5 ms·

Used a 4G modem for a year because I couldn’t get broadband at that address, speeds were patchy, ping was >100ms, “buffer bloat” was a nightmare, was CGNAT’ed,

Used a 4G modem for a year because I couldn’t get broadband at that address, speeds were patchy, ping was >100ms, “buffer bloat” was a nightmare, was CGNAT’ed, you couldn’t rely on keeping a tcp connection open for ages without having to reconnect (the buffer bloat and tcp issues _may_ have been my modem though. Was it ok? Sure, you can stream video just fine (my mobile isp didn’t force 480p video). But for anything behind basic browsing and consuming content it was a pain for example playing multiplayer games. I was very happy when I moved back to a fixed line connection. So yeah, I would have been very happy with more bandwidth, lower ping and a more stable connection.

smoldesu 5y ago
I don't think that justifies the 90% reduction in overall range from 4g, but ymmv.
- Crosseye_Jack 5y ago
  Same could be said about 2.4GHz and 5GHz WiFi.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  Are you looking at millimeter wave ranges there? The range of 4G depends a lot on which band you pick, but these C-band frequencies should go several miles, maybe half as far on average.
- BenjiWiebe 5y ago
  5G additionally uses the same frequency bands as 4G, with the same range, just better throughput/latency.
- vel0city 5y ago
  Running on the same frequencies as current 4G deployments, 5G should have very similar range. The massive reduction of range is only on additional frequencies available.
user_7832 5y ago
I'm not sure that was what the OP was talking about - I think the question was "If you already have good 4g, would you benefit?" - aka isn't good 4g good enough? Just out of curiosity I tested my 4g speeds/ping - I got 30mbps and an average of 35ms (6.4ms jitter) here in the Netherlands (KPN network). Given by test results I certainly think you could have had a better network.
- Crosseye_Jack 5y ago
  Just tested mine (I still use that provider for my phone) 100mb down, 30mb up, 21 ping unloaded (I’m about 20 miles from the DC the server was located.). However once the connection was loaded down the ping shot up to 497ms.
- mdasen 5y ago
  Speeds are highly variable depending on location and network congestion. I think "already have good 4G" is a bit of a weird thing to say given that 5G can mean increasing the chance that you have a solid connection. But even with a good 4G connection, I think 10ms is better than 35ms and I think 300Mbps is better than 35Mbps. I think our current 4G networks work well, but higher speed and lower latency will improve the experience even for our current use cases and even when a person has a good 4G connection already.
  - ulfw 5y ago
    But that's no better with 5G. In fact the majority of 5G deployments are on higher MHz bands than 4G right now. So if anything range with 5G is less than with 4G, meaning: unless they happen to have build a new tower near you your 5G reception will be < your 4G reception.
    - mdasen 5y ago
      There are a lot of things in the picture, but 5G is offering big improvements in many situations and it's going to get better. Yes, lower frequency networks offer better coverage. It's why we see sub-1GHz 5G deployments from the 3 US carriers. These networks are offering marginal improvements (say 30% at present, but probably more in the future). As 5G standalone (rather than anchored to LTE) becomes common, they'll also offer significantly lower latency. A lot of of 5G deployments are likely to be from 2-4GHz which is higher than most 4G deployments. However, in a lot of cities carriers are already splitting cells to get more capacity so the higher frequency doesn't matter as much as you might worry. Carriers are also working on 5G carrier aggregation which will extend 2-4GHz coverage a lot farther by allowing lower frequency signals to handle the uplink. Towers can put out more power to push their signals farther so the limitation is usually the uplink. If that's getting handled by lower frequency signals, it will effectively extend the range of 2-4GHz networks. Yes, 5G is better. It's definitely not fully realized right now with a lot of carriers putting out very basic 5G networks partly for marketing purposes. However, 5G offers better spectral efficiency and it does offer opportunities to extend the range of higher frequency signals via carrier aggregation.

smoldesu 5y ago

I don't think that justifies the 90% reduction in overall range from 4g, but ymmv.

Crosseye_Jack 5y ago
Same could be said about 2.4GHz and 5GHz WiFi.
Dylan16807 5y ago
Are you looking at millimeter wave ranges there? The range of 4G depends a lot on which band you pick, but these C-band frequencies should go several miles, maybe half as far on average.
BenjiWiebe 5y ago
5G additionally uses the same frequency bands as 4G, with the same range, just better throughput/latency.
vel0city 5y ago
Running on the same frequencies as current 4G deployments, 5G should have very similar range. The massive reduction of range is only on additional frequencies available.

user_7832 5y ago

I'm not sure that was what the OP was talking about - I think the question was "If you already have good 4g, would you benefit?" - aka isn't good 4g good enough? Just out of curiosity I tested my 4g speeds/ping - I got 30mbps and an average of 35ms (6.4ms jitter) here in the Netherlands (KPN network). Given by test results I certainly think you could have had a better network.

Crosseye_Jack 5y ago
Just tested mine (I still use that provider for my phone) 100mb down, 30mb up, 21 ping unloaded (I’m about 20 miles from the DC the server was located.). However once the connection was loaded down the ping shot up to 497ms.
mdasen 5y ago
Speeds are highly variable depending on location and network congestion. I think "already have good 4G" is a bit of a weird thing to say given that 5G can mean increasing the chance that you have a solid connection. But even with a good 4G connection, I think 10ms is better than 35ms and I think 300Mbps is better than 35Mbps. I think our current 4G networks work well, but higher speed and lower latency will improve the experience even for our current use cases and even when a person has a good 4G connection already.
- ulfw 5y ago
  But that's no better with 5G. In fact the majority of 5G deployments are on higher MHz bands than 4G right now. So if anything range with 5G is less than with 4G, meaning: unless they happen to have build a new tower near you your 5G reception will be < your 4G reception.
  - mdasen 5y ago
    There are a lot of things in the picture, but 5G is offering big improvements in many situations and it's going to get better. Yes, lower frequency networks offer better coverage. It's why we see sub-1GHz 5G deployments from the 3 US carriers. These networks are offering marginal improvements (say 30% at present, but probably more in the future). As 5G standalone (rather than anchored to LTE) becomes common, they'll also offer significantly lower latency. A lot of of 5G deployments are likely to be from 2-4GHz which is higher than most 4G deployments. However, in a lot of cities carriers are already splitting cells to get more capacity so the higher frequency doesn't matter as much as you might worry. Carriers are also working on 5G carrier aggregation which will extend 2-4GHz coverage a lot farther by allowing lower frequency signals to handle the uplink. Towers can put out more power to push their signals farther so the limitation is usually the uplink. If that's getting handled by lower frequency signals, it will effectively extend the range of 2-4GHz networks. Yes, 5G is better. It's definitely not fully realized right now with a lot of carriers putting out very basic 5G networks partly for marketing purposes. However, 5G offers better spectral efficiency and it does offer opportunities to extend the range of higher frequency signals via carrier aggregation.