My Experience of VZW 5g

[rpz1]

Because the people within range of C-Band are using C-Band for their data traffic instead of using lowband. The fewer people using a channel, the faster it is. A layer cake approach keeps lowband speedy by reserving it for only people who are out of range of midband and mmWave.

Yes I get all that, but isn't that assuming the people within range of C-Band and using C-Band for their data traffic instead of using low band are using the same transmission location as the people using low band ?

In my case the tower is 5 miles away. There is no c-band on it. The nearest c-band that may exist is in a city 20 miles away. You're saying people using c-band on a tower (transmission source) 20 miles away is going to increase the low band capacity on my local tower ?

I was also told in one of the Verizon threads, but no one confirmed when I asked again, that the network determines what band to put you on based on capacity. That if capacity exists on low band you may not even see or get c-band even if your phone is capable and in range of c-band. Or even see low band 5G if LTE capacity is determined to be fine (whatever the definition of fine is).
So it's not up to the people within range of c-band to use c-band for their data traffic, it's up to the network to determine if they're worthy or if low band is good enough for them. How's that factor in?

[mwdewey]

I was also told in one of the Verizon threads, but no one confirmed when I asked again, that the network determines what band to put you on based on capacity. That if capacity exists on low band you may not even see or get c-band even if your phone is capable and in range of c-band. Or even see low band 5G if LTE capacity is determined to be fine (whatever the definition of fine is).
So it's not up to the people within range of c-band to use c-band for their data traffic, it's up to the network to determine if they're worthy or if low band is good enough for them. How's that factor in?

That is pretty much the case on some networks, notably T-Mobile right now. If you are in an area serviced by a mid-band-enabled site, you may not ever see the "5G UC" indicator on your phone, or use the mid-band spectrum, if the network determines you do not need access to the higher bandwidth, based on what your device is trying to do. I do not know if Verizon or AT&T does this.

I see this all the time, I go to lots of cities and towns that are shown as mid-band-enabled on T-Mobile's coverage map but have never seen the 5G UC indicator, or have only seen it for a few seconds at a time if I am trying to do something more data-intensive on my phone.

[VVivian]

Networks do a thing called "load balancing" where they shift devices' connections among the various channels according to a complex set of proprietary logic conditions programmed by the carrier's engineers.

If the low frequencies are only lightly used, the network will allow everyone to use them. But as the low frequencies become increasingly congested, the network will force as much traffic as it can to the higher frequencies in order to free up lowband capacity for the devices out of range of midband.

[rpz1]

That is pretty much the case on some networks, notably T-Mobile right now. If you are in an area serviced by a mid-band-enabled site, you may not ever see the "5G UC" indicator on your phone, or use the mid-band spectrum, if the network determines you do not need access to the higher bandwidth, based on what your device is trying to do. I do not know if Verizon or AT&T does this.

I see this all the time, I go to lots of cities and towns that are shown as mid-band-enabled on T-Mobile's coverage map but have never seen the 5G UC indicator, or have only seen it for a few seconds at a time if I am trying to do something more data-intensive on my phone.

Thanks. When I go to the city I mentioned which is 20 miles away it is shown by Verizon coverage map to be literally slathered with c-band. I never see c-band. No matter how intensive data use I try it's always n66. Which is fine with me, but also shows money spent for c-band in areas that don't need it vs improvements in areas that are starved for capacity even on LTE.

[rpz1]

Networks do a thing called "load balancing" where they shift devices' connections among the various channels according to a complex set of proprietary logic conditions programmed by the carrier's engineers.

If the low frequencies are only lightly used, the network will allow everyone to use them. But as the low frequencies become increasingly congested, the network will force as much traffic as it can to the higher frequencies in order to free up lowband capacity for the devices out of range of midband.

Thanks. But what about clarification on your reply about more people using c-band increases capacity of low band.

" Quote Originally Posted by VVivian View Post
Because the people within range of C-Band are using C-Band for their data traffic instead of using lowband. The fewer people using a channel, the faster it is. A layer cake approach keeps lowband speedy by reserving it for only people who are out of range of midband and mmWave."


Yes I get all that, but isn't that assuming the people within range of C-Band and using C-Band for their data traffic instead of using low band are using the same transmission location as the people using low band ?

In my case the tower is 5 miles away. There is no c-band on it. The nearest c-band that may exist is in a city 20 miles away. You're saying people using c-band on a tower (transmission source) 20 miles away is going to increase the low band capacity on my local tower ?

[VVivian]

Higher frequencies only free up capacity on lower frequencies when their coverage radii overlap. If there are people within lowband range of your home site at the same time as being within C-Band range, even from another site, then C-Band is indirectly speeding up lowband for you.

[rpz1]

Higher frequencies only free up capacity on lower frequencies when their coverage radii overlap. If there are people within lowband range of your home site at the same time as being within C-Band range, even from another site, then C-Band is indirectly speeding up lowband for you.

Thanks again. I guess even that would tie back to our other discussion above about the "load balancing". Those people within low band range of my home site at the same time as being within C-Band range from another site may not even get c-band if the low band capacity on that other site is deemed adequate. So roll of the dice.
You'd think if they'd really want to make 5G as stellar as their marketing implies and free up low band they'd simply allow a device with UW capability to use it (if it's there) and nothing less. It would be a win win. People with only low band available would see a benefit and so would those that can get UW.

