[HN Gopher] The Trouble with 5G
___________________________________________________________________
The Trouble with 5G
Author : Brajeshwar
Score : 81 points
Date : 2022-09-04 16:31 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (backreaction.blogspot.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (backreaction.blogspot.com)
| nayuki wrote:
| The text transcript could be improved:
|
| > The fourth Generation of wireless networks, four G for short,
| is now being extended to five G, and six G is in planning.
|
| Spelling out "four G" does not improve clarity. The sentence
| should be: The fourth generation of wireless networks, 4G for
| short, is now being extended to 5G, and 6G is in planning.
|
| > GigaHertz ... Giga Hertz
|
| Must be written as gigahertz.
|
| > four hundred Mega Hertz
|
| Should be written as 400 MHz; using number words doesn't improve
| clarity.
|
| Also, the factual content could be improved in a few places:
|
| > If you want to transfer more information through a channel with
| a fixed noise-level, you have to increase either the bandwidth or
| the power.
|
| There's also beamforming and MIMO.
|
| > If you took all the water in the atmosphere and put it on the
| ground you'd get about 2.5 cm. The clouds alone merely make a
| tenth of a millimeter.
|
| To make the comparison easier, it should be written as 25.0 mm
| and 0.1 mm. Ironically, she linked to an original video that
| indeed uses millimetres.
|
| > The European Commission has agreed on -42 decibel watts for 5G
| base stations. The FCC in the US set a limit at -20 decibel watt.
| This is a logarithmic scale, so this is more than 30 orders of
| magnitude above the limit the meteorologists ask for.
|
| No, it's 3 orders of magnitude, or 1000x.
| johnklos wrote:
| I suppose it's a sign of how good her articles and videos are
| that the only stuff you can find that're wrong are details.
|
| In the spirit of being pedantic (don't take too seriously):
|
| "There's also beamforming and MIMO" No. Beamforming attempts to
| increase apparent power by changing parameters. One could just
| as easily say "moving sender and recipient closer". MIMO is
| also manipulation of sending and receiving antennae, and
| therefore irrelevant to the discussion about transmitting
| through a channel with a fixed noise level.
|
| She did make a mistake about the number of orders of magnitude,
| though.
| ec109685 wrote:
| Why isn't beamforming a way of increasing effective
| bandwidth?
| johnklos wrote:
| It is! But she's talking about "a channel with a fixed
| noise level".
|
| Making new antennae, changing current antennae, moving them
| closer, aiming them differently, replacing them with an
| ethernet cable are all ways of increasing effective
| bandwidth, but those are outside of what she's talking
| about.
| Georgelemental wrote:
| I think the transcription issues are likely artifacts from
| computer transcription software
| snthd wrote:
| Can water vapor be measured using the 5G background noise as a
| radiation source (akin to passive radar[0])?
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_radar
| Lammy wrote:
| The trouble with 5G is that it will be the final nail in the
| coffin of location privacy, assuming most people carry their
| phone with them at most times. LTE is already very "good" at
| this, but 5G brings centimeter-precision.
|
| https://www.ericsson.com/en/blog/2020/12/5g-positioning--wha...
| sez --
|
| "The arrival of 5G delivers new enhanced parameters for
| positioning accuracy down to the meter, decimeter and
| centimeter."
|
| "Positioning of users and devices across general indoor
| environments, such as offices, shops, logistics, etc., was a
| focus area of 3GPP Release 16."
|
| https://venturebeat.com/mobile/sk-telecom-will-use-5g-to-bui...
| sez --
|
| "While current [2019] smartphones can under some circumstances
| send and receive location data with 3-foot accuracy, it takes an
| external GNSS receiver to access location services with
| centimeter-level accuracy."
|
| https://www.fastcompany.com/90314058/5g-means-youll-have-to-...
| sez --
|
| "[5G network positioning] data can also enable advertisers and
| data brokers to see the exact routes you take each day and even
| which buildings you go into. And anyone with access to your
| mobile network's cell tower data will now be able to track your
| movements in real time."
