Home  ›  News  ›

Verizon Expands 5G Network to 28 Cities

Article Comments  

all discussions

show all 6 replies

Coverage question


Dec 23, 2019, 4:19 PM
So if my coverage currently sucks. Will 5G make it any better? Or should I just start looking at a carrier that has better coverage for me?

Dec 24, 2019, 9:14 AM
5G does not improve coverage. Range is limited (mm band); a few blocks is all. Additionally, Verizon stated that the Ulra Wide-band product will only be available to commercial users at first. Not ready for you & I yet.
Rich Brome

Dec 24, 2019, 11:23 AM
The range of mmWave 5G is indeed limited.

But Sprint, T-Mobile, and AT&T have launched sub-6 GHz 5G, which does not have that range issue. It has the same coverage as 4G (in the regions where they've launched it). But it's not as fast as mmWave 5G.

Verizon's 5G (which is mmWave and therefore limited to downtown areas) is available to consumers. It's AT&T that has limited their mmWave 5G to business customers. But AT&T offers sub-6 GHz 5G to consumers.
Rich Brome

Dec 24, 2019, 11:18 AM
5G technology itself is not intended to improve coverage. Coverage is dependent on much more basic things like the number (and location) of physical network antennas in your area, and which radio frequency band(s) they use.

With that said, sometimes you get poor service and it's not technically a coverage issue, such as when you're in a busy downtown area and the network is overloaded. In that scenario, yes, 5G will absolutely help.

As always when discussing 5G in the US, it's important to understand the two types: sub-6 GHz and mmWave.

AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint have deployed sub-6 GHz, which uses the same frequency bands as 4G. It provides the same coverage, but simply a bit faster data where they've launched 5G. ...

Dec 24, 2019, 11:26 AM
Oops, I'm sorry Rich. I meant to hit reply and not report when sending my following reply. LOL I don't know where my head was at. *facepalm*

I meant to say here: Overall, aren't the carriers looking to deploy a mix of both sub-6 and mmWave? I'm also wondering why each carrier chose to start with sub-6 and mmWave versus the other?
Rich Brome

Dec 24, 2019, 11:45 AM
Yes, each carrier has, one way or another, indicated it wants to deploy both. AT&T has already deployed a lot of both. T-Mobile has deployed a lot of sub-6 and a little mmWave so far. Sprint wants to deploy mmWave by merging with T-Mobile, but their sub-6 is higher-frequency than what the others are using, so it's less of an issue for them. Verizon is last in the sub-6 game right now, but I expect we'll start seeing a lot of it from them in 2020.

mmWave was, in part, a way for companies like Verizon and AT&T to deploy 5G slightly sooner than the rest of the world and claim some "firsts". mmWave was faster to deploy for two reasons:

1. mmWave is all-new frequency bands, so you can just deploy right away. Sub-6 generally uses the same ...

Dec 26, 2019, 9:12 AM
In many of the more densely populated metropolitan areas 5G will be of great assistance for congestion issues.
You can have 5G but if you are not in range of the tower, it is useless.
Faster data is great. Hopefully 5G will be worked on carefully and not pushed. Hopefully coverage will be worked on as well with this. Getting it rolled out in more rural areas would be great so subscribers do not have to depend on Wi-Fi for spotty network coverage.

This forum is closed.

Please log in to report a message to the moderator.

This forum is closed.

all discussions

Subscribe to Phone Scoop News with RSS Follow @phonescoop on Twitter Phone Scoop on Facebook Subscribe to Phone Scoop on YouTube Follow on Instagram


All content Copyright 2001-2020 Phone Factor, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Content on this site may not be copied or republished without formal permission.