11 ms·

It needs to work backwards, much like Video Codec and ask what do the stakeholders really want or need? We are closing in to rolling out the last / final phase

by ksec 14d ago

It needs to work backwards, much like Video Codec and ask what do the stakeholders really want or need? We are closing in to rolling out the last / final phase of 5G. And yet none of the Massive MIMO on FDD is happening. We are still stuck on 32T32R, hardly that impressive considering we have that in LTE already. Not to mention the insane complexity increase from 4G to 5G. And judging from the previews of 6G that seems to be event worst. If you ask an average user, they will tell you they don't feel much different between 4G and 5G. Yes there are capacity increase and other things. But at this stage I don't think the benefits outweigh the cost of switching. That is both from MNOs and End user perspective.

msh 14d ago
I think it’s also because the best frequencies are already occupied by 2g/3g and 4g so it’s hard to provide good 5g coverage over large areas.
- b3orn 14d ago
  3G has been shut down in several countries to free up frequencies. 2G was also shut down in several countries, it seems to be still up in most european countries with shut downs being scheduled in the next few years up to 2030.
  - abroszka33 14d ago
    2G is hard to shut down, because it just works, and many of the core services and old phones rely on it. It will survive 5G, 6G, 7G an other Gs.
    - CorrectHorseBat 14d ago
      2G is being shutdown (or already has) in many countries and those old phones and core services will need to be replaced.
    - ChocolateGod 14d ago
      4G is becoming the "baseline" and replacing 2G in many of those services, especially the "low energy" IoT implementations of LTE.
    - userbinator 14d ago
      2G also needs a tiny amount of spectrum in contrast to the newer standards, as it was designed almost exclusively for voice calls, where a few Kbps is sufficient for good quality speech. (And 64kbps, which is only 8KB/s, is considered "toll quality".)
      - userbinator 13d ago
        For those who don't believe me, look up the standards yourself.
    - inkyoto 14d ago
      Australia (2018), New Zealand (2018), US (2017), Iceland (2025), Switzerland have shut down 2G networks. In Norway, Telia shut down 2G in 2025, but Telenor is holding out until the end of 2027. In Sweden, Telia is holding until 2027, and all other telcos have already switched it off. France is shutting down 2G this year. So the 2G shutdown is a real thing.
      - wingworks 13d ago
        At least in NZ around when they closed 2G the govt created a group of some kind which went around and put up a bunch of 4G towers in more remote areas, the key thing was the towers went owned on xyz company, so everyone who visits the area regardless of the telco they use get the same great signal. *having said that, it's still sad 2G was closed, it had truly impressive coverage, with few cell towered required. Is how it should be country wide in my opinion. Way too many towers up everywhere just so xyz company can get coverage there. Leaving no 1 company to have the "best" coverage.
    - arcfour 13d ago
      We don't have it in the US, I remember being annoyed that there were no more cheap cellular modules for microcontrollers for a while.
- grahamburger 14d ago
  'best' is relative here; lower bands travel further, which is great for maximizing coverage footprint, but not great for high-density. Each node can only handle so much traffic, and you can pack them in more densely with short-range spectrum. mmWave really is the best frequency for very high density, high capacity networks, but the bottleneck is you have to deploy all the extra nodes to get the coverage.
  - msh 13d ago
    But 5g can handle more calls and data compared to 2g and 3g with the same spectrum as it’s more efficient.
manmal 14d ago
The thing that changed with 5G is that my iPhone 13 Pro‘s battery has been draining 30% faster. Enable the hotspot and it gets burning hot.
Zigurd 14d ago
Most of what passes for 5G in the US is the same old but full duplex with wider channels. Calling that 5G obscures the fact that millimeter wave 5G standalone is a totally different beast, and a huge network engineering challenge. It may seem bureaucratic to regulate what people can call 5G, but US consumers get ripped off thinking they're on an advanced network when in fact you could call it the long-term evolution (see what I did there?) of the existing network.
- nemomarx 14d ago
  sure but is anyone deploying mmwave outside of maybe sports stadiums? I'm not exactly going to get it on my commuter train or at work.
  - reaperducer 14d ago
    is anyone deploying mmwave outside of maybe sports stadiums? I have it in my home, but I live in the center of a major city. It just speedtested at 476.64 Mbps down, though I think I've seen 650+ in the past, but I might be mis-remembering that. However, I only get 5G mmwave (indicated as "5GuW" on the phone) on my work phone. The carrier I use for my personal phone charges an extra $20/month for 5G, and I don't care that much, so I leave it at 4G LTE. Edit: Just re-tested and got 767 Mbps.
