5G performance

[badgolferman]

Here’s the best test I’ve found so far.
https://ibb.co/2S7G5vx

This is T-Mobile in Hampton Roads area of Virginia.

[paul]

badgolferman wrote on 22.06.2021 23:43

> Here's the best test I've found so far.
> https://ibb.co/2S7G5vx
>
> This is T-Mobile in Hampton Roads area of Virginia.

Both you and I got a handful of "free" phones from T-Mobile recently.
I'm deep up in the Santa Cruz mountains, so you did better than I did.

I went to speedtest.net using "ungoogled chrome" (I have the Google Chrome
browser set to not be able to access the network for the obvious reasons).

Turning off Wi-Fi & using just the T-Mobile data connection, I just now got:
https://i.postimg.cc/4dDhFK5F/speedtest01.jpg

At 4G speeds I was at 125Mbps (31 ms ping).
When I get 5G (it comes and goes) I'll try to test the 5G speeds for you.

BTW, what 5G frequency band are you connecting to?
I normally connect to N71 as I recall (we discussed this in another thread).
--
The 5G comes and goes so it wasn't 5G at the time I tested it moments ago.

[badgolferman]

My apologies but I don’t know how to check for that.

[nospam]

In article <sattgi$gsb$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, badgolferman

<REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > BTW, what 5G frequency band are you connecting to?
> > I normally connect to N71 as I recall (we discussed this in another thread).
>

> My apologies but I donšt know how to check for that.

it doesn't matter *at* *all*.

he's trolling you.

the phone will automatically choose the best channel available, and
switch if needed as conditions change.

[paul]

badgolferman wrote on 23.06.2021 01:59

>> At 4G speeds I was at 125Mbps (31 ms ping).
>> When I get 5G (it comes and goes) I'll try to test the 5G speeds for you.
>>
>> BTW, what 5G frequency band are you connecting to?
>

> My apologies but I don't know how to check for that.

I used a free app that tells me anything I want to know of my connection.
It graphs the cellular signal strength and provides accurate tower IDs.

I even spoofed the GPS location so that my privacy is always maintained.
(*All these simple things are _impossible_ to do on iOS by the way*).

Even so, on iOS, you should be able to get the 5G band from the settings.

BTW I just stepped outside to get you consistent 5G speeds from T-Mobile.
https://ibb.co/2S7G5vx (you got 171 Mbps at ping times of 32ms)

A half hour ago (inside the house) I got 4G speeds of 125 Mbps (31 ms ping).
https://i.postimg.cc/4dDhFK5F/speedtest01.jpg

Just now (outside the house) I got T-mo 5G speeds of 181 Mbps (29 ms ping)
https://i.postimg.cc/vT68k3BW/speedtest02.jpg

Given we both get around ~175Mbps 5G from T-Mobile, I wonder what Steve has
to say about Verizon 5G speeds given what we get for T-Mo in the boonies?
https://i.postimg.cc/pdXF4Mtz/speedtest03.jpg

[paul]

nospam wrote on 23.06.2021 02:01

>>> BTW, what 5G frequency band are you connecting to?
>>> I normally connect to N71 as I recall (we discussed this in another thread).
>>

>> My apologies but I don't know how to check for that.

>
> it doesn't matter *at* *all*.

Actually I wasn't aware the iPhone can't even tell you what band you're
using until you mentioned that (by excusing iOS' lack of functionality).

*Are you _sure_ a 5G iPhone is so brain dead it can't tell you the band?*

I knew iOS couldn't graph the cellular signal strength, nor could it graph
the wi-fi signal strength, nor could it tell you accurately which tower...

But even I'm surprised if iOS is so brain dead it can't tell you the band!
--
You apologists live within a fog of being totally ignorant of radio signals.

[badgolferman]

I don’t know what he thinks about it, but I’m sure he’s happy for us.

[paul]

badgolferman wrote on 23.06.2021 02:58

>> Given we both get around ~175Mbps 5G from T-Mobile, I wonder what Steve has
>> to say about Verizon 5G speeds given what we get for T-Mo in the boonies?
>> https://i.postimg.cc/pdXF4Mtz/speedtest03.jpg
>>
>
> I don't know what he thinks about it, but I'm sure he's happy for us.

Steve lives in Cupertino, I believe, which isn't far (as the crow flies)
from where I am as we're both in the Silicon Valley Santa Cruz mountains.

Steve is always denigrating T-Mobile but I've had Verizon (long ago), and
I've had AT&T (less long ago) and T-Mobile (currently) where "at the time I
switched", I didn't notice anything different in terms of cellular coverage.

Yet Steve always claims T-mobile coverage sucks compared to Verizon.
So here's his chance to prove it.

You & I both provided temporal screenshots of our ~175 to 180Mbps 5G speeds.
Let's ask Steve to post what he gets for _his_ Verizon 5G speeds.

Given I live so far in the mountains that we don't even have cable on our
power poles, he _should_ be getting far better 5G speeds than I do, I hope.

But let's see his screenshots please (which is what an adult would provide).

[nospam]

In article <sau0ja$1d62$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, paul <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

> I used a free app that tells me anything I want to know of my connection.
> It graphs the cellular signal strength and provides accurate tower IDs.
>
> I even spoofed the GPS location so that my privacy is always maintained.

it's a good thing the cell towers are so easily fooled by your gps
spoofing and don't know where you are...

oh wait...

[nospam]

In article <sau0vv$1gpk$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, paul <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

> >>> BTW, what 5G frequency band are you connecting to?
> >>> I normally connect to N71 as I recall (we discussed this in another
> >>> thread).
> >>
> >> My apologies but I don't know how to check for that.
> >
> > it doesn't matter *at* *all*.
>
> Actually I wasn't aware the iPhone can't even tell you what band you're
> using until you mentioned that (by excusing iOS' lack of functionality).

i didn't say anything remotely close to that.

> *Are you _sure_ I am so brain dead

ftfy, and yes, i'm quite sure.

[paul]

paul wrote on 23.06.2021 03:06

> You & I both provided temporal screenshots of our ~175 to 180Mbps 5G speeds.
> Let's ask Steve to post what he gets for _his_ Verizon 5G speeds.

Ooooops. Typo above.

Lest the apologists again claim a typo is a purposeful factual omission,
that's a typo above, where you got 5G speeds of 171 Mbps & I got 181 Mbps.

https://ibb.co/2S7G5vx (you got 5G speeds of 171 Mbps at 32ms ping latency)
https://i.postimg.cc/vT68k3BW/speedtest02.jpg (I got 181 Mbps at 29ms ping)

*So that's roughly about ~170 Mbps to ~180 Mbps for our T-Mobile 5G speeds.*
(Note this isn't my fastest time - as I don't check. It's just what I got.)

Given I live in the boonies, we don't even have cable, town water, or town
sewage or town gas for heating so Steve, in Cupertino, _should_ do better.

Let's ask Steve to post his 5G cellular speeds for Verizon whom he loves.
--
Bear in mind T-Mobile is now unlimited data for postpaid users in the USA.

[paul]

nospam wrote on 23.06.2021 03:08

> it's a good thing the cell towers are so easily fooled by your gps
> spoofing and don't know where you are...
>
> oh wait...

Even you apologists, nospam, aren't _that_ ignorant of Android (I hope).
What's amazing though is how utterly brain dead your iPhone turns out to be.

1. I use a free app to tell me _exactly_ what cellular tower
I'm connected to (down to the exact antenna array in fact!).

*This is _impossible_ to do with iOS*, and this is an important
omission because I have femtocells and cellular repeaters so
it's critical to know _exactly_ which cell tower I'm using.

2. I use that same free app to graph wi-fi signal strength over time.
(*this is _impossible_ to do with iOS*)

3. I use that free app to graph cellular signal strength over time.
(*this is _impossible_ to do with iOS*)

4. For the latest Android (version 11) all such debugging apps _require_
location to be turned on (not because the app needs it, but because
Android 11 itself requires all such apps to ask for that permission).

5. Given the app requires location to be on, but the app doesn't actually
_need_ the location, spoofing the location is trivial on Android.

iOS can only spoof GPS using a horribly convoluted method with a PC.

6. Until you started spouting _excuses_ for iOS in response to my innocent
request for badgolferman to tell us which 5G bands he connects to,
*I wasn't even _aware_ iOS is so brain dead it can't tell us that*.

Given how trivial all this information is for Android 5G devices, I'm
dismayed at how brain dead iOS turns out to be by way of comparison.

Still, at this point, we want others to tell badgolferman what 5G speeds
they're getting on their mobile devices so he can compare his to ours.

I'm especially interested in Steve's Verizon 5G speeds compared to mine.
(Up in Cupertino he should be getting far better speeds than I do here.)

[paul]

nospam wrote on 23.06.2021 03:08

> i didn't say anything remotely close to that.

At least I _answered_ the OP's question with credible temporal screenshots.

Instead of apologists always proving to be unprepossessing kindergarten
cesspools, why don't you post _your_ screenshot of _your_ 5G speeds, nospam?

You apologists are so despicable you can't even do something _that_ easy.
--
What's shocking is how purposefully unhelpful all childish apologists are.

[nospam]

In article <sau30t$373$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, paul <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

> > it's a good thing the cell towers are so easily fooled by your gps
> > spoofing and don't know where you are...
> >
> > oh wait...
>
> Even you apologists, nospam, aren't _that_ ignorant of Android (I hope).

it has absolutely *nothing* to do with android.

the cellular network *must* know where you are so that you can make and
receive calls & texts as well as send and receive data.

> What's amazing though is how utterly brain dead I turn out to be.

ftfy

> 1. I use a free app to tell me _exactly_ what cellular tower
> I'm connected to (down to the exact antenna array in fact!).

big deal. that makes absolutely no difference whatsofuckingever.

> *This is _impossible_ to do with iOS*, and this is an important
> omission because I have femtocells and cellular repeaters so
> it's critical to know _exactly_ which cell tower I'm using.

not only possible, but trivial to do, and entirely useless information.

> 2. I use that same free app to graph wi-fi signal strength over time.
> (*this is _impossible_ to do with iOS*)

also trivial, and you've been told exactly how to do it on numerous
occasions. it also doesn't matter.

> I'm especially interested in Steve's Verizon 5G speeds compared to mine.
> (Up in Cupertino he should be getting far better speeds than I do here.)

bogus comparison, since verizon's 5g is different than what t-mobile
uses.

it's theoretically capable of much higher speeds, but requires a *lot*
more cell towers and if you're not in the right spot, it won't work at
all.

[Ant]

Lucky. In my rural area with any cellular providers, it is very weak and sometimes no signals. :(
--
Damn bugs and Suns! Go L.A. Clippers! :P
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

[sms]

On 6/22/2021 5:58 PM, badgolferman wrote:

<snip>

> I don’t know what he thinks about it, but I’m sure he’s happy for us.

LOL, it's great that you have fast 5G speeds. If only T-Mobile could
roll out better coverage, whether 4G or 5G. I spend a lot of time in the
Santa Cruz Mountains which are south of Silicon Valley. Basically you
have to have Verizon or AT&T if you want adequate coverage. Sure you
might find a place with a T-Mobile 5G cell and you'll get stupendous
speeds if you stay in that place. The maps confirm this fact.

[nospam]

In article <sauh7s$f3n$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> LOL, it's great that you have fast 5G speeds. If only T-Mobile could
> roll out better coverage, whether 4G or 5G.

t-mobile rolled out better coverage long ago, and t-mobile's 5g, being
low band along with sprint's mid-band is *significantly* more prevalent
than verizon's *and* less expensive.

