Verizon's 5G Network Launches Starting in Chicago and Minneapolis

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
48,743
10,146



Verizon today announced it has turned on its commercial 5G network, starting in select areas of Minneapolis and Chicago. Verizon had originally targeted an April 11 launch, so the rollout is a week ahead of schedule.


Verizon customers can access the 5G network with the Moto Z3 smartphone paired with the 5G-enabled Moto Mod accessory, providing the "world's first commercial 5G mobile service with a 5G-enabled smartphone." The carrier plans to expand the network to more than 30 cities across the U.S. by the end of 2019.

Verizon says customers in Chicago and Minneapolis should expect typical download speeds of 450 Mbps, with peak speeds of nearly 1 Gbps and latency less than 30 milliseconds. Of course, speeds should improve with future upgrades.

In Chicago, 5G coverage is concentrated in areas of the West Loop and the South Loop, around landmarks like Union Station, Willis Tower, The Art Institute of Chicago, Millennium Park, and The Chicago Theatre, according to Verizon. 5G service is also available at select Verizon stores in the city.

In Minneapolis, service is concentrated in the downtown area, as well as inside and around U.S. Bank Stadium. 5G service is also available around landmarks like the Minneapolis Convention Center, the Minneapolis Central Library, the Mill City Museum, Target Center, The Commons, and areas of Elliot Park.

The Moto Z3 retails for $240, or 24 monthly payments of $10, while the 5G Moto Mod is available for $199.99 for a limited time. Verizon postpaid customers with any unlimited plan, including Go Unlimited, Beyond Unlimited, or Above Unlimited, can get unlimited 5G data for an additional $10 per month.

As for the first 5G-enabled iPhone, UBS analyst Timothy Arcuri recently said there is "increasing potential that Apple may not be able to ship a 5G iPhone for 2020" due to the company's legal battle with chipmaker Qualcomm and the growing possibility that Intel may not have a 5G modem ready to ship by next year.

Article Link: Verizon's 5G Network Launches Starting in Chicago and Minneapolis
 

AngerDanger

macrumors 601
Dec 9, 2008
4,708
21,432
Verizon today announced it has turned on its commercial 5G network, starting in select areas of Minneapolis and Chicago. Verizon had originally targeted an April 11 launch, so the rollout is a week ahead of schedule.
Meanwhile, AngerFi, which promises full bars regardless of location, requires only a one-time payment, and is based on the same breakthrough tech as AT&T's 5GE, doesn't warrant an article of its own apparently. :rolleyes:

angerfi.gif
 

HJM.NL

macrumors 68020
Jul 25, 2016
2,081
3,702
Netherlands
Come on Apple, hope the 2019 iPhone will have this. Its definitely a selling point. You can’t languish on all fronts.

Oh, just remembered it will probably come on 2020 iPhones if they manage :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Agit21

JetTester

macrumors 6502
Feb 12, 2014
461
884
Laboratory mice get cancer when you experiment on them. It's their little joke on humanity. Wanna know the truth about what causes cancer? Experiment on yourself!
 
  • Like
Reactions: l0renz

lostczech

macrumors member
Sep 8, 2009
85
409
My thoughts exactly.

I don't think the masses realize just how detrimental to their health 5G networks are. Proven scientifically and not openly discussed for obvious reasons.
By chance do you have a link to the scientific proof? I can't find anything on it, just fear-mongering sites that also want to tell me vaccines are bad (so there goes any credibility there)
 

dlewis23

macrumors 6502a
Oct 23, 2007
973
779
Don't count of speeds improving by the time you actually get hardware. Once everyone starts to get on the network speeds will slow significantly.
 

willmtaylor

macrumors G4
Oct 31, 2009
10,300
8,166
Here(-ish)
My thoughts exactly.

I don't think the masses realize just how detrimental to their health 5G networks are. Proven scientifically and not openly discussed for obvious reasons.
By chance do you have a link to the scientific proof? I can't find anything on it, just fear-mongering sites that also want to tell me vaccines are bad (so there goes any credibility there)
I would also like to read up on some peer-reviewed scientific research concerning this.
 

nt5672

macrumors 68020
Jun 30, 2007
2,016
4,368
I can't wait for Apple 5G! In order to release it Apple will have to throttle its speed so it does not use so much battery power (thanks Ive). Then we have to go through antenna-gate again (Apple seems to suck at RF design). Apple will switch everyone to 5G even though we don't want it so Cook can say, "Innovation" at the keynote.

We've had problematic WIfI on and off for how many years? Realistically, I think Apple waiting till 2025 would be about right. Then Apple will have time to get the RF design right before release (not saying they will, but they'll have the time.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: pratikindia

NightFox

macrumors 68020
May 10, 2005
2,232
1,542
Shropshire, UK
Verizon says customers in Chicago and Minneapolis should expect typical download speeds of 450 Mbps, with peak speeds of nearly 1 Gbps and latency less than 30 milliseconds. Of course, speeds should improve with future upgrades.
...but nowhere near as much as they will drop as more people start using it once 5G phones become the norm.
 

jeremiah256

macrumors 65816
Aug 2, 2008
1,281
982
Southern California
Two decent looking, extremely affordable phones, with 5G, maybe available two years before the iPhone gets it. All because they have a beef with Qualcomm and will rely on the same company for 5G that has been failing to deliver the chips they planned their entire super thin MacBook line around.
 

