I have more issues with the fact that I have no usable signal on 1/3 of my commute (closer to 2/3 unusable tuesday-wednesday!) than issues with peak speed.
The R&D money would be better spent laying fibre to phone masts.
It’s Time To Rethink 6G.
Submitted 1 week ago by Cat@ponder.cat to technology@lemmy.world
https://spectrum.ieee.org/5g-bandwidth
Comments
Nighed@feddit.uk 1 week ago
JWBananas@lemmy.world 1 week ago
My friend, most base stations got fiber backhaul before 5G even existed. We are well beyond that problem.
In fact, it is not uncommon in 2025 to have fiber fronthaul from the remote radio (at the mast) back to the “cloud” where the actual base station is virtualized and/or software-defined (at the data center).
The usable signal issue is a whole other complex can of electromagnetic worms and in contemporary times is a side effect of how 5G NR is sort of “bolted on” to 4G LTE. It is not dissimilar to the growing pains that mixed 3G/4G networks had.
Nighed@feddit.uk 1 week ago
Do you know what the signal bar on a phone actually represents? My commute has quite a few areas with good (full or almost full) ‘signal’ but with the no internet exclamation mark.
That’s why I have assumed it’s a bandwidth to the mast problem.
Ultimately, phone networks are not built to cope with commuter trains ☹️
SomGye@dormi.zone 1 week ago
So far 5G has been slower and less reliable (more random dropped and switched connections) than 4G LTE, and LTE-A was super fast for a bit. The 5G rollout is still ongoing too.
Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 1 week ago
I think 4G is capable of enough speed, but doesn’t always deliver even close to it. So really the preference would be something that can increase the minimum typical speed more than focus just on maximum speed. Presumably that means good signal range and penetration.
dotslashme@infosec.pub 1 week ago
Well they could spend some money on fixing all the fucking
security holesbackdoors that has plagued xG for years, they could increase coverage everywhere, but especially in rural areas, or any other plethora of issues with wireless communication.Tronn4@lemmy.world 1 week ago
It’s like fiber rollout. Won’t happen except for the rich neighborhoods meanwhile the telcos take all the money meant to help them roll it out nationwide and spend it on infrastructure except fiber.
deranger@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
I don’t understand the point being made here. The fact we don’t have SSTs sucks, and if they did exist anyone traveling on them would benefit. Who wouldn’t look forward to a significant shorter trip overseas? Faster traveling wouldn’t only benefit executives and world leaders.
Consider a very brief history of airspeed in commercial air travel. Passenger aircraft today fly at around 900 kilometers per hour—and have continued to traverse the skies at the same airspeed range for the past five decades. Although supersonic passenger aircraft found a niche from the 1970s through the early 2000s with the Concorde, commercial supersonic transport is no longer available for the mainstream consumer marketplace today.
To be clear, there may still be niche use cases for many gigabits per second of wireless bandwidth—just as there may still be executives or world leaders who continue to look forward to spanning the globe at supersonic speeds.
MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
just as there may still be executives or world leaders who continue to look forward to spanning the globe at supersonic speeds.
They should stop. Their luxury makes the earth warmer faster for everyone.
Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
Yeah this whole article fell pretty flat with me and this analogy especially. I’d sure as hell like faster air travel and sure, I’m pretty sure I’ll find a use for faster mobile connections too. Agree I’d much rather see better coverage maps with 5G than a speed bump in the select areas where I do get a good 5G connection, but seems likely that eventually there will either be some demand for 6G speeds or it will at least become cheap enough to implement as a marketing tool by telecoms.
Nighed@feddit.uk 1 week ago
I think they were trying to make the point that we HAD faster speeds, but it was discovered that most people didn’t really need it and were happy paying less to go slower. They are comparing this to 6G, sure, some will use it, but for most it will be a needless expense.
On the actual supersonic air travel point - eh, is it really needed considering the massive extra energy required?
reddig33@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Gotta keep you on that upgrade cycle so you eventually have to buy a new phone. $$
deegeese@sopuli.xyz 1 week ago
I don’t need wireless 1Gbps around town.
I need reliable 100kbps when I’m out in the boonies.
Fixing coverage gaps is not sexy but is way more useful.
deranger@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
Lots of us live in areas with no broadband competition, more options is a good thing. I personally wouldn’t use wireless broadband but if they can bring prices down through competition I’m all for it.
LodeMike@lemmy.today 1 week ago
The solution to which is broadband competition.