<https://www.fiercewireless.com/5g/t-mobile-swinging-for-fences-winning-
battle-5g-superlatives-moore>
We have a winner in the battle of competing 5G claims. Itąs T-Mobile.
...
T-Mobile has for some time claimed to have the łlargest and fastest
5G network.˛  Largest is an easy one.  T-Mobile claimed during Q1
2021 earnings that its 5G network covers 295 million people. The
carrier stated that it is łoffering roughly 33% more geographic
coverage than the so-called nationwide 5G of AT&T and Verizon
combined.˛ 
...
Verizon has had one 5G superlative claim of having łthe fastest
5G in the world.˛  This claim is based on a global study of 5G
speeds by Opensignal that was released in May 2020, as noted
in this Verizon press release from October. In fact, Verizon got
some good news in April, when the National Advertising Division
of BBB National Programs upheld the claim.

However, the claim always struck me as hollow. It is based on
Verizonąs mmWave-based 5G network, which covers less than
1% of the U.S. population.

t-mobile covers 295 million people, nearly the entire population of the
usa, while verizon covers 1%, or around 3 million people.

it's not even close.

<https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/09/what-is-5g-heres-what-verizon-att-sprin
t-and-t-mobile-offer.html>
Verizonąs 5G is less confusing, at least for consumers right now,
but itąs not as widespread. Itąs still working on the fastest mmWave
networks, which are live in about 30 markets. But, again, you need
to be really close to these towers to use them. And unlike the other
carriers right now, Verizon will charge an additional $10/month
fee to use 5G. (It says itąs free for a limited time with a 5G phone
right now.)

> I spend a lot of time in the
> Santa Cruz Mountains which are south of Silicon Valley. Basically you
> have to have Verizon or AT&T if you want adequate coverage.

not at all true.

> Sure you
> might find a place with a T-Mobile 5G cell and you'll get stupendous
> speeds if you stay in that place.

that's what happens with verizon mmw 5g, where moving even just a few
feet can result in a fallback to lte, plus you can completely forget
about indoors.

verizon does have 5g in a few sports arenas, except it's only in
'select seats'. the article is 2 years old, so maybe they added a few
more seats, or maybe even the host city.

<https://venturebeat.com/2019/09/05/verizons-bizarre-5g-rollout-now-cove
rs-some-seats-in-13-nfl-stadiums/>
The łnews˛ is that Verizon is now offering live 5G service in 13
NFL stadiums ‹ kind of. You have to put aside the fact that the
carrierąs headline mentions 13 stadiums, while its press release
only identifies 12 of them. Then youąll need to gloss over the detail
that 5G will łbe concentrated in parts of the seating areas but could
be available in other locations in and around the stadium as well.˛
(Emphasis mine.) At that point, youąll hit this sentence:
In some cities the stadium will be the only place with Verizon 5G
Ultra Wideband service, offering fans a unique 5G experience they
canąt get anywhere else in their local area.

Letąs consider this for a moment. If you go out and buy a $1,000
Verizon 5G phone today, you might get 5G service if youąre in the
right seats at certain football stadiums, some of which are the only
places with Verizon 5G in their cities. Who would do that? And isnąt
there a better time to experience the ultra-fast download speeds of
your brand new phone than in the middle of a live sporting event you
paid to watch in person?
...
Real people donąt buy 5G phones just to use on a few streets in
a handful of cities, but thatąs how the carrier launched 5G in
the metropolis of Chicago and smaller cities such as Providence,
Rhode Island. Just last week, it was still conducting 5G network
demonstrations with the caveat that testers would need to visit and
actually see specific cell tower sites in order to experience faster
service.

> The maps confirm this fact.

the maps, true unbiased reports (i.e., not you) and actual real world
experience confirm that what you say is wildly incorrect, not that
anyone had any doubt about your bullshit.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 23.06.21 um 03:59 schrieb paul:
> Instead of apologists always proving to be unprepossessing kindergarten ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^

Arlen/Ragnussen/Newton alias paul is back!

[badgolferman]

nospam wrote:

>In article <sauh7s$f3n$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
><scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> LOL, it's great that you have fast 5G speeds. If only T-Mobile
>>could roll out better coverage, whether 4G or 5G.
>
>t-mobile rolled out better coverage long ago, and t-mobile's 5g, being

>low band along with sprint's mid-band is significantly more prevalent
>than verizon's and less expensive.

I don't doubt sms is pleased with the VZW coverage and has no reason to
switch, but I hope he will also consider our *current* experiences with
TMO are more relevant than his experiences from years ago.

[badgolferman]

Joerg Lorenz wrote:

>Arlen/Ragnussen/Newton alias paul is back!

That is true, but I got used to calling him Arlen. Maybe he will
consider returning as that name for the sake of us who know him that
way.

[nospam]

In article <xn0mzh92...@nntp.aioe.org>, badgolferman

<REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't doubt sms is pleased with the VZW coverage and has no reason to
> switch, but I hope he will also consider our *current* experiences with
> TMO are more relevant than his experiences from years ago.

he is a verizon shill. it's that simple.

[nospam]

In article <xn0mzh94...@nntp.aioe.org>, badgolferman

the 'arlen' nym lasted quite a while, probably the longest of any of
them.

the others are very short-lived.

[sms]

On 6/23/2021 9:25 AM, badgolferman wrote:

<snip>

> I don't doubt sms is pleased with the VZW coverage and has no reason to
> switch, but I hope he will also consider our *current* experiences with
> TMO are more relevant than his experiences from years ago.

Nice try, but my experiences are not from years ago. Do you understand
that cellular subscribers in more out of the way places often share
there experiences?

Last month I was in Zion National Park. I was in an area where Verizon
had coverage, weak, but sufficient. I was approached by a couple who
asked me if I could make a call for them since they had no coverage on
their phone ("Metro by T-Mobile," nee MetroPCS). I made the call but
since the people they were calling were also on Metro, and were also in
the Park, they had no coverage either. This is not an isolated incident
of course. And of course the carriers' own maps confirmed the coverage
or lack thereof. In this case, the map showed 2G/3G roaming coverage for
both T-Mobile and Metro. Not sure who the partner is, since if it was
AT&T you'd think that there would be LTE coverage, and AT&T also had
coverage in that area.

T-Mobile makes a _huge_ deal about the amount of 5G they've deployed,
and that's fair enough. It doesn't cost much to add lowband 5G to
existing 4G towers. What costs a lot is to install cells in more remote
areas.

If you want to actually compare coverage try using the interactive
coverage map at <https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Coverage>.
You can switch between carriers easily.

Here's a comparison of two areas I was in during the last few weeks:
<https://imgur.com/FWMsXvv>. You can see the vast coverage differences.

What you want to do if you have T-Mobile and expect to do traveling
outside of urban areas is to set up T-Mobile with an eSIM and then sign
up for an MVNO that uses AT&T or Verizon, using a physical SIM. This can
be inexpensive since it would only be used when you need coverage in
non-T-Mobile areas. You can even sign up with a service that doesn't
charge any monthly fees at all, all pay per use, that uses AT&T in the
U.S.. Unfortunately, RedPocket dropped their $30 and $60 360 day plans
for AT&T and Verizon, and now offer it only on T-Mobile. Of course if
you never leave urban areas then this is unnecessary.

[Lewis]

In message <xn0mzh92...@nntp.aioe.org> badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't doubt sms is pleased with the VZW coverage and has no reason to
> switch, but I hope he will also consider our *current* experiences with
> TMO are more relevant than his experiences from years ago.

Hahahahhahahahaha! It's like you've never read a single post from sms
ever before.

SMS is nothing but a troll who posts the same lies over and oer again,
no matter how many times nospam posts many cited sources showing that he
is utterly full of shit and either out right lying or at least bending
the truth past all recognition.

Here's a good rule: IF sms says something, it's probably not true. If
sms says something more than once, it is DEFINITELY not true.

--
Quis custodiet opsos custodes

[nospam]

In article <savrrk$ggt$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> > I don't doubt sms is pleased with the VZW coverage and has no reason to
> > switch, but I hope he will also consider our *current* experiences with
> > TMO are more relevant than his experiences from years ago.
>
> Nice try, but my experiences are not from years ago.

fabricated and imaginary experiences don't have a timeline.

> Do you understand
> that cellular subscribers in more out of the way places often share
> there experiences?

do you understand that there aren't a lot of people in the 'out of the
way places', one reason why they're called 'out of the way' ?

> Last month I was in Zion National Park. I was in an area where Verizon
> had coverage, weak, but sufficient. I was approached by a couple who
> asked me if I could make a call for them since they had no coverage on
> their phone ("Metro by T-Mobile," nee MetroPCS). I made the call but
> since the people they were calling were also on Metro, and were also in
> the Park, they had no coverage either. This is not an isolated incident
> of course.

yes it is an isolated incident, if it even happened at all.

the number of people who go to zion national park out of the general
population is extremely small, and out of those, the number who don't
have cell service there is even smaller, and out of those, the number
who actually care is smaller still.

most people who go to zion and other national parks go for the beauty,
not to sit on their phone the entire time.

> T-Mobile makes a _huge_ deal about the amount of 5G they've deployed,
> and that's fair enough. It doesn't cost much to add lowband 5G to
> existing 4G towers. What costs a lot is to install cells in more remote
> areas.

which is why verizon is so far behind deploying 5g.

verizon chose to go with millimeter wave, which is faster than what
t-mobile has, however, it requires a *significant* investment in new
towers and as a result, is *far* less prevalent, and by quite a bit. it
also doesn't penetrate walls, so those indoors are out of luck unless
there's additional infrastructure inside.

having faster mmw 5g doesn't matter if there's no coverage where people
actually are.

<https://www.fiercewireless.com/5g/t-mobile-swinging-for-fences-winning-
battle-5g-superlatives-moore>
We have a winner in the battle of competing 5G claims. Itąs T-Mobile.
...
T-Mobile has for some time claimed to have the łlargest and fastest
5G network.˛  Largest is an easy one.  T-Mobile claimed during Q1
2021 earnings that its 5G network covers 295 million people. The
carrier stated that it is łoffering roughly 33% more geographic
coverage than the so-called nationwide 5G of AT&T and Verizon
combined.˛ 
...
Verizon has had one 5G superlative claim of having łthe fastest
5G in the world.˛  This claim is based on a global study of 5G
speeds by Opensignal that was released in May 2020, as noted
in this Verizon press release from October. In fact, Verizon got
some good news in April, when the National Advertising Division
of BBB National Programs upheld the claim.

However, the claim always struck me as hollow. It is based on
Verizonąs mmWave-based 5G network, which covers less than
1% of the U.S. population.

<https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/09/what-is-5g-heres-what-verizon-att-sprin
t-and-t-mobile-offer.html>
Verizonąs 5G is less confusing, at least for consumers right now,
but itąs not as widespread. Itąs still working on the fastest mmWave
networks, which are live in about 30 markets. But, again, you need
to be really close to these towers to use them. And unlike the other
carriers right now, Verizon will charge an additional $10/month
fee to use 5G. (It says itąs free for a limited time with a 5G phone
right now.)

> What you want to do if you have T-Mobile and expect to do traveling
> outside of urban areas is to set up T-Mobile with an eSIM and then sign
> up for an MVNO that uses AT&T or Verizon, using a physical SIM.

there is absolutely no need to sign up for second line of service just
for a trip, especially when t-mobile will work fine.

> This can
> be inexpensive since it would only be used when you need coverage in
> non-T-Mobile areas.

you're ignoring the fees for activating the service and keeping it for
the duration of the trip, plus the hassle to get the sim, set it up and
later disconnect it along with telling people to call the new number.

> You can even sign up with a service that doesn't
> charge any monthly fees at all, all pay per use, that uses AT&T in the
> U.S.. Unfortunately, RedPocket dropped their $30 and $60 360 day plans
> for AT&T and Verizon, and now offer it only on T-Mobile.

you've obviously never used red pocket.

i've used red pocket, and to say they suck is being generous.

they're almost as incompetent as freedom pop. not quite that bad, but
very, very close.

