Can't Even Get 5G Right — and Now 6G? Are They Experimenting on the Public?

You keep hearing about 6G these days. They say it'll be far faster and smarter than what we have now.

But every time I hear that, one question comes to mind.

Hey — how about getting 5G right first?

You really think the 5G you're using now delivers the speeds from those ads? Who do they take us for?

Think back to when 5G first launched. Carriers talked about incredible speeds and a whole new world. It was marketed as a generational leap beyond LTE. Consumers bought new phones and signed up for expensive plans based on those ads.

So how did it actually work out?

Speeds varied by region, and indoors the signal often didn't hold up. There was a real gap between the speeds in the ads and what people experienced in daily use.

To be clear, I'm not saying 5G was slow everywhere. Plenty of people got great speeds. My point is that peak performance on a spec sheet and the quality an average consumer actually experiences can be very different.

So let me ask a question:

Wasn't our country capable of validating this beforehand?

This isn't a country short on telecom expertise, test equipment, or skilled engineers. We have world-class equipment makers and plenty of experience building and running networks.

Then why did consumers have to discover the quality problems only after paying for the service?

I'd Rather Question the State Than Blame the Carriers

I don't want to pin this solely on the telecom companies.

Companies exist to make a profit. Developing new tech, marketing products, and selling services — that's what companies do.

So what about the public agencies that license carriers, allocate spectrum, and oversee quality? What's their job?

Shouldn't they verify how the technology actually performs, how closely the real service matches what was advertised, and whether the quality holds up in ordinary use?

I'm not saying commercialization should wait until the tech is perfect. New technology never launches without rough edges.

But if you're selling a service people pay for, there should be real-world validation and clear quality standards before it goes out.

Peak speeds in a lab and the speeds consumers experience nationwide are not the same thing. If the gap was known and not adequately explained, that's an advertising accountability issue for the companies — and the regulators need to explain what they checked and approved.

Slapping on fines after the fact may not be enough either. Consumers already paid their bills, and they may never have gotten the service they expected.

And Now They're Talking About 6G

People still have real complaints about the quality of 5G, and here comes 6G.

I'm not denying that 6G is a genuine technical advance. Paired with AI, connecting more devices, enabling services that were hard to pull off before — all possible.

But a new generation doesn't automatically translate into better value for consumers.

Building out a new network generation means replacing or adding base stations and wireless gear. That requires investment. So who foots the bill?

Carriers will say they need to recoup the investment. But from the consumer's side, you'd rather have the service you're already paying for work properly first.

We've already lived through 5G falling short of expectations. Why should a new label called 6G earn automatic trust?

I don't think it should.

We Shouldn't Keep Experimenting on the Public

My point is simple.

I'm not against developing new technology. Researching 6G is fine. Building faster, more reliable networks is fine.

But hyping new tech and actually delivering a service people can rely on are two different things.

When the state approves commercialization, it should disclose the quality benchmarks it used — and keep checking whether the live service actually meets them. If there's a gap between advertised and real performance, consumers should know.

If it falls short, improvements should be demanded. If consumers are harmed, there should be real compensation.

I don't think our country lacks the ability to do this kind of validation. Which makes me want to ask even more pointedly:

Why do consumers have to pay first, use the service, discover the problems themselves — and only then hear this conversation?

Before hyping 6G, how about making the telecom service people are already paying for actually work?

I care more about whether the service I use today is stable and trustworthy than about a new generation number.

Guaranteeing the quality of what exists matters more than stamping a new name on it.

That's what the state and the companies providing telecom services should be doing first.