    - mdasen 14d ago
      5GUW on Verizon isn't necessarily mm wave. Originally, it meant mm wave, but that hasn't been the case since 2022. Now it means the 3-5GHz C-Band spectrum or the 20-50GHz mm wave. If you're seeing 5GUW on your phone, it's going to be C-Band a lot more than mm wave. C-Band spectrum also makes sense given a speed test of 400-800Mbps. That's fast, but not hugely faster than what you should expect with really good coverage today. T-Mobile experiences speeds above 560Mbps 25% of the time. Verizon's 5GUW (which is mostly C-Band) experiences speeds above 620Mbps 25% of the time. You ran two speed tests and got 477Mbps and 767Mbps. One of those is pretty average for C-Band and one of those is quite good for C-Band (25% faster than the 75th percentile), but nothing too out of the ordinary. Those are speeds that are relatively common when carriers have around 150MHz of 2.5-5GHz spectrum deployed in your area and you have good signal and not too much congestion. mm wave does exist, but the coverage is often a block or two with indoor coverage being really spotty. C-band coverage will be measured in square miles. C-Band won't have the coverage that lower frequencies have, but it's a lot more practical to deploy than mm wave. mm wave shines when you have a small, high-value area where you want to deploy 1,000MHz+ of capacity. Carriers might have 50MHz of capacity around 800MHz, 90MHz of capacity around 1.9GHz, 150MHz of capacity around 4GHz, and 1,000MHz of capacity around 30GHz. That really high frequency mm wave won't cover a large area, but there's a lot of it. If you're looking to cover a sports stadium, it makes sense. If you're looking to cover people's homes (even in major cities), C-Band is going to get you really good speeds with coverage that will be a lot more usable. It's possible that you're getting mm wave, but those speeds are pretty normal for good C-Band coverage. The first test is pretty average and the second test is quite good, but nothing extraordinary.
PaulHoule 14d ago
4G used clever ideas to get much better practical spectrum efficiency than people thought was possible... At the cost of very expensive infrastructure. The biggest selling point to carriers was standalone 5G networks that were cheaper to build but paradoxically carriers are prone to frame 5G as a feature customers pay more for. The area where wireless networks fall short is coverage. Obviously many homes and businesses are difficult to cover with wireless technology. Also many "IoT" and public service situations need wide coverage, and a network that works in 92% of places is "close but not cigar." There are few obvious answers rather than "lots of fiber and very cheap small cells" and "satellite technology" but it's what it takes to address wireless use cases that currently aren't addressed.
- MichaelZuo 14d ago
  This doesnt seem to match reality? e.g. Notably several major carriers in India skipped 3G entirely and went to 4G directly because it was cheaper per subscriber. Which implies less expensive equipment per unit performance?
  - ksec 13d ago
    3G to 4G was a giant leap forward and it makes perfect sense. Your parent is specifically comparing 4G against 5G.
    - MichaelZuo 12d ago
      Are you confused? The parent claimed 4G was very expensive infrastructure. Whereas reality showed 4G was so cheap that major telecoms decided to skip over 3G entirely.
      - PaulHoule 11d ago
        The way I remember it in the US was in the 3G age you had good cell service in cities like Rochester, NY which have moderate populations and gentle hills but it was spotty in dense cities with crazy geography and/or urban canyons. [1] Like I used to stay at a motel two blocks from Hollywood and Vine and my phone barely worked. Once 4G was rolled out, coverage got good in Nielsen "A" markets. [1] ... and there was that summer my son and I tried to visit as many state parks in upstate NY as we could and I had phones on both the AT&T and Verizon networks that had terrible coverage away from certain big roads.
_ink_ 14d ago
In Germany I notice a massive difference in 4G and 5G. If I see 4G on my phone and know I can put it away again if it's not some kind of an emergency because it's basically unusable. I am not sure what is going on here, probably the telcos that are limiting the bandwidth.
- Scoundreller 14d ago
  There’s always a gradual refarming of the spectrum into the next G. Usually the most penetrating frequencies (ie lowest) are kept on the lower G to maximize legacy support. For a while I had my phone stick to 3G, which doesn’t support emergency alerts, because my jurisdiction kept sending them out for joint custody disputes at 3AM 1000km away. It was fine But the 3G became unbearable and they tightened up the alert criteria.
  - toast0 14d ago
