[Closed] 5G.... What do you think?

I think am awful lot of people think it's like 4g, but stronger and faster.

Holding out for 6G personally.

Meh...

Current phone is 4G and if/when I upgrade and 5G is out then I may consider it..

If however like the current 4G coverage (sporadic at best in some parts of the UK) then I think 5G will only appeal to City folk for the next 5 or so years..

I like the tech aspect, but do wonder what else 5G can do over 4G other than being faster..

It’ll come, no doubt.

But ATM.. 🤷‍♂️

5G Home broadband is what I'm looking forward to seeing. Fed up with lack of infrastructure in our area!

I've seen a few scare stories about 5g. So far the only folk on my facebook feed who have been posting these stories about it raping your firstborn and have been the same folk who post any old nonsense. Provided of course it comes in the form of unsubstantiated text on a suitable, emotion evoking photo coming from someone who uses a fruit as a middle name.

Firmly on my "ignore" list.

I'd settle for 3g in my area (galloway), but thankfully i won't get cancer/cat aids/brain tumour/autisism/toryism from the 5g signals.

So definitely no health / safety concerns from the posters so far? I wasn't concerned... But then I keep seeing these articles. They might be right? But then part of me thinks it's a bit "anti-vax" brigade too. Just don't know!

Brussels becomes first major city to ban 5G wireless connection

My superdoper mobile is 4G at the moment so whatever "G"s they come up with I shall not be bothered for at least 5 to 7 years. However, I wish all households come with a standard high speed fibre optic cable as standard for free ...

As for the hysteria of being spied on they can look at me nakid photos if they wish just like our far east PM said "We are an open book ..."

Christ, all this scaremongering, might have something to it.
Hey, plastics! Look! You can see they're bad!
Ooh, radiation. Can't see it! Let it loose!

We sure want to screw this planet up don't we.

So definitely no health / safety concerns from the posters so far?

Well we could just ignore 5G and that would send a message to the proponents of it..

Doubt the scare stories have significant time/research behind them just yet.. but as time goes on and funding into the possibility of death/injury occurring whilst using 5G comes to fruition we all at present have the option to either believe the scare stories or not, and get a device/devices that can accommodate 5G.

I too remember the scare stories of mobile use, even as far back as 2G.. what’s that? 15yrs?? and unless I’ve missed some massive stories I’m not sure anyone has died or been injured by mobile usage.. obvz that’s just IMO and clearly the only research I’ve done is look on this forum.

You won't notice the speed or latency. But you'll probably get a much bigger data bundle or even unlimited mobile data, eventually.

i live in rural Norfolk, i'd like to be able to get 2G before we can get 5G....

On the Cycling Podcast this morning they were saying that they struggle to broadcast live TV from the Women's Tour as there is a lack of 4G coverage in much of Britain, i think we should work on coverage for all first.

I like the tech aspect, but do wonder what else 5G can do over 4G other than being faster..

It has the potential to replace wired ground based infrastructure. So could have a very significant impact in terms of cost and access.

The health concerns are poppycock. We’re being bombarded by alsorts if radiation from a great variety of sources all the time. 5G isn’t going to introduce any new risks. It uses the same frequency range as current networks anyway.

You won’t notice the speed or latency

I get around 140 download on 4G+ but that's outdoors. Indoors is significantly less and it's apparently the same with 5G. So you're probs gonna need some kind of external aerial I'd guess.

I too remember the scare stories of mobile use, even as far back as 2G.. what’s that? 15yrs??

Exactly. Things like don't put your phone in your pocket as it will make you infertile, spring to mind.

It has the potential to replace wired ground based infrastructure. So could have a very significant impact in terms of cost and access.

Remove all those telephone wires and even underground cabling (doubt that’ll be removed, but left in the ground)

So, we could see a cleaner view of the landscape ? Sounds good.

So why are BT still laying Fibre Cables in streets if this is just around the corner??

We’re being bombarded by alsorts if radiation from a great variety of sources all the time.

Hm.. so all radiation is harmless?

You can put massive amounts of data through fibre with relatively low latency. MASSIVE.

so all some radiation is harmless?

[url= https://www.5gspaceappeal.org/the-appeal ]No research[/url]

I ain't no tin foil hat bloke, but, it's not as cut & dried as "The health concerns are poppycock". Is it.
Being a fit, healthy eating, non-smoker, light drinker, whose heart has inexplicably gone into AF and seeing "Alteration of heart rhythm" as one of the prominent possible health effects... well, you know. Pass the ****ing Bacofoil.

In terms of health cant say I am fussed.
Not overly convinced by just how much infrastructure would be needed for it though.
There does seem to be some legitimate concerns about whether it will bork other systems as well including buggering up some weather forecasting if they cut corners on kit.

