Sticks head above parapet...
... um, 'scuse me, um ... er ... I'm perfectly happy with 3g thanks! ... er ... um .... why are you holding that gun..?
The UN's International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has set up a new focus group to look at how today’s landline networks can be adapted to provide the backhaul for 5G. In other words, how to use today's cabling to link high-speed 5G phone masts to carrier networks and the wider internet. Some of the language the ITU uses has …
On the odd occasion my tablet claims 4G I see.... no significant difference. The few kB of data might appear in 0.2 seconds rather than 0.3, but frankly I can't tell and don't really care.
When it drops to 2G then it is noticeably slower, so yes - 3G is good, but as the next post down says - ubiquitous 2G would be a good first step...
Having experienced real 3G in Korea before 4G launched I can say we aren't even getting close to using the spectrum effectively. The coverage in the UK is sh*t, they seem to measure coverage by if you can make a phone call, but where I live you can just about do that and little more, it might as well be EDGE.
I wish networks would stop spending money on licenses for new technology and actually spend it on improving their existing networks.
The 3G you refer to is probably 3.5G (HSDPA, HSUPA or HSPA), which is noticeably faster then stock 3G.
That being said, I have tested 4G in several places and only seen 4G exceed H+ speeds once, in the order of 20mbps in both directions.
As said, most of the time 3.5G is suitable for mobile use.
These guys are discussing a world where 5G is the only way we connect everything to the backbone I suspect.
" I think many people would be happy with a reliable and ubiquitous 2G GSM signal first."
...and you think that all development, research or funding of new ideas should stop until everyone gets it? How much GSM is enough? Do you want the entire landmass of the UK to have a signal, or just the populated bits? Are you prepared to pay double what you do today to fund the cost of rolling out network that will never be used in places people never go?
Urban coverage is difficult for other reasons, multipath interference etc.
Coverage in within buildings and especially tall buildings has always been a pain.
5G would presume to fix these issues by having loads and loads (jargon for lots) of tiny cells, all having fewer clients at a given time.
Of course, being able to get some signal in a city most of the time beats having nothing for miles in the boonies.
Don't get where you 4G deniers are at - there is a world of difference between the two IMHO. Video streaming sucks on 3G, my downloads suck on 3G, all are pretty much seamless on 4G. At home, my 4G is as good-as or better-than by fibre-fed 5K WiFi.
I agree it's ridiculous that phone coverage is so poor in London and in the desolate rural wastelands of Surrey and Hampshire it's as if Marconi never existed, but I've found 4G coverage in Manchester and Southampton more than acceptable. (Small sample set, I know - I should get out more)
Video streaming is easily accomplished over a twisted pair of cables to my house, and then some WiFi magic to the large display devices.
I can't come up with a scenario that I would want to stream video to a truly mobile device. I use 3G for audio streaming for a community radio station, and that's convenient since we never know where the studio will be much before we move in and start transmitting.
Then again I live in a world where sensible bandwidth costs more than a pint, but exceeding it is a kidney...
They need to stop this fantasy that LTE will replace fibre. Stop mucking around and provide fibre to all premises should be the goal.
We all know how crap wifi is for starters. The noise is just almost impossible to deal with and an abomination. I will be wiring up my house with ethernet !
Mobile data is insecure also not just unstable , and can't scale.