Speaking of 5g drifting around the internet, this has been a recent cause for much attention both inside and outside the industry. Because the introduction of a 5g amphibious network may have brought about some changes in the communications sector。
In recent days, the mobile, telecommunications, connectivity and radio consortium has announced the official launch of the first global 5g amphibious roaming experiment in xinjiang. This certainly means that the time has finally come for proof for the 5g drifting around the internet, which has been bumping for a long time. The results of the commercial test will also have a direct impact on when the 5g amphibious drift can be fully implemented。
Of course, there's a more important reason why the 5g is popular. So it's said that the 5g drift-net may not be free! This message is clearly critical not only for users but also for operators。
Before that, many people in the industry and beyond felt that with 5g drifting, those operators who were lagging behind in the construction of the network were able to “douch” the net. So, can telecommunications and connectivity lie down and win after a 5g drift-net or no roaming fees? That's an interesting thing to talk about。
It's not really a new thing. Even many users may have already used it. It is estimated that many old users may still have some impressions of the “long-distance roaming” fee line。
Previously, mobile phone numbers had left their area to make calls and to call off-site numbers locally for “long-distance roaming fees”. It was only by 2017 that the three operators had completely eliminated the “long-distance roaming fees”。
But now, if we go abroad, we'll still be faced with the "rover fees". For example, the choice to order cross-border traffic packages when travelling abroad is actually used in a state of drifting through the off-grid. In addition, there have been a number of off-grid cruises among foreign operators, which have resulted in more payments of “walking fees”。
This roaming fee is in fact a net settlement fee for cross-network communication between different operators. After all, i'll pay you for using someone's net。
However, it was stated that the inter-net clearing costs arising from this 5g amphibious drift would be borne by the four operators themselves, or would follow the model whereby users would not benefit from this function until they paid a certain amount of additional operating expenses。
Users can use it only after paying a certain amount of additional operating costs, which is in fact similar to the pattern of ordering cross-border traffic packages。
If the user does not have to pay for the use of the 5g amphibious network alone, that means that the 5g amphibious network is or will be free. It's really good news for users。
It was already well known that in terms of network building and signal coverage, mobility was better than telecommunications and connectivity. Thus, there are more mobile users than telecommunications and connectivity combined。
By sharing with the mobile 700 mhz 5g, there is also a network of 700 mhz 5g for radio, as well as a 2g/4g/5g network for free movement. This will give rv5g no less than mobile network quality and signal coverage。
Similarly, the 700 mhz5g network, which is particularly suitable for wide-scale continuous network coverage, will be further amplified by the quality and signal coverage advantages of mobile and wide power networks。
But for users, there's a net. In particular, the 5g is free of charge. So it's the same for users, regardless of who goes online。
For telecommunications and connectivity, it appears that at first glance home users can “share” to a friendly 5g network. Then there is no greater problem of attracting new users because of poor network signals and the loss of older users. It seems to be a lie and win。
But from a long-term development perspective, telecommunications and connectivity can lie flat in networking, but not necessarily win。
It is important to know that users do not have to pay roaming fees for using the 5g offline network, but there are few inter-operator settlements. Only the net settlement costs incurred by this part of the 5g amphibious drift are borne by the operator itself。
What about the chamber of commerce? Obviously, it will not be borne by local networked operators. It can only be borne by the operators of the roaming side。
Thus, for telecommunications and connectivity, home-grown users can “share” to a friendly 5g network, but the cost of “share” can be derived from telecommunications and connectivity. Can a lie-down like this be won? Obviously not. Maybe this is more like a virtual operator。
To put it simply, networking and mobility are under enormous cost pressure. It is therefore clearly not appropriate for operators to expect “a network to be shared”. Finally, the story of "one monk picks water, three monks don't have water."。
Whether the internet settlement costs incurred by the 5g amphibious drift are borne by the operator itself, or the user's use of a certain amount of additional operating expenses would in fact indirectly reduce the pressure on the 5g network construction。
It has to be said that with 5g amphibious network roaming, the four major operators can achieve separate coverage in different regions and complete coverage of the 5g network without duplicate deployment. This increases user perception and reduces network deployment costs. In one way or another, inter-network clearing costs arising from 5g amphibious drift may also be a form of “other” 5g co-sharing to be borne by the operator itself。
So, do you think telecommunications and connectivity can lie flat and win after users don't have any money to roam around using the 5g? Please leave a message。
