Verizon can't cover a basketball stadium with 5G

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, Brooksie359 said:

You 100% missed my point. Companies don't care at all the cost to the environment and others around them and that is the cost I was referring to. I don't care at all if they see a proper return on investment because that has nothing to do with me. Again it's an incredibly wasteful technology. 

Wasteful how, though?

[Brooksie359]

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Wasteful how, though?

Electricity and space. You need alot of stations which takes up alot of space and consumes alot of electricity. 

[dalekphalm]

Just now, Brooksie359 said:

Electricity and space. You need alot of stations which takes up alot of space and consumes alot of electricity. 

But is that really a concern?

 

It uses more electricity, but gives you significantly higher throughput. On a watt per Gigabit basis, it's probably no different from 4G/LTE base stations.

 

And space is hardly a concern. The kind of base stations they install into a stadium are going to be the size of a WAP. There's no space constraint that I'm aware of.

 

The technology has both pros and cons. To just totally ignore the pros is odd.

[Brooksie359]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

But is that really a concern?

 

It uses more electricity, but gives you significantly higher throughput. On a watt per Gigabit basis, it's probably no different from 4G/LTE base stations.

 

And space is hardly a concern. The kind of base stations they install into a stadium are going to be the size of a WAP. There's no space constraint that I'm aware of.

 

The technology has both pros and cons. To just totally ignore the pros is odd.

I am not ignoring the pros I am saying the cost isn't worth it. Last time I checked base stations for 5g consumed more power than 4g stations and more are required due to limited range. That is not worth it imo. 

[Sauron]

On 10/22/2019 at 3:50 AM, spartaman64 said:

I'm starting to doubt 5G more and more. The full speed 5G coverage is so bad that it can't cover a stadium

That's not a flaw, it's by design. This isn't a case of the technology not supporting this use case, it's a conscious choice by Verizon. Presumably, the seats getting coverage will be the premium ones while the lower cost seats aren't thought to be worth the investment. If they wanted to cover the whole stadium they'd just need to roll out more cells.

 

The whole point of 5g is to increase coverage and have more control on what is covered by having fine grain placement of the cells. This also saves power (on the provider's side) because the cells' lower range is rarely wasted, lowers the variance in signal quality since the distance between the cell and the client is reduced, places less strain on individual cells in crowded areas and allows for granular maintenance, replacements and upgrades.

[dalekphalm]

29 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

I am not ignoring the pros I am saying the cost isn't worth it. Last time I checked base stations for 5g consumed more power than 4g stations and more are required due to limited range. That is not worth it imo. 

But they are also significantly higher throughput than 4G stations.

 

So is it really not worth it? At a place like a stadium, 4G would get saturated real quick and service would likely not be great.

[dalekphalm]

30 minutes ago, Sauron said:

That's not a flaw, it's by design. This isn't a case of the technology not supporting this use case, it's a conscious choice by Verizon. Presumably, the seats getting coverage will be the premium ones while the lower cost seats aren't thought to be worth the investment. If they wanted to cover the whole stadium they'd just need to roll out more cells.

Further to this point, I pretty much guarantee that eventually they will roll out 5G mm to the rest of the seats - but they need to recoup the initial investment first.

30 minutes ago, Sauron said:

The whole point of 5g is to increase coverage and have more control on what is covered by having fine grain placement of the cells. This also saves power (on the provider's side) because the cells' lower range is rarely wasted, lowers the variance in signal quality since the distance between the cell and the client is reduced, places less strain on individual cells in crowded areas and allows for granular maintenance, replacements and upgrades.

Yep - people just see "more as bad" because 4G could do it with less towers - but that ignores all of the flaws and problems with 4G that necessitated the improvements to 5G technology.

[spartaman64]

39 minutes ago, Sauron said:

That's not a flaw, it's by design. This isn't a case of the technology not supporting this use case, it's a conscious choice by Verizon. Presumably, the seats getting coverage will be the premium ones while the lower cost seats aren't thought to be worth the investment. If they wanted to cover the whole stadium they'd just need to roll out more cells.

 

The whole point of 5g is to increase coverage and have more control on what is covered by having fine grain placement of the cells. This also saves power (on the provider's side) because the cells' lower range is rarely wasted, lowers the variance in signal quality since the distance between the cell and the client is reduced, places less strain on individual cells in crowded areas and allows for granular maintenance, replacements and upgrades.

but a single 5G tower should have enough range to cover a whole stadium and the fact that it doesnt makes it not bode well for how practical high speed 5G is. 

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, spartaman64 said:

but a single 5G tower should have enough range to cover a whole stadium and the fact that it doesnt makes it not bode well for how practical high speed 5G is. 

5G NR could indeed cover the entire statium with one tower - with evolutionary improvements over 4G.

 

But a single 4G tower likely already gets overwhelmed from congestion, anyway.