> Of course if
> you never leave urban areas then this is unnecessary.

which is the norm.

[nospam]

In article <slrnsd6ugn....@m1mini.local>, Lewis

<g.k...@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:

> > I don't doubt sms is pleased with the VZW coverage and has no reason to
> > switch, but I hope he will also consider our *current* experiences with
> > TMO are more relevant than his experiences from years ago.
>
> Hahahahhahahahaha! It's like you've never read a single post from sms
> ever before.
>
> SMS is nothing but a troll who posts the same lies over and oer again,
> no matter how many times nospam posts many cited sources showing that he
> is utterly full of shit and either out right lying or at least bending
> the truth past all recognition.
>
> Here's a good rule: IF sms says something, it's probably not true. If
> sms says something more than once, it is DEFINITELY not true.

sms is well aware that what he says is not true. he has been trolling
usenet for several decades.

i remember quite a few zingers over the years.

his lies go well beyond usenet. he does it in real life too.

[badgolferman]

badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here’s the best test I’ve found so far.
> https://ibb.co/2S7G5vx
>
> This is T-Mobile in Hampton Roads area of Virginia.
>
>
>

Here’s the newest 5G speed I found today. Happened to be in the car at the
time on a main road in town.
https://ibb.co/9YC2XfD

I thought sms might be interested…

[nospam]

In article <sb2h4s$1caf$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, badgolferman
<REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hereąs the newest 5G speed I found today. Happened to be in the car at the

> time on a main road in town.
> https://ibb.co/9YC2XfD
>

> I thought sms might be interestedŠ

you're wasting your time. he's a verizon shill. actual facts do not
matter.

[paul]

badgolferman wrote on 24.06.2021 23:28

> Here's the newest 5G speed I found today.
> Happened to be in the car at the time on a main road in town.
> https://ibb.co/9YC2XfD

Hi badgolferman,

Thanks for the new T-Mobile 5G speeds of 213Mbps down, 42.4 up & 48ms ping.
<https://ibb.co/9YC2XfD>

What's pleasant is that on this newsgroup there are some adults, which is
refreshing because most traffic on this newsgroup seems to be apologists
incessantly brazenly denying incontrovertible facts they _hate_ about Apple.

Very few people have actually spent the energy to _answer_ your question
(they just want to play their incessant kindergarten "ftfy" cesspool games).

To help give you more data, I went to the _other_ side of the house, where
I'm on top of a high mountain, so the towers are completely different there.

Here are the 5G speeds I just obtained for you facing a different direction:
<https://i.postimg.cc/zf9w1tGZ/speedtest07.jpg>

Notice while my T-Mobile ad hoc 5G download speed facing in that direction
is 255Mbps, my upload dropped precipitously to 6.97Mbps, and the ping
latency remained almost as it was before at 29ms (with Jitter of 13ms).

> I thought sms might be interested...

He has seen this and he has remained silent so I think he's proving what
nospam has been saying all along which is Steve just shills for Verizon.

I'm as close to Steve's Cupertino location as anyone here, where Steve's
Verizon numbers are apparently pitiful compared to our T-Mobile numbers.
<https://i.postimg.cc/mggy315q/speedtest05.jpg>

But what's _more_ important is that I'm in the middle of nowhere, in terms
of cellular towers (I know where they are and they are many miles away!).

Hence if I'm getting 175Mbps facing one way & 255Mbps facing the other way
https://i.postimg.cc/pdXF4Mtz/speedtest03.jpg
Steve must be _desperate_ to come up with an excuse why Verizon is so slow.

What's interesting, badgolferman, is that this thread has about 30 posts,
where most are the apologists playing their silly kindergarten games.

BTW, to provide more adult factual information, I called T-Mobile today to
ask about tethering, which has a _different_ data cap than does the 5G.

Even though you never seem to come to the defense of adults who speak facts
on this newsgroup (nobody does except me), I provide the links they gave me.
<https://www.t-mobile.com/support/deals/gift-of-unlimited>
<https://www.t-mobile.com/support/plans-features/smartphone-mobile-hotspot-wi-fi-sharing--tethering>

Essentially they put most of us on what they call the "magenta plan", which,
after April 18th, 2021, means we get the following in terms of data caps:
1. Free unlimited high speed data (which "can be" "deprioritized" to lower
speeds on "congested" towers (after 50GB/month/line) when in the USA).

2. If we are in Canada or Mexico it's limited to 5GB (unlimited in Europe).

3. The free hotspot/tethering is lumped together at 5GB/month/line
for high-speed (where it can be "deprioritized" to 2G after that).

In summary, please understand that I am one of the few adults here who
attempted to _answer_ your questions. Notice the bulk of the posts to this
newsgroup are worthless childish kindergarten cesspool attempts by the
apologists (because they _hate_ what is fact so they hate me).

I speak facts which they have _never_ (in decades!) ever shown to be wrong.
Please _never_ forget that as I doublecheck my facts before I post them.

Every fact I claim is easily corroborated with cites, and I almost always
(in the thread) provide those cites - just as I did here, with you.
<https://i.postimg.cc/43KvqkZQ/speedtest06.jpg>

That's how _adults_ converse about Apple products (and 5G speeds).

[paul]

sms wrote on 23.06.2021 19:43

> Nice try, but my experiences are not from years ago. Do you understand
> that cellular subscribers in more out of the way places often share
> there experiences?

Steve is _desperate_ to shill for Verizon even as he is too shamed to post
his Verizon numbers, where Steve is in a more populated area than I am.

I'm only a few tens of miles away from Steve in Cupertino, and I'm so far up
in the Santa Cruz Mountains that we don't have _any_ city services. None.

We don't have water.
We don't have sewer.
We don't have natural gas.
We don't even have cable.
We have to get all our Internet over the air.

We're so far out in the middle of nowhere that you can only put _one_ house
on 79 acres (it's 40 acre zoning here as they don't want more people).

FACTS:

I'm in the boonies.... the very same boonies Steve brazenly claims has no
coverage from T-Mobile, and yet, I cite incontrovertible facts Steve hates:
<https://i.postimg.cc/zf9w1tGZ/speedtest07.jpg>

With Wi-Fi turned off, my T-Mobile ad hoc 5G download speed is 255Mbps
in the very same Santa Cruz Mountains, miles from the cellular towers.
<https://i.postimg.cc/mggy315q/speedtest05.jpg>

And you know I only speak facts, which I can always prove with cites:
<https://i.postimg.cc/43KvqkZQ/speedtest06.jpg>

Steve calls all T-Mobile facts he doesn't like, "lies", which is exactly
what the apologists do on this newsgroup (because they _hate_ facts that go
against their pre-determined fanciful but wholly imaginary belief system).

[paul]

sms wrote on 23.06.2021 07:35

> LOL, it's great that you have fast 5G speeds. If only T-Mobile could
> roll out better coverage, whether 4G or 5G. I spend a lot of time in the
> Santa Cruz Mountains which are south of Silicon Valley. Basically you
> have to have Verizon or AT&T if you want adequate coverage. Sure you
> might find a place with a T-Mobile 5G cell and you'll get stupendous
> speeds if you stay in that place. The maps confirm this fact.

Steve is dead wrong, and, in fact, so wrong, he must be telling us a fib.
(Everything Steve claims about his vaunted Verizon turns out to be a lie.)

FACTS:
I live deep in the boonies of those very same Santa Cruz Mountains Steve
repeatedly claims have lousy coverage - and yet - I'm getting 4G speeds of
around 125Mbps deep inside my huge multistory house (tested yesterday)
<https://i.postimg.cc/4dDhFK5F/speedtest01.jpg>

And I'm getting 180Mbps on 5G outside at the "slow" side of the house.
<https://i.postimg.cc/vT68k3BW/speedtest02.jpg>

And, today I tested what amounts to the "fast" side of the house at 255Mbps.
<https://i.postimg.cc/Bb3xjjFm/speedtest08.jpg>

Bear in mind we're so far out in the middle of nowhere you can put _one_
house on 79 acres (it's 40 acre zoning as they don't want more people).

FACTS:

I'm in the boonies.... the very same boonies Steve brazenly claims has no

coverage from T-Mobile, and yet, I cite incontrovertible facts Steve hates.

Steve calls all T-Mobile facts he doesn't like, "lies", which is exactly
what the apologists do on this newsgroup (because they _hate_ facts that go
against their pre-determined fanciful but wholly imaginary belief system).

--
Steve & the apologists are who make this Apple ng a kindergarten cesspool.

[badgolferman]

It’s true that you are the only one willing to provide information related
to the subject if this thread and I appreciate that. I can’t disagree with
the rest of the message either. I guess according to others that makes me a
troll now.

[sms]

On 6/24/2021 10:58 AM, badgolferman wrote:

<snip>

> Here’s the newest 5G speed I found today. Happened to be in the car at the
> time on a main road in town.
> https://ibb.co/9YC2XfD
>
> I thought sms might be interested…

LOL, No one never disputed that T-Mobile has a lot more low-band 5G
deployed than AT&T or Verizon.

The core issue for most people is not 200 Mb/s 5G versus 50Mb/s 4G, it's
coverage versus no coverage. As I have repeatedly shown, with the
carriers' own coverage maps as well as independent surveys, the coverage
differences, when not in urban areas or along major highways, are enormous.

T-Mobile has been doing the relatively inexpensive task of upgrading 4G
LTE cells to add 5G. This allows them to market their service as having
the most 5G. Left unsaid in their marketing campaign is that they have
the least, by far, geographical coverage. The lack of geographical
coverage is a big deal to many customers. If T-Mobile aspires to become
a top-tier carrier and go after business and commercial customers, they
will need to address their coverage issues.

Now if T-Mobile include unlimited 5G hotspot data on the Magenta plans,
and the data speeds could be maintained at 200Mb/s or greater, that
would be a big deal because people could drop their broadband internet
in many cases, but they are limiting hotspot data to 5GB. Obviously
their low-band 5G network could not handle home users using terabytes of
hotspot data. In my city, Verizon is running around installing mmWave 5G
cells on streetlight poles (and it's upsetting residents who are
concerned about what are essentially microwave emissions very close to
their homes, though the power levels are very low and there is no
evidence that they are harmful). Verizon is selling "wireless home
broadband" but it's no real bargain compared to Comcast or AT&T gigabit
fiber.

[nospam]

In article <sb4tba$1f9$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> > Hereąs the newest 5G speed I found today. Happened to be in the car at the

> > time on a main road in town.
> > https://ibb.co/9YC2XfD
> >

> > I thought sms might be interestedŠ

>
> LOL, No one never disputed that T-Mobile has a lot more low-band 5G
> deployed than AT&T or Verizon.

you're backpedaling.

> The core issue for most people is not 200 Mb/s 5G versus 50Mb/s 4G, it's
> coverage versus no coverage. As I have repeatedly shown, with the
> carriers' own coverage maps as well as independent surveys, the coverage
> differences, when not in urban areas or along major highways, are enormous.

that's been repeatedly disputed by numerous real world experiences.

t-mobile coverage is quite good. not perfect, but nothing is, not even
your beloved verizon.

> T-Mobile has been doing the relatively inexpensive task of upgrading 4G
> LTE cells to add 5G.

the upgrade is not 'relatively inexpensive'.

> This allows them to market their service as having
> the most 5G. Left unsaid in their marketing campaign is that they have
> the least, by far, geographical coverage.

coverage is what matters.

5g service is meaningless if it doesn't exist, which is the case with
verizon. where it does exist, it's good, but those spots are few and
far between. that will eventually change, but not any time soon.

> The lack of geographical
> coverage is a big deal to many customers. If T-Mobile aspires to become
> a top-tier carrier and go after business and commercial customers, they
> will need to address their coverage issues.

they did that long ago.

