>towers have a range of about 1,000 feet (for comparison, a 3G signal can travel about 30 miles and a 4G signal can travel about 10. 5G towers are basically outdoor WiFi routers)
>going to be expensive as hell considering how many towers need to be planted. you'll probably need about 3 or 4 towers per block considering how weak the signal is.
>signal regularly gets BTFO by trees, hedges, shrubs, certain types of fences, rain and bushes. if you want to use your phone indoors, you have to open a window and stand near it.
>phones that actually support 5G are few and the few that exist are significantly more expensive than the 4G variants as well
>carriers are probably just going to throttle you back down to 4G speeds anyway while making you pay 5G prices (and 4G speeds will also be throttled down to make you pay for 5G plans)
>may or may not cause cancer. test results are largely few and inconclusive. who knows? who cares? guess we'll just have to find out
>environmental impact uncertain. proven to kill birds and mice.
>grants you the amazing ability to reach your data cap faster
>all this for tiny, negligible benefits like slightly faster speeds and larger bandwidth
is 5G even worth it at all?
Towers have a range of about 1,000 feet (for comparison...
Other urls found in this thread:
snopes.com
twitter.com
>proven to kill birds and mice
Worth it just for this
>phones that actually support 5G are few and the few that exist are significantly more expensive than the 4G variants as well
not an argument as it's always the case when a new tech is released
>carriers are probably just going to throttle you back down to 4G speeds anyway while making you pay 5G prices (and 4G speeds will also be throttled down to make you pay for 5G plans)
cellular broadband is a scam since day one
>is 5G even worth it at all?
It will be a nightmare for net admins, I already know some people getting pissed and wanting to leave ISPs just to not be part of the incoming disaster.
I personally don't want fiber deployment to suffer from 5G fuckeries.
We need 5G for self driving trucks and cars.
If u dont like it go buy a bike u fookin loser lmao
>botnet
>expensive as hell
>employers are only going to expect you to get more work done on the commute to and from work
>not actually safer or more efficient unless every car on the road is self-driving (so that they can create a network and talk to each other, thus choreographing traffic more tightly than stoplights ever could and reducing collisions to zero)
>big brother could just pull your car over or repossess it whenever they see fit without your consent
are self-driving cars even worth it at all?
yes
>employers are only going to expect you to get more work done on the commute to and from work
American dream
given how it kills small animals
I'm not touching it
or going near it
you really don't
quantum communication is already used in military applications in china and russia.
also why would you want mircowaves anywhere near you lol
post the kids dying from 5g radiation
imagine sex in a car
ok now imagine sex in a moving car
ok now imagine sex in a moving car except no one's driving.
what a rush
Post yfw you realize this is actually an electromagnetic force field designed for population control and fertility impairment
Brb innawoods
Health hazard
Where's my bike
imagine you balls falling off during sex in a car because of the testicular cancer caused by your 5G phone frying your balls
>nb4 it only works on populations with an already failing fertility (Whites)
>tfw we'll be hosting mobile servers driving from a to b
Cyber server trucks are the future
What a cohencidence indeed heh
5g puts out less radiation than a human. You get thousands of times larger dose from being on public transit than 5g
himan don't kill animals by transmitting but your phone does when it has 5g.
think about that.
if it was so harmless then why is it killing small animals?
>himan
human
fucking lewd computer auto correct lol
>towers have a range of about 1,000 feet
5G uses many frequencies. Some of them have the same range as 4G, and some of them have much less. The exciting new high-frequency bands are the short-range ones, but 5G can still do long-range with less throughput (though still a bit better than 4G at the same range)
>going to be expensive as hell
A typical 5G deployment is about the same as a 4G deployment, plus extra cells anywhere where congestion is a problem.
You seem to think 5G refers to some particular frequency band, like 5GHz WiFi vs 2.4GHz WiFi. That's not the case at all. 5G refers to an assortment of different bands, protocols, and modulations that have different properties and benefits, just like 4G. While everyone talks about the big new features of 5G (microcells and HF bands) and their properties, 5G is more than that and still has pretty much all the same capabilities as 4G. The point is to have normal 4G-style coverage using the typical bands with long-range characteristics, and then set up short-range high-throughput cells in heavily trafficked areas to get a chunk of people off of the long-range spectrum, freeing up long-range bandwidth for people not close enough to the short-range cells.
tl;dr: The primary benefit of short-range high-throughput 5G cells is to get a chunk of people off the more typical long-range medium-throughput spectrum so it doesn't choke up and slow everyone down like it does now in big cities. And it does a good job at that.
Hmmm, so something that outputs more radiation than 5g doesn't harm anything with the radiation.
Really makes you think.
You forgot:
>turns imprecise cellular tracking to inch-precise realtime tracking
Consumers are such morons, imagine relying on this garbage technology and allowing this to happen
no,right now 4G is fast enough ,some 4G connection are even faster than cable Internet,5G is a waste of resources right now maybe it will be useful in the future when more bandwidth will be necessary.
No?
Ever notice how LTE will clog up when there are many people in an area? That's because there is only so much bandwidth that can be used in a specific area.
5G just adds a bunch of short range channels so that areas with a high concentration of people won't use up all the long range channels.
