When the world first embraced the concept of 5G in 2019, it was heralded as a revolutionary leap forward. Industry leaders promised innovations such as remote surgeries and autonomous vehicles transforming urban landscapes into smart cities. Yet, several years later, the average consumer might not perceive a significant difference between 4G and 5G in everyday life. This article explores the reasons behind this gap between expectations and reality, focusing on technical limitations, financial investments, and coverage challenges.
At the heart of the 5G discourse lies the issue of its practical applications. Many ambitious promises made about 5G turned out to be either unnecessary or impractical. For example, performing surgeries remotely requires more than just high-speed internet; it involves complex medical conditions that demand sterile environments and specialized staff. Similarly, self-driving cars need to operate independently of mobile networks, casting doubt on the necessity of 5G for this technology. Meanwhile, recent reports have shifted focus from grand visions like smart cities to more modest uses, such as drones monitoring insurance fraud.
From a technical standpoint, one of the key advancements of 5G is the use of higher frequency bands that can carry more data but cover shorter distances. This necessitates a denser network infrastructure with antennas placed closer together, an expensive endeavor requiring billions in investment. To save costs, many initial 5G deployments were built by modifying existing 4G sites, leading to what is known as non-standalone 5G. While this approach offers efficiency, it often results in a user experience similar to 4G. Additionally, millimeter waves, which theoretically provide greater capacity, are limited in range and easily obstructed, making their widespread adoption challenging.
Coverage remains a critical challenge, particularly in rural areas where network deployment is economically unfeasible due to sparse populations. This digital divide highlights the disparity between urban and rural connectivity. If expanding coverage had been the primary goal, enhancing existing 4G networks would have been a more cost-effective solution than upgrading urban infrastructures. Furthermore, despite extensive marketing suggesting near-universal 5G coverage, studies indicate that it reaches only 30% to 40% of land areas in most U.S. counties. Misleading icons on mobile devices further complicate matters, often giving users the impression they are connected to 5G when they are not.
The financial burden of 5G implementation is substantial, with major U.S. carriers investing over $100 billion in frequency licenses alone. Additional billions have been spent on upgrading and expanding network infrastructure. Despite these investments, monetizing 5G has proven difficult, with decreasing monthly phone bills due to competition affecting carrier revenues. The rush to implement 5G, driven by global political pressures and the desire to participate in a perceived "5G race," may have contributed to its current shortcomings. Hastily developed plans shortened the usual decade-long development cycle to eight years, exacerbating existing issues.
As we look toward the future with the prospect of 6G, some experts suggest that it could follow a pattern seen in previous generations: odd-numbered generations being less impactful, followed by even-numbered ones delivering more tangible benefits. However, early indications suggest that 6G might face similar challenges unless lessons from 5G are effectively addressed. In conclusion, while 5G holds potential, its full realization will require addressing technical, financial, and coverage obstacles to fulfill its transformative promise.