I'm on the T-Mobile bus. Neville Ray, T-Mo's CTO, is also chair of the 3GPP 5G standards committee so he's got his hands wrapped around this. VZN's initial offering is *NOT* a standards based service.
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.
Verizon's $50 5G Home Internet Service Launching October 1 With No Data Caps
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It will be interesting to see how this goes, especially from the folks that start hitting Verizon's "5G" pipes 100% 24x7x365.
It's not just about you. It's about all network users. If you want to watch a video, which uses a lot of bandwidth, your device can connect, download and disconnect from the network much more quickly, freeing up the network for other users. Instead, if the connection was slower, you could be consuming network resources for a longer period of time, affecting all users. So yes, a faster connection helps manage the network resources more efficiently.
You can bet they have language for what they will try and call abusers.
Last edited:
Not a "box". Look at the picture. It's a cylinder.
If this is all it seems then sign me up when it comes to the SF Bay Area. It’s way faster than my home internet and about $39 a month cheaper. I currently have ATT U-verse. It hasn’t been bad, just slow in my area. Plus I had to start paying extra just to make my unlimited home internet truly unlimited.
Bank on it being bait and switch first chance they get. They will be throttled grandfathered plans within a year or two.
Never trust Verizon.
From what I've read, 5G has problems with stuff like heavy rain and snow, falling leaves, etc.. So, depending on where you live, you might want to check 5G service offerings out under those conditions before committing.
If it's designed properly from the start, this may end up kicking quite a lot of arse.
Fixed wireless can be implemented with a lot greater performance than mobile wireless. Celphones are small, have to use small antennas, and have to be able to send and receive data from all sorts of awkward positions and locations. With fixed wireless, you can place the antenna in the most optimal location on the property to receive and send the best possible signal. You can use a directional antenna and point it directly at the tower. Both your base station and the tower can use beam forming to use spectrum as efficiently as possible.
Provided towers are located intelligently and the tech is well thought out, this could be a game changer for Internet access, especially in rural areas where running cables is difficult and expensive.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Is "no caps" here like "unlimited*" cellular service? For instance, no caps but after 20GB, we'll throttle you down towards dialup speeds... unless you pay the "heavy bandwidth user" fee.
We all know how things go with Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and similar. The bait always looks delicious. But where's the hook(s)? We know they are there but some will pretend to not know... or maybe not actually know until they are in the boat, filleted, and laid out on a platter.
And then it's "How did my "$50 with no caps" plan end up at $128.45?"
"And what's this speed consistency fee?"
"And what's this data origination fee?"
"And what's this data security checkpoint fee?
"And what's this data destination fee?"
"And what's this ku-ku-ka-choo fee?"
"And what's this becausawecanna fee?"
"And what's this becauseyoupayaanyway fee?"
"And what's this VerizonExecHawaiiGetawayBonus fee?"
Etc
We all know how things go with Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and similar. The bait always looks delicious. But where's the hook(s)? We know they are there but some will pretend to not know... or maybe not actually know until they are in the boat, filleted, and laid out on a platter.
And then it's "How did my "$50 with no caps" plan end up at $128.45?"
"And what's this speed consistency fee?"
"And what's this data origination fee?"
"And what's this data security checkpoint fee?
"And what's this data destination fee?"
"And what's this ku-ku-ka-choo fee?"
"And what's this becausawecanna fee?"
"And what's this becauseyoupayaanyway fee?"
"And what's this VerizonExecHawaiiGetawayBonus fee?"
Etc
Last edited:
Ugh if that’s true it’s not a good option for me, then. Plus I’ve heard some people want to fight 5G saying it will cause cancer or some other kind of health problems. I don’t really know much about it. We barely have regular AT&T coverage where I live. If I walk across the highway to the next neighborhood I lose all signal entirely. I have Fios for my isp.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
#41 was my attempt at levity. Here's a more serious question: if it's $50 for really unlimited 5G, and 5G brings all these benefits over 4G and less, isn't all WHOLE HOUSEHOLD phone usage about to switch to this plan too (VOIP apps for calls/texts, this for data)? In other words, if this is bona-fide real, why have cell plans anymore, including family plans? Free VOIP apps sharing ONE $50 plan for all of the family member's phones, tablets, laptops, desktops, etc. "No caps" here implies real unlimited and not unlimited* data.
Conceptually, each household buys ONE plan at $50/month, loads all the family mobile devices with a choice of many VOIP apps and shares no caps (unlimited, not unlimited*) 5G super-fast data. At home, the same plan flows no-caps 5G broadband to laptops and desktops. Why does anyone need family 4-line mobile plans at (seemingly always) about $100/month or more PLUS separate home broadband plans anymore? One $50 no-caps plan, voip apps for mobile devices and whatever makes this replace wired broadband at home seems to conceptually cover all current bases.