    > There’s always a gradual refarming of the spectrum into the next G. Not necessarily for 4G to 5G. 5G can run a 4G compatible control channel and timeslices can be 4G or 5G. > Usually the most penetrating frequencies (ie lowest) are kept on the lower G to maximize legacy support. Maybe, but at least in the US, 4G wad deployable on new lower frequency spectrum that had previously been used for TV. LTE 71, 600 Mhz is lower frequency but wouldn't have been usable for 3G because legacy phones didn't use those frequencies.
    - Scoundreller 13d ago
      that's why I said "kept on the lower G". If a new lower one pops up, that's a different story.
    - wolrah 13d ago
      > Not necessarily for 4G to 5G. 5G can run a 4G compatible control channel and timeslices can be 4G or 5G. And for those playing at home, WiFi 7 devices aren't held back by coexisting with WiFi 6 devices, for the same reason (the use of OFDMA), at least on the 6 GHz band. Legacy clients of course muddy the waters on the other bands when they're in use.
jayd16 14d ago
Something I've noticed is that a phone is actually usable at a stadium or concert when 3g or 4g felt essentially useless at that density.
- LeoPanthera 14d ago
  AT&T has figured out a way to monetize that. If you have a "Turbo" plan or add-on, your phone will work in crowded cells. If you don't, good luck with that.
  - Atotalnoob 14d ago
    Net neutrality would have prevented this kind of pay to win
    - cortesoft 14d ago
      How would it have helped? Net neutrality doesn’t mean you can’t sell your customers different bandwidth guarantees. Net neutrality is only about the connections between a provider and external networks, not about how a company handles bandwidth contention amongst its customers. Net neutrality would fix a problem like “only Facebook is accessible inside crowded stadiums” not “AT&T customers who pay more get better connections in crowded stadiums”
      - deleted 13d ago
        [deleted]
    - MisterMunchkin 14d ago
      [flagged]
      - chowells 14d ago
        People still believe this? Google pays their ISP. I pay my ISP. Google does not pay my ISP. Why is my ISP's response to the amount of traffic I use demanding to bill someone other than me? To be clear, Google was doing this out of self-interest. Paying user ISPs for access to those users is not a cost they want to pay. But it's the same as any other protection racket. A local shopkeeper has personal reasons to not want to pay off the mob, but that doesn't mean their position is wrong.
kulahan 14d ago
I’m not in the industry, so I can’t speak intelligently on this, but as a user, literally the only change I’ve actually noticed in my day-to-day is that when they removed 3G, I lost a shitload of connectivity. I live probably half a mile from the capital building in a greater metro region of over a million people and I still get shit connection at home on TMo. Maybe physics is the problem, but why waste time making things insanely fast in a lab setting? Work on making it fucking usable in the real world, like in a neighborhood with trees. I do not give a shit if I can download at 500mbps while resting my phone on a wireless router. I need to be able to USE it.
- lxgr 14d ago
  More likely, data usage has increased greatly in your area since 3G was still available and your carriers spectrum or backhaul hasn’t caught up. 4G/5G make things more efficient but ultimately can’t fight physics.
  - kulahan 14d ago
    Does this affect signal strength? I'm just annoyed I can't get more than two bars at home, or talk on the phone and take a shit at the same time.
dakolli 14d ago
Ive never heard a single person say they don't see a difference between 4G and 5G, atleast in the USA. Ive switched my entire home internet setup to 5G and haven't had an outtage in two years. Whereas it was once a week with fiber. I also can fallback with duel sims. 5G has legitimately changed my quality of (digital) life.
- lxgr 14d ago
  That’s most likely because of the massive amounts of midband spectrum that became available for 5G use in the US and less so due to any inherent advantage of 5G.
  - deleted 14d ago
    [deleted]
TheJoeMan 14d ago
My pessimistic take is it’s being optimized for the “numbers” users benchmark with. The 5G repeater towers that display on your phone as full-bars but the tower itself is constrained, to juicing the speedtests. Apple even changed how the RSSI translates to the bars. There are engineers doing great work, and the marketing teams muddle the waters (like ATT’s “5Ge”).
- joecool1029 14d ago
  ATT did a lot of this, android has a ‘feature’ they utilize to inflate the signal bar: https://android.googlesource.com/platform/frameworks/base/+/refs/heads/master/telephony/java/android/telephony/CarrierConfigManager.java#1374 https://android.googlesource.com/platform/frameworks/base/+/...
wffurr 13d ago
That seems to be exactly what the post is doing? I guess there aren't enough network engineers or RF experts here to have a real conversation about it though. All the comments are just anecdotal discussions of phone bars and reception.