> Now if T-Mobile include unlimited 5G hotspot data on the Magenta plans,
> and the data speeds could be maintained at 200Mb/s or greater, that
> would be a big deal because people could drop their broadband internet
> in many cases, but they are limiting hotspot data to 5GB.

no need.

> Obviously
> their low-band 5G network could not handle home users using terabytes of
> hotspot data. In my city, Verizon is running around installing mmWave 5G
> cells on streetlight poles (and it's upsetting residents who are
> concerned about what are essentially microwave emissions very close to
> their homes, though the power levels are very low and there is no
> evidence that they are harmful).

of course they complain. mmw 5g interacts with the covid vaccine, which
contains a 5g biochip.

> Verizon is selling "wireless home
> broadband" but it's no real bargain compared to Comcast or AT&T gigabit
> fiber.

yet you bash t-mobile for the same thing.

[badgolferman]

I think it’s ironic how you bash T-Mobile for their perceived 4G coverage
lapses compared to Verizon, yet fail to give them credit for their superior
5G coverage compared to Verizon.

[sms]

In fact, I have repeatedly stated, including in the last post, that
"T-Mobile has a lot more low-band 5G deployed than AT&T or Verizon." So
at least don't claim that I haven't explicitly stated that T-Mobile has
more 5G coverage than AT&T or Verizon.

And of course the 4G coverage lapses are not "perceived" they are very
real, but you have to remove your T-Mobile blinders and look at all the
data.

The real issue is that, on a phone, 200-300 Mb/s on 5G versus 50-100
Mb/s on 4G, is of little benefit to anyone. Sure, if you're downloading
a bunch of 4K movies onto your phone you'll see a significant
difference, but for normal use that speed difference is of no
consequence. What matters a lot more to most people is having coverage
at all. But putting up a large number of new towers in rural areas is
very expensive.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 25.06.21 um 18:35 schrieb sms:

> The real issue is that, on a phone, 200-300 Mb/s on 5G versus 50-100
> Mb/s on 4G, is of little benefit to anyone. Sure, if you're downloading
> a bunch of 4K movies onto your phone you'll see a significant
> difference, but for normal use that speed difference is of no
> consequence. What matters a lot more to most people is having coverage
> at all. But putting up a large number of new towers in rural areas is
> very expensive.

*You* really miss "the real issues".
5G is and remains for quite a while a total marketing stunt by the
operators. The only interesting thing so far for the consumer is the
reduced latency expecially for hard core gamers.
Otherwise there is no application so far on handsets or other consumer
devices that really benefit from 5G.

5G is primarily interesting for industrial applications where real time
and extreme data rates are relevant in production processes. And that is
a completely different thing than what you experience on your handsets.

What I read in this thread and in this group is kindergarten-stuff.

You pretend to have a clue about modern mobile telecommunication ...

[nospam]

In article <sb5006$s6h$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, badgolferman
<REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think it零 ironic how you bash T-Mobile for their perceived 4G coverage

> lapses compared to Verizon, yet fail to give them credit for their superior
> 5G coverage compared to Verizon.

it's called shilling.

note that the t-mobile's superior 5g coverage means their 4g coverage
is also superior.

[nospam]

In article <sb50kl$28u$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> > I think it零 ironic how you bash T-Mobile for their perceived 4G coverage

> > lapses compared to Verizon, yet fail to give them credit for their superior
> > 5G coverage compared to Verizon.
>
> In fact, I have repeatedly stated, including in the last post, that
> "T-Mobile has a lot more low-band 5G deployed than AT&T or Verizon." So
> at least don't claim that I haven't explicitly stated that T-Mobile has
> more 5G coverage than AT&T or Verizon.

in other words, t-mobile's coverage is better. if they have 5g, then
they have 4g and 3g.

you finally admit it. either that, or someone is forging your posts.

> And of course the 4G coverage lapses are not "perceived" they are very
> real, but you have to remove your T-Mobile blinders and look at all the
> data.

they are entirely your own fabrication, contradicted by your own
admission that t-mobile's 5g coverage is better, which means their 4g
and 3g is also superior.

> The real issue is that, on a phone, 200-300 Mb/s on 5G versus 50-100
> Mb/s on 4G, is of little benefit to anyone. Sure, if you're downloading
> a bunch of 4K movies onto your phone you'll see a significant
> difference, but for normal use that speed difference is of no
> consequence. What matters a lot more to most people is having coverage
> at all. But putting up a large number of new towers in rural areas is
> very expensive.

yet they did exactly that over the past 20 years.

[sms]

On 6/25/2021 9:59 AM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 25.06.21 um 18:35 schrieb sms:
>> The real issue is that, on a phone, 200-300 Mb/s on 5G versus 50-100
>> Mb/s on 4G, is of little benefit to anyone. Sure, if you're downloading
>> a bunch of 4K movies onto your phone you'll see a significant
>> difference, but for normal use that speed difference is of no
>> consequence. What matters a lot more to most people is having coverage
>> at all. But putting up a large number of new towers in rural areas is
>> very expensive.
>
> *You* really miss "the real issues".
> 5G is and remains for quite a while a total marketing stunt by the
> operators. The only interesting thing so far for the consumer is the
> reduced latency expecially for hard core gamers.
> Otherwise there is no application so far on handsets or other consumer
> devices that really benefit from 5G.

Actually you're correct for low-band 5G, but not for mmWave 5G.
Operators in the U.S. are already rolling out home broadband on mmWave
5G, using mmWave 5G modems. Verizon is charging $80/month, with a $20
discount if you have Verizon postpaid cellular service.

The real reason (other than for marketing campaigns) for carriers to
deploy low-band 5G is not speed, it's that it greatly increases capacity
versus 4G LTE. In the case of T-Mobile, it's a useful diversionary
marketing tactic, "don't look at our geographic coverage, look at how
much 5G we've deployed." For those that lack critical thinking skills,
that marketing tactic can be successful.

> 5G is primarily interesting for industrial applications where real time
> and extreme data rates are relevant in production processes. And that is
> a completely different thing than what you experience on your handsets.

That is one application, for mmWave 5G, but it is not the primary
application. As you can see in various speed tests of low-band 5G,
latency is still a big issue.

> What I read in this thread and in this group is kindergarten-stuff.
>
> You pretend to have a clue about modern mobile telecommunication ...

LOL, rather than insulting people, you can begin to educate yourself
about 5G at this site:
<https://www.ericsson.com/en/5g/what-is-5g/5g-vs-4g>.

“There is nothing wrong with not knowing, only with not wanting to
know.” ― Kenan Moos

[nospam]

In article <sb53do$npj$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> >> The real issue is that, on a phone, 200-300 Mb/s on 5G versus 50-100
> >> Mb/s on 4G, is of little benefit to anyone. Sure, if you're downloading
> >> a bunch of 4K movies onto your phone you'll see a significant
> >> difference, but for normal use that speed difference is of no
> >> consequence. What matters a lot more to most people is having coverage
> >> at all. But putting up a large number of new towers in rural areas is
> >> very expensive.
> >
> > *You* really miss "the real issues".
> > 5G is and remains for quite a while a total marketing stunt by the
> > operators. The only interesting thing so far for the consumer is the
> > reduced latency expecially for hard core gamers.
> > Otherwise there is no application so far on handsets or other consumer
> > devices that really benefit from 5G.
>
> Actually you're correct for low-band 5G, but not for mmWave 5G.
> Operators in the U.S. are already rolling out home broadband on mmWave
> 5G, using mmWave 5G modems. Verizon is charging $80/month, with a $20
> discount if you have Verizon postpaid cellular service.

only in *very* limited areas, and with direct line of sight to a 5g
tower required.

it's also more expensive than other options.

> The real reason (other than for marketing campaigns) for carriers to
> deploy low-band 5G is not speed, it's that it greatly increases capacity
> versus 4G LTE. In the case of T-Mobile, it's a useful diversionary
> marketing tactic, "don't look at our geographic coverage, look at how
> much 5G we've deployed." For those that lack critical thinking skills,
> that marketing tactic can be successful.

nonsense.

> > 5G is primarily interesting for industrial applications where real time
> > and extreme data rates are relevant in production processes. And that is
> > a completely different thing than what you experience on your handsets.
>
> That is one application, for mmWave 5G, but it is not the primary
> application. As you can see in various speed tests of low-band 5G,
> latency is still a big issue.

it isn't.

> > What I read in this thread and in this group is kindergarten-stuff.
> >
> > You pretend to have a clue about modern mobile telecommunication ...
>
> LOL, rather than insulting people, you can begin to educate yourself
> about 5G at this site:
> <https://www.ericsson.com/en/5g/what-is-5g/5g-vs-4g>.
>

> łThere is nothing wrong with not knowing, only with not wanting to
> know.˛ ‹ Kenan Moos

take your own advice.

[paul]

sms wrote on 25.06.2021 17:39

> The core issue for most people is not 200 Mb/s 5G versus 50Mb/s 4G, it's
> coverage versus no coverage. As I have repeatedly shown, with the
> carriers' own coverage maps as well as independent surveys, the coverage
> differences, when not in urban areas or along major highways, are enormous.

And yet I get 125Mbps T-Mobile 4G, not the 50Mbps you claim.
Better yet, I get 255Mbps 5G in the Santa Cruz Mountains you say I can't.

I'm nowhere near an urban area, nor anywhere close to a major highway.
It's over 40 miles round trip just for me to go to a gas station, Steve.

I'm in an area where you can't even build a house on less than 40 acres.
If you have 79 acres, you can only build _one_ house here, Steve.

The city/county has no intention of adding _any_ infrastructure, Steve.
We don't have city water.
We don't have city gas.
We don't have city sewers.
We don't even have cable on our power poles, Steve.

And yet we have free unlimited 5G coverage which puts your Verizon to shame.
<https://i.postimg.cc/Bb3xjjFm/speedtest08.jpg>
--
T-Mobile gave everyone who wanted it a free 5G phone, Steve, including me.

[nospam]

In article <sb56sc$2c2$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, paul <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

> I'm nowhere near an urban area,

the further away, the better.

[paul]

Jolly Roger wrote on 23.06.2021 19:22
> Wake up!

Instead of apologists always proving to be unprepossessing kindergarten
cesspools, why don't you post _your_ screenshot of _your_ 5G speeds, JR?

You apologists are so childish you can't even do something _that_ easy.
--
None of the apologists added any value to this thread with respect to the
OP's question of what 5G speeds they are currently getting on their phone.

[paul]

On 25.06.2021 18:59, in misc.phone.mobile.iphone you wrote:
> Otherwise there is no application so far on handsets or other consumer
> devices that really benefit from 5G.

How can apologists like Joerg claim there is no good use for 5G today?
I get far _better_ speeds than if I had connected to my WISP Wi-Fi network.

Instead of apologists always proving to be unprepossessing kindergarten

cesspools, why don't you post _your_ screenshot of _your_ 5G speeds, Jeorg?

*You apologists are so worthless you can't even do something _that_ easy.*

[badgolferman]

paul <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote on 23.06.2021 19:22
>> Wake up!
>
> Instead of apologists always proving to be unprepossessing kindergarten
> cesspools, why don't you post _your_ screenshot of _your_ 5G speeds, JR?
>
> You apologists are so childish you can't even do something _that_ easy.

His personal achievement today has been labeling me a troll. This despite
the fact I have shown my loyalty to Apple by purchasing three iPhone 12
devices. Maybe it’s because I use Windows desktop devices rather than Macs.

[sms]

On 6/25/2021 9:35 AM, sms wrote:

<snip>

> The real issue is that, on a phone, 200-300 Mb/s on 5G versus 50-100
> Mb/s on 4G, is of little benefit to anyone. Sure, if you're downloading
> a bunch of 4K movies onto your phone you'll see a significant
> difference, but for normal use that speed difference is of no
> consequence. What matters a lot more to most people is having coverage
> at all. But putting up a large number of new towers in rural areas is
> very expensive.

