[ghaff]

5G will also help some but it's become pretty clear that there isn't the public interest to generally bring broadband to rural areas the way telephone and electricity was (in the US among other places). The only real option today is conventional satellites, which for a lot of people are unacceptable because of latency/data limits/cost especially as video is increasingly not really optional.

Of course, we'll have to see how good these efforts of relative to normal broadband but they do offer hope that you won't have to choose where to live based on the broadband options.

[boardwaalk]

I suppose by 5G helping you mean non-mmWave having more bandwidth to go around per tower? (If that’s true, I’m just guessing it is.)

Which I suppose does help, but only for people who probably already have 4G. So, not very rural.

[ghaff]

Yes, primarily bandwidth--so that 5G will likely be a legitimate alternative to wired in some areas. And there's a pretty big build-out in general going on around 5G so maybe coverage gets better.

But you're right. A lot of places that are pretty patchy or non-existent today for cell service, especially 4G, will likely have the same problem even after 5G rolls out.

[jessaustin]

Once the gear is available for purchase, people who need 5G in particular places will install it themselves without interference from the Daughters Bell. (This won't just be rural users; more typically it might be industrial or commercial users who have lots of Io-Things.) Backhaul, where required, typically will be over fiber, as it should be. Eventually, since spending on radio equipment will be tied to how it's used rather than how ATTVZN would like to distort the market, 5G will be as normal as Wifi.