Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Verizon Will Launch 5G Home Internet Access In 2018 (engadget.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the answered-prayers dept.

wyattstorch516 writes: Real competition may finally be on the way for the residential broadband market. Verizon will be the first company to introduce 5G wireless broadband in a select number of cities. This will give residential customers an alternative to cable/fiber offerings. 5G wireless can offer speeds in the range of hundreds of megabits per second. Full technical specifications as well as pricing plans have yet to be determined. The launch is scheduled for the second half of 2018.

115 comments

  1. Latency and Monthly Bandwidth by corychristison · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This will depend on monthly bandwidth allotments, and, to a lesser extent, latency.

    If you can't pull down 500GB a month at a reasonable cost, there will be no competition. End of story.

    1. Re: Latency and Monthly Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wtf? In other words, if you can't provide a service, you won't profit. Is there another insightful comment that should follow? because this is pretty obvious.

    2. Re:Latency and Monthly Bandwidth by Darinbob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It will be like cable. Lots of bandwidth at the start, user is very happy. Later everyone uses it, more and more of the fixed bandwidth gets used by the neighbors, original user is pissed that performance has gone down.

    3. Re: Latency and Monthly Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wtf? In other words, if you can't provide a service, you won't profit.

      So apparently you are missing out on the new Trump administration thing where they pay you to fix the power lines but you don't actually have to do anything.

    4. Re:Latency and Monthly Bandwidth by Desler · · Score: 1

      Good joke. This is Verizon so you’ll get 2 GB of data to start off with at teice the cost of a landline ISP.

    5. Re:Latency and Monthly Bandwidth by leonbev · · Score: 3, Interesting

      He's right, you know... Verizon's 4G LTE network was pretty awesome early on, until Apple released an iPhone with an LTE radio and the network slowed down for awhile due to all of the extra traffic. I think that was around the same time they started killing off the grandfathered $30 a month unlimited data plans as well.

      I'd imagine that the first handful of 5G home subscribers will have a similar experience until 5G smartphones become popular. Then they will probably start cutting data plans for people "abusing" the system by downloading 300+ GB of a data a month from 4K Netflix streaming and a few game downloads.

    6. Re:Latency and Monthly Bandwidth by mysidia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      first handful of 5G home subscribers will have a similar experience until 5G smartphones become popular.

      So in exchange for being fixed endpoints and not allowed to move; give the 5G home users priority on the network and apply all the restrictions and throttling to the actual smartphones. Because of the additional capacity 5G provides it should be fine providing they build out their networks adequately.

    7. Re: Latency and Monthly Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you build out networks adequately. With net neutrality gone, you can just throttle more.

    8. Re:Latency and Monthly Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      300GB a month is nothing, even streaming SD. You obviously don't have any teenagers at home. Just one 16 year-old daughter using Youtube as a jukebox and watching Netflix all day EASILY blows through 300GB. Then they Skype and Snapchat with their friends all day. Then there's the rest of the family watching Netflix, browsing, etc. Don't even get me started on Instagram, which is 500MB per day per person using it.

    9. Re: Latency and Monthly Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are lots of reasons to want to prioritize some types of traffic over others and none of it necessarily is because they want to limit overall traffic. This is not saying net neutrality is bad or good, but regardless of net neutrality we will see speeds continue to improve and likely still have bandwidth issues.

    10. Re:Latency and Monthly Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering I blow through 40GB on an average business day, yeah, 300GB is nothing. That doesn't include any streaming or other family members.

    11. Re: Latency and Monthly Bandwidth by JackieBrown · · Score: 2

      Because people are not going to leave Spectrum/Grande/Comcast/whoever for a sub-adequate network.

      They are trying to break into the home markets - they are not the current monopoly.

      Due to local government regulations that even Google cannot overcome, we are not going to be getting more local wired internet companies - unless we lose those existing government regulations. What Verizion is doing is the market trying to correct against monopolies that the government enforces

      I don't understand why people think that government will enforce net-neutrality in a way that actually benefits users. Any law that goes further than 2 sentences on this is just a new power grab. While ISPs might not want it, the way the government ends up creating these laws will make the regulation so complex, that you can be guaranteed that only the larger ISPs will be able to afford to implement them - further eliminating whatever little competition there is.

