5G is limited by the same constraints of how many people are using it within a tower's size. Depending on the frequencies used the size is even smaller. 3700mhz C-Band could provide quite a few people and might do gigabit to them, but it only tends to go a mile or two from a tower. More traditional cellular frequencies like the 700 and 800 mhz bands can travel much further, but with current tech don't have the bandwidth to do a gigabit to a single user. If you're in extreme rural with only a few people per square mile, it would probably be cheaper to just build the fiber to their house and cut the 5G tower off entirely. The cost of building a 5G C-Band tower that covers 3 people in that square mile would be much greater than just building that fiber.
I've worked on government-sponsored fiber projects before, and really only the sketchy companies that steal the money and deliver a barely working product are the only ones that work those projects. It's too much hassle for no reward for the telecom giants. Really if the thought is it must be subsidized, the network builders should be the rural co-ops, as those seem to be the most successful at building working networks.
I've worked on the regulatory side of some of these rural broadband projects paid through the FCC's Connect America Fund and the way that these smaller operations seem to structure their operations is that they have a phone company that goes hat in hand to the government and asks for money to connect rural areas with phone service using fiber. The fiber is expensed through the regulated phone company so it receives the government grants. Then, the affiliate ISP uses the fiber to offer broadband (in addition to the phone company offering phone service) at something like $75/mo for gigabit fiber and because they're mostly piggybacking off of the phone company's fiber, the ISP revenue is nearly pure profit. The phone company exists mainly as a means to access the government funding and can even operate as a loss leader for the overall operation.
The government funding is for "up to gigabit" meaning it excludes paying for 10 gbs fiber to some politically-connected wealthy rancher - they only get subsidized 1 gbs, boo-hoo.
If you're in extreme rural with only a few people per square mile, it would probably be cheaper to just build the fiber to their house
Putting up towers has knock-on benefits. People just driving through or visiting, workers, new developments all automatically get mobile internet. Outsiders getting internet while in the rural areas is a benefit to the local economy.
Starlink with no LTE coverage is worse than just having LTE. Your car breaks down and you're not going to care about that 5 ms faster ping time.
5G is limited by the same constraints of how many people are using it within a tower's size. Depending on the frequencies used the size is even smaller. 3700mhz C-Band could provide quite a few people and might do gigabit to them, but it only tends to go a mile or two from a tower. More traditional cellular frequencies like the 700 and 800 mhz bands can travel much further, but with current tech don't have the bandwidth to do a gigabit to a single user. If you're in extreme rural with only a few people per square mile, it would probably be cheaper to just build the fiber to their house and cut the 5G tower off entirely. The cost of building a 5G C-Band tower that covers 3 people in that square mile would be much greater than just building that fiber.
I've worked on government-sponsored fiber projects before, and really only the sketchy companies that steal the money and deliver a barely working product are the only ones that work those projects. It's too much hassle for no reward for the telecom giants. Really if the thought is it must be subsidized, the network builders should be the rural co-ops, as those seem to be the most successful at building working networks.
I've worked on the regulatory side of some of these rural broadband projects paid through the FCC's Connect America Fund and the way that these smaller operations seem to structure their operations is that they have a phone company that goes hat in hand to the government and asks for money to connect rural areas with phone service using fiber. The fiber is expensed through the regulated phone company so it receives the government grants. Then, the affiliate ISP uses the fiber to offer broadband (in addition to the phone company offering phone service) at something like $75/mo for gigabit fiber and because they're mostly piggybacking off of the phone company's fiber, the ISP revenue is nearly pure profit. The phone company exists mainly as a means to access the government funding and can even operate as a loss leader for the overall operation.
The government funding is for "up to gigabit" meaning it excludes paying for 10 gbs fiber to some politically-connected wealthy rancher - they only get subsidized 1 gbs, boo-hoo.
Putting up towers has knock-on benefits. People just driving through or visiting, workers, new developments all automatically get mobile internet. Outsiders getting internet while in the rural areas is a benefit to the local economy.
Starlink with no LTE coverage is worse than just having LTE. Your car breaks down and you're not going to care about that 5 ms faster ping time.