On 1/25/22 6:02 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
On 1/25/22 15:45, Masataka Ohta wrote:
As is stated in free part of the article that:
The country’s three biggest carriers, AT&T, Verizon and
T-Mobile, have offered 5G connectivity but in practice
this differed little from the earlier 4G.
5G is nothing. That's all.
Considering the relatively decent performance of 4G/LTE, especially as
fibre + wi-fi is more rife, particularly in the dense metropolitan
areas that would be fibre-rich, with folk offloading a lot more of
their traffic to wi-fi in lieu of GSM, I am still struggling to see
the 5G use-case, outside of implementing 3GPP specs. for their own sake.
By one operator offering 5G, all other operators are forced to offer
5G. So they all end up spending billions to remain in the same place.
Ah well...
As far as AWS 5G goes, they don't have to be locked into just 5G.
De-risking the back-end for non-traditional greenfields would allow
them to even support GPRS if it made sense. It's all software and CPU.
That's what I've been trying to figure out as well. The use case of
seamless handoff across large regions is fairly niche imo. Sure that was
the original motivation for cell phones, but smartphones are about as
statically located as laptops and nobody is rushing to get their laptops
seamless handoff capabilites. That handoff capability comes at a
tremendous cost in both spectrum and coverage.
Since everybody has their own wifi it seems that federating all of them
for pretty good coverage by a provider and charging a nominal fee to
manage it would suit a lot of people needs. It doesn't need expensive
spectrum and the real estate is "free". Basically a federation of
"guestnets".
Mike
