4 ms·
Correct me if I'm wrong: what annoys me about 5G is that, if I understood it correctly, it cannot share the radio channel with 4G. That is, all telcos will have
by cesarb 7y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong: what annoys me about 5G is that, if I understood it correctly, it cannot share the radio channel with 4G. That is, all telcos will have to buy new bandwidth (or repurpose old allocations like 3G) to be able to offer 5G, and the split between 4G and 5G bandwidth in a given area is fixed. Which means LTE wasn't that much of a "long term" evolution: if I bought a 4G phone, now I have to buy a 5G phone, or deal with a continuously shrinking allocation for 4G.
Contrast that with WiFi, where the very first 802.11 standard for a given frequency range can still share the radio channel with the newest 802.11 standard for that frequency range, and the same WiFi AP can service both 802.11a and 801.11ax clients at the same time in a single radio channel.
- iagovar 7y agoThis is already happening in Spain, and it's a headache because we already planned mobile coverage around the current bandwidth, and I really can't see how are we going to do without installing more BTs. There are plans to replace copper with wireless connections in very dispersed areas. In most of this areas we already have posts, so I don't really understand what's the logic behind it, because at the end of the day you're replacing capex with opex. I may be wrong, but laying fiber, if you don't dig it, isn't that expensive, specially if you already own the infrastructure and it's easy to re-purpose. As always, we won't be able to avoid shades and typical wireless problems, so IMO people will call helpdesk more frequently, and the tooling for diagnosing problems is nowhere close to fiber/dsl.