[VVivian]

Higher frequencies help lower frequencies the same way an express lane helps reduce traffic on side roads, regardless of whether you yourself can use those express lanes, if that helps.

[aaronwt]

Earlier this week I switched from Verizon Prepaid to Visible. SInce they had a deal for only $35 a month(Visible+) that gets you 50GB of premium LTE/5G data on the Verizon network. And unlimited premium UWB 5G data on the Verizon network.

I had been seeing 600Mb/s download speeds in my area, on UWB 5G with Visible.
But, yesterday, we took a work shuttle into the District of Columbia. And I hit over 1.3Gb/s download speeds, over UWB 5G. WHile the shuttle was at a stoplight. This was on my galaxy S23+. That just seemed crazy fast.

[VVivian]

But, yesterday, we took a work shuttle into the District of Columbia. And I hit over 1.3Gb/s download speeds, over UWB 5G. WHile the shuttle was at a stoplight. This was on my galaxy S23+. That just seemed crazy fast.

That was millimeter wave 5G.

[aaronwt]

That was millimeter wave 5G.

Yes. I thought, on Verizon's site, they said Ultra Wide Band 5B is millimeter Wave?

When I was on Verizon prepaid, I was limited to DSS 5G. So my speeds maxed out around 200Mb/s, The same as I got on 4G LTE.
But my S23+ phone is also showing UWB 5G at home. But this is in the suburbs. And I was surprised I could get that if it was millimeter wave 5G.

[formercanuck]

Networks do a thing called "load balancing" where they shift devices' connections among the various channels according to a complex set of proprietary logic conditions programmed by the carrier's engineers.

If the low frequencies are only lightly used, the network will allow everyone to use them. But as the low frequencies become increasingly congested, the network will force as much traffic as it can to the higher frequencies in order to free up lowband capacity for the devices out of range of midband.

I've seen this a LOT on T-Mobile. To the point that n41 --> n25 --> n71 --> LTE + NSA
If my device 'can' pick up n41 at its weakest, it typically will vs n25 and n71. Extremely weak n41 will give much higher 'speed' over the others except on upload. I suspect VZW/AT&T work similarly
I have seen a boost of LTE midband as a result, where 20x20 LTE B4 is pushing over 200Mbps, and LTE B2 15x15 is pushing over 170Mbps. I can assume the midband LTE is almost not being used, and low band is mostly indoors

[CellularCowboy]

I have been a Verizon customer for about 10 years and am on a starter unlimited plan with 55+ discount. I pay $87 per month for two unlimited lines. Several months ago, I upgraded from an iPhone X to an iPhone 14 Pro Max so now I have 5g. My experience after traveling throughout California and the USA is that I have better signal with 5g vs the LTE on my old iPhone X. On the other hand, performance is about the same with 5g as compared to LTE on my iPhone X. Therefore my experience with 5g is slightly better than LTE. I never get more than 70mbps down and 70mbps up. It doesn’t matter if I’m sitting under a VZW tower at 3 am, I am throttled down because of the plan that I am on. Friends with the same phone at the same location get more the 500mbps regularly. I realize that I am throttled into the ground by my cheap starter plan! I have thought about upgrading, but why? 30mbps on a cell phone is adequate for just about anything unless you want to tether a laptop. Why spend the money? It is like having a Bugatti sports car that will go 250mph, but really is that speed practical?

Unless you're playing some video games or downloading files, you're not going to notice a difference in what you do with your phone because most stuff including streaming music, or doing a zoom call doesn't require much data. But the starter plan does prioritize if the network is busy. You would need a do more, play more, or Get More to see better results but I wouldn't worry too much about it unless you are doing what I mentioned earlier

[blkballoon925]

I've seen this a LOT on T-Mobile. To the point that n41 --> n25 --> n71 --> LTE + NSA
If my device 'can' pick up n41 at its weakest, it typically will vs n25 and n71. Extremely weak n41 will give much higher 'speed' over the others except on upload. I suspect VZW/AT&T work similarly

Verizon seems to allow n77 to attach even when it can barely be used. It does seem to add at least 80 Mbps under the poorest signal conditions, but there are times when it's clearly trying to use n77 when it's just too weak and it takes several seconds of no data flowing for the device to detach from n77 and use LTE.

I still don't see much of an improvement on the upload side with n77. I assume that has something to do with NSA, but I have seen 100+ Mbps upload with n261 before. So I'm not really sure how to interpret the reason for that.

[formercanuck]

Verizon seems to allow n77 to attach even when it can barely be used. It does seem to add at least 80 Mbps under the poorest signal conditions, but there are times when it's clearly trying to use n77 when it's just too weak and it takes several seconds of no data flowing for the device to detach from n77 and use LTE.

I still don't see much of an improvement on the upload side with n77. I assume that has something to do with NSA, but I have seen 100+ Mbps upload with n261 before. So I'm not really sure how to interpret the reason for that.

n77 on VZW is similar in many ways to n41 on T-Mobile, and I would agree. Very weak n41 will still give me pretty good download. ~-110dBm on n41 (100+40) will give me ~250Mbps down ... but ~1Mbps up.

On the home internet device. -102dBm gives me ~350Mbps/20Mbps. -95dBm gives me ~400-450Mbps/50Mbps and -90dBm or better is pushing 500Mbps/90Mbps.
The upload is where these higher frequencies