| ok_dad wrote:
| On one hand, this technology has all sorts of good uses, like
| helping emergency services find someone calling them inside a
| building or helping you navigate in skyscrapers where GPS
| doesn't work well. On the other hand, humans are steaming piles
| of shit and probably can't be trusted to use this technology
| properly for just "good" uses. I guess there's no way to
| reverse course, but it makes me sad that my son might grow up
| without privacy, where his mistakes are never forgotten.
| kragen wrote:
| They'll be forgotten unless he decides to criticize the
| police, the ruling party, or Verizon. Or spends a lot of time
| walking near people who do.
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| This only applies to places with UWB (mmWave) which is very few
| places. Prior to 5G, the network was borderline unusable in
| these crowded places and people used Wi-Fi (which has similar
| location tracking concerns). For the average user this hasn't
| changed anything.
|
| For very privacy-conscious users, you can always turn off UWB.
| nine_k wrote:
| Privacy vs coverage in crowded places seems like a valid
| (though uncomfortable) choice.
|
| In crowded places like trains or planes, where it matters
| most for me personally, you already don't have a location
| privacy once you've boarded: your seat is known.
| yetanotherloser wrote:
| Can you? Can you really?
| Arnt wrote:
| Does it matter? If you do, you'll be using Wifi in those
| places, which has similar privacy problems, right? And if
| you disable both, you barely have coverage in those places,
| which doesn't seem better.
| TheLoafOfBread wrote:
| Which 5G does these are talking about? The sub 6GHz 5G aka
| relabeled LTE or the mmWave/UWB 5G? Because the UWB does not
| really penetrate anything, so it might be working good in lab,
| but useless in practice.
| charles_kaw wrote:
| It's not in the general, constant sense that you have to
| worry about, but rather in specific applications. When you're
| out in public, "they" will have 3-meter-accuracy, more than
| enough. But when you're in stores, and malls, and other
| venues where UWB is set up, then that's where real problems
| begin. They'll be able to track which advertisements you
| linger around, and which sections you visit.
|
| It's going to be a whole new category of passive location
| tracking.
| dicknuckle wrote:
| My opinion is that in-building tracking doesn't have to be
| an issue, and the people who care don't linger watching
| advertisements in Malls. More power to someone who finds a
| way to use that data to make buildings like Grocery stores
| more efficient, like getting room temp products first and
| frozen things last during the walk.
| nine_k wrote:
| It works on stadiums and other similar hugely crowded open
| venues, which is the point of it, AFAICT.
| RC_ITR wrote:
| > relabeled LTE
|
| To be pedantic, LTE stands for "Long-term evolution" and was
| always intended to be the foundation of future cell network
| standards.
|
| I won't get too into the details, but generations 1-4 dealt
| primarily with modulation techniques, and OFDM (the technique
| used in LTE) is more or less the best we know how to do over
| wireless.
| clairity wrote:
| besides the standard bandwidth improvements, it's pretty clear
| that this is why the major telcos were pushing 5G so hard, so
| they could sell that more precise location data to any and all
| comers.
| rcarmo wrote:
| Funny, only today I tweeted these parody lyrics to "Welcome to 5G
| Networks" (a parody of a parody linked in
| https://twitter.com/rcarmo/status/1566402880504041472?s=21&t...):
|
| Welcome to 5G networks, please enjoy your stay
|
| Endless discussions about the state of play
|
| We've got endless features, some good, some weird
|
| And lots of little quirky bugs that we've engineered
|
| Welcome to 5G networks, log on and take a chance
|
| You can have your phone roam or do the coverage dance
|
| Your radio is abysmal, It's... not optimized
|
| But throw it up on 3GPP and we'll call it standardized
|
| Welcome to 5G networks, you'll never feel alone
|
| Debug chinese radios or inspect packets whole
|
| Ericsson? Nokia? Which one do I choose?
