Will there be a 7G?

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Mobile network engineers and users debate whether future standards like 6G and 7G are truly needed when many regions still lack robust 5G — or even reliable 4G — coverage. Commenters note that “G” labels are increasingly driven by marketing, masking wide technical variation (NSA vs SA 5G, low-band vs mmWave) and leaving many people seeing little real-world benefit beyond 4G, especially given coverage gaps and battery drain. Others argue that long R&D lead times, growing spectrum demands, and new capabilities such as sensing and ultra‑dense deployments make continued generational upgrades inevitable, even if the gains feel incremental to most consumers.

State of 5G Deployment

  • Reported 5G availability varies widely: very strong in parts of Sweden and some US cities, weak or spotty even in large metros elsewhere.
  • Some users still see 3G on commutes or effectively unusable data in rural areas or tree-filled neighborhoods.
  • In some countries, 5G SA (standalone) exists but is restricted to business/private networks despite broad physical coverage.

SA vs NSA and Technical Nuances

  • 5G NSA = 4G core + both 4G/5G radios; behaves like “4G with upgrades” and is what’s widely deployed.
  • 5G SA = full end‑to‑end 5G; benefits cited: lower latency, lower power usage, no parallel 4G connection.
  • Some operators let users explicitly enable 5G SA and report better battery life but handover issues.

User Experience: 4G vs 5G

  • Many say 4G “just works” and 5G is marginally better or even worse, except in dense venues (stadiums, concerts, airports) where 5G can remain usable.
  • Others report major quality-of-life gains, including replacing home broadband with 5G.
  • Battery complaints are common, especially on some phones with 5G NSA.

Spectrum, Physics, and mmWave

  • Low frequencies penetrate buildings and cover rural areas but have limited bandwidth.
  • Mid-band (e.g., C-band) is seen as the practical sweet spot for capacity vs coverage.
  • mmWave/26 GHz: extremely high throughput but fails through walls, glass, or at corners; viewed as niche (stadiums, dense city blocks, rooftop LoS, or fixed wireless like “airfiber”).

Marketing, Icons, and “G” Branding

  • Phone “5G” icons can be misleading: may show 5G when actually on 4G, or label advanced LTE as “5GE.”
  • Signal bars are configurable and sometimes inflated by carriers.
  • Confusion between cellular “5G” and Wi‑Fi “5 GHz” is widespread.
  • “G” is both a real architectural boundary and a fuzzy marketing term; within a “G” there are huge performance differences.

Economics, Regulation, and Adoption

  • Operators in some markets are hesitant to invest; others appear to coordinate launches, delaying consumer access.
  • Spectrum refarming from 2G/3G to 4G/5G is ongoing; 2G shutdown is real but uneven across countries.
  • High-density deployment (lots of small cells, backhaul) is seen as the real cost driver and bottleneck.

Do We Need 6G/7G? Limits and Timelines

  • Some argue 7G won’t be “needed” for 10–15 years; others say new Gs are inevitable due to research pipelines and commercial pressure.
  • Historical pattern cited: research begins ~7–12 years before rollout (4G, 5G, 6G).
  • The paper’s “earliest plausible” date for 7G of ~2039–40 is noted.
  • Concern that returns are diminishing: 2G→3G→4G enabled new use cases; 5G feels incremental for many users.

Future Directions (Beyond Speed)

  • Several commenters want reliability, coverage, and real-world capacity prioritized over peak speed.
  • Some see future Gs emphasizing sensing (ISAC) and environmental awareness, not just bandwidth.
  • Others propose easier indoor relays/boosters and shared or hybrid standards bridging Wi‑Fi and cellular.

Skepticism About the Paper Itself

  • Multiple tools are reported to flag the abstract/introduction as “100% AI-generated,” raising doubts about authorship quality, though the technical topic still prompts serious discussion.