Dunno, still waiting for 3 here...

It uses the same frequency range as current networks anyway.

Which networks?

On the Cycling Podcast this morning they were saying that they struggle to broadcast live TV from the Women’s Tour as there is a lack of 4G coverage in much of Britain, i think we should work on coverage for all first.

5G will help 4G, because if some people are using the 5G spectrum it'll reduce load on the 4G spectrum. Simply having a signal to a tower isn't enough, the tower needs to have capacity to handle all its users as well. So it's possible to see a tower and not actually be able to use it. That's why sometimes you have a signal and the person sitting next to you does not.

So it may well make 4G more reliable and accessible. Maybe.

So, 5G uses the same distribution stacks as 4G?

Thats going to save a load on new infrastructure.. and possibly be less intrusive to the landscape.

Interesting.

4G is saturated in a lot of places I frequent (London Waterloo, City of London). Often have to turn it off and go back to 3G.

I trust judgement of the powers that be more than the space cadets I've seen wailing about it on FB.

If there are any respectable scientific concerns I'd be genuinely interested in reading though?

All the "experts" that I've seen rolled out for the news seem to be saying it's going to underpin lots of IOT and autonomous vehicle and stuff (so it's probably the ideal bit of infrastructure for Chinese hackers to get into).

It's just the latest phase/fad for pervasive computing in our lives another thing we lived fine without and will think is indispensible in five years time... I remember when all this were fields, etc, etc...

TBH Part of me would like less 'tech' in our lives rather than more, so anything that ushers in more just depresses me...

That could be the radiation. Makes you think...

So, 5G uses the same distribution stacks as 4G?

5g has a shorter distance both in overall range and also penetration of cover (so would have thought the woo crowd would be happy since they could harden stuff against it easier but.....) so you need more hardware to support. However it can support more connections within that area.
Everything I have seen suggests its mostly going to be a city thing as opposed to countrywide rollout.

If there are any respectable scientific concerns I’d be genuinely interested in reading though?

Shitloads, it seems.
See my "No research" link above.

See my “No research” link above.

There seems to be a lack of proper peer reviewed evidence in that link. Looking at one of their footnotes about peer reviewed research goes to "Cellphonertaskforce" which in turn seems to just go to a cursory search of a couple of terms in studies rather than anything more useful.

Still waiting for 2G here. Got to go 6 miles to send a text! I still pay the same as anyone else though so no worries there I guess 🙁

The idiots and naysayers are better organised now and can easily communicate using social media. They can use the current blanket mobile and wireless coverage to write pseudoscience about the EM spectrum without any sense of irony or understanding

The idiots and naysayers are better organised now and can easily communicate using social media. They can use the current blanket mobile and wireless coverage to write pseudoscience about the EM spectrum without any sense of irony or understanding

Well put 🤣

The thing that people don't get about the 'Gs' is that they're not incremental - you don't need 2G to then go to 3G, then 4g, etc.

Introduction of 5g will increase coverage and / or capacity (more people in a given cell downloading stuff basically at a higher speed) - in dense urban areas you may role out smaller cells for mega capacity. If you've not got 3g yet, then ideally you want 5g deployed as it'll be a much better experience - forget about getting 3g. Additionally the faster it gets deployed the quicker they'll get it out on lower frequencies (potentially replacing 3g for example on a given frequency) - lower frequencies go through trees and buildings better so more likely to have coverage (the same is true for 4G to a lesser extent).

Health wise, don't worry about it. It'll mainly be on the same or lower frequencies (e.g. old TV band) that are used now. Antennas are more sensitive so in theory at least the radio transmitter you're carrying next to the family jewels is going to be blasting out less energy (not that it'll do anything anyway).

(Disclosure i work for a telco so have drunk the kool aid!)

It’s 1 more than 4g so it must be betterer!! I’m in

No research

I ain’t no tin foil hat bloke, but, it’s not as cut & dried as “The health concerns are poppycock”. Is it.
Being a fit, healthy eating, non-smoker, light drinker, whose heart has inexplicably gone into AF and seeing “Alteration of heart rhythm” as one of the prominent possible health effects… well, you know. Pass the **** Bacofoil.

All collated by someone who doesn't understand dosage. It's like sayinng - oooooh if I pour the LD50 of water for rats into their mouths and kill half of them - well **** me - gotta call the UN, call the President, call the FDA and ban this H20! It's clearly dangerous! It's not science, it's idiotology.

The autism one was just brilliantly bad hack science as well - how the **** did they even measure prenatal and postnatal RF exposure and phone usage and get statistically valid data? When ****ing everyone is exposed to RF and the vast majority of people use phones. How anyone accurately self reported those "predictors" is beyond me, the statistics were laughable. Did they even consider that mothers on the autistic spectrum might use their phones more?

