Isn’t the only improvement in 5G larger channel widths? On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 12:42 PM <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > In the news: > > > > > > > > AT&T-owned Cricket Wireless is enabling 5G support on some of its > > plans, . . . the company’s only 5G compatible device so far is the > > $1,199 Samsung Galaxy S20 Plus. And getting access to 5G on Cricket > requires > > subscribing to one of its Unlimited plans, which start at $60 per month. > > > > > > Cricket will likely use AT&T’s low-band 5G network (the announcement > > didn’t specify much in the way of technical details), which uses low-band > > 850MHz spectrum technology that has broader range but slower speeds than > its > > mmWave 5G, which AT&T calls its 5G Plus network. > > > > > > The latter is currently limited to developers and select businesses. > > T-Mobile also offers its low-band 5G, which it launched in December, to > its > > Metro prepaid customers. > > > > > > > So, they are finally admitting (it appears) that 5G for mobile devices is > > marketing hype as we all have known. Just one number higher than 4G. > > If it uses low band then it is not anything new in my opinion. mm wave > for > > a mobile device is nothing more than a lab creature. And I believe it > will > > remain that way. > > > > > > -- > > AF mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > >
-- AF mailing list [email protected] http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
