Sprint brings 'true mobile 5G' to four US cities

[Polycount]

Most major ISPs have already begun the process of rolling out 5G to their customers, but Sprint has lagged behind its competitors somewhat. Fortunately for those individuals, that's changing now. According to a press release, Sprint's "true mobile 5G" has finally arrived in "areas" of Atlanta, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, and Kansas City.

The rollout is planned to expand to Chicago, LA, New York City, Phoenix, and Washington DC in the "coming weeks," but a specific ETA has not been revealed. In total, Sprint's "initial" 5G launch will cover around 11.5 million customers and 2,180 square miles. Sprint claims this is the largest "initial 5G coverage footprint" in the US.

Sprint's "first 5G devices" are the LG V50 ThinQ 5G, and the HTC 5G Hub, both of which will be available for purchase on May 31. Later this year, the Samsung Galaxy S10 5G will also be supported.

If you'd like to take advantage of Sprint's 5G services for yourself, you'll need to visit the company's website to determine your eligibility. If you are eligible, just subscribe to Sprint's "Unlimited Premium" plan for $80/month and pre-order one of the aforementioned 5G devices.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/80306-sprint-brings-true-mobile-5g-four-us-cities.html

 

[p51d007]

5G, for the most part, is just a way to get people to buy new phones. What the heck are people using these for, that they would need THIS kind of speed? I don't use a lot of data, 8-12 GB per month. Even if you are streaming a video, on a smartphone? Why would you need that speed.
I get around 50meg down, and it's plenty fast enough for video.
I guess I'm just old...maybe high end graphic games, but unless you are downloading a TON, what good is that speed, specifically, if Sprint's coverage is so bad, outside of major cities & interstates.

 

[SirDigby]

5G, for the most part, is just a way to get people to buy new phones. What the heck are people using these for, that they would need THIS kind of speed? I don't use a lot of data, 8-12 GB per month. Even if you are streaming a video, on a smartphone? Why would you need that speed.
I get around 50meg down, and it's plenty fast enough for video.
I guess I'm just old...maybe high end graphic games, but unless you are downloading a TON, what good is that speed, specifically, if Sprint's coverage is so bad, outside of major cities & interstates.

Though 5G does bring increased speeds, I don't think these will be passed onto the user, more to alleviate capacity concerns in densely populated areas.
The main idea behind 5G is low latency for IoT, Driverless Cars etc.

 

[SirDigby]

@Techspot Staff
Can I just briefly comment about the lack of coverage on EE's launch of 5G today in 6 cities in the UK, and the first 5G phone available is the OnePlus 7 Pro 5G edition?
I do accept that TechSpot is US centric, but I still think it's worth reporting on, and low hanging fruit.

 

[kevbev89]

5G, for the most part, is just a way to get people to buy new phones. What the heck are people using these for, that they would need THIS kind of speed? I don't use a lot of data, 8-12 GB per month. Even if you are streaming a video, on a smartphone? Why would you need that speed.
I get around 50meg down, and it's plenty fast enough for video.
I guess I'm just old...maybe high end graphic games, but unless you are downloading a TON, what good is that speed, specifically, if Sprint's coverage is so bad, outside of major cities & interstates.

That's what I thought too, but I still struggle to get 1080P 60FPS youtube playback in many places on my phone. I don't know if they use the same technology or towers, but 5G can break up the local ISP monopoly in neighborhoods. For instance, my community is locked with Cox (who are absolute Coxks), I will switch to 5G wireless home internet in a heartbeat once it becomes available. Also, concurrent 4K streaming might prove to be a slight struggle on current speeds, unless you are fortunate enough to have fiber optics.

 

[QuantumPhysics]

#1 We have pretty much adapted to streaming video. Unless you are downloading an entire movie, I doubt anyone really needs this type of speed.

#2 ISP are never gonna allow me to use 5G at will. They throttle my "unlimited data" after 25GB for God's sake.

#3 Data caps...nuff said.

 

[EClyde]

It's a waste. Better service rural is what counts

 

[tkabou]

5G, for the most part, is just a way to get people to buy new phones. What the heck are people using these for, that they would need THIS kind of speed? I don't use a lot of data, 8-12 GB per month. Even if you are streaming a video, on a smartphone? Why would you need that speed.
I get around 50meg down, and it's plenty fast enough for video.
I guess I'm just old...maybe high end graphic games, but unless you are downloading a TON, what good is that speed, specifically, if Sprint's coverage is so bad, outside of major cities & interstates.

That's what I thought too, but I still struggle to get 1080P 60FPS youtube playback in many places on my phone. I don't know if they use the same technology or towers, but 5G can break up the local ISP monopoly in neighborhoods. For instance, my community is locked with Cox (who are absolute Coxks), I will switch to 5G wireless home internet in a heartbeat once it becomes available. Also, concurrent 4K streaming might prove to be a slight struggle on current speeds, unless you are fortunate enough to have fiber optics.