 

But by introducing 5G mm, you get speeds far in excess of what 4G is capable of - or 5G NR.

[spartaman64]

Just now, dalekphalm said:

5G NR could indeed cover the entire statium with one tower - with evolutionary improvements over 4G.

 

But a single 4G tower likely already gets overwhelmed from congestion, anyway.

 

But by introducing 5G mm, you get speeds far in excess of what 4G is capable of - or 5G NR.

you can do the same with wifi and have the same if not better range at this point and you dont need people to have a 5G phone

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, spartaman64 said:

you can do the same with wifi and have the same if not better range at this point and you dont need people to have a 5G phone

With WIFI you have either the same speed limitations of 4G or you have the same range limitations of 5G NR.

 

Ideally, they would do both.

Aside from that, you're going to need AP's everywhere if you went WIFI. You'd hardly reduce the number of stations, if at all.

[spartaman64]

3 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

With WIFI you have either the same speed limitations of 4G or you have the same range limitations of 5G NR.

 

Ideally, they would do both.

Aside from that, you're going to need AP's everywhere if you went WIFI. You'd hardly reduce the number of stations, if at all.

but everyone will be able to use it not just people with 5G phones which probably like 10% of people have 5G phones and maybe 40% max if you are really optimistic and it would probably be much cheaper

[dalekphalm]

Just now, spartaman64 said:

but everyone will be able to use it not just people with 5G phones and it would probably be much cheaper

And?

 

Should stores stop selling AM4 motherboards because not everyone has Ryzen CPU's? Should we stop selling 5G phones because stadiums don't have 5G coverage? Should we stop selling WIFI 6 routers because most phones can't use WIFI 6?

 

No. That argument makes zero sense. And whether it's cheaper or not is irrelevant. It's faster and better than 4G - of course it'll be more expensive. It's literally cutting edge technology.

[spartaman64]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

And?

 

Should stores stop selling AM4 motherboards because not everyone has Ryzen CPU's? Should we stop selling 5G phones because stadiums don't have 5G coverage? Should we stop selling WIFI 6 routers because most phones can't use WIFI 6?

 

No. That argument makes zero sense. And whether it's cheaper or not is irrelevant. It's faster and better than 4G - of course it'll be more expensive. It's literally cutting edge technology.

if am3 motherboard supports all the cpus am4 motherboards do and has all the features of am4 motherboards and are cheaper yes there would be no point to an am4 motherboard. wifi has all the features of 5G is cheaper and everyone can use it so yes there no point to mm 5G

[dalekphalm]

Just now, spartaman64 said:

if am3 motherboard supports all the cpus am4 motherboards do and has all the features of am4 motherboards and are cheaper yes there would be no point to an am4 motherboard. wifi has all the features of 5G is cheaper and everyone can use it so yes there no point to mm 5G

WIFI does not have all the features of 5G. Enterprise grade AP's are not cheap - especially ones that can even come close to matching the speed of 5G.

 

You seem to have this idea in your head that it has to be either/or. No. It can be both. But aside from that, you either don't understand the benefits of 5G, or you're willfully ignoring them.

I guess that's okay. But we aren't going to hold progress back because you personally don't have a 5G phone yet.

[spartaman64]

3 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

WIFI does not have all the features of 5G. Enterprise grade AP's are not cheap - especially ones that can even come close to matching the speed of 5G.

 

You seem to have this idea in your head that it has to be either/or. No. It can be both. But aside from that, you either don't understand the benefits of 5G, or you're willfully ignoring them.

I guess that's okay. But we aren't going to hold progress back because you personally don't have a 5G phone yet.

whats the point in having both and spending double if one of them fulfills the job. and ive never said its cheap but cheaper. this just seems like new tech just for the sake of new tech

[dalekphalm]

Just now, spartaman64 said:

whats the point in having both and spending double if one of them fulfills the job. and ive never said its cheap but cheaper

The point of having both is:

 

1. WIFI gives legacy backwards compatibility

2. 5G gives cutting edge speed

 

You're not gonna get 5G mm wave speeds on WIFI unless you go to WIFI 6, which has the same issues as 5G would anyway.

[spartaman64]

3 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

The point of having both is:

 

1. WIFI gives legacy backwards compatibility

2. 5G gives cutting edge speed

 

You're not gonna get 5G mm wave speeds on WIFI unless you go to WIFI 6, which has the same issues as 5G would anyway.

https://www.fiercewireless.com/5g/verizon-5g-performs-over-800-faster-than-lte-speedtest-data-shows 5G is around 800-1000 mbps wifi 5 can reach the same speeds

[Blademaster91]

48 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Yep - people just see "more as bad" because 4G could do it with less towers - but that ignores all of the flaws and problems with 4G that necessitated the improvements to 5G technology.