    12. Re:Latency and Monthly Bandwidth by Verdatum · · Score: 1

      So a possible solution here, particularly in the case of rural areas would be to use directional antennas that are trained on locations, and then, yeah, give them either priority on that tower, or even exclusive access. It's much cheaper to add and orient a new antenna on an existing tower than it is to run new fiber out to remote locations. Of course, that was already possible going back as far as 3G, and would be able to deliver usefully decent quality service in 4G. Keep in mind, the move from 4G to 5G looks to be pretty boring compared to the other mobile generation changes. I worked for a company that did this for providing service fishing boats far out to sea, but that was 2G and only involved voice and text if I recall correctly.

    13. Re:Latency and Monthly Bandwidth by CyberKender · · Score: 1

      Competition? What do you think this is? A polyopoly market?

      --
      CyberKender
      Apparently Appointed Lord Mayor of There
  2. this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Face

  3. Great. by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But it's not cities where this is needed. It's the places outside the cities where there's no high speed access of any kind, and never will be if it involves pulling cable/fiber down winding roads in less densely populated areas.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    1. Re: Great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ajit Pai says this will happen next year as despite all the evidence contrary, after net neutrality is abolished Verizon will be running to spend as much as they can do develope infrastructure to rural America.

    2. Re:Great. by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      You could install a WiMax basestation rural areas and have a line of sight microwave link to the nearest place you can get a wired internet connection, or to the next base station.

      https://www.tutorialspoint.com...

      A WiMAX tower station can connect directly to the Internet using a high-bandwidth, wired connection (for example, a T3 line). It can also connect to another WiMAX tower using a line-of-sight microwave link.

      Problem is of course that you'd need to make sure you had enough subscribers to make it profitable before you did it. On the upside you could spread out quite fast this way - so long as the base stations are either in WiMax or microwave range they can talk to each other. So initially you'd put them at the edges of cities where they can get a wired connection and power. Then you'd add ones which talked to them. Eventually you'd be building them way out in the country. You can actually get ones which run off solar and batteries

      http://www.eecs.ucf.edu/~zakhi...

      I think you'd fall foul of regulations though. Aka 'people trying to protect their monopoly which lets them sell shitty, overpriced services to a captive audience who have no alternative'.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    3. Re:Great. by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      4G is better for BFE. 5G has more bandwidth, but shittier range and weather tolerance. Just based on carrier frequency. 3G is better still, it's a tradeoff between range and bandwidth. The best for you will be the highest bandwidth you can actually make work with reasonable height tower(s) (at 100 feet total height the FAA gets involved, basically requires lights.)

      But by the time you need towers, you're almost certainly, out of 5G range. Especially if you don't want uncle Charlie hunting you...kilowatt linears do exist, but do nothing for the return path. ;-)

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:Great. by Patent+Lover · · Score: 0

      Well, those rural folks decided to vote for an administration which is about to kill net neutrality, so F 'em.

    5. Re:Great. by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      It won't work in rural areas. It just eliminates the need to fiber to the home. You still need fiber in the road. These connections are short range.

    6. Re: Great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is needed in cities for actual competition

    7. Re:Great. by Kohath · · Score: 1

      It’s a line-of-site service. It will eventually be available in rural areas with line of site to a mobile phone tower.

    8. Re:Great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could install a WiMax basestation rural areas and have a line of sight microwave link to the nearest place you can get a wired internet connection, or to the next base station.

      https://www.tutorialspoint.com...

      At my mother's house she used a wireless isp for awhile. It was crap. We switched to a t-mobile hotspot and a 14GB a month plan. (Note that some phones actually have more, but it tends to be non tethered data.)

      I will be surprised if Verizon really offers a better deal. At any rate that (barely) meets her needs and is what around 6Mbps. Satellite is of course a mess latency wise and has other issues.

      In the unlikely event you can get clear and direct line of sight, you might also be able to user a laser based network, which may be able to transmit whatever the connection is. One property is probably going to need to be at the top of a large hill and even then towers may be required.

      At any rate, last I checked t-mobile had the best, no bs true hotspot plan.

    9. Re:Great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But by the time you need towers, you're almost certainly, out of 5G range. Especially if you don't want uncle Charlie hunting you

      So if rural people install towers for Internet service, the Viet Cong will come after them?