Verizon has a big lead in mmWave 5G, but it's almost never being used by
phones. AT&T and T-Mobile are way behind in mmWave 5G deployment but it
doesn't really matter for phones. Verizon also has the fastest 5G, by
quite a large margin, "Average download speeds on mmWave 5G were
232.7Mbps for AT&T, 215.3Mbps for T-Mobile, and 692.9Mbps for Verizon."

<https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2021/04/verizon-leads-all-us-carriers-in-mmwave-5g-availability-at-0-8/>.

Here is one of the Verizon 5G mmWave small cells that Verizon has been
running around installing in my city
<https://drive.google.com/file/d/13TFYlRtO7R2Tn0ikn1SJo2I_JvgbHVfn/>.

Verizon really wants to compete in home broadband against Comcast and
AT&T, both of which have gigabit fiber in my city (I have a pole in my
back yard with both companies' fiber).

Compared to what the carriers would have done, legally, if we hadn't
worked with them on a more aesthetic design, this was a big win. Of
course we have a lot of residents objecting to these small cells because
the streetlight poles can be only 50 feet, sometimes less, from the
windows of a house. It's a very emotional issue and scientific
explanations are often of no benefit.

We constantly have residents insisting that there is no need for these
5G mmWave cells because they already have excellent coverage on their
phones, but the reason for 5G mmWave has very little to do with phones,
it's all about home broadband
<https://www.cnet.com/news/verizons-5g-home-broadband-alternative-is-heading-to-three-new-cities/>.

[nospam]

In article <sb5tnd$ko$1...@dont-email.me>, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

> Verizon has a big lead in mmWave 5G, but it's almost never being used by
> phones.

it's also not widely deployed.

> AT&T and T-Mobile are way behind in mmWave 5G deployment but it
> doesn't really matter for phones.

which is one reason why they're both well ahead of verizon.

> Verizon also has the fastest 5G, by
> quite a large margin, "Average download speeds on mmWave 5G were
> 232.7Mbps for AT&T, 215.3Mbps for T-Mobile, and 692.9Mbps for Verizon."

you just said 'it's almost never being used by phones', plus verizon's
5g coverage is much worse than t-mobile.

> phones, but the reason for 5G mmWave has very little to do with phones,
> it's all about home broadband

except that mmw doesn't penetrate walls, so the 5g radio will need to
be in a window with direct line of sight to a tower. that greatly
limits how many people can use it.

they're also several other wireless providers with a better product for
less money.

[badgolferman]

Jolly Roger wrote:

>On 2021-06-25, badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> His personal achievement today has been labeling me a troll.
>

>Nope, but I did call you out for defending one. I guess such nuance is
>lost on you though, huh?

>
>> This despite the fact I have shown my loyalty to Apple by
>>purchasing three iPhone 12 devices.
>

>Like I care.

>
>> Maybe it’s because I use Windows desktop devices rather than Macs.
>

>Mmmm. It wouldn't have anything to do with you defending the resident
>troll, Arlen (paul). Nah!
>
>You're starting to walk like a duck, BTW.


99% of messages from the likes of you and a couple others are nothing
but insults and character attacks. At least Arlen provides useful
information much of the time and sticks to the subject of this
newsgroup. Before I click on your messages I pretty much know what its
contents will be.

[nospam]

In article <xn0mzl9kz...@nntp.aioe.org>, badgolferman

<REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> At least Arlen provides useful
> information much of the time

no he doesn't.

> and sticks to the subject of this
> newsgroup.

except that he crossposts to unrelated groups to guarantee flamefests.

> Before I click on your messages I pretty much know what its
> contents will be.

that applies to 'arlen' more than anyone.

[sms]

On 6/26/2021 4:54 AM, badgolferman wrote:

<snip>

> 99% of messages from the likes of you and a couple others are nothing
> but insults and character attacks. At least Arlen provides useful
> information much of the time and sticks to the subject of this
> newsgroup. Before I click on your messages I pretty much know what its
> contents will be.

While Arlen/Paul is often rather obnoxious, it is true that he sometimes
does provide useful and accurate information. About 20-30% of what
Arlen/Paul posts is true. How he can improve, and be unfiltered by many
of us, is to use cites and references when he posts.

[nospam]

In article <sb7d13$nv4$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> While Arlen/Paul is often rather obnoxious, it is true that he sometimes
> does provide useful and accurate information. About 20-30% of what
> Arlen/Paul posts is true.

more like 0.2-0.3%, about the same as your track record.

> How he can improve, and be unfiltered by many
> of us, is to use cites and references when he posts.

he ignores that, as do you.

[Chris]

You must be reading completely different posts to the rest of us. The vast
majority of his posts both in number and amount of text are devoid of
on-topic information.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 25.06.21 um 19:38 schrieb nospam:

> In article <sb53do$npj$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
> <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> That is one application, for mmWave 5G, but it is not the primary
>> application. As you can see in various speed tests of low-band 5G,
>> latency is still a big issue.
>
> it isn't.

He will hardly ever understand what 5G really means.
What our "sms" writes here is just proof of that.

[sms]

On 6/26/2021 8:46 AM, Chris wrote:

<snip>

> You must be reading completely different posts to the rest of us. The vast
> majority of his posts both in number and amount of text are devoid of
> on-topic information.

Personally I now have him filtered out because he's so obnoxious and
because much of what he posts is untrue. But in the past, when I did see
his posts, about 20-25% of what he wrote was true, even though the
snarkiness was still there.

If he would simply include cites and references when he posts, it would
greatly help his credibility. I still see his stuff when someone does a
followup, and some of his misstatements can at least be amusing, i.e.
when he insisted that most people have 5G phones, see
<https://www.lightreading.com/mobile/devices-smartphones/gartner-5g-phone-market-share-to-grow-from-10--in-2020-to-56--by-2023/d/d-id/754419>.

It's more work to post referenced facts, but it's worth the effort if
you want to be taken seriously in online forums.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22 iOS Features Some of Which that [many] Android Users Wish they Had
77 Android Features Some of Which that [many] iOS Users Wish they Had

<https://tinyurl.com/fzje7h9e> or
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JznrWfGJDA8CYVfjSnPTwfVy8-gAC0kPyaApuJTcUNE>

✓ Extensively referenced and 100% Fact Checked ✓
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[nospam]

In article <sb7m58$p6h$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> > You must be reading completely different posts to the rest of us. The vast
> > majority of his posts both in number and amount of text are devoid of
> > on-topic information.
>
> Personally I now have him filtered out because he's so obnoxious and
> because much of what he posts is untrue. But in the past, when I did see
> his posts, about 20-25% of what he wrote was true, even though the
> snarkiness was still there.

it wasn't anywhere close to that.

> If he would simply include cites and references when he posts, it would
> greatly help his credibility.

he does, except that he doesn't understand what he's reading and lies
about what it says.

oddly enough, you do the same thing.

[sms]

You can educate yourself about 5G latency at
<https://broadbandlibrary.com/5g-low-latency-requirements/>.

"Low band spectrum will be used for 5G applications that do not require
super low latency and high persistent data rates and is typically
optimized for macrocell (wide-area coverage) network deployments."

You can see the latency issue in the speed tests that badgolferman and
Arlen/Paul posted:
<https://ibb.co/9YC2XfD>
<https://postimg.cc/182XVTX3>

You should also read the article at
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobodonnell/2020/02/18/5g-latency-improvements-are-still-lagging/?sh=7cf458f448f1>.

Even mmWave 5G latency is still not at the necessary level. See
<https://www.gsmarena.com/tcl_10_5g_hands_on_verizon_speed_test-review-2196p3.php>
. 11ms is better than what you get on low-band 5G, but you really need
it down to 1ms for lot of future 5G applications.

If you do some studying you will be able to better understand 5G, both
the promise and the current reality. I think the key thing for you to
understand is the differences between low-band and mmWave 5G. The former
is useful on phones. The latter is for iOT applications that require low
latency, as well as for wireless broadband.

[nospam]

In article <sb7mqu$tnl$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> >>> That is one application, for mmWave 5G, but it is not the primary
> >>> application. As you can see in various speed tests of low-band 5G,
> >>> latency is still a big issue.
> >>
> >> it isn't.
> >
> > He will hardly ever understand what 5G really means.
> > What our "sms" writes here is just proof of that.
>
> You can educate yourself about 5G latency at

you don't understand what you're reading.

> Even mmWave 5G latency is still not at the necessary level. See

it is for phones, which is the issue being discussed.

> . 11ms is better than what you get on low-band 5G, but you really need
> it down to 1ms for lot of future 5G applications.

'future 5g applications' aren't phones and not relevant at this time.

[badgolferman]

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2021-06-26, badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> On 2021-06-25, badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> His personal achievement today has been labeling me a troll.
>>>
>>> Nope, but I did call you out for defending one. I guess such nuance is
>>> lost on you though, huh?
>>>
>>>> This despite the fact I have shown my loyalty to Apple by
>>>> purchasing three iPhone 12 devices.
>>>
>>> Like I care.
>>>
>>>> Maybe it’s because I use Windows desktop devices rather than Macs.
>>>
>>> Mmmm. It wouldn't have anything to do with you defending the resident
>>> troll, Arlen (paul). Nah!
>>>
>>> You're starting to walk like a duck, BTW.
>>
>> 99% of messages from the likes of you
>

> Your refusal to address the actual point is transparent. You're crying
> that we aren't being nice to Arlen (paul), someone just about everyone
> here who *isn't* a troll recognizes as a legitimate troll, and when
> confronted about it, your response is to deflect. This is typical troll
> behavior. If you aren't a troll, why are you acting exactly like one?
>

I think you overestimate me and are too suspicious off everyone.

[paul]

sms wrote on 26.06.2021 16:19

> How he can improve, and be unfiltered by many
> of us, is to use cites and references when he posts.

*How _many_ times does a cite have to be provided before Steve reads it?*
I checked today that Steve's list _still_ says 2 years for Samsung support!

Yet everyone (save for apologists) knows it's well documented at 4 years.
<https://security.samsungmobile.com/workScope.smsb>

Here is the Samsung 4-year support cite (yet again, for the umpteenth time).
*Adults will notice apologists are fantastically immune to facts they hate.*

Samsung explains its 4-year software update policy for Galaxy devices
https://www.sammobile.com/news/samsung-galaxy-4-year-software-update-policy-explains/

*How _many_ times does a cite have to be provided before Steve reads it?*

[paul]

nospam wrote on 26.06.2021 14:15

>> At least Arlen provides useful
>> information much of the time
>
> no he doesn't.

QUESTION:
Out of something like 50 posts in this thread, who answered the question?

ANSWER:
*None of the apologists*

Alan Baker, Chris, Haemactylus, Joerg Lorenz, Jolly Roger,
Lewis, nospam, Rod Speed, Wade Garrett, Your Name, et al.

[paul]

nospam wrote on 26.06.2021 18:57

>> Personally I now have him filtered out because he's so obnoxious and
>> because much of what he posts is untrue. But in the past, when I did see
>> his posts, about 20-25% of what he wrote was true, even though the
>> snarkiness was still there.
>
> it wasn't anywhere close to that.

On this the kindergarten cesspool apologists are correct since _adults_
note I've never been wrong even _once_ on facts in decades of posting here.

*What you _hate_ about me are that you _hate_ the facts I post about Apple*

Why?
Because you have no adult defense to facts.

It's why all you apologists turn into instant cesspool in the face of facts.

