5G…. What do you think?

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 57 total)
  • 5G…. What do you think?
  • aphex_2k
    Member

    Seeing the level of concern people have with the rollout of 5G. Didn’t we have the same level of hysteria when mobile phones came out? That we’d all end up with brain cancer etc? It seems like 5G is coming regardless. So what’s the thoughts of my learned STW comrades? Scared, or embracing? Part of me thinks hmm…. yay for more speed, more data, lower latency yadda yadda. But another part me thinks “maybe they’re right??”. I just don’t know. And I suppose no-one will really know until 4/5/6 years down the line, and by then, is it too late?

    Premier Icon Del
    Subscriber

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

    scuttler
    Member

    Holding out for 6G personally.

    Premier Icon bikebouy
    Subscriber

    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.. 🤷‍♂️

    Premier Icon tintim
    Subscriber

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

    scruff9252
    Member

    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.

    Premier Icon somafunk
    Subscriber

    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.

    aphex_2k
    Member

    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

    chewkw
    Member

    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 …”

    Premier Icon DezB
    Subscriber

    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.

    Premier Icon bikebouy
    Subscriber

    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.

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

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

    scud
    Member

    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.

    aphex_2k
    Member

    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.

    Premier Icon bikebouy
    Subscriber

    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??

    Premier Icon DezB
    Subscriber

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

    Hm.. so all radiation is harmless?

    aphex_2k
    Member

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

    aphex_2k
    Member

    so all some radiation is harmless?

    Premier Icon DezB
    Subscriber

    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.

    Premier Icon dissonance
    Subscriber

    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.

    andrewh
    Member

    Dunno, still waiting for 3 here…

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    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.

    Premier Icon bikebouy
    Subscriber

    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.

    Premier Icon jimdubleyou
    Subscriber

    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.

    Premier Icon chakaping
    Subscriber

    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?

    Premier Icon cookeaa
    Subscriber

    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…

    Premier Icon Del
    Subscriber

    That could be the radiation. Makes you think…

    Premier Icon dissonance
    Subscriber

    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.

    Premier Icon DezB
    Subscriber

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

    Shitloads, it seems.
    See my “No research” link above.

    Premier Icon dissonance
    Subscriber

    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.

    Premier Icon welshfarmer
    Subscriber

    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 🙁

    Premier Icon richmtb
    Subscriber

    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

    Premier Icon bikebouy
    Subscriber

    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 🤣

    Ewan
    Member

    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!)

    plus one
    Member

    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 **** 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!

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 57 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.