>but I need to be able to stream the latest Gay of Homoes episode in 4K 60Hz quality on my commute
>Believing snopes in the year of our lord 2019
On the bright side I am about to launch my aluminum foil infused clothing line to protect you from the incoming rays.
it's a fucking waste explaining shit to you people, but here we go.
if you live outside the city, you'll most likely only have a macrocell with fiberoptic uplink, 10-100Gbit bandwith. you'll have to share that bandwidth with couple hundred, or even couple thousand, people.
if you live in a city, you'll probably be under a microcell with worse uplink - 10-20 Gbit (because telcos can't just bury fat trunklines everywhere), but due to higher population density you'll still share it with 50-100 people.
in the city you're also more likely to have QoS hogs, that get preferred treatment (gubmint, mission-criticals, etc)
5g coverages are natural evolution of microcell trend: you'll have pico- or femto-cells everywhere, with ~10gbit uplink (fiber, microwaves, copper - depends), but they're only gonna serve like a dozen people at most and as you move, the handovers will probably be negligent since architecure is meant to be "cell-less" (the small-cells will be connected to a big datacenter nearby and will be treated as one giant cell with giant bandwidth).
the goal of 5g is "1000x", 1000x current bandwidth, 1000x smaller latencies and so on. most likely those goals won't be met, but even reaching 100x would be awesome.
moreover what currently exist is _only_ 5g new radio - just the phy implementation. there is no infrastructure saturation in place to actually have those 1000x (or even 100x) speeds. to have even modest speed gains from new radio is a huge win already, because it means that at least that part of the plan worked.
you never get full promised speeds at the introduction of new tech, don't be stupid. but if thing go right, you'll have your sustainable 1-10 gbit cat videos eventually.
but, what about the cancer tho?
dude, you don't know shit.
actually, you don't know how bad things really are jpg.
the cell you are currently connecting to has to know precisely how far your user equipment is from it, to calculate proper timing advance. this has to be done in real-time, because as you move around, the frequency you use shifts (doppler), or you start missing the resource blocks assigned to you (speed fo light, you're just too far to get them at approved time).
thus, when at least three base stations measure where you are, they get your location in centimeter range, real-time. this is in 3gpp specs and is used always when law enforcement tells the telco to do so.
however this isn't needed day to day, since people have gps in their phone.
what's more, the 3gpp specs _force_ every implementation of lte base station to allow law enforcement full access to any (meta) data that goes through such base station. this is Lawful Intercept and existed in some form since 2G.
there are efforts (ETSI) to standardize a platform called MEC, which allows any client approved by telco to _tap into user-plane traffic from a specific base station_. this would normally be used to, for example, cache popular cat videos near network edge instead of everything going to youtube.
but this can also be trivially used by law enforcement to setup their own app for catching all user data from specific phones.
tl;dr: the only thing worse for privacy could be standardization of MEC platform alongside 5G spec.
5g is going to be orwellian nightmare, but don't worry, because 4g already is orwellian nightmare. i don't have an active sim card any more. smartphone + vpn + public/work wifi is more than enough for me.
>environmental impact uncertain. proven to kill birds and mice.
What the fuck
oh shit, forgot about nationalization.
basically every govenrment that counts currently shills real hard for treating radio access network infrastructure as public utility.
trump, eu, smaller tyrants - all of them.
this woould of course mean that _EVERY_ base station would belong to the gubmint and telcos would just rent them.
5g also helps with that goal becasue of virtualization, slicing and so on.
yeah, don't own a phone.
snopes has a clear ulterior motive that is backed up by the fact that their site design has devolved over the years to hide edits, revisions, and general accountability for the things that they have said in the past that were false
if they were a fact checking organization with an emphasis on truth, they wouldn't have gotten rid of all of that stuff and would be providing it gladly
>i don't have an active sim card any more
SIM card is only used to authenticate to networks, though, nothing is stopping the baseband from broadcasting and receiving. In fact, in most countries you can dial 911 or equivalent without a SIM. How? Well, the baseband broadcasts and carriers are required to receive and forward the emergency signal.
>Gay of Homoes
4/10
No it isn't
>YOU NEED FASTER SPEED! FOR...THINGS! WE PROMISE
>don't worry we will still keep your data cap the same if not bump it a little more
t..thanks
ionizing radiations?
true.
my setup is: lineage, modem partition zeroed, flight mode always on, bluetooth always off, wifi enabled when needed, vpn always on.
if you have a quallcomm chip in your phone, the communication processor controls the application processor. it runs l4-based rtos, has access to all the hardware, including direct access to nand. it can do anything. it's even worse than intel management engine.
tinfoil time: supposedly even in flight mode qualcomms are doing some passive things to gather network measurements (this is allowed imho, fcc only checks for em emissions). so for example could process some out-of-band signalling to disable flight mode. i don't know any specs allowing such a thing, but proprietary hardware can do a lot of shady shit.
both bluetooth and wifi have their own firmware which does fuck knows what, but it can hardly be worked around if you want it working.
android bypasses vpn under some circumstances, for example if you need to work with captive portals.
you can't be 100% safe, you can only have smaller attack surface. that's what i try to do.
in my country the ruling party recently introduced a law that every sim card has to be activated and tied to national identity number.
some time later there were protests against some other stupid gubmint legislation. tens of thousands of people gathered, almost all of them with cell phones.
poor dumb fucks.
afterwards some activists supposedly gained a three-letter agency tail.