Steve is immune to facts also, even as he's not technically an apologist.
He can't even comprehend that Samsung provides twice the support he claims.
<https://security.samsungmobile.com/workScope.smsb>
--
Galaxy Fold, Galaxy Fold 5G, Galaxy Z Fold2, Galaxy Z Fold2 5G, Galaxy Z Flip, Galaxy Z Flip 5G
Galaxy S10, Galaxy S10+, Galaxy S10e, Galaxy S10 5G, Galaxy S10 Lite
Galaxy S20, Galaxy S20 5G, Galaxy S20+, Galaxy S20+ 5G, Galaxy S20 Ultra, Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G, Galaxy S20 FE, Galaxy S20 FE 5G, Galaxy S21 5G, Galaxy S21+ 5G, Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G
Galaxy Note9, Galaxy Note10, Galaxy Note10 5G, Galaxy Note10+, Galaxy Note10+ 5G, Galaxy Note10 Lite, Galaxy Note20, Galaxy Note20 5G, Galaxy Note20 Ultra, Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G
Galaxy A52, Galaxy A52 5G
Enterprise Models: Galaxy A50, Galaxy XCover4s, Galaxy Xcover FieldPro, Galaxy Xcover Pro, Galaxy Xcover5
Current Models for Quarterly Security Updatesł
Galaxy S8 Active, Galaxy S9, Galaxy S9+
Galaxy Note8
Galaxy A10e, Galaxy A10s, Galaxy A20s, Galaxy A30s, Galaxy A40, Galaxy A50s, Galaxy A70s, Galaxy A80, Galaxy A90 5G
Galaxy A01, Galaxy A01 Core, Galaxy A11, Galaxy A21, Galaxy A21s, Galaxy A31, Galaxy A41, Galaxy A51, Galaxy A51 5G, Galaxy A71, Galaxy A71 5G
Galaxy A02, Galaxy A02s, Galaxy A12, Galaxy A32, Galaxy A32 5G, Galaxy A42 5G, Galaxy A72, Galaxy A82 5G
Galaxy M10s, Galaxy M30s, Galaxy M40
Galaxy M01, Galaxy M11, Galaxy M21, Galaxy M31, Galaxy M31s, Galaxy M51, Galaxy M12
Galaxy F62, Galaxy F52 5G
Galaxy Tab A 8 (2019), Galaxy Tab A 8.4 (2020), Galaxy Tab A7, Galaxy Tab A7 Lite, Galaxy Tab Active2, Galaxy Tab Active Pro, Galaxy Tab Active3
Galaxy Tab S6, Galaxy Tab S6 5G, Galaxy Tab S6 Lite, Galaxy Tab S7, Galaxy Tab S7+, Galaxy Tab S7 FE
W20 5G, W21 5G
Enterprise Models: Galaxy A8 (2018)
Current Models for Biannual Security Updatesł
Galaxy S8 Lite, Galaxy Note FE
Galaxy A6, Galaxy A6+, Galaxy A7 (2018), Galaxy A8+ (2018), Galaxy A8 Star, Galaxy A8s, Galaxy A9 (2018), Galaxy A2 Core, Galaxy A10, Galaxy A20e, Galaxy A20, Galaxy A30, Galaxy A60, Galaxy A70
Galaxy J2 Core, Galaxy J3 (2017), Galaxy J3 Top, Galaxy J4, Galaxy J4+, Galaxy J4 Core, Galaxy J5 (2017), Galaxy J6, Galaxy J6+, Galaxy J7 (2017), Galaxy J7 Duo, Galaxy J7 Prime2, Galaxy J7 Top, Galaxy J7 Max, Galaxy J7 Neo, Galaxy J7+, Galaxy J8
Galaxy M10, Galaxy M20, Galaxy M30
Galaxy Tab A (2017), Galaxy Tab A 10.5 (2018), Galaxy Tab S4, Galaxy Tab E 8 Refresh, Galaxy Tab A 10.1 (2019), Galaxy Tab A with S pen, Galaxy Tab S5e, Galaxy View2

[nospam]

In article <sb7tlr$15fh$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, paul <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

> >> At least Arlen provides useful
> >> information much of the time
> >
> > no he doesn't.
>
> QUESTION:
> Out of something like 50 posts in this thread, who answered the question?

certainly not you.

you're further demonstrating that you *don't* provide any useful
information at all.

[nospam]

In article <sb7tg7$13ec$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, paul <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

> I checked today that Steve's list _still_ says 2 years for Samsung support!
>
> Yet everyone (save for apologists) knows it's well documented at 4 years.

yet another thing you fail to understand.

*some* samsung phones get 4 years of security updates (but not system
updates).

most android devices, including samsung devices that aren't included in
the above sub-group, are generally 2-3 years of support. some low end
android devices are only 1 year.

apple is currently 8 years for security updates and 6 years for system
updates.

[paul]

nospam wrote on 26.06.2021 21:26

> most android devices, including samsung devices that aren't included in
> the above sub-group, are generally 2-3 years of support. some low end
> android devices are only 1 year.

FACT:
*In decades of posting to Usenet my facts have _never_ even once been wrong*

*Yet, Steve's facts are clearly dead wrong. And he's been told he's wrong.*
Many (many) times. This week alone. With multiple cites. On Android updates.

*He, like you apologists (& flatearthers) are _immune_ to facts you _hate_*

*Hell... Even my new el cheapo _free_ phone gets the 4 years' of updates.*
<https://security.samsungmobile.com/workScope.smsb>

In addition, most Android devices are now being updated over Google Play.
<https://www.androidauthority.com/project-mainline-art-android-12-1202045/>

*Completely independently of the OEMs and independently of the carriers!*

Even the hardware Qualcomm drivers are now updated over Google Play, nospam.
<https://www.s7fanclub.com/update-qualcomm-gpu-drivers-google-play-store.html>

These are things you're all fantastically ignorant of.
Why?

I don't know why but all apologists are ignorant (as is Steve) on updates.
*Apologists only know what Tim Cook's Apple web site has fed them.*
--
Current Models for Monthly Security Updates²

Galaxy Fold, Galaxy Fold 5G, Galaxy Z Fold2, Galaxy Z Fold2 5G, Galaxy Z
Flip, Galaxy Z Flip 5G
Galaxy S10, Galaxy S10+, Galaxy S10e, Galaxy S10 5G, Galaxy S10 Lite
Galaxy S20, Galaxy S20 5G, Galaxy S20+, Galaxy S20+ 5G, Galaxy S20 Ultra,
Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G, Galaxy S20 FE, Galaxy S20 FE 5G, Galaxy S21 5G, Galaxy
S21+ 5G, Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G
Galaxy Note9, Galaxy Note10, Galaxy Note10 5G, Galaxy Note10+, Galaxy
Note10+ 5G, Galaxy Note10 Lite, Galaxy Note20, Galaxy Note20 5G, Galaxy
Note20 Ultra, Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G
Galaxy A52, Galaxy A52 5G
Enterprise Models: Galaxy A50, Galaxy XCover4s, Galaxy Xcover FieldPro,
Galaxy Xcover Pro, Galaxy Xcover5

Current Models for Quarterly Security Updates³

Galaxy S8 Active, Galaxy S9, Galaxy S9+
Galaxy Note8
Galaxy A10e, Galaxy A10s, Galaxy A20s, Galaxy A30s, Galaxy A40, Galaxy A50s,
Galaxy A70s, Galaxy A80, Galaxy A90 5G
Galaxy A01, Galaxy A01 Core, Galaxy A11, Galaxy A21, Galaxy A21s, Galaxy
A31, Galaxy A41, Galaxy A51, Galaxy A51 5G, Galaxy A71, Galaxy A71 5G
Galaxy A02, Galaxy A02s, Galaxy A12, Galaxy A32, Galaxy A32 5G, Galaxy A42
5G, Galaxy A72, Galaxy A82 5G
Galaxy M10s, Galaxy M30s, Galaxy M40
Galaxy M01, Galaxy M11, Galaxy M21, Galaxy M31, Galaxy M31s, Galaxy M51,
Galaxy M12
Galaxy F62, Galaxy F52 5G
Galaxy Tab A 8 (2019), Galaxy Tab A 8.4 (2020), Galaxy Tab A7, Galaxy Tab A7
Lite, Galaxy Tab Active2, Galaxy Tab Active Pro, Galaxy Tab Active3
Galaxy Tab S6, Galaxy Tab S6 5G, Galaxy Tab S6 Lite, Galaxy Tab S7, Galaxy
Tab S7+, Galaxy Tab S7 FE
W20 5G, W21 5G
Enterprise Models: Galaxy A8 (2018)

Current Models for Biannual Security Updates³

[paul]

nospam wrote on 26.06.2021 21:26

>> Out of something like 50 posts in this thread, who answered the question?
>
> certainly not you.
>
> you're further demonstrating that you *don't* provide any useful
> information at all.

If there are any adults on this newsgroup, they'll notice two things:
1. *Badgolferman asked* what 5G performance people are getting.
2. *I answered that question* (in detail, with proof & helpful effort).

The difference between me & kindergarten cesspool apologists is astounding.
--
The dozen apologists are who turn this ng into their kindergarten cesspool.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 26.06.21 um 19:17 schrieb nospam:

That is what sms does not understand.

[nospam]

In article <sb81sm$tlk$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, paul <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

> The difference between me & kindergarten cesspool apologists is zero.

ftfy

[nospam]

In article <sb82jp$jbn$1...@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch>

wrote:

> >> . 11ms is better than what you get on low-band 5G, but you really need
> >> it down to 1ms for lot of future 5G applications.
> >
> > 'future 5g applications' aren't phones and not relevant at this time.
>
> That is what sms does not understand.

he doesn't understand quite a bit more than just that.

[Lewis]

In message <xn0mzl9kz...@nntp.aioe.org> badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:

>>On 2021-06-25, badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> His personal achievement today has been labeling me a troll.
>>
>>Nope, but I did call you out for defending one. I guess such nuance is
>>lost on you though, huh?
>>
>>> This despite the fact I have shown my loyalty to Apple by
>>>purchasing three iPhone 12 devices.
>>
>>Like I care.
>>
>>> Maybe it’s because I use Windows desktop devices rather than Macs.
>>
>>Mmmm. It wouldn't have anything to do with you defending the resident
>>troll, Arlen (paul). Nah!
>>
>>You're starting to walk like a duck, BTW.


> 99% of messages from the likes of you and a couple others are nothing
> but insults and character attacks. At least Arlen provides useful
> information

Arlen has never once provided useful information. Bullshit, yes. Idiocy,
Yes. Uniformed specious fantasy, yes. Outright lies, always. Useful
information, not a single time.

> much of the time and sticks to the subject of this newsgroup.

Ah, you are delusional, I see. For the record, the subject of this
newsgroup is not "Arlen has a soft chubby for Android". I know, I
checked the charter.


--
"The chief obstacle to the progress of the human race is the human
race. " - Don Marquis

[sms]

LOL, I've been working with AT&T, Verizon, Amazon Web Services, Google,
and Microsoft, for three years on IOT and 5G deployment.

Your posts demonstrate a lack of understanding of the technical aspects
of 5G as they relate to the differences between mmWave, mid-band, and
low-band 5G, what each is used for, and what the requirements are in
terms of speed and latency.

You can't do things like self-driving cars with high latency, you need
to get down to around 5ms. If you look at the latency of low-band 5G,
forget it, it's way too high. You're going to need massive numbers of
mmWave 5G cells to get low-latency outdoor applications to work. mmWave
5G is also going to be used in industrial applications for machine
control where low latency is also vitally important.

Here is an IEEE paper on the subject of self driving cars that you may
want to read:
<https://spectrum.ieee.org/transportation/advanced-cars/6-key-connectivity-requirements-of-autonomous-driving>:
"Current cellular radio standards such as LTE has a latency of 30 to 40
milliseconds, making it unsafe for driverless vehicles. 5G mobile
communication, which will be available for deployment in 2019, will
provide higher data rates of up to 10 Gbps with considerably lower
latency than LTE, making it suitable for real-time safety applications."
But the IEEE article was overly optimistic since the deployment of "real
5G" with those lower latency numbers has been slow.