IPPlanMan

macrumors 6502
Dec 25, 2009
355
1,401
We’re not going to see a 5G iPhone until Fall 2020.

Apple locks down its hardware designs well ahead of time.

Take the iPhone X which launched in Fall 2017 for example: https://mashable.com/2017/10/31/how-apple-built-the-iphone-x

“As far as last-minute design changes? Actually, we didn’t have time for it,” said Riccio, who seemed energized by the memory of that intense development period. “Quite frankly, this program was on such a fast track to be offered [and] enabled this year. We had to lock [the design] very, very early. We actually locked the design, to let you know, in November,” said Riccio before he was cut off by Apple PR. Riccio appeared to realize he’d said maybe too much, and then reaffirmed with a smile, “We had to lock it early.”​

Apple locked down the design nearly a year before launch. The rest of the time until launch was spent testing it, verifying it and certifying it with carriers.

If you look at the state of carrier 5G networks now, there’s no 5G network to actually test it on.

Also, 5G networks won’t be deployed widely enough by this Fall for users to access it regularly and have an experience on par with what Apple wants.

5G hardware isn’t ready for Apple. Unless Apple and Qualcomm make up, Apple will have to wait on Intel for a 5G Modem.

So a 5G iPhone won’t happen until Fall 2020 at the earliest IMHO.
 

willmtaylor

macrumors G4
Oct 31, 2009
10,300
8,166
Here(-ish)
My thoughts exactly.

I don't think the masses realize just how detrimental to their health 5G networks are. Proven scientifically and not openly discussed for obvious reasons.
  • Both Cancer.gov & The American Cancer Society openly and repeatedly state that fears are not proven and there is no correlation or causation between 5G and cancer.
  • "The protests are happening even though there’s next to no scientific evidence that 5G, or any earlier wireless technology, causes cancer or other illnesses. There’s 'very little evidence' that cell towers cause cancer, according to the American Cancer Society. The Federal Communications Commission has ruled that cellphone tower broadcasts are 'thousands of times below safety limits.' The World Health Organization says that 'current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low-level electromagnetic fields.'" The Daily Beast
 

s54

Suspended
Sep 25, 2012
505
585
By chance do you have a link to the scientific proof? I can't find anything on it, just fear-mongering sites that also want to tell me vaccines are bad (so there goes any credibility there)
Sure. Consider yourself schooled. You're welcome.

https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/trpanel/2018/march/peerreview20180328_508.pdf

https://ehtrust.org/scientific-research-on-5g-and-health/

Kevin Mottus spoke for the California Brain Tumor Association, which supports individuals who have developed brain tumors from cell phone radiation. NTP is to be thanked for embarking on the study and following it through so conscientiously. The study reflects what is being seen in the real world, particularly DNA damage related to the carcinogenic effect. The association works not only with brain tumor sufferers, but also with people who have become sick from RFR and microwave exposures. The NTP study and the Ramazzini study offer biological confirmation of the cellular effects observed in human studies for years. Wireless should be reclassified as a Class 1 human carcinogen. The NTP study shows a clear increase in brain tumors in the areas that get the most cell phone use—the frontal lobe, cerebellum, and temporal lobe. Brain cancer is now the number one cancer in children 15–19 years old and is one of the top three cancers up to age 39 years, reflecting an epidemic. Mr. Mottus was critical of FDA’s critiques of the NTPstudy. Addition of 5G high-frequency transmission on top of low-frequency 3G and 4G will result in more disease. The use of multiple devices and frequencies will result in a microwaving of the U.S. population. He stated the FCC is hiding health effects of exposures and exempting new technologies from environmental review.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WatchFromAfar

nt5672

macrumors 68020
Jun 30, 2007
2,016
4,368
I would also like to read up on some peer-reviewed scientific research concerning this.
Yep, but be careful to only read the research where the authors reveal who sponsored (paid for) the research, reveal any personal/professional conflicts of interest, and provide enough data for repeatability to be established.

Almost no research meets these requirements today. Why? Most research articles, including those in peer-reviewed publications, are not much more than paid advertisements; either for sponsoring companies, or the environmentalist/political naysayers. In these cases, the truth does not matter. To the researcher, it's only a paycheck. Without pandering to the sponsor, there is no further research for the researcher (or the researcher's organization.)

Alas, most people do not want to understand the real world, only what supports their own indoctrination induced philosophy or politics. So scientific research goes along unabated with false conclusions, hope, or despair as the case may be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LCC0256
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.