    10. Re:Great. by JackieBrown · · Score: 0

      The rural folks don't spend all day wishing they had faster internet access and think there are issues allot more important than this.

      I mean really, lets have the government - whose regulations are the reason we have these monopolizes to begin with - add even more rules to "protect" the internet.

      And how do you think this is going to be enforced? By giving the government complete access to what you are doing online to make sure you are not "throttled."

    11. Re:Great. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You don't know who 'Uncle Charlie' is, but you post on /.?

      Fucking millennials, get off my lawn.

      'Uncle Charlie' is the FCC.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    12. Re:Great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a pretty obscure historical reference unless you're past retirement age...

    13. Re:Great. by Verdatum · · Score: 1

      There are so many headaches with getting optical to work right. To be sure, when it works correctly, it works wonderfully. It has potential value for niche applications as a backbone connection, but it's not particularly feasible for endpoint connections, like to a home. If the laser is not sufficiently high-power, the signal goes to heck in poor weather.

    14. Re:Great. by Verdatum · · Score: 1

      I've been out of things for a little while, but as far as I can tell, this is not quite right. 3G 4G and the currently proposed 5G all allow for a wide range of carrier frequencies. It merely depends on what providers in your region has selected to implement; though certain ranges do tend to get agreed upon by providers so that handsets work across mobile carriers. It is not a tradeoff of range and bandwidth, it's an inverse relationship between signal penetration and frequency, and a direct relationship between frequency and maximum bandwidth. Range is dependent on a combination of transmission power and antenna radiation pattern.

    15. Re:Great. by Verdatum · · Score: 1

      I don't think that many millennials think of the Viet Cong when they hear "charlie". That's a baby-boomer thing.

    16. Re:Great. by Verdatum · · Score: 2

      The reason why telecom hates installing fiber in rural areas is that last mile. They don't mind running fiber to the occassional tower NEARLY as much. Further, the towers don't all require fiber. Multiple towers can bounce signals to a centralized location via microwave.

    17. Re:Great. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Extra details. Hold power constant and you, more or less, get down to my analysis. I did mention a kilowatt linear for the outlaws.

      Fixed directional antenna's improve 5G, but don't do much for the higher frequencies weather tolerance. As you say 'direct relationship between frequency and maximum bandwidth.' Not exactly true, spread spectrum, anyhow. Whatever frequencies 5G runs on they (will be/are) higher than 4G and do worse through rain (all other thing being equal).

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  4. It's not competition.. by Z80a · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If it's verizon offering it.
    Wake me up when another company like google is allowed to even try.

    1. Re:It's not competition.. by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 2

      Wake me up when another company like google is allowed to even try.

      Try? Google is already providing 1GB down/up fixed wireless service in seven major metro areas.

      Wake up.

    2. Re:It's not competition.. by Desler · · Score: 2

      Wow seven whole cities?

    3. Re:It's not competition.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and they've stopped expanding it to new cities.

    4. Re:It's not competition.. by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Anyone with wireless spectrum is allowed. Did Google buy spectrum at the spectrum auction?

    5. Re:It's not competition.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And not even to 15% of any of those cities. And given they have pulled back from some announced plans, they are about as reliable as Google has ever been. I am not sure I would sign up with them only because I have no guarantee they'll be in a location a year from now. I'm 100% sure Comcast will be.

    6. Re:It's not competition.. by Z80a · · Score: 2

      In theory you can.
      In practice Verizon/AT&T/Comcast will just pay the local government and block your efforts with a freaking law.

    7. Re:It's not competition.. by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

      * whoosh *

    8. Re:It's not competition.. by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Local governments don't control wireless comms.

    9. Re:It's not competition.. by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Local governments don't control wireless comms.

      They can block who can put up a tower.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    10. Re:It's not competition.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep moving those goal posts, you'll be right eventually.

    11. Re:It's not competition.. by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Lots of the towers already exist and are owned by 3rd parties like American Tower. It makes more financial sense for one tower company to rent antenna space to many companies than for comms companies to put up many redundant towers.

    12. Re:It's not competition.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to wiki google fiber has ~500k subscribers to internet, after announcing the Kansas City fiber 6 years ago. So at the rate of 100k/year their efforts are essentially nothing more than advertisements without any real effort on their part.

