Consumer demand surveys often are difficult to interpret. So attitudes about 5G might not prove too different, in that regard. A recent survey by Nokia of users in the United Kingdom, United States and South Korea found demand, willingness to pay more and switch providers to get 5G.
“Consumers want 5G when they understand it,” Nokia says. “We found that 80 percent of consumers who understand 5G want it, compared with just 23 percent of those who aren’t familiar with it.
“Consumers are willing to pay more for 5G,” Nokia’s survey also suggests. “Over half of survey respondents said they’d be willing to pay more for 5G.”
Focus group participants suggested cost will be a consideration, but not a barrier to it, and consumers show a willingness to pay more for 5G, Nokia says.
Engaged users will switch providers to get 5G, the survey suggests. About half of respondents said they’re likely to switch providers to get 5G if their own provider doesn’t offer it in the next 12 months. In many markets this will be a non-issue, as every leading supplier will offer 5G.
Remote workers, routine users of videoconferencing, video streamers and customers using home monitoring services are among those likely to switch to 5G early, Nokia believes. Some of us might qualify that list. The “sweet spot” arguably is remote work and video conferencing, not entertainment video.
Whether a fixed solution is required, or simple mobile access with tethering is adequate, depends on signal strength issues.
Still, use cases can turn on a single mission-critical feature. In my own case, faster 4G, using a dongle for PC internet access, supplied high enough value that the decision to adopt was easy.
Similarly, the switch from a 3G Blackberry to a 4G smartphone was driven essentially by free turn-by-turn directions. That meant I did not need a dedicated GPS device or a recurring subscription fee.
Even earlier than that, a change in tariffs by AT&T mobility, making a domestic long distance call available “for no additional fee” changed my behavior. I used my phone for all outbound long distance calls, and used the fixed network only for incoming calls or local calling where there was no additional charge.
The next pain point is video conferencing, which is a new need not well met by any of my existing access options.
Upstream speed (plus latency and jitter performance) now is the compelling unmet need, not downstream bandwidth.If 5G services are able to routinely supply upstream speeds between 25 Mbps and 100 Mbps, even in the early stages where maximum 5G performance is not yet available, that is a change of supplier driver.
In the U.S. market, 70 percent of all fixed network broadband connections are supplied by cable operators. Those connections are impressively fast in the downstream, and relatively affordable, on a price-per-bit basis as well as in terms of overall recurring cost, compared to the situation two decades ago.
But the Achilles Heel is the limited upstream speed. Even though my cable modem connection is fine for every other application, it is not satisfactory for video conferencing. I routinely get 600 Mbps in the downstream, and could buy a gigabit service if I chose. It is not clear whether the upstream would change, even if I upgraded to a gigabit service.
I only get maybe 18.5 Mbps to 22 Mbps in the upstream, and on any conference with more than a few people, performance is degraded. The Comcast network would have to be upgraded further to boost upstream speeds, probably to a zero radio frequency amplifier network, which would terminate the network at an optical node and then run coaxial cable--without any amplifiers--to homes.
I believe Comcast has little to no interest in doing so, at this point.
That single application (video conferencing), though, is important enough that I would consider a supplemental 5G connection intended to be used only for video conferencing. In principle, since I have relied exclusively on 4G for access in past settings, a full reliance on 5G for all access needs would hinge on usage and pricing particulars, plus the details of signal strength.
In the past, my 4G signal strength indoors was problematic, and 5G (operating at higher frequencies) likely would have the same--or worse--problems. An external antenna would likely be necessary, even if only located by the right window. The point is that I would not try using a smartphone and tethering, as I am in an area of known problematic mobile signal strength.
In a 5G context I probably would only consider an approach that combined a “side of home” 5G data-only device with Wi-Fi for internal signal distribution.
For all other purposes the cable connection is fine. So I’d concur with Nokia’s belief that remote workers and videoconferencing users are prime targets either for switching, in some cases, or supplemental buying, which I think is the more likely scenario.
The Nokia survey suggests that respondents found 5G fixed wireless access and simple faster speeds are the two top values of 5G.
In the U.S. sample, 82 percent of respondents rated fixed wireless access appealing. My guess is that much of that demand will come from perceived faster downstream speeds. In my case, it is clearly--and solely--upstream speed.
No comments:
Post a Comment