The claim that "5G has failed” is in some ways an odd one. On one hand, critics tend to cite the unfulfilled promises of exciting new use cases. On the other hand, critics tend not to focus on the lower latency, faster speeds or energy efficiency that each successive network also is founded upon.
But that might be the main point: each successive mobile generation has been successful and necessary precisely for the reasons that consumer home broadband experiences have been based on ever-increasing bandwidth, capacity and access speeds.
So alter the question just a bit to understand the real impact. Do you ever really hear observers arguing that mobility services (mobile phone service) actually have failed? One does not hear such claims because mobile service clearly has been a raging global success.
Some 71 percent of humans presently use a mobile phone, according to the GSMA.
So “mobility” has clearly succeeded, even if some feel particular mobile platforms have not. To be sure, proponents have touted the creation of platforms for futuristic use cases (the network will support them), not the extent of usage. Some examples can always be cited, though often not mass market adoption.
To be sure, every mobile generation since 3G has made such claims. And we might advance some very-practical reasons for the claims. Each mobile generation requires the allocation of additional spectrum from governments, which have to be convinced to do so.
Pointing out the new potential applications; the contribution to economic growth; educational advantages and so forth are part of the effort to secure the new spectrum.
Also, infrastructure suppliers have a vested interest in enticing operators to create whole new networks precisely because it might be possible to create new revenue streams, or provide
Still, each successive mobile platform has promised, and delivered, latency improvements of about 10 times over the preceding generation, as well as potential bandwidth (internet access speeds) of 10 times more, and typically also energy consumption efficiencies as well.
The practical improvements always vary from laboratory tests, though. The actual behavior of all radio waves in real-world environments is an issue. So are the realities of impediments to signal propagation (walls, trees, other obstacles) and signal interference.
Cell geometry also matters. Higher bandwidth is possible when smaller cells are used.
Higher bandwidth is possible when channel sizes are increased (as when channels are bonded together to create a single wider channel from two or more narrower channels).
And real-world “customer-experienced speeds” also are dependent on which actual frequencies are used widely by each mobile generation. Lower frequencies propagate better, but higher frequencies support higher speeds, all other things being equal.
Still, the point is that observers never question the “success” of the mobile phone and mobile networks, only the “failure” of futuristic apps to emerge.
That is not the point. The primary and essential value of each successive mobile platform comes from network performance (lower latency, higher bandwidth) and not the possible new apps, which cannot be created by mobile operators in any case, anymore than internet service providers having created Facebook. Google, Amazon, YouTube or Uber.
Mobile operators can only create the physical infrastructure third parties can use to create new use cases. And that has been accomplished. But then innovation leading to new apps rests in the hands of entrepreneurs and investors.
That’s the whole implication of “permissionless innovation” the internet is based upon: innovators do not have to own networks to build apps that use the networks. The entities that own the access or transport networks do not necessarily or primarily create and own the apps.
Oddly, the reverse tends to be the case: highly-successful consumer app providers find they can vertically integrate into core network transport as a means of lowering their costs. That is why most of the world’s long distance networks (subsea, especially) are built and owned by a relative handful of big app providers such as Alphabet (Google) and Meta.
It is fair to note that few of the futuristic apps touted for 3G, 4G or 5G networks have become mass market realities. On the other hand, lots of highly-useful apps not envisioned for any of those networks have emerged.
All of which suggests we are very bad at predicting the future; innovations often emerge unexpectedly and only when users see the value.
Consider only the industrial, commercial, medical and other applications generally centered around the use of sensors and mobile networks as the connectivity mechanism. Most have not taken off in a significant way, even if there are some instances of viable and routine deployment.
For the most part, the futuristic appl;ications have not developed as expected, and when they do take hold, it often is in the subsequent generation.
Many expected 3G to produce mass market usage of videoconferencing. That did happen, but only in the 4G era, with social media and other multimedia messaging apps, for example. That is a fairly common pattern: we overestimate routine adoption by at least a decade.
The point is that mobile services and smartphone services have proven wildly successful. In fact, nobody doubts that. What often gets criticized are the many futuristic apps that could be developed with each next-generation mobile network.
That misses the point. As fixed network home broadband has to continually extend internet access speeds and bandwidth, so too do mobile networks. The bottom line is that each successive mobile generation succeeds to the extent it does so.