    13. Re:It's not competition.. by Agripa · · Score: 1

      And then the large monopoly ISPs buy up the tower space or in the case of WISPs using the ISM bands, place Canopy modems at strategic locations exchanging fake traffic to block point to point WiFi.

    14. Re:It's not competition.. by Kohath · · Score: 1

      And then the large monopoly ISPs buy up the tower space or in the case of WISPs using the ISM bands, place Canopy modems at strategic locations exchanging fake traffic to block point to point WiFi.

      It's a better conspiracy story if there are shadowy assassins though.

  5. Real competition? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wireless internet is the most expensive type of broadband access there is. Physical spectrum limitations prevents the scalability offered by fiber.

    Price will be expensive or people will be throttled to hell once they've reached their cap.

    1. Re:Real competition? by Verdatum · · Score: 1

      Wireless is not the most expensive in the case of line-of-sight connections using directional antennae. With those sort of fixed-mobile connections, the only added cost to the telecoms compared to fiber is the few extra watts needed in signal power. The expensive part of getting fiber to rural areas is running the cable that last mile.

  6. not in my basement. by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    My phone doesn't work in my basement, and I live in my basement. No, not my mom's basement, my wonderful, fully furnished basement. The cats live upstairs...

    1. Re:not in my basement. by bigwheel · · Score: 2

      Perhaps, your cats will allow you to hang a booster upstairs.

    2. Re:not in my basement. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      My understanding is '5G' isn't about phones. Requires a hard mounted directional antenna.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:not in my basement. by swillden · · Score: 4, Funny

      My phone doesn't work in my basement, and I live in my basement. No, not my mom's basement, my wonderful, fully furnished basement. The cats live upstairs...

      So, you live in your cats' basement? Is that supposed to be better?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:not in my basement. by Verdatum · · Score: 1

      You are mistaken. 5G is a whole scope of telecom standards (that aren't even finalized). Among those are some optimizations for fixed, directional antennae. But they are not a requirement.

  7. Let the complaints begin... by gamenfo · · Score: 1

    I can't believe they are going to put caps on monthly BW. I am paying for 100Mb/s. Or... My ping times when everyone gets home and starts streaming netflix are terrible.

  8. No thank you to the "network nutrality" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    I am American and because of those liberal left pushsiing network neutrality, we have missing all the amazing new 5G's technolgie. SJW's and feminists have been so busy trying to blue pills us it makes with all the technologies obsoleted. Brave and handsome president trump has saved USA once and for always. After he does full years of service, we should change constitution to make him permanent president for life.

    1. Re:No thank you to the "network nutrality" by Z80a · · Score: 1

      It's a corporate on corporate fight here, no good sides.
      A true good side would be focused on bringing actual competition to the american internet market.

    2. Re:No thank you to the "network nutrality" by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2

      True. House Democrat has Google and Facebook as bannermen. House Republican has Comcast and Verizon. Neither care for smallfolk, whose only option is to be whores or sellswords in war between great feudal houses for control. Eventually winter will bring ice zombies from the frozen north and doom all of humanity.

      Does it feel a bit chilly in here, or is it just me?

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    3. Re:No thank you to the "network nutrality" by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Funny

      Eventually winter will bring ice zombies from the frozen north and doom all of humanity.

      Canadians aren't THAT bad.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    4. Re:No thank you to the "network nutrality" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are ignorant sir. Network neutrality is only a good thing. Don't let them make you believe that you have to remove network neutrality to innovate, that is an out right lie. If you believe that you have drank the cool aid whole heartedly. This is only about ISP's making more money and charging the public and other companies more, period.

  9. Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There is a reason why Comcast was so eager to make me sign a new 12-year agreement. Hell, they even gave me the new customer price! Imagine that, comcast treating old (supposedly-loyal) paying customers as well as they treat new customers!

  10. Go Slashdotters by sunking2 · · Score: 1

    It amazes me how many people on here don't seem to realize this has nothing to do with cell phones.

    1. Re:Go Slashdotters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it is dedicated wifi-cell bridge instead of a phone? same guts.