by ksec 14d ago

msh 14d ago

I think it’s also because the best frequencies are already occupied by 2g/3g and 4g so it’s hard to provide good 5g coverage over large areas.

b3orn 14d ago
3G has been shut down in several countries to free up frequencies. 2G was also shut down in several countries, it seems to be still up in most european countries with shut downs being scheduled in the next few years up to 2030.
- abroszka33 14d ago
  2G is hard to shut down, because it just works, and many of the core services and old phones rely on it. It will survive 5G, 6G, 7G an other Gs.
  - CorrectHorseBat 14d ago
    2G is being shutdown (or already has) in many countries and those old phones and core services will need to be replaced.
  - ChocolateGod 14d ago
    4G is becoming the "baseline" and replacing 2G in many of those services, especially the "low energy" IoT implementations of LTE.
  - userbinator 14d ago
    2G also needs a tiny amount of spectrum in contrast to the newer standards, as it was designed almost exclusively for voice calls, where a few Kbps is sufficient for good quality speech. (And 64kbps, which is only 8KB/s, is considered "toll quality".)
    - userbinator 13d ago
      For those who don't believe me, look up the standards yourself.
  - inkyoto 14d ago
    Australia (2018), New Zealand (2018), US (2017), Iceland (2025), Switzerland have shut down 2G networks. In Norway, Telia shut down 2G in 2025, but Telenor is holding out until the end of 2027. In Sweden, Telia is holding until 2027, and all other telcos have already switched it off. France is shutting down 2G this year. So the 2G shutdown is a real thing.
    - wingworks 13d ago
      At least in NZ around when they closed 2G the govt created a group of some kind which went around and put up a bunch of 4G towers in more remote areas, the key thing was the towers went owned on xyz company, so everyone who visits the area regardless of the telco they use get the same great signal. *having said that, it's still sad 2G was closed, it had truly impressive coverage, with few cell towered required. Is how it should be country wide in my opinion. Way too many towers up everywhere just so xyz company can get coverage there. Leaving no 1 company to have the "best" coverage.
  - arcfour 13d ago
    We don't have it in the US, I remember being annoyed that there were no more cheap cellular modules for microcontrollers for a while.
grahamburger 14d ago
'best' is relative here; lower bands travel further, which is great for maximizing coverage footprint, but not great for high-density. Each node can only handle so much traffic, and you can pack them in more densely with short-range spectrum. mmWave really is the best frequency for very high density, high capacity networks, but the bottleneck is you have to deploy all the extra nodes to get the coverage.
- msh 13d ago
  But 5g can handle more calls and data compared to 2g and 3g with the same spectrum as it’s more efficient.

manmal 14d ago

The thing that changed with 5G is that my iPhone 13 Pro‘s battery has been draining 30% faster. Enable the hotspot and it gets burning hot.

Zigurd 14d ago

Most of what passes for 5G in the US is the same old but full duplex with wider channels. Calling that 5G obscures the fact that millimeter wave 5G standalone is a totally different beast, and a huge network engineering challenge. It may seem bureaucratic to regulate what people can call 5G, but US consumers get ripped off thinking they're on an advanced network when in fact you could call it the long-term evolution (see what I did there?) of the existing network.