We have Comcast in the entire Chicago area - the most hated/worst-rated company in the US just about every year running. Monopoly and no one's doing jack about this problem.

 

[yeeeeman]

5G, for the most part, is just a way to get people to buy new phones. What the heck are people using these for, that they would need THIS kind of speed? I don't use a lot of data, 8-12 GB per month. Even if you are streaming a video, on a smartphone? Why would you need that speed.
I get around 50meg down, and it's plenty fast enough for video.
I guess I'm just old...maybe high end graphic games, but unless you are downloading a TON, what good is that speed, specifically, if Sprint's coverage is so bad, outside of major cities & interstates.

From time to time, I see a consumer that understands the true intention of most of the tech novelties today. Tech companies need to create new stuff, since profits must increase...
Thing is, we have reached a point of good enough with 4G+. I don't know about your providers, but in Europe I usually get over 100mbps speeds on LTE. I get 50GB of traffic with 6$, per month. As for home network, I have gigabit fiber internet with 10$ per month, with unlimited traffic.
US companies are lazy cause they don't wanna invest money into infrastructure. Selling some overpriced 5G phones, that will get signal only in 4 spots in an entire city is more profitable and gives very good press.
I am not against progress, but 5G was pushed before it is even tested and ready. They still don't know if there are health risks related to the usage of mmWaves and a ton of cells. If you have a tree between you and the tower, that's it, you go to 4G speeds.
You can see that in the past few years, tech development has accelerated. Why? Because of a big love for tech? No, because that is how you make more money...

 

[p51d007]

I don't know about your providers, but in Europe I usually get over 100mbps speeds on LTE. I get 50GB of traffic with 6$, per month. As for home network, I have gigabit fiber internet with 10$ per month, with unlimited traffic.

Well, the problem in the USA, is one of LAND AREA. Most of Europe would fit into Texas.
We are kind of SPREAD OUT, and sometimes, when you get into smaller communities, "coverage" can be spotty. Urban areas not so much, but, then you run into congestion. That, coupled with getting towers put up. You have the "not in my backyard" types, the environmentalist types, the anti-wifi/cell types that cell phones cause cancer types, local government wanting "kickback" types to approve it.
On the cable/ISP provider end of it, you run into another issue with municipalities that will only "allow" one or two providers. With little choice, you are kind of at their mercy that they charge whatever they want, since they are pretty much the only ones available.
On my cell, I live in a city of around 200,000, and the metro area is around 500,000.
I use an MVNO, Straight Talk, with a tracfone sim that uses at&t towers. "Most" of the time, I get around 40-50meg down. During peak congestion (morning/evening commute, drops to around 20). That is "good enough". Unlimited talk/text...25GB data, which I only use around 10-20 at most, $49 a month. On the home ISP side, 60 down, 10 up, around $60/month.
Because of government regulation, local regulation, and our spread out land area, we kind of get screwed on internet here.

 

[p51d007]

We have Comcast in the entire Chicago area - the most hated/worst-rated company in the US just about every year running. Monopoly and no one's doing jack about this problem.

Yeah, I see the reports from people on the DSLreports.com site. Pretty bad!
Doubt it will change though. With the under the table payoffs from Comcast to politicians in the Chicago area....too much $$$ moving around to worry about consumers.

 

[oliviakim]

Most major ISPs have already begun the process of rolling out 5G to their customers,

 

[HarryW]

5G, for the most part, is just a way to get people to buy new phones. What the heck are people using these for, that they would need THIS kind of speed? I don't use a lot of data, 8-12 GB per month. Even if you are streaming a video, on a smartphone? Why would you need that speed.
I get around 50meg down, and it's plenty fast enough for video.
I guess I'm just old...maybe high end graphic games, but unless you are downloading a TON, what good is that speed, specifically, if Sprint's coverage is so bad, outside of major cities & interstates.

That's what I thought too, but I still struggle to get 1080P 60FPS youtube playback in many places on my phone. I don't know if they use the same technology or towers, but 5G can break up the local ISP monopoly in neighborhoods. For instance, my community is locked with Cox (who are absolute Coxks), I will switch to 5G wireless home internet in a heartbeat once it becomes available. Also, concurrent 4K streaming might prove to be a slight struggle on current speeds, unless you are fortunate enough to have fiber optics.

We have Comcast in the entire Chicago area - the most hated/worst-rated company in the US just about every year running. Monopoly and no one's doing jack about this problem.

Ditto!!!

 

[DelJo63]

It's a waste. Better service rural is what counts

but you'll never get that with 5G, regardless of what the FCC and the chump PAI vocalize (sigh).

 

[DelJo63]

As if SIZE matters, 5g is taken to be all about speed -- it's not! It's technology advancement with rich features to manage network traffic. ASSUMING (haha) a good antenna deployment in your area, you should see less congestion, errors and outages than other 2g, 3g, 4g networks.