|
| Just pick a third party that has the least SKUs
|
| Welcome to 5G networks, be sure to run your fiber
|
| Duplicate an incumbent network at the whim of the regulator
|
| We've got timelines and roadmaps and radio test plans
|
| So you can bill for ringtones nobody wants
|
| Edit: why the downvotes?
| ofou wrote:
| Good studies on 5G-human health long term exposure?
| gus_massa wrote:
| As far as we know, non ionizing radiation is safe for humans,
| if the intensity is not too high.
|
| * _if the intensity is not too high_
|
| Don't put your head inside a microwave. Don't hug the
| transmisor of a antena that broadcast tv or radio. ...
|
| * _non ionizing radiation_
|
| Gamma rays, X rays and some UV rays are dangerous. Try to avoid
| them and keep a low dose for important medical treatments. Use
| solar protection to block UV rays.
| whyoh wrote:
| Long term is difficult, because it's a relatively new thing.
| Even 4G and 3G haven't been around very long. So we don't
| really know, but there are legit concerns about its safety:
|
| https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no...
|
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31991167/
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7727890/
| jay_kyburz wrote:
| Don't we also need to confirm that long term exposure is also
| safe for everything else in our ecology? Soil Bacteria, Insect
| populations, and all the other plants and animals we depend on?
| Sin2x wrote:
| https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/6900...
|
| The review shows: 1) 5G lower frequencies (700 and 3 600 MHz):
| a) limited evidence of carcinogenicity in epidemiological
| studies; b) sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in
| experimental bioassays; c) sufficient evidence
| ofreproductive/developmental adverse effects in humans; d)
| sufficient evidence of reproductive/ developmental adverse
| effects in experimental animals; 2) 5G higher frequencies
| (24.25-27.5 GHz): the systematic review found no adequate
| studies either in humans or in experimental animals.
| Conclusions: 1) cancer: FR1 (450 to 6 000 MHz): EMF are
| probably carcinogenic for humans, in particular related to
| gliomas and acoustic neuromas; FR2 (24 to 100 GHz): no adequate
| studies were performed on the higher frequencies; 2)
| reproductive developmental effects: FR1 (450 to 6 000 MHz):
| these frequencies clearly affect male fertility and possibly
| female fertility too. They may have possible adverse effects on
| the development of embryos, foetuses and newborns; FR2 (24 to
| 100 GHz): no adequate studies were performed on non-thermal
| effects of the higher frequencies.
| 0xbadc0de5 wrote:
| The Signal Path has done a really good job breaking this down -
| skip to 3:00 if you want to avoid the preamble.
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0xwyVlqsRo
| guerby wrote:
| The weather/5G frequency use conflict reminds me of the FAA 5G
| filter fiasco 8 monthes ago:
|
| FAA Shows 'Sample NOTAMs' for Possible 5G Restrictions
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29694085
|
| My comment at the time
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29696273
| This is all ridiculous, there's still a 200 MHz band guard
| between the FAA band and the 5G proposed band. Here
| is what a $1 ESP wifi dongle has to follow:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11 "The mask
| requires the signal to be attenuated a minimum of 20 dB from its
| peak amplitude at +-11 MHz from the center frequency"
| So 2 dB/MHz filter. I let you do the math.
| FAA is just ridiculous here if they let old junk radio hardware
| handle safety landings for airplanes, but well after 737 max what
| do you expect...
|
| And obviously this was in line with reality, FAA finally admitted
| it didn't do its job of preventing crap filters to be kept in
| planes for decades:
|
| https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-statements-5g
| Airlines and other operators of aircraft equipped with the
| affected radio altimeters must install filters or other
| enhancements as soon as possible."
|
| Now I haven't looked in details yet on this new frequency use
| conflict and Sabine mentionned a scientific study that seemed
| legit.
|
| One thing is different: around 20 GHz there's lots of frequencies
| available (vs 5GHz) so we could have larger guard band without
| significant impact.