nemomarx 14d ago
sure but is anyone deploying mmwave outside of maybe sports stadiums? I'm not exactly going to get it on my commuter train or at work.
- reaperducer 14d ago
  is anyone deploying mmwave outside of maybe sports stadiums? I have it in my home, but I live in the center of a major city. It just speedtested at 476.64 Mbps down, though I think I've seen 650+ in the past, but I might be mis-remembering that. However, I only get 5G mmwave (indicated as "5GuW" on the phone) on my work phone. The carrier I use for my personal phone charges an extra $20/month for 5G, and I don't care that much, so I leave it at 4G LTE. Edit: Just re-tested and got 767 Mbps.
  - mdasen 14d ago
    5GUW on Verizon isn't necessarily mm wave. Originally, it meant mm wave, but that hasn't been the case since 2022. Now it means the 3-5GHz C-Band spectrum or the 20-50GHz mm wave. If you're seeing 5GUW on your phone, it's going to be C-Band a lot more than mm wave. C-Band spectrum also makes sense given a speed test of 400-800Mbps. That's fast, but not hugely faster than what you should expect with really good coverage today. T-Mobile experiences speeds above 560Mbps 25% of the time. Verizon's 5GUW (which is mostly C-Band) experiences speeds above 620Mbps 25% of the time. You ran two speed tests and got 477Mbps and 767Mbps. One of those is pretty average for C-Band and one of those is quite good for C-Band (25% faster than the 75th percentile), but nothing too out of the ordinary. Those are speeds that are relatively common when carriers have around 150MHz of 2.5-5GHz spectrum deployed in your area and you have good signal and not too much congestion. mm wave does exist, but the coverage is often a block or two with indoor coverage being really spotty. C-band coverage will be measured in square miles. C-Band won't have the coverage that lower frequencies have, but it's a lot more practical to deploy than mm wave. mm wave shines when you have a small, high-value area where you want to deploy 1,000MHz+ of capacity. Carriers might have 50MHz of capacity around 800MHz, 90MHz of capacity around 1.9GHz, 150MHz of capacity around 4GHz, and 1,000MHz of capacity around 30GHz. That really high frequency mm wave won't cover a large area, but there's a lot of it. If you're looking to cover a sports stadium, it makes sense. If you're looking to cover people's homes (even in major cities), C-Band is going to get you really good speeds with coverage that will be a lot more usable. It's possible that you're getting mm wave, but those speeds are pretty normal for good C-Band coverage. The first test is pretty average and the second test is quite good, but nothing extraordinary.

PaulHoule 14d ago

4G used clever ideas to get much better practical spectrum efficiency than people thought was possible... At the cost of very expensive infrastructure. The biggest selling point to carriers was standalone 5G networks that were cheaper to build but paradoxically carriers are prone to frame 5G as a feature customers pay more for. The area where wireless networks fall short is coverage. Obviously many homes and businesses are difficult to cover with wireless technology. Also many "IoT" and public service situations need wide coverage, and a network that works in 92% of places is "close but not cigar." There are few obvious answers rather than "lots of fiber and very cheap small cells" and "satellite technology" but it's what it takes to address wireless use cases that currently aren't addressed.

MichaelZuo 14d ago
This doesnt seem to match reality? e.g. Notably several major carriers in India skipped 3G entirely and went to 4G directly because it was cheaper per subscriber. Which implies less expensive equipment per unit performance?
- ksec 13d ago
  3G to 4G was a giant leap forward and it makes perfect sense. Your parent is specifically comparing 4G against 5G.
  - MichaelZuo 12d ago
    Are you confused? The parent claimed 4G was very expensive infrastructure. Whereas reality showed 4G was so cheap that major telecoms decided to skip over 3G entirely.
    - PaulHoule 11d ago
      The way I remember it in the US was in the 3G age you had good cell service in cities like Rochester, NY which have moderate populations and gentle hills but it was spotty in dense cities with crazy geography and/or urban canyons. [1] Like I used to stay at a motel two blocks from Hollywood and Vine and my phone barely worked. Once 4G was rolled out, coverage got good in Nielsen "A" markets. [1] ... and there was that summer my son and I tried to visit as many state parks in upstate NY as we could and I had phones on both the AT&T and Verizon networks that had terrible coverage away from certain big roads.

_ink_ 14d ago

In Germany I notice a massive difference in 4G and 5G. If I see 4G on my phone and know I can put it away again if it's not some kind of an emergency because it's basically unusable. I am not sure what is going on here, probably the telcos that are limiting the bandwidth.

