158
Is it time for 6G already? Traffic analysis says yep
(www.theregister.com)
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
4G, 5G and now 6G are worthless if cell providers don't provide enough bandwidth to the towers. The range also keeps decreasing as the generations increase, so now there are these big gaps that 3G used to cover.
In my area, 5G is slower than 4G and both have lower signal and slower speeds than 3G used to have. I need a dual SIM phone and to constantly switch my phone between AT&T and T-Mobile, and both are crap. I only use about 1GB in total too, and I'm lucky if I can pull more than 1 megabit on either service. I miss 3G speeds, coverage, and competition.
Worst of all, AT&T is forcing home users to switch to a 5G hotspot from DSL. It's probably a big part of why the cell towers are always overloaded too. Imagine running your home internet on 1 megabit with constant drops...
That thing with 3G sounds right. I usually switch to 3G when I want faster speeds than 4G, which gets me only around 1-3Mbps during the day in my location*. If I do want even faster speeds, I have to use the internet between 1-4am when I can reach pretty nice 40Mbps.
Unfortunately, when connected to 3G of Orange in national roaming, I can only use 20GB as stated in the FUP (my carrier doesn't offer 3G). However the carrier has confirmed they unofficially allow up to 40GB for some reason.
But that's not enough for me. I use around 80GB per month on mobile data, but sometimes I reach up to 150GB.
*In some areas with lower population (typically small villages), I get almost the maximum theoretical speeds of 75Mbps.
Yeah but eventually they upgrade plus lots of them want to remove copper if they haven't yet and switch towers to fiber so I feel eventually it improves but yeah slower than expected.
wtf that’s not even possible where even country how
The infrastructure is newer, more people are switching to 5G out of necessity, and the influx of newer users is straining that infrastructure which is not prepared for it.
5G is supposed to have taken over the network frequencies of 3G (15MHz to 20MHz) from 800 MHz, 850 MHz, 900 MHz, 1,700 MHz, 1,900 MHz and 2,100 MHz bands. The problem with that is the higher the frequency used, the farther it travels through unimpeded space, but the lower it penetrates in impeeded space. 5G (1GHz to 6GHz) on the same frequency bands won't penetrate as far in dense urban population centers with large buildings.
So yes, 5G can send more data at a faster rate. But don't confuse bandwidth with signal clarity or penetration. Because higher frequency doesn't always mean better operation or even better transmission. The receiver also figures into what is being transmitted. You can have the biggest array with the highest UHF and if the receiver isn't in a place with optimal reception, or it's not built for that input it will mean nothing. That's the difference between Bandwidth and Frequency. https://www.pcmag.com/news/5g-is-here-but-how-it-performs-varies-widely-depending-on-where-you-live
Pay attention to what corps oppose things like
5g home internet is not “1 megabit with constant drops” in my experience. I live in a large city in the US and on Verizon I get several hundreds down and 40-70 up depending on the time. I used to have T-Mobile which was worse, but still typically 200mbps down. There is packet loss but it is very low and not an issue. Upload is not great but much better than what the cable company offers. My parents out in the middle of nowhere were still able to get ~50-100 based on conditions. Even then, that’s a huge upgrade over most DSL services.