| mlyle wrote:
| The technical analysis you're putting out here is a bit of a
| canard. Yes, better filters help, but radars are really, really
| picky. After all, there's an inverse fourth power relationship
| between return strength and distance.
|
| So we have our doppler weather radar transmitting at 450kW,
| traveling out a big distance to a storm (inverse square), and
| reflecting at very low efficiency, and traveling back (inverse
| square). Compare to a base station putting out 40W that's
| closer and just subject to inverse square law. It can easily be
| 10 orders of magnitude stronger. You need pretty good filtering
| for this.
|
| > One thing is different: around 20 GHz there's lots of
| frequencies available (vs 5GHz) so we could have larger guard
| band without significant impact.
|
| You _need_ a much larger guard band. It 's easy to make a 1MHz
| wide filter at 10MHz, and really hard at 100000MHz.
|
| Another important thing: parasitics start to matter a whole
| lot, too. You can have a filter that sharply rolls off around
| your fundamental, but then above the resonant frequencies of
| your passives/filter elements become transmissive again. It's
| pretty hard to keep 20GHz out of a receiver that was designed
| for a lower frequency before 20GHz was a major concern.
| beecafe wrote:
| nitpick: it's not inverse fourth power, it's just inverse
| square with twice the distance, which is 1/((2 * distance) ^
| 2) = 1/(4 * distance ^ 2)
|
| (ignoring reflection efficiency, but that isn't determined by
| distance)
| mlyle wrote:
| > nitpick: it's not inverse fourth power, it's just inverse
| square with twice the distance, which is 1/((2 * distance)
| ^ 2) = 1/(4 * distance ^ 2)
|
| No. For a diffuse reflection, the amount of light hitting
| your target is inverse square. And then it is scattered and
| inverse square back on the return journey.
|
| 1/x^2 * 1/x^2 = 1/x^4.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar#Radar_range_equation
|
| "In the common case where the transmitter and the receiver
| are at the same location, Rt = Rr and the term Rt2 Rr2 can
| be replaced by R^4, where R is the range."
|
| (This all assumes that your target is smaller than the beam
| size, of course-- which is not as true for the two cases of
| a radar altimeter or a doppler radar as it is for e.g.
| tracking aircraft... but it's still close enough in
| practice).
| xphos wrote:
| Yeah 200MHz band guard is a massive guard. You can fit all of the
| FM band 4-5 times in that range. Also the resonate frequency
| water has a high attenuation factor so radio waves wouldn't be
| used there because they transferred a huge portion of there power
| to heat vibration water.
|
| As for use cases it's a faster network in latency terms. There
| might be fewer use cases for it now but there were no use cases
| for WiFi before wifi exist. Once that infrastructure is built
| people will use it. By definition it's impossible to get a
| latency of less than 10ms on a large portion of LTE networks. If
| you have a sensor that requires a response that fast you simply
| won't use LTE because it's not possible to meet those mission
| requirements.
|
| 5G also has that beam forming whose goal is reduce congestion and
| solve the penetration issues but that is still being proven
| charles_kaw wrote:
| > There might be fewer use cases for it now
|
| There are massive use cases for it, but not at the people
| level. Low latency tasks such as edge AI classification, IOT
| interaction, and game streaming are all currently limited to
| WiFi only.
|
| > Once that infrastructure is built people will use it.
|
| This is a fallacy.
| xphos wrote:
| I would argue that that statement is true because it's
| talking about 5G whose features vastly outcompete LTE in many
| areas. I suppose there is a chance people won't use 5G but I
| think it's really unlikely considering the standards already
| been adopted and being used by many big name players.
|
| All of this was to say that 5G has applications even if they
| might not appear to the OP and that it's only going to be
| used more once people can actually access 5G technology. It's
| still in the early stages even in areas which claim that are
| on 5G for the most part its 5G NSA mode where the backing
| core network is all LTE still. I also feel as though OP was
| really talking down 5G trying to bring nonsensical
| technically problems and unproven medical problems that have
| no evidence.