    2. Re:Go Slashdotters by FrankHaynes · · Score: 1

      It's a service delivered over the RF spectrum, so it is subject to the same vagaries as your cell phone. Interference, multipath reflection fading, overloaded hubs/sites all await. If it's this "5G" (whatever that is) or nothing that might be a viable choice, but it won't stand up well against any wired network, even Comcast's disaster of a network.

      --
      slashdot: A failed experiment.
    3. Re:Go Slashdotters by wyattstorch516 · · Score: 1

      Depends on how you define "stand up". It doesn't have the capacity or reliability of a wired network but if it can be sold at a much cheaper rate than cable it will stand up quite well.

      I think if they can sell a $30/month plan with reasonable data limits then they will find a lot of takers.

  11. Wat by XSportSeeker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Verizon Will Launch" "Real competition"
    Does not compute

  12. the MBA's need upto $10/GB overages by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    the MBA's need upto $10/GB overages with the base packing starting at about $40-$60/mo for 20GB-50GB

  13. YAY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    supercookies for your cell phone AND home! Good job VZ!!!!

  14. Fiber availability by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    I hope they won't use this as an excuse to cut back on fiber availability. Fiber is stable, isn't affected by interference, weather conditions (outside of damage to poles), etc, etc. It also provides a somewhat more secure channel.

    Also: this should come first in rural areas that don't have any Internet options other than satellite -- this is the perfect tech for rural area where rolling out fiber infrastructure is expensive.

    1. Re:Fiber availability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I hope they won't use this as an excuse to cut back on fiber availability.

      They don't need another excuse, Verizon has rescheduled all new FIOS installations until never.

    2. Re:Fiber availability by Desler · · Score: 1

      Verizon already halted fiber expansion and has been selling off parts of their landline installations. You’re quite behind the times.

    3. Re:Fiber availability by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Fiber availability is still expanding in NYC. Thankfully. Having a glorified cell antenna is a sorry excuse for Internet access.

    4. Re:Fiber availability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fiber availability is still expanding in NYC. Thankfully.

      Only because they are forced to. Thank your government and elected officials for doing their job.

    5. Re:Fiber availability by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

      Yep, the city and state attorney generals' offices are pretty bad ass in NY as far as consumer advocacy.

    6. Re:Fiber availability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My ISP is Webpass, which was bought by Google. It delivers primarily via fixed-wireless links to multi-residential buildings that are wired with ethernet.

      My small building of 14 condos has a 500mbit/sec wireless link to a nearby tall building, which has a fiber connection. Costs $50 a month with no caps and delivers all the speed we need. The only TV we watch is internet TV and the only time in the last three years that we've been here the service has only had issues once when the ethernet switch down in the building basement died.

      I'm guessing that San Francisco will be one of the cities Verizon is rolling out to as I've noticed that a lot of micro base stations have been getting installed on street light poles this year.

  15. 5G is the nickname for the technology... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    your 5 gigabyte monthly usage limit,

    and....

    the 5 grand you'll pay in overages if your windows 10 system gets into a failed-update-redownload loop.

    1. Re:5G is the nickname for the technology... by Desler · · Score: 1

      5 GB? Pfffft, they’ll be lucky to get 2 GB with Verizon.

  16. I'm not sure about the Verizon flavor but by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I believe the AT&T flavor of this is going to run somewhere in the 30ghz band ?

    I -think- DirecTv works in the 18ghz band and anyone who has ever tried to watch the damn thing
    during a rainstorm can see where my next question is going . . . . .

    I am curious how well this technology is going to work when the weather decides not to play nice.
    ( Rain, fog, snow, etc )

    Can one of you radio types enlighten me ?

    1. Re:I'm not sure about the Verizon flavor but by FrankHaynes · · Score: 4, Informative

      The closer it gets to light, the more it acts like light.

      --
      slashdot: A failed experiment.
    2. Re:I'm not sure about the Verizon flavor but by Known+Nutter · · Score: 1

      You've got it right. Rain fade.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Verizon's 30 GHz radio signal should work the same as physic's 30 GHz radio signal.

      --
      Beware of the Leopard.
    3. Re:I'm not sure about the Verizon flavor but by sunking2 · · Score: 1

      On average it'll go ~ 100'. From the pole to a window. Fiber or something else on the poles.