<https://www.gsma.com/iot/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/201911-GSMA-IoT-Report-IoT-in-the-5G-Era.pdf>
may help you understand about IOT and 5G. I advise you to read it prior
to making any more statements.

In a way, it's too bad that "5G' has lumped together very different
technologies, some where latency is of little concern, like wireless
broadband, and some where low latency is vitally important. It's led to
confusion among non-engineers who use it as a buzz word without
understanding it.

[Your Name]

Nope. The moronic anti-Apple troll "Arlen" posts useLESS information
that is at best blinkered, half-truths, but more often simply plain
lies and misinformation.

[nospam]

In article <sb86s3$g4v$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> >>> . 11ms is better than what you get on low-band 5G, but you really need
> >>> it down to 1ms for lot of future 5G applications.
> >>
> >> 'future 5g applications' aren't phones and not relevant at this time.
> >
> > That is what sms does not understand.
>
> LOL, I've been working with AT&T, Verizon, Amazon Web Services, Google,
> and Microsoft, for three years on IOT and 5G deployment.

in other words, you have an agenda.

> Your posts demonstrate a lack of understanding of the technical aspects
> of 5G as they relate to the differences between mmWave, mid-band, and
> low-band 5G, what each is used for, and what the requirements are in
> terms of speed and latency.

projection.

> You can't do things like self-driving cars with high latency, you need
> to get down to around 5ms.

not relevant to phones, the topic under discussion.

> In a way, it's too bad that "5G' has lumped together very different
> technologies, some where latency is of little concern, like wireless
> broadband, and some where low latency is vitally important.

in other words, latency is not an issue for phones.

> It's led to
> confusion among non-engineers who use it as a buzz word without
> understanding it.

actually, what it's led to are deliberate attempts to further an agenda
by intentionally conflating the various types of 5g.

[-hh Huntzinger]

On Wednesday, June 23, 2021 at 6:09:06 PM UTC-4, nospam wrote:
> sms wrote:
> > …
> > Do you understand
> > that cellular subscribers in more out of the way places often share
> > there experiences?
>
> do you understand that there aren't a lot of people in the 'out of the
> way places', one reason why they're called 'out of the way' ?

Population density does affect likelihood of providing infrastructure,
which is a trade off vs ubiquity in places where folks may go. Since the
point of a mobile device is to be mobile, saving money by having voids
in service coverage is a delicate balancing act.

> > Last month I was in Zion National Park. I was in an area where Verizon
> > had coverage, weak, but sufficient. I was approached by a couple who
> > asked me if I could make a call for them since they had no coverage on
> > their phone ("Metro by T-Mobile," nee MetroPCS). I made the call but
> > since the people they were calling were also on Metro, and were also in
> > the Park, they had no coverage either. This is not an isolated incident
> > of course.
>
> yes it is an isolated incident, if it even happened at all.

I’ve had similar experiences on multiple occasions, such that part of my
hiking SOPs in a know dead zone is to put my mobile into “fly” mode to
prevent it from killing its battery in <6hrs. One of my favorite spots where
this is a chronic issue is a National Park, on valley trails where towers are
both distant (because they’re not in the park) and blocked by the terrain.


> the number of people who go to zion national park out of the general
> population is extremely small, and out of those, the number who don't
> have cell service there is even smaller, and out of those, the number
> who actually care is smaller still.

Try generalizing it to all National Parks. And in many instances, add National
& State Forests,etc. & repeat for other continents.

> most people who go to zion and other national parks go for the beauty,
> not to sit on their phone the entire time.

How long does an iPhone battery last in default settings when in a dead or
nearly dead cellular zone as it constantly tries to connect to any tower?
Even without waking it up every 30 minutes to take a photo…

> > Of course if
> > you never leave urban areas then this is unnecessary.
>
> which is the norm.

Only for trolls who never venture out of their mom’s basement.

-hh

[sms]

On 6/26/2021 5:35 PM, -hh Huntzinger wrote:

> I’ve had similar experiences on multiple occasions, such that part of my
> hiking SOPs in a know dead zone is to put my mobile into “fly” mode to
> prevent it from killing its battery in <6hrs. One of my favorite spots where
> this is a chronic issue is a National Park, on valley trails where towers are
> both distant (because they’re not in the park) and blocked by the terrain.

Well it's true that for people that never leave urban or suburban areas,
coverage in places like National Parks, or the roads to National Parks,
are not of much concern.

I recall many years ago that there was someone in one of the Usenet
groups that explained that he planned his vacations based on where there
was Cingular coverage!

> Try generalizing it to all National Parks. And in many instances, add National
> & State Forests,etc. & repeat for other continents.

LOL, absolutely. Another thing I found is that visitors to the U.S. from
Europe and Asia are especially interested in going to those kinds of
places. If they aren't doing international roaming, and instead are
buying a prepaid U.S. SIM card, it's important that they get one from
AT&T (or Verizon if their phone supports Verizon).

>> most people who go to zion and other national parks go for the beauty,
>> not to sit on their phone the entire time.
>
> How long does an iPhone battery last in default settings when in a dead or
> nearly dead cellular zone as it constantly tries to connect to any tower?
> Even without waking it up every 30 minutes to take a photo…

I just love the excuse of "well it doesn't matter if you have no
coverage because you're not there to be on your phone." It's so stupid
that it's a wonder that people still use it! The reality is that when
you're going somewhere and trying to coordinate with other people, it's
very useful to have coverage.

>> which is the norm.
>
> Only for trolls who never venture out of their mom’s basement.

LOL, of course the fact is that it is NOT the norm for most people, at
least for those that take occasional trips outside urban areas. Judging
from the crowds at Zion, Bryce, and Grand Canyon, there are a great many
such people that venture out.

[paul]

Your Name wrote on 26.06.2021 23:46
> Nope. The moronic anti-Apple troll posts useLESS information

> that is at best blinkered, half-truths, but more often simply plain
> lies and misinformation.

How about this one?

*Apple fixes ninth zero-day bug exploited in the wild this year*
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/apple-fixes-ninth-zero-day-bug-exploited-in-the-wild-this-year/

In just three months, *we've seen a never-ending stream of zero-day bugs*,
nine of them in total, all showing up in Apple's security advisories, most
of them also *tagged as having been _exploited_ in known attacks*.
--
What the apologists hate.... is that I post the factual truth about Apple.

[paul]

nospam wrote on 27.06.2021 00:31

>> LOL, I've been working with AT&T, Verizon, Amazon Web Services, Google,
>> and Microsoft, for three years on IOT and 5G deployment.
>
> in other words, you have an agenda.

This is perhaps why Steve is so embarrassed by how slow AT&T & Verizon are
in terms of current 5G speeds that I reported in the very same Santa Cruz
Mountains Steve repeatedly insists must not have any 5G coverage at all.

BTW, *on the tech _topic_ that this thread was opened on* by badgolferman...

What's so horrible about 29ms ping times for cellular data anyway?
https://i.postimg.cc/Bb3xjjFm/speedtest08.jpg

[paul]

sms wrote on 27.06.2021 03:46

> Well it's true that for people that never leave urban or suburban areas,
> coverage in places like National Parks, or the roads to National Parks,
> are not of much concern.

And yet, in the very same Santa Cruz Mountains Steve insists must not have
any 5G coverage from T-Mobile, I'm reliably reporting >250Mbps data speeds.
<https://i.postimg.cc/Bb3xjjFm/speedtest08.jpg?

I reported this on-topic fact which answered badgolferman's tech question,
and for that, the apologists (and Steve) hate me (simply for posting facts).

Steve claimed these facts must be wrong (*because _he_ doesn't like them!*)
<https://i.postimg.cc/zf9w1tGZ/speedtest07.jpg>

BTW... What's so horrible about 29ms ping times for cellular data anyway?
<https://i.postimg.cc/pdXF4Mtz/speedtest03.jpg>

[paul]

Chris wrote on 26.06.2021 15:46

> You must be reading completely different posts to the rest of us. The vast
> majority of his posts both in number and amount of text are devoid of
> on-topic information.

What the apologists _hate_ is that they have absolutely no defense to facts.

How about this 5G performance fact, which, unlike your posts, is on topic:
<https://i.postimg.cc/Bb3xjjFm/speedtest08.jpg>

What Steve hates, is the fact I easily report the facts that I get >250Mbps
in the very same Santa Cruz Mountains which he claims has no 5G coverage.
<https://i.postimg.cc/zf9w1tGZ/speedtest07.jpg>

*Much as with Steve, what the apologists hate is I report on topic facts!*.
<https://i.postimg.cc/pdXF4Mtz/speedtest03.jpg>
--
These dozen apologists (& Steve) have absolutely no defense to facts other
than to childishly deny they exist (and to denigrate anyone bearing facts).

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 27.06.21 um 00:31 schrieb nospam:

> In article <sb86s3$g4v$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
> <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> You can't do things like self-driving cars with high latency, you need
>> to get down to around 5ms.
>
> not relevant to phones, the topic under discussion.

SIC!

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

[Chris]

sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 6/26/2021 8:46 AM, Chris wrote:
>
> <snip>

>
>> You must be reading completely different posts to the rest of us. The vast
>> majority of his posts both in number and amount of text are devoid of
>> on-topic information.
>

> Personally I now have him filtered out because he's so obnoxious and
> because much of what he posts is untrue. But in the past, when I did see
> his posts, about 20-25% of what he wrote was true, even though the
> snarkiness was still there.

75-80% of lies is way too high to have any decent conversation.

> If he would simply include cites and references when he posts, it would

> greatly help his credibility. I still see his stuff when someone does a
> followup, and some of his misstatements can at least be amusing, i.e.
> when he insisted that most people have 5G phones, see
> <https://www.lightreading.com/mobile/devices-smartphones/gartner-5g-phone-market-share-to-grow-from-10--in-2020-to-56--by-2023/d/d-id/754419>.
>
> It's more work to post referenced facts, but it's worth the effort if
> you want to be taken seriously in online forums.

The problem is he thinks he does, but often they are just links back to his
own posts.

He just needs to be ignored which the group used to do hence why he kept
nymshifting.

[paul]

Chris wrote on 27.06.2021 10:02

> The problem is he thinks he does, but often they are just links back to his
> own posts.

Apologists are _immune_ to facts - just as religious fundamentalists are.
*There is no difference between the apologists and Christian literalists.*

What Chris believes is no different than believing Earth is 6000 years old.
Their "prophet", Tim Cook, tells them _everything_ they need to believe.

When there is a single link, it's often a link to a single thread, which
itself contains _many_ links in the references, which is completely lost on
_all_ apologists (who don't _ever_ read nor comprehend any of the links).

In fact...
There is no difference between an apologist and any flatearther.
There's no difference between an apologist and any MAGA conspiracist.
There is no difference between an apologist and any Qanon wacko.

All believe _only_ in their imaginary belief systems sans a shred of facts.
There is _no fact_ that _can_ ever change their imaginary belief system.
--
The dozen apologists only believe what is found in their "bible", which is
whatever their Apple prophets tell them on the Apple advertising web site.

[nospam]

In article <sba0q1$q6g$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, paul <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>
> In fact...
> There is no difference betwee me and any flatearther.
> There's no difference between me and any MAGA conspiracist.
> There is no difference between me and any Qanon wacko.
>
> I believe _only_ in my imaginary belief systems sans a shred of facts.
> There is _no fact_ that _can_ ever change my imaginary belief system.

ftfy

[nospam]

In article <eb38ccd2-cbf2-40e0...@googlegroups.com>,

-hh Huntzinger <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:


> > > Of course if
> > > you never leave urban areas then this is unnecessary.
> >
> > which is the norm.
>

> Only for trolls who never venture out of their mom零 basement.

you can't address the message so you attack the messenger, which voids
everything you might have said.