|
| You yourself pointed out several applications but your
| quoting the very advantage I was talking about which was
| latency. Which we both agree is extremely beneficial but the
| over arching point is that we don't know all the things that
| will benefit from 5G because we have not observed them and
| while IoT, AI, and streaming will absolutely benefit the
| benefit does not end there. There absolutely will be more
| areas that benefit which is what I'm trying to communicate
| tolmasky wrote:
| Is 5G good for super-short distances that you can't for whatever
| reason use a cable for? Imagine needing to go through a solid
| wall, (of wood and drywall), and only 2 to 5 inches thick, then
| Ethernet on either side of that. Would 5G be the ideal way to not
| drop too much in speed, or is there something better for that
| sort of scenario?
| ec109685 wrote:
| Seems like Wifi solves this?
| jc_811 wrote:
| I have T-mobile in the Pacific Northwest and noticed very poor
| service with countless dead spots over the past few years.
|
| I got a tip from a friend last month to try disabling 5G and use
| LTE instead. It's cleared up 90+% of the issues I was
| experiencing.
|
| 5G to me is a marketing joke which made my reception
| significantly worse
| wildzzz wrote:
| Some aspects of 5G do improve normal cell bandwidth which for
| internet, basically improves reception. Other aspects of 5G
| really only make a difference when you are right nearby an
| antenna, like walking down a city street. The problem is that
| 5G isn't rolled out everywhere and your phone might try to
| connect to a 5G antenna when a 4G antenna is much closer and
| would provide a more robust connection. I rarely see more than
| 3/5 bars when on 5G but can get much better reception wherever
| when only using 4G. Only exception was a recent road trip on
| I-95, there was near constant full 5G coverage.
| darksaints wrote:
| That's because T-Mobile has been slow to deploy 5g in the PNW.
| Still one of the slowest markets to deploy, but it is getting
| better over time.
| Animats wrote:
| The real problem with 5G is that it only has a few use cases. The
| big one is stadiums. Tens of thousands of people watching the
| game on their cell phones, each needing an independent video-
| bandwidth channel. (Anybody ever consider WiFi multicast for
| that? Most of them are watching the same stream, after all.) To
| get all that bandwidth in one place is the use case for line of
| sight millimeter microwave with large numbers of small base
| stations. The first places to get 5G base stations were stadiums.
|
| After that, it tails off. Convention centers. Busy downtown
| intersections.
|
| Of course China is ahead in this. They need it. China has ten
| cities with more people than New York. Most of the US has nowhere
| near the population density of coastal China. Not much of a use
| case for short range millimeter microwave.
| everdrive wrote:
| >Tens of thousands of people watching the game on their cell
| phones
|
| I don't know that technology is really the solution here. Why
| bother going to the stadium to watch the game on your phone?
| fspeech wrote:
| Probably for things like replays, commentaries etc.
| throwoutway wrote:
| I've never hear of people going to a game to watch the same
| game on their phones. That's not what it's for. The real use
| case is for communicating with others and uploading selfie
| videos
| layer8 wrote:
| For the ambiance and the community.
| simplyaccont wrote:
| there is actually a standard for video broadcasting over lte:
| eMBMS
| jrm4 wrote:
| Right, I'd say specifically the big problem is the "Gs," which
| to me appear to be fundamentally marketing and handwaving to
| distract from the much more efficient ways all of this could
| work if we could get incumbent telcos et al _out of the way._
| peteradio wrote:
| If they are at the stadium why they need to watch it on their
| phone? I think that is a misunderstanding of the stadium use
| case.
| jpollock wrote:
| When I went to games as a kid, you would frequently see
| people watching the game with a radio and ear piece to get
| the commentary.
| galaxyLogic wrote:
| Right but they want to take pictures and videos which then
| automatically get uploaded to Google etc.