Meanwhile.....supporting the fact that you can prove almost anything with poorly designed epidemiology (touched on in the part thats bolded).....

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170905145548.htm

Professor Jan Alexander, senior author from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, said: "Our investigation revealed for the first time that maternal mobile phone use may actually have a positive impact. More specifically, mobile phone use in pregnancy was associated with lower risk of the child having low language and motor skills at 3 years of age. Although we adjusted for important socio-demographic characteristics as well as maternal personality and psychological factors, we think this protective effect is more likely to be explained by factors not measured in this study having an impact on the mobile phone use and child's neurodevelopment, rather than the maternal mobile phone use in itself."

LOL!

I can't believe that peoples health concerns on this thread are genuine. Surely not.

Clicked on a couple of links, looked like proper research to me.
Glad I’m wrong and stw posters know better than scientists (if thats what they are) though, cos there ain’t no stopping it.

I have a Biosciences degree, a graduate certificate in statistics and 6 years experience in the pharmaceutical industry....

Then are postdocs on here who will come and rip that link a new arsehole in a bit.

You realise that you've just criticised STW for "knowing better than scientists" whilst in the previous breath claiming that you're equipped to critically evaluate what "proper research" looks like? These two stances are mutually exclusive, pick one.

The older I've got the less interested in new tech I've become. 5CNGAFs from me.

claiming that you’re equipped to critically evaluate what “proper research” looks like?

No I didn't. I said it looked like it, not it was. And in the very next sentence said I was wrong. Looks like I picked one, eh.

It has the potential to replace wired ground based infrastructure. So could have a very significant impact in terms of cost and access.

From what I’ve read, millimetre wave 5G is pretty much LoS, roughly 500 metres, with very little penetration of solid structure, which I’d have thought would vastly increase wired ground-based infrastructure; otherwise, how are those very short-wave frequencies going to be transmitted?
I honestly can’t see 5G bringing any benefit to suburban or rural phone users - it took a considerable amount of time before 4G coverage came to Chippenham, and at least a year before the town got full coverage; even now coverage can be a bit spotty, and there are parts of the city of Bath, right in the centre, where there’s virtually no phone coverage, let alone 4G!
I can’t see there being 5G coverage of any significance for ten years or so.

and.. at least i've actually engaged in the subject being discussed rather than just misinterpretations of what other posters say.

The problem is, is that actual scientists have had enough of science walts pretending to science ever since idiots the world over brought us a spate of hilarious escapades such as the Wakefield scandal and climate change denial.

Don’t think Cougar directed that comment at you Dez, looked like the post above his

(could be rong obvz)

You are.

I never claimed STW knew better than scientists.

(Apologies in advance for slightly chippy content)

4G is saturated in a lot of places I frequent (London Waterloo, City of London). Often have to turn it off and go back to 3G.

And there we've hit it - (soz to the poster but, ...) as ever it's ****ing toss-arsed, shitting London !
So what if some other large town & cities can't even get reliable call coverage - some ****s in London need to stream Game of Thrones while they're ****ing in the tube station bogs.
Heathrow's really overcrowded so, I know, let's have another runway - the alternative's unthinkable, allowing peasants from the provinces to fly from a nearby airport with better road links? Madness!
Crossrail, HS2 - shove it up your arses, "Powerhouse", these are for London. Why would anyone want to travel from Sheffield to Manchester on a decent train service when they can come to London?

And there we’ve hit it – (soz to the poster but, …) as ever it’s **** toss-arsed, shitting London !

Talk about chips on shoulders, FFS. It's nothing whatsoever to do with London, and everything to do with capitalism. Why would you spend millions rolling out network coverage to a few country bumpkins whose combined phone subscriptions won't make a dent in the money they had to spend.

The thing you have to remember about London is that it's really big and full of rich people. Do the math, as they say. It's not personal.

Well, I did warn you 😉

You can't say it's nothing to do with London and then that I have to do the math (regarding why it's all about London - doesn't matter why, just that it is).

The more that government invests in London infrastructure (while doing so to a far lesser extent for other cities) the bigger and more overpowering it becomes in relation to the rest of the country. Same as with roads - widen them and they attract more traffic; build London a 5g network and then what? sit back and relax, knowing that it will never be overloaded or watch as every self-possessed tosser in the city streams their every waking moment to every other dozy chimp. Build a new runway at Heathrow and wonder why the M25 "needs" 2 more lanes.

[Meldrew out]

**** everything that actually grows we need to grow things that don't.

possessed tosser in the city streams their every waking moment to every other dozy chimp

Why would I stream my life to scousers?

‘Idiotology’
Is my new favourite word.