Scoundreller 14d ago
There’s always a gradual refarming of the spectrum into the next G. Usually the most penetrating frequencies (ie lowest) are kept on the lower G to maximize legacy support. For a while I had my phone stick to 3G, which doesn’t support emergency alerts, because my jurisdiction kept sending them out for joint custody disputes at 3AM 1000km away. It was fine But the 3G became unbearable and they tightened up the alert criteria.
- toast0 14d ago
  > There’s always a gradual refarming of the spectrum into the next G. Not necessarily for 4G to 5G. 5G can run a 4G compatible control channel and timeslices can be 4G or 5G. > Usually the most penetrating frequencies (ie lowest) are kept on the lower G to maximize legacy support. Maybe, but at least in the US, 4G wad deployable on new lower frequency spectrum that had previously been used for TV. LTE 71, 600 Mhz is lower frequency but wouldn't have been usable for 3G because legacy phones didn't use those frequencies.
  - Scoundreller 13d ago
    that's why I said "kept on the lower G". If a new lower one pops up, that's a different story.
  - wolrah 13d ago
    > Not necessarily for 4G to 5G. 5G can run a 4G compatible control channel and timeslices can be 4G or 5G. And for those playing at home, WiFi 7 devices aren't held back by coexisting with WiFi 6 devices, for the same reason (the use of OFDMA), at least on the 6 GHz band. Legacy clients of course muddy the waters on the other bands when they're in use.

jayd16 14d ago

Something I've noticed is that a phone is actually usable at a stadium or concert when 3g or 4g felt essentially useless at that density.

LeoPanthera 14d ago
AT&T has figured out a way to monetize that. If you have a "Turbo" plan or add-on, your phone will work in crowded cells. If you don't, good luck with that.
- Atotalnoob 14d ago
  Net neutrality would have prevented this kind of pay to win
  - cortesoft 14d ago
    How would it have helped? Net neutrality doesn’t mean you can’t sell your customers different bandwidth guarantees. Net neutrality is only about the connections between a provider and external networks, not about how a company handles bandwidth contention amongst its customers. Net neutrality would fix a problem like “only Facebook is accessible inside crowded stadiums” not “AT&T customers who pay more get better connections in crowded stadiums”
    - deleted 13d ago
      [deleted]
  - MisterMunchkin 14d ago
    [flagged]
    - chowells 14d ago
      People still believe this? Google pays their ISP. I pay my ISP. Google does not pay my ISP. Why is my ISP's response to the amount of traffic I use demanding to bill someone other than me? To be clear, Google was doing this out of self-interest. Paying user ISPs for access to those users is not a cost they want to pay. But it's the same as any other protection racket. A local shopkeeper has personal reasons to not want to pay off the mob, but that doesn't mean their position is wrong.

kulahan 14d ago

I’m not in the industry, so I can’t speak intelligently on this, but as a user, literally the only change I’ve actually noticed in my day-to-day is that when they removed 3G, I lost a shitload of connectivity. I live probably half a mile from the capital building in a greater metro region of over a million people and I still get shit connection at home on TMo. Maybe physics is the problem, but why waste time making things insanely fast in a lab setting? Work on making it fucking usable in the real world, like in a neighborhood with trees. I do not give a shit if I can download at 500mbps while resting my phone on a wireless router. I need to be able to USE it.

lxgr 14d ago
More likely, data usage has increased greatly in your area since 3G was still available and your carriers spectrum or backhaul hasn’t caught up. 4G/5G make things more efficient but ultimately can’t fight physics.
- kulahan 14d ago
  Does this affect signal strength? I'm just annoyed I can't get more than two bars at home, or talk on the phone and take a shit at the same time.

dakolli 14d ago

Ive never heard a single person say they don't see a difference between 4G and 5G, atleast in the USA. Ive switched my entire home internet setup to 5G and haven't had an outtage in two years. Whereas it was once a week with fiber. I also can fallback with duel sims. 5G has legitimately changed my quality of (digital) life.

lxgr 14d ago
That’s most likely because of the massive amounts of midband spectrum that became available for 5G use in the US and less so due to any inherent advantage of 5G.
- deleted 14d ago
  [deleted]

TheJoeMan 14d ago

My pessimistic take is it’s being optimized for the “numbers” users benchmark with. The 5G repeater towers that display on your phone as full-bars but the tower itself is constrained, to juicing the speedtests. Apple even changed how the RSSI translates to the bars. There are engineers doing great work, and the marketing teams muddle the waters (like ATT’s “5Ge”).

joecool1029 14d ago
ATT did a lot of this, android has a ‘feature’ they utilize to inflate the signal bar: https://android.googlesource.com/platform/frameworks/base/+/refs/heads/master/telephony/java/android/telephony/CarrierConfigManager.java#1374 https://android.googlesource.com/platform/frameworks/base/+/...

wffurr 13d ago

That seems to be exactly what the post is doing? I guess there aren't enough network engineers or RF experts here to have a real conversation about it though. All the comments are just anecdotal discussions of phone bars and reception.