|
| Not a big problem if they can't do that. But since they are
| trying to do that it means anybody who truly needs to make a
| phone-call, or video-call, might not be able to do it. That
| may not sound so critical, but it can mean whether a phone-
| company keeps a customer or not. Customers pay for perceived
| value including reliability.
| peteradio wrote:
| I'm under the impression there is bearer priority so you
| would not be able to clog up to a certain point of voice,
| supposing that is how its configured. But yea, the use case
| is basically density.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| A lot of people are watching highlights of other games when
| they are at american football games since there's a bit of
| downtime between plays and most games each week happen at the
| same time.
| mindcrime wrote:
| Have you been to a football game (or equivalent) in a big
| stadium? Depending on where you're sitting, the television
| experience is often quite frankly better than the live
| experience in many regards. If you're way up in the nose-
| bleed section, the cameras are definitely going to give you a
| better view, in terms of up-close shots, and angles you can't
| see from your seat. And some people want the commentary from
| the TV announcers as well.
|
| Honestly, watching football on TV is better than the stadium
| for many reasons. Yet people want to go to the stadium to be
| part of an immersive experience (and so they can tell their
| friends "I was there when so and so broke the NFL rushing
| record", etc.). So going to the game and still watching a
| broadcast of the game simultaneously is a desirable
| experience for a lot of people.
|
| And I'm reasonably sure the same basic principle applies to
| most other sports that are played in large stadiums.
| gambiting wrote:
| As someone who doesn't go to any sport events - that's so
| weird. Also feels like an absolutely monumental waste of
| time.
| mindcrime wrote:
| To clarify a bit... I'm not saying people are watching
| their screens the entire time or anything. Although some
| _might_ depending on their view of the field. But it 's
| especially cool for looking at critical plays and
| potential (or actual) "video review" situations, where
| everybody wants to see "did he really get his foot down
| in-bounds?" or whatever. And of course the stadiums
| usually replay a lot of that kind of stuff on the big
| jumbo-tron deals that are fixed in place in the stadium.
| Still, there are plenty of times you might want a closer
| look at something and want to check the television
| broadcast (or some stadium specific internal feed, or
| whatever).
|
| Whether it's a "waste of time" or not probably depends on
| your perspective. Some people think watching sports in
| general is a waste of time. Others think playing D&D is a
| waste of time. Somebody, somewhere, probably thinks
| posting on HN is a waste of time...
| magicalhippo wrote:
| Someone mentioned they had the Formula 1 live stream on
| their phone as they were sitting in the grandstands.
| They'd listen to the commentary, and could watch instant
| replays with better details and possibly rewind if
| needed. Best of both worlds kinda.
| ec109685 wrote:
| Stadiums designed from the ground up with Wifi in mind are able
| to cope in a situation with lots of people using their phone at
| breaks in the action.
|
| 5G ultra wide band has to be one of the most over hyped
| technologies in recent times. It has stupendously bad range and
| made zero improvement to a person's daily use of their mobile
| phone. Embarrassing it was hyped as much by Verizon and the
| like (I don't hear about nearly as much now).
|
| I live in a metropolitan area and I don't think I have ever had
| an ultra wide band connection.
|
| Even 5g promises like putting compute closer to edge fall
| short. Edge computing is merely sending packets to a Verizon
| data center in the local area:
| https://aws.amazon.com/wavelength/, which is only slightly
| better than sending to a computer running on something like
| cloudflare that works independently of the cell phone network.
| fspeech wrote:
| China has not deployed or even allocated mmwave yet
| https://5gobservatory.eu/eu-and-china-lagging-behind-in-mmwa...
| They are deploying mostly MIMO. MIMO can waste a lot of energy
| when capacity is not an issue. To save electricity carriers
| would sometimes turn off 5g functionality at night in the
| beginning (they probably have better fixes now with equipment
| upgrades) https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-08-01/Is-5G-a-waste-
| of-elect...
| Seattle3503 wrote:
| Those seem like important use cases, no? I was at Pokemon GO
| Fest in Seattle recently and they had a bunch of 5G antennas.
