3 ms·
Exactly. There are lots of places where coverage and bandwidth are still bad, but 5G is actually less suited to solve that problem than 4G, especially given whe
by _bxg1 7y ago
Exactly. There are lots of places where coverage and bandwidth are still bad, but 5G is actually less suited to solve that problem than 4G, especially given where it's being deployed. They're pushing on the already-high peak instead of filling the massive gaps at the lower end.
- godelski 7y agoWell if you have download more data per second then you can deal with more spottiness. Because the goal is to download something. A 1Gb/s connection for half a second is better than a 100mb/s connection for 5 seconds
- dictum 7y agoIsn't the average server more likely to sustain 100Mb/s for 5 seconds than 1Gb for half a second?
- godelski 7y agoFrom data I've seen? No. 500ms is a pretty short time. But my point is that there's the consideration that it takes half a second to download 500Mb (roughly a 720p video). So if you have 0.5s uninterrupted that's pretty convenient. I'm also pretty positive that coverage will increase from current conditions (I don't see a reason why it wouldn't). So the speed helps with the spottines. Basically what I'm saying is you don't need as long of a connection to download the same amount. If your spottiness is the same then you get more on 5G. Alternatively since it is 10x the speed, that would be equivalent to 10x spottines (which were not considering a fallback to 4/3G).
- _bxg1 7y agoThat's not the point; the point is 4G is still mostly just in major cities, and 5G is only in very select major cities. There are places where you still can't even get a reliable 3G signal. It'll be decades before those places get 5G.