enough for anything today and actually faster than probably 99% of all people ISPs speed. 5GHz gives the disadvantage of short signal.

Short signal disadvantage? Or is that a huge advantage?
1. If you have multiple access points in your house every phone, tablet and computer I use has always been HAPPY to cling to a barely-functioning signal from the room you used to be in rather than search again and find the signal coming from right there. Same goes for walking by a Starbucks. But this is only minor compared to...
2. Since the signal doesn't travel that far, your neighbors' Wi-Fi doesn't cause any serious interference. Which means the 5Ghz band is usually pretty clear and you can easily make use of the whole band for your own network. Unlike the 2.4 which is an utter disaster. In a city you can pick up 100 networks all screaming over each other and don't forget Bluetooth and if that wasn't bad enough, microwave ovens!
I have a friend who lives in NYC - not even downtown, she's near the Bronx. No joke, her wired Internet pulls down 300Mbps (tested and confirmed) but on Wi-Fi, across the room, gets about 2Mbps usually. Thanks 2.4 band.

If you do all your internet use very far from one single router then you have a unique need for long range. But most people move around and would be better served with a mesh having 5Ghz as the main network. 2.4 is ok as a slow, congested backup or if you live on an acre or more in the country with no houses around you and are all around the property constantly working outside. For everyone else I stand by 5.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.