[nospam]

In article <sb8l99$vtq$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> I just love the excuse of "well it doesn't matter if you have no
> coverage because you're not there to be on your phone." It's so stupid
> that it's a wonder that people still use it! The reality is that when
> you're going somewhere and trying to coordinate with other people, it's
> very useful to have coverage.

whatever did people do before there were cellphones?

> LOL, of course the fact is that it is NOT the norm for most people, at
> least for those that take occasional trips outside urban areas. Judging
> from the crowds at Zion, Bryce, and Grand Canyon, there are a great many
> such people that venture out.

math fail.

[paul]

nospam wrote on 27.06.2021 17:24

>> There is no difference between an apologist and any flatearther.
>> There's no difference between an apologist and any MAGA conspiracist.
>> There is no difference between an apologist and any Qanon wacko.

>> All believe _only_ in their imaginary belief systems sans a shred of facts.
>> There is _no fact_ that _can_ ever change their imaginary belief system.

> ftfy

*Apologists can't address any facts as adults - so they _change_ the facts!*

Just like similar flat earthers & religious fundamentalists always must do.
--
Apologists can't maintain imaginary belief systems in the face of facts.

[nospam]

In article <sba5sc$ugg$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, paul <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

> *I can't address any facts as adults - so I _change_ the facts!*

ftfy

> Just like similar flat earthers & religious fundamentalists always must do.

if you insist, and without any ftfy.

[sms]

On 6/26/2021 11:44 PM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 27.06.21 um 00:31 schrieb nospam:
>> In article <sb86s3$g4v$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
>> <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> You can't do things like self-driving cars with high latency, you need
>>> to get down to around 5ms.
>>
>> not relevant to phones, the topic under discussion.
>
> SIC!

The subject is "5G Performance." The original post in the thread
included a link to a speed test <https://ibb.co/2S7G5vx> with a latency
of 32ms.

Too many people lump all 5G together, lacking the technical knowledge to
distinguish between the different types that are being deployed.

The reality is that 5G low-band for phones, where latency doesn't
matter, is very different than mmWave 5G which is used for what Verizon
calls "wireless broadband" (where latency still doesn't matter much) and
what will eventually be used for IOT and industrial processes. You might
want to read
<https://connectedremag.com/das-in-building-wireless/the-5g-paradox-speed-latency-distance-pick-two/>
which will explain the differences. Of course 5G on a phone is of little
value unless you're using the phone as a hotspot, since you're unlikely
to notice a difference between 50-100 Mb/s LTE and 200-300 Mb/s low-band
5G when running apps or doing web browsing.

When I met with AT&T, Verizon, AWS (Amazon Web Services), Google, and
Microsoft to discuss IOT and Smart Cities, they all understood both the
myths and reality of 5G, and I encourage you to make the effort as well.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“There is nothing wrong with not knowing, only with not wanting to
know.” ― Kenan Moos
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[paul]

sms wrote on 27.06.2021 16:02

> Of course 5G on a phone is of little
> value unless you're using the phone as a hotspot

*T-Mobile gives _every_ US postpaid customer _free_ 5GB/m/line hotspotting!*
(You'll _always_ have hotspotting - free - but it will be slow after 5GB/m.)

*What does Steve's Verizon he shills for give us for free 5G hotspotting?*
--
Every US postpiad T-mo customer has _unlimited_ 5G outside of hotspotting.
(What is Verizon's plan for free unlimited 5G coverage for postpaid USA?)

[nospam]

In article <sba7e3$11n$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> Too many people lump all 5G together, lacking the technical knowledge to
> distinguish between the different types that are being deployed.

including you.

> The reality is that 5G low-band for phones, where latency doesn't
> matter, is very different than mmWave 5G which is used for what Verizon
> calls "wireless broadband" (where latency still doesn't matter much) and
> what will eventually be used for IOT and industrial processes.

in other words, verizon chose wrong for phones and will never be
competitive there.

[Alan Browne]

On 2021-06-27 12:02, sms wrote:
> On 6/26/2021 11:44 PM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 27.06.21 um 00:31 schrieb nospam:
>>> In article <sb86s3$g4v$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
>>> <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>> You can't do things like self-driving cars with high latency, you need
>>>> to get down to around 5ms.
>>>
>>> not relevant to phones, the topic under discussion.
>>
>> SIC!
>
> The subject is "5G Performance." The original post in the thread
> included a link to a speed test <https://ibb.co/2S7G5vx> with a latency
> of 32ms.
>
> Too many people lump all 5G together, lacking the technical knowledge to
> distinguish between the different types that are being deployed.
>
> The reality is that 5G low-band for phones, where latency doesn't
> matter, is very different than mmWave 5G which is used for what Verizon
> calls "wireless broadband" (where latency still doesn't matter much) and
> what will eventually be used for IOT and industrial processes. You might
> want to read
> <https://connectedremag.com/das-in-building-wireless/the-5g-paradox-speed-latency-distance-pick-two/>

Quote: "Companies that build self-driving vehicles are excited about the
improved latency part of mmWave 5G. “Latency” is how long it takes for a
device to communicate with the network. Lower latency is critical for
self-driving vehicles, especially in moments like having to stop in a
split second. "

Real time systems with guaranteed "delivery" of a safety process
completion time must be done in a deterministic fashion. With 5G,
regardless of which band it is on, there will be a saturation point,
beyond which latency will grow dramatically.

Telling a vehicle to stop for safety reasons in real time using 5G is a
fantasy. It can never be deterministic unless the network is grossly
underutilized and the environment is suitable. Indeed even testing such
a system (in real world terms) would be a rigged affair to even pass.

Self driving cars will need to be 100% reliant on their own sensors for
safety purposes. That could be backed up by data feeds of things like
updated imagery, construction data, lane closures, traffic flow, data
from other nearby vehicles[1], etc. But safety critical control in RT:
forget it.

[1] local vehicle-vehicle comms could/should be a localized radio
network that doesn't even tough 5G. Perhaps a special, separate band
with service akin to Bluetooth.

--
"...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
-Samuel Clemens

[sms]

On 6/27/2021 3:02 AM, Chris wrote:

<snip>

> He just needs to be ignored which the group used to do hence why he kept
> nymshifting.

Agreed, but he's not the worst by far.

Fortunately newsreaders make it pretty easy to create filter rules that
clean up the newsgroups nicely.

If you ever look at misc.phone.mobile.iphone on Google Groups
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone>, it's like a
different world. There are lengthy exchanges between the various trolls,
all of which are completely filtered out by many of us.

[badgolferman]

badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Here’s the best test I’ve found so far.
>> https://ibb.co/2S7G5vx
>>
>> This is T-Mobile in Hampton Roads area of Virginia.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Here’s the newest 5G speed I found today. Happened to be in the car at the
> time on a main road in town.
> https://ibb.co/9YC2XfD
>
> I thought sms might be interested…
>
>

Here is the latest result I got sitting in the parking lot of the
motorcycle mechanic shop. It’s hard to believe it’s really this fast! There
are no cell towers in my view anywhere.
https://ibb.co/RhTx70w

[sms]

On 6/22/2021 2:43 PM, badgolferman wrote:
> Here’s the best test I’ve found so far.
> https://ibb.co/2S7G5vx
>
> This is T-Mobile in Hampton Roads area of Virginia.

I now have a T-Mobile SIM card from Red Pocket
<https://imgur.com/hpOqrPy>. My Verizon SIM card is from Total Wireless.
I also have a Red Pocket Verizon SIM card.

I don't have a 5G phone but in a 4G LTE phone I get the following speeds
inside my house using Ookla Speed Test:

T-Mobile network (Red Pocket)
APN: FAST.T-MOBILE.COM
Server: T-Mobile - US
Ping: 44ms
Jitter: 97ms
10.8 Mb/s down
0.43 Mb/s up

Verizon network (Total Wireless):
APN: TRACFONE.VZWENTP
Server: 3BB
Ping: 55ms
Jitter: 5ms
94.4 Mb/s down
27.5 Mb/s up

Verizon network (Red Pocket):
APN: VZWINTERNET
Server: 3BB
Ping: 36ms
Jitter: 2.3ms
105.0 Mb/s down
26.1 Mb/s up

The Verizon LTE cell I was connected to is about 700 feet from my house.
The T-Mobile LTE cell I was connected to is about 1400 feet from my house.

[badgolferman]

I will not dispute VZW has better 4G performance, but this thread was
about 5G performance. How good does that look for you?

[nospam]

In article <xn0n06cg...@nntp.aioe.org>, badgolferman
<REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> sms wrote:
> >I don't have a 5G phone but in a 4G LTE phone I get the following
> >speeds inside my house using Ookla Speed Test:
> >

...

>
> I will not dispute VZW has better 4G performance,

that depends on location.

in fact, where he is, at&t is fastest:
<https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/sPv3eH8Zremusd5LA32G54-970-80.jpg>

the reality is that verizon and t-mobile are very close:
<https://www.reviews.org/app/uploads/2020/08/Average-Download-Speeds-428
x1024.png>
<https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/opensignal-speed-
640x410.png>

> but this thread was
> about 5G performance. How good does that look for you?

he claims to not have a 5g phone to use for his 'test', which we know
to be a lie from other posts.

[Lewis]

In message <xn0n06cg...@nntp.aioe.org> badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> sms wrote:

>>On 6/22/2021 2:43 PM, badgolferman wrote:
>>>Here’s the best test I’ve found so far.
>>>https://ibb.co/2S7G5vx
>>>
>>>This is T-Mobile in Hampton Roads area of Virginia.
>>
>>I now have a T-Mobile SIM card from Red Pocket
>><https://imgur.com/hpOqrPy>. My Verizon SIM card is from Total
>>Wireless. I also have a Red Pocket Verizon SIM card.

Are either of those 5G? I don't think so.

>>I don't have a 5G phone but in a 4G LTE phone

So, a meaningless post in a thread about 5G speeds. Up to your usual
100% useless bullshit?

>>I get the following speeds inside my house using Ookla Speed Test:
>>
>>T-Mobile network (Red Pocket)
>> APN: FAST.T-MOBILE.COM
>> Server: T-Mobile - US
>> Ping: 44ms
>> Jitter: 97ms
>> 10.8 Mb/s down
>> 0.43 Mb/s up

Yesterday my T-mobile 5G was 295.28 Mbps down and 36.31 Mbps up while
standing in a parking lot. Much faster than my business Comcrap
connection (150/15).

In my basement, I get 4Mbps down and 3Mbps up. Walk up the stairs and I
get 40/6 and on the front porch 80/9. Obviously, I do not have a 5G
relay/booster.

> I will not dispute VZW has better 4G performance, but this thread was
> about 5G performance. How good does that look for you?

T-mobile is moving everything to 5G as fast as possible, and doing a
very good job of it.

--
I told you...<BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM> Don't call me Junior.

[sms]

On 7/9/2021 5:04 AM, badgolferman wrote:

<snip>

> I will not dispute VZW has better 4G performance, but this thread was
> about 5G performance. How good does that look for you?

I have no 5G phone yet. I'm waiting for the iPhone 13 or 14 (whichever
has TouchID back). That's why I modified the Subject.

This morning it was worse:

2.18 Mb/s down
0.02 Mb/s up
57 ms Ping
364 ms Jitter

Remember, the number of users with 5G phones in the U.S. is still pretty
small so 4G LTE is still vitally important.

5G users in north America were estimated at 14 million at the end of
2020. By 2026 Ericsson estimates that 84% of North American users will
be on 5G. By 2023 it will be over 50%. Part of the problem is that phone
replacement cycles have been getting longer and longer. Someone that
bought a 4G phone in 2020 is likely to not buy a new 5G phone until 2023.

[nospam]

In article <sca68a$4vo$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> Remember, the number of users with 5G phones in the U.S. is still pretty
> small so 4G LTE is still vitally important.

but you keep saying how important 5g is. you're contradicting yourself
again.

[badgolferman]

100% of T-Mobile customers with a 5G phone have 5G service.