    4. Re:I'm not sure about the Verizon flavor but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's all light. It's not heavy at all.

    5. Re:I'm not sure about the Verizon flavor but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there is fiber 100' from my home, then just run that to me, thanks.

    6. Re:I'm not sure about the Verizon flavor but by sunking2 · · Score: 1

      That's why verizon stopped with fios rollout. They deem going to the house with it cost prohibitive.

    7. Re:I'm not sure about the Verizon flavor but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A contractor for Verizon came to my neighborhood and pulled fiber throughout the entire neighborhood. I have a fiber connector at the end of my driveway. I could never get Verizon to connect up the last 50 feet to my house, nor could I get Verizon to admit that there was fiber in my neighborhood at all.

      The trucks and digging machinery that came to my neighborhood all had signs attached to them that said Verizon contractor. I guess they were pulling it for AT&T or Comcast.

    8. Re:I'm not sure about the Verizon flavor but by jon3k · · Score: 1

      I understand that it will affect it, but it doesn't affect my cellphone in any perceptible way (maybe I just never noticed?). I think cellphones are operating around what, 800-1200Mhz these days? Does going to something like 30Ghz cause a significant difference and should we expect the rain to cause serious interference at that frequency?

    9. Re:I'm not sure about the Verizon flavor but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      24 Ghz is an unlicensed frequency used by some wireless ISPs for backhaul links. It is very much affected by rain fade - to the point where links will drop out completely sometimes.

      Omnidirectional 30 Ghz is going to require very dense deployments of access points, and every one of those access points is going to require a backhaul. It can work, but it's not likely to be the internet panacea some people believe it will be.

    10. Re:I'm not sure about the Verizon flavor but by Verdatum · · Score: 1

      30ghz is reserved for microwave ovens, but yeah, there are bands reserved a little bit below and above that range in the US. That said, 5G compliant systems can potentially go down as low as 4Ghz or so (the standard isn't actually finalized yet). But yeah, above around 10Ghz, rain/snow is going to lower your data rate. But if it's implemented correctly (and I'm under the impression that it will be), then it won't kill your signal or make your calls sound bad, it'll just lower your transfer rates, such that you might need to drop video to a lower resolution or longer buffering in order to stream.

    11. Re:I'm not sure about the Verizon flavor but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've installed DTV systems in the middle of thunderstorms and got upwards of 90% signal quality. Usually issues with service dropping during a rain storm are due to incorrect mounting techniques causing the dish to move by the wind, or poor connections shorting out when wet. You'll also be able to get much higher gain when neither end of the communications channel is in space.

      The problem is there's a whole lot more trees between the fixed wireless source and your house than your house and space.

  17. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no such thing as 5G. There is no standard. Carries should focus on beefing up existing LTE networks and continue rolling out LTE-Advanced.

    1. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There is no such thing as 5G."
      Well there is marketing 5G(tm), but until standards are agreed upon, it's going to be similar to what happened with 802.11 pre-n.

    2. Re:What? by Verdatum · · Score: 1

      Thank you! I wish the media wouldn't let telecom companies get away with this. Telecoms did the same damned thing during the 4G era. Including Sprint trying to push WiMax and Verizon pushed the initial version of LTE, neither of which satisfied what the ITU finally set for the definition of 4G, formally known as IMT-Advanced. They argued that No one bothered to trademark the term, so they can claim that 4G means whatever they say it means.

  18. HAH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They can't even get a 4G signal into houses that are less than 1/2 mile from a cell tower. How are they going to do 5G?

    1. Re:HAH! by Verdatum · · Score: 1

      You can potentially use higher power with fixed-mobile setups, allowing for longer range. Also, they are talking about setting up lots more smaller antennae, particularly in more densely populated cities. But, 5G isn't defined yet, so who knows.

  19. Shows wisdom of killing net neutraility by wyattstorch516 · · Score: -1

    5G service does not have enought bandwidth to provide a full package of broadcast channels that a cable system provides but it can be used for data and streaming video services if the service groups are sufficiently small. Eliminating net neutrality will allow Verizon to offer their own service not subject to data caps or give that deal to Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc. for a fee.