Even the single person living alone juggles some mobile plan ($35-$80/month) plus some home broadband bill ($20 (promotional) to $80/month or more). If that combo is more than $50/month, why doesn't even the single people go with this one plan for all of their "no caps" broadband needs?
Now, that written, can you imagine the fine print limitations with this new offering to preserve the "as is"? Is there about to be a 5G-home service pitched as something completely different than a 5G-mobile service? Because otherwise, 5G is by some kind of historical assumption the next big thing for mobile devices. If it can also double as a home broadband alternative (as is very strongly implied by this kind of story), all kinds of limitations associated with the "as is" seem about to be challenged:
of wireless 5G directly compete with traditional wired service without mobile-like caps.
Conceptually, each household buys ONE plan at $50/month, loads all the family mobile devices with a choice of many VOIP apps and shares no caps (unlimited, not unlimited*) 5G super-fast data. At home, the same plan flows no-caps 5G broadband to laptops and desktops. Why does anyone need family 4-line mobile plans at (seemingly always) about $100/month or more PLUS separate home broadband plans anymore? One $50 no-caps plan, voip apps for mobile devices and whatever makes this replace wired broadband at home seems to conceptually cover all current bases.
Even the single person living alone juggles some mobile plan ($35-$80/month) plus some home broadband bill ($20 (promotional) to $80/month or more). If that combo is more than $50/month, why doesn't even the single people go with this one plan for all of their "no caps" broadband needs?
Now, that written, can you imagine the fine print limitations with this new offering to preserve the "as is"? Is there about to be a 5G-home service pitched as something completely different than a 5G-mobile service? Because otherwise, 5G is by some kind of historical assumption the next big thing for mobile devices. If it can also double as a home broadband alternative (as is very strongly implied by this kind of story), all kinds of limitations associated with the "as is" seem about to be challenged:
- "Why do I get unlimited 5G when I'm at home but I have capped 5G plans when I'm on the road?"
- "Why is it unthrottled, "no caps" at home but throttled on the road?"
- "Isn't 5G data 5G data either way?"
of wireless 5G directly compete with traditional wired service without mobile-like caps.
Last edited:
it maybe 4G Advance instead of 5G.
In my home country
3G+ can get max 10 mbps
4G can get max 25 mbps
4G(unknown which band) max 40 mbps
NO CONTRACT sounds delicious but really means they can change the price and caps anytime they want!
Part of this is not entirely true. Getting 1Gbit from the likes of Comcast and Veriozon Fios and U_Verse, etc, is expensive for them to run the fiber optic lines to everyone. Also, these idiot cable companies have sweetheart deal with each other and don't compete with each other. I live in Los Angeles, and my only option for internet is Spectrum. A mile and half south is Spectrum and U-Verse, with a 1 Gbit option for U-Verse. In Santa Monica, you have Fios, but no Spectrum.
If this 5G is what I think it is, it should be much easier and cheaper to get up and running...it's installing towers, not digging ditches running fiber on every single block.
I could be wrong though.
When Sprint first launched, they did no contract. It was a major selling point over Verizon which required a 1 year contract. "Hey, if you don't like it you can cancel any time." was a HUGE seller for people initially weary about signing up for cellphone service back in those days.
No contract is often uses when launching a new service. Just like the data cap, it'll likely come with time when they've built a mass of customers.
Remember that their Terms of Service allows them to modify the contract at any time (you can cancel should you not agree to the new terms, like a data cap). They most certainly will.
[doublepost=1536714330][/doublepost]
1Gbit from cable providers doesn't require fiber. DOCSIS 3.1 (the latest cable modem standard) can support speeds up to 10Gbit over the existing coax cable used on their networks (older DOCSIS 3.0 tops out around 912Mbit). No need to run additional fiber (it's already been fiber from node to node for years).
Comcast and others don't have an agreement not to compete. The reason they don't usually compete in a market is due to the cost of doing so. In order to justify the multi-billion dollar investment it costs to operate in most markets, they need to be able to acquire a significant majority of the customers in that area. They can't do that if there's another major player in the market. This is why Google hasn't bothered expanding their fiber in areas that are already dominated by other big players. They're well aware that while some would switch to their service, not enough would make the switch to make it profitable to even invest in infrastructure there.
5G will be cheaper to build out as there aren't as many infrastructure needs, but it still has challenges. The time to get a tower approved in the US can vary greatly. It can take only 2 months to get approval for a tower in rural Texas. It takes over 2 YEARS for approval in San Francisco, for example.
But you're right, once built a single tower can support more people than a single node on a cable network. There's a reason Comcast and other cable companies have been investing in wireless too. They know the market is headed that direction.
Last edited:
Poor latency is a misnomer. 5G latency should be extremely low, at times besting wired infrastructure, at least according to recent articles. It should work great for gaming, even capable of supporting steaming game services.
Is that a serious question? If you are happy, stick with DSL. I have never actually LOL’ed in response to a post, but I am actually smh. First time ever.