No, it's better in nearly every way, just not revolutionarily so.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "cjwstudios" <[email protected]> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2020 12:44:12 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 5G 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: <blockquote> 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 </blockquote> -- 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