    Many people will say how unfair this is but in order to get a company to invest the kind of money to build out this infrastructure they will need to make that investment back. Google has stopped expanding Google Fiber because they just weren't willing to absorb more losses. This is a company that is extraordinarily profitable from its core business. Telecom companies have to make money on providing service they don't have a search engine to milk in order to balance the books.

    1. Re:Shows wisdom of killing net neutraility by originalGMC · · Score: 1

      But still, fuck Verizon.

    2. Re:Shows wisdom of killing net neutraility by Verdatum · · Score: 1

      You can absolutely provide everything that broadcast television provides. They just implement it by only transmitting the channel being watched at that given moment. I'm under the impression that things have worked this way since back when cable switched to digital.

  20. Truth comes out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And this is why Ajit Poopyhead is killing net neutrality.

  21. Is 5G ready? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I though it was going to be ready in 2020... or is something like in that Dilbert episode when an engineer asks to one person from marketting what he thinks the G stands for and then the marketting person says to another co-worker: "Guess what it doesn't means Goodness".

  22. Safety schmafety by TrickiDicki · · Score: 2

    So they haven't even established procedures for evaluating human exposure of 5G radiation (6 GHz-100 GHz) but hey don't let a little microwave radiation get in the way of 'progress'

    1. Re:Safety schmafety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bonus! It will cut down on your heating bills.

  23. I imagine it will resemble the FIOS debacle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They will do showy rollouts to a few areas to attempt to garner some good press and build demand. Then they will leverage that demand to exact tribute from the entrenched players to stay out of their sandboxes. They will find it more profitable to cut deals than to actually provide actual service, which always results in service costs and complaints.

  24. Scuttle The Launch!!! by ohnocitizen · · Score: 2

    Verizon keeps fighting to kill Net Neutrality despite people consistently fighting it off. Time to punish them. Make this fail. They are surely investing lots of money into it. The only way large corporations stop abusing their power is by being regulated, broken up, or losing a significant amount of money. Since Trump's Ajit Pai lead FCC is in a state of regulatory capture thanks to Verizon - we need to fight back.

  25. 100/5 for $99/mo with 20GB cap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $5/gig isn't bad, but at 100mbit down, it's going to get eaten on the first day. Data caps will always make wireless home internet infeasible.

    1. Re:100/5 for $99/mo with 20GB cap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $5/gig isn't bad

      Are you high? At $5/GB my November bill would be $2,285, and that's with me enforcing bandwidth quotas for the teenagers on the router.

  26. Compare to LTE Internet Installed by tepples · · Score: 1

    The fear is that Verizon Wireless will offer and deliver non-service and use deceptive marketing to convince the public that the non-service is service.

    Verizon already offers LTE Internet Installed as a substitute for wired broadband in areas within its LTE service footprint but outside that of wired broadband ISPs. But compared to wired broadband, the monthly data allowance is a pittance for a family in 2017 even on the most expensive plan: $150 per month for 40 GB per month.

    1. Re:Compare to LTE Internet Installed by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I'm doubtful you can get any meaningful data service in a metro area. I'm fortunate if I can get 10Mbps download speeds over Verizon's LTE in any of the major metro areas, except maybe at 3am on a Monday. During normal business hours forget about it.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  27. Because it depends on land lines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    5g is heavily dependent on having bandwidth available on the ground. Which really makes me think if you can get 5g you can probably get a better offer from some other ISP.

  28. It's cell service not broadband by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 2

    It's fucking cell service so stop with the bullshit. Broadband is guaranteed up/down speeds and no data caps. Cell service is nothing like that. Speeds are not guaranteed and there are data caps. So no your fucking cell phone does not provide you with broadband. Your cell phone provides you with an VERY EXPENSIVE alternative to connecting to the internet.

    1. Re:It's cell service not broadband by Verdatum · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the definition of broadband is set by the FCC, and Pai is changing it so that potentially even 4G service on the high end satisfies as broadband. Naturally, this is a load of crap.

    2. Re: It's cell service not broadband by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In an ideal world:

        10,000 Pbs Hare

    3. Re:It's cell service not broadband by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No data caps??? Are you in the US?

  29. Capped at 22GB down per month. LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And no up servers allowed. No doubt.

  30. Wait for it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ajit Pai will claim it was because he's scuttling Net Neutrality.