And people seeing 5G as good just because its faster while most won't see any improvement over 4G because the range is terrible, also ignoring the cost of more towers required is likely gonna be passed on to the consumers.

23 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Should we stop selling 5G phones because stadiums don't have 5G coverage?

We should stop selling 5G because the coverage is worse in general not just stadiums, and 4G should be made available instead to areas with weak 4G or limited to 3G speed.

23 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Should we stop selling WIFI 6 routers because most phones can't use WIFI 6?

Like 5G only a few phones can even use wifi 6 (AX) while range and real world speed aren't signifiant improvements or aren't necessary because WIFI AC is more than enough.

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, spartaman64 said:

https://www.fiercewireless.com/5g/verizon-5g-performs-over-800-faster-than-lte-speedtest-data-shows 5G is around 800-1000 mbps wifi 5 can reach the same speeds

WIFI 5 can only reach those speeds under incredibly rare circumstances. Realistic throughput is significantly less. Especially if you have a device that only supports a single stream of data (tops out at 433 Mbps for WIFI 5, and 600 Mbps for WIFI 6).

 

5G on the other hand? If you've got a 5G modem that supports the frequency band being used, you should more or less get full speed, outside of environmental factors such as distance and signal strength that would also affect WIFI just as equally.

Just now, Blademaster91 said:

And people seeing 5G as good just because its faster while most won't see any improvement over 4G because the range is terrible, also ignoring the cost of more towers required is likely gonna be passed on to the consumers.

You're confusing things.

 

5G mm wave has terrible range. 5G mm wave is not a replacement for 4G. 5G NR has the same range as 4G, and will be a straight up upgrade for basically anyone.

Just now, Blademaster91 said:

We should stop selling 5G because the coverage is worse in general not just stadiums, and 4G should be made available instead to areas with weak 4G or limited to 3G speed.

Both should happen, depending on the market. 4G should be rolled out to extreme low density rural areas. 5G NR should replace existing 4G towers, and 5G mm wave should be rolled out to ultra dense areas like Stadiums, Airports, Shopping Malls, Movie Theatres, etc.

Just now, Blademaster91 said:

Like 5G only a few phones can even use wifi 6 (AX) while range and real world speed aren't signifiant improvements or aren't necessary because wifi AC is more than enough.

AC is more than enough... for now. Stopping at AC and just being like "Welp, this is the best WIFI will ever get. Let's stop here" - what in god's name?

[Brooksie359]

48 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

But they are also significantly higher throughput than 4G stations.

 

So is it really not worth it? At a place like a stadium, 4G would get saturated real quick and service would likely not be great.

Yes it really is not worth it. I mean we are talking a big increase in power consumption. Yeah the potential throughput is higher but honestly I don't think its necessary. 

[spartaman64]

5 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

WIFI 5 can only reach those speeds under incredibly rare circumstances. Realistic throughput is significantly less. Especially if you have a device that only supports a single stream of data (tops out at 433 Mbps for WIFI 5, and 600 Mbps for WIFI 6).

 

5G on the other hand? If you've got a 5G modem that supports the frequency band being used, you should more or less get full speed, outside of environmental factors such as distance and signal strength that would also affect WIFI just as equally.

You're confusing things.

 

5G mm wave has terrible range. 5G mm wave is not a replacement for 4G. 5G NR has the same range as 4G, and will be a straight up upgrade for basically anyone.

Both should happen, depending on the market. 4G should be rolled out to extreme low density rural areas. 5G NR should replace existing 4G towers, and 5G mm wave should be rolled out to ultra dense areas like Stadiums, Airports, Shopping Malls, Movie Theatres, etc.

AC is more than enough... for now. Stopping at AC and just being like "Welp, this is the best WIFI will ever get. Let's stop here" - what in god's name?

We'll wait and see I guess. If in like 3 years every major city has good mm 5G coverage and everyone gets at least 500mbps ill admit I'm wrong and 5G is great

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Yes it really is not worth it. I mean we are talking a big increase in power consumption. Yeah the potential throughput is higher but honestly I don't think its necessary. 

You do you, my friend. We obviously disagree on this, and I can see no way forward to continue the discussion.

[dalekphalm]

Just now, spartaman64 said:

We'll wait and see I guess. If in like 3 years every major city has good mm 5G coverage and everyone gets at least 500mbps ill admit I'm wrong and 5G is great

And where did the 3 year 100% arbitrary deadline come from? That doesn't even make any sense. Why 3 years? Why not 2? 6 months? 5 years? Because you just made up a random time frame that means nothing.

 

5G mm wave rollout is going to take a long time. In 3 years, every major city should have some 5G coverage - but how much? There's no way to predict.

[kpluck]

21 hours ago, Bacon soup said:

you are the second person to ask that. Sorry I dont have a link. It was in the media earlier this year.

No worries…I will hit up Google for it. If I find it, or something similar, I will post it.

 

-kp