3 ms·
I don't think OP is wrong, but it more of a rambling comment than an article. To understand what's going on, we need equivalent of table of 5G spec features,
by lupire 4y ago
I don't think OP is wrong, but it more of a rambling comment than an article.
To understand what's going on, we need equivalent of table of 5G spec features, with columns for:
* what use case the feature enables for users
* how widely the feature is implemented, * what extra cost it would could incur to include the feature in a device or connection.
The article says that "extra speed is wasted" but also says that it "enables watching video" (and I presume sending video too).
That's a huge win, isn't it?
OP also forgot to mention, in the complaint about 8G, that we already have Fake G in "4G LTE" which isn't full 4G.
- malshe 4y agoI had the same feeling after reading the article. I think the problem is in writing. For example, consider these two lines: Cellular customers are generally pleased that speeds have increased since this means stronger coverage indoors and in outdoor dead spots. But surveys have shown that only a minuscule percentage of people are willing to pay more for faster cellular speeds. So people are generally happy because of the faster speeds of 5G, which is a statement about the technology. The next line is about its affordability, which does not negate the fact that people are happy about the high speeds. That "But" in the second line threw me off a bit.