| For those that may not know, Pokemon GO Fest is a big in person
| event that concentrates thousands of people in a small area in
| order to play a AR phone game. 5G is what kept me and my group
| online. Previous GO Fests, before 5G was widespread, had lots
| of connectivity issues.
|
| This argument strikes me as an analog of the "Nobody needs a
| gigabit line, 25Mbps is enough to stream Netflix in 4k." That
| position doesn't leave room for future use.
| nwienert wrote:
| Pokemon Go fest wouldn't be what I'd cite for importance.
| catlifeonmars wrote:
| I think the idea is that service providers should be able
| to support elastic bandwidth consumption including
| phenomenon such as Pokemon Go festivals, without impacting
| other, more critical communications.
| catlifeonmars wrote:
| 5G isn't just mmWave. The protocol stack is designed to be
| adaptive and capable of handling frequencies from the
| traditional 4G spectrum as well as mmWave. It's also a
| rearchitecting of how network components are distributed that
| is intended to allow easier federation of services.
|
| Regarding use cases for mmWave: mmWave exhibits the classic
| tradeoff of range vs bitrate. mmWave makes a lot of sense
| anywhere short range, high bitrate communications for the bill,
| such as home WAN, for example. When it comes to RF pollution,
| the short penetration of mmWave is actually better than the
| sub-6Ghz band of classic WAN (wifi).
|
| Edit: one thing I am curious about is how energy consumption
| and EM pollution actually compares across a 4G and 5G stack. I
| could see it going either way depending on protocol differences
| alone, but physically speaking, allowing higher frequencies and
| faster bitrates should serve to (1) reduce EM pollution (2)
| improve energy efficiency of actual wire comms.
| secondcoming wrote:
| I've replaced fibre internet with 5G. It's great, short
| duration contracts with 500Mps speeds (I even got 1Gbps at one
| point while on holiday), and I can take it anywhere
| Dig1t wrote:
| Do you play video games at all? I imagine the latency is much
| worse on 5G vs fiber. Have you noticed that?
| yardstick wrote:
| Just did a speedtest.net run on my 5G link- 14ms ping, 1ms
| jitter, 500Mbit/s downlink. It's pretty good.
| secondcoming wrote:
| It's definitely worse, you're not going to get single digit
| pings. That said, I used play Battlefield a fair bit on it
| and it was largely fine but crapped out occasionally.
| 13of40 wrote:
| I use 5G a lot when I'm "working from home", and my area has
| pretty good coverage. The one thing I've noticed is that
| unlike LTE there doesn't seem to be a correlation between
| connection quality and bandwidth. I can have a full 5G
| connection indicator on my phone in some places, but get
| slower speed than if I switch to 4G/LTE. I'm guessing my
| phone shows the connection quality to the local 5G node, but
| can't tell me when that node's uplink is degraded.
| mikotodomo wrote:
| Yeah it could hamper weather predictions, but it also enables us
| to receive emergency notifications in the first place!
| kriro wrote:
| I see two things that are valuable in 5G. Number is campus
| networks (basically run your own cell network company wide) which
| makes sense in some use cases (production plant with a lot of IoT
| devices) and number two is the (potential) low latency. I feel
| both could be solved by different technologies but a cell based
| approach isn't a horrible idea.
| zzzeek wrote:
| this seems to be a well written and rational article and it's
| really too bad that a thing like "5G" is so prone to mass culture
| conspiracy hysteria, that it's impossible to have a discussion
| about concerns like these without everyone retreating to "Their
| corners" - which snuffs out the "middle" where things like, "hey
| 5G might give us problems with weather forecasts, how do we work
| that out"?. I can just see the "debunking" blog posts already
| "debunking" things like "5G will ruin the weather!" or some
| idiocy.
| Beltiras wrote:
| Sabine has been so rock solid on everything I've seen from her
| that I tend to take her seriously.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-04 23:01 UTC)