Verizon names 20 more 5G cities, T-Mobile says mmWave 5G will be urban-only

From the reading I’ve done, my understanding is the high bandwidth features of 5G depend on mm wavelength signal, but that spectrum is also incredibly poor at penetrating objects and needs very closely spaced antennae. That would fit with T-Mo’s position that it will only be available or viable in dense urban areas. This makes me wonder - first, how effective will mmWave be in urban areas if it is so susceptible to obstruction by physical objects. Second, what will be the actual usable features of 5G, both in urban areas and in areas that don’t have mmWave coverage? Everyone touts speed, latency and increasing the number of devices. Latency isn’t going to matter for the vast majority of people. What kind of speeds can we realistically expect to see?

MplsP said:

From the reading I’ve done, my understanding is the high bandwidth features of 5G depend on mm wavelength signal, but that spectrum is also incredibly poor at penetrating objects and needs very closely spaced antennae. That would fit with T-Mo’s position that it will only be available or viable in dense urban areas. This makes me wonder - first, how effective will mmWave be in urban areas if it is so susceptible to obstruction by physical objects. Second, what will be the actual usable features of 5G, both in urban areas and in areas that don’t have mmWave coverage? Everyone touts speed, latency and increasing the number of devices. Latency isn’t going to matter for the vast majority of people. What kind of speeds can we realistically expect to see?

I think a lot of your questions will need to wait until there's actually a usable network, and devices in the field.

And you're right, most users don't care about latency. Speeds will greatly vary by the inch. Based on how mmWave propagates and penetrates, a difference of inches in regards to device placement on your desk could make all the difference. We'll see.

And, notably, tree leaves are an effective mmwave block. Delivered signal will vary a great deal based on plant cover alone -- and that's pretty ridiculous.

So which version of the 5G standard will be optimal for suburban locations?

Mike Wuerthele said:

MplsP said:

From the reading I’ve done, my understanding is the high bandwidth features of 5G depend on mm wavelength signal, but that spectrum is also incredibly poor at penetrating objects and needs very closely spaced antennae. That would fit with T-Mo’s position that it will only be available or viable in dense urban areas. This makes me wonder - first, how effective will mmWave be in urban areas if it is so susceptible to obstruction by physical objects. Second, what will be the actual usable features of 5G, both in urban areas and in areas that don’t have mmWave coverage? Everyone touts speed, latency and increasing the number of devices. Latency isn’t going to matter for the vast majority of people. What kind of speeds can we realistically expect to see?

I think a lot of your questions will need to wait until there's actually a usable network, and devices in the field.

And you're right, most users don't care about latency. Speeds will greatly vary by the inch. Based on how mmWave propagates and penetrates, a difference of inches in regards to device placement on your desk could make all the difference. We'll see.

And, notably, tree leaves are an effective mmwave block. Delivered signal will vary a great deal based on plant cover alone -- and that's pretty ridiculous.

So, it sounds like this will be pretty useless indoors. I presume the service providers will begin to offer Microcell-type devices to help justify the higher costs they want to charge for 5G service.