5G, who cares with bandwidth limitations?

L

lightsout

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
Messages
1,211
The customer always is the one to lose out. As soon as things start looking up and providers start offering unlimited again, they all gimp the speeds, some terribly low like 2-3 mbps.

I had to upgrade my VZW plan to the second tier to go from 2mbps to 4mbps while watching video (2 wasn't enough in the area of my commute.)

As great as it looks to hit gigabit speeds on a phone, if they are just going to gimp all the speeds who really cares?

Anyone read anything addressing this?
 
Sprint requires you to go to their highest end plan if you want 5G (you can probably expect the same from others... at least initially).
 
I too never asked for 5G nor do I need it. And I likewise regard those 5G frequencies and close proximity of the towers to be a health hazard.

This excerpt from within the article behind Zorachus' second link drew my attention.

"Until now, mobile broadband networks have been designed to meet the needs of people. But 5G has been created with machines’ needs in mind....
...we humans won’t notice the difference, but it will permit machines to achieve near-seamless communication. Which in itself may open a whole Pandora’s box of trouble for us..."
 
Last edited:
Instead of focusing on speed, they should focus on reliability and signal strength. It's insane how poor signal quality can be if you aren't on a Freeway with a cell tower in line of sight...

You don't need much bandwidth to stream 1080p, which 4G is capable of, yet can't because the infrastructure can't sustain it. Not to mention the data caps prevent it too.

5G is just a bullet point for marketing. "Hey look at us, we got the best 5G network, buy our crap".
 
Last edited:
To answer the OP, no one should care, the roll out of 5g doesn't even meet 5g requirements. This is akin to the release of "4G" or how it was later referred to as LTE and we have had no REAL limitations on that. Congestion related issues aren't an issue of the wireless standard and the new quasi 5g won't fix that.

Where 5g excels is in other areas not related to cell phones, having this much bandwidth does a normal consumer no good.
 
Zorachus said:
5G, I don't even want it, never asked for it, don't care to have it. Why do I care if my app downloads on my cellphone is a few seconds quicker, than compared to LTE?

Especially with the health hazards it supposedly does to humans, Tons of articles on the dangers that 5g may pose

https://www.radiationhealthrisks.com/5g-radiation-dangers/

https://eluxemagazine.com/magazine/dangers-of-5g/
Click to expand...
https://hardforum.com/threads/need-some-piece-of-mind-about-a-5g-router.1982278/#post-1044214428
 
Supersnake said:
I too never asked for 5G nor do I need it. And I likewise regard those 5G frequencies and close proximity of the towers to be a health hazard.

This excerpt from within the article behind Zorachus' second link drew my attention.

"Until now, mobile broadband networks have been designed to meet the needs of people. But 5G has been created with machines’ needs in mind....
...we humans won’t notice the difference, but it will permit machines to achieve near-seamless communication. Which in itself may open a whole Pandora’s box of trouble for us..."
Click to expand...
This seems about right.
 
My home has energy efficient windows and other stuff that block WiFi and mobile phone networks really efficiently (>800 MHz). Thanks to VoWiFi it's not a problem (if I would switch operator things would improve though). 5G wouldn't work for sure. Not that I need it anyway... (1 Gigabit connection for 29,90 €/month). On the go 4G speeds are just fine. I wouldn't mind better latency though LTE is quite decent already.
 
Zorachus said:
5G, I don't even want it, never asked for it, don't care to have it. Why do I care if my app downloads on my cellphone is a few seconds quicker, than compared to LTE?

Especially with the health hazards it supposedly does to humans, Tons of articles on the dangers that 5g may pose

https://www.radiationhealthrisks.com/5g-radiation-dangers/

https://eluxemagazine.com/magazine/dangers-of-5g/
Click to expand...

Please stop with the posting of this crap.

This line "the higher the frequency, the more dangerous it is to us” is a half-truth meant to manipulate, not to inform.

YES, higher frequencies are more dangerous, but we're talking about the frequency of The Sun, which starts at 100 TERAHERTZ. The frequencies don't get to be IONIZING until you hit that point!

Learn the fucking difference here:

https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/ionizing_radiation.html

Electromagnetic_Spectrum.jpg


25 GIGAHERTZ (5G millimeter wave ranges) IS NOWHERE NEAR THAT RANGE, and is thus in the range of non-ionizing radiation. There are no unbiased studies ever published that show increases in cancer due to non-ionizing radiation. Stop peddling this unsubstantiated horseshit written by people who love infecting the populace with fear and uncertainty.

Here's the WHO shooting down your second bullshit article:

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-...gnetic-fields-and-public-health-mobile-phones

A large number of studies have been performed over the last two decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use.
Click to expand...


Unill you hit the ionizing threshold, each higher frequency is no more dangerous than the last one. There's a big difference between "being concerned enough to regularly run studies and check results" (what WHO does) and "assuming that because the WHO runs studies, there must be incredible risks!" without any cited proof (what your second link is basically saying)
 
Last edited:
lightsout said:
Anyone read anything addressing this?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure that was an integral part of the business case:

Provide faster internet, making it easier to hit data caps, reap more profit on data cap overruns and terribly overpriced data plans
 
Brian_B said:
Pretty sure that was an integral part of the business case:

Provide faster internet, making it easier to hit data caps, reap more profit on data cap overruns and terribly overpriced data plans
Click to expand...
Lol sounds about right.
 
defaultluser said:
Please stop with the posting of this crap.

This line "the higher the frequency, the more dangerous it is to us” is a half-truth meant to manipulate, not to inform.

YES, higher frequencies are more dangerous, but we're talking about the frequency of The Sun, which starts at 100 TERAHERTZ. The frequencies don't get to be IONIZING until you hit that point!

Learn the fucking difference here:

https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/ionizing_radiation.html

View attachment 168275

25 GIGAHERTZ (5G millimeter wave ranges) IS NOWHERE NEAR THAT RANGE, and is thus in the range of non-ionizing radiation. There are no unbiased studies ever published that show increases in cancer due to non-ionizing radiation. Stop peddling this unsubstantiated horseshit written by people who love infecting the populace with fear and uncertainty.

Here's the WHO shooting down your second bullshit article:

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-...gnetic-fields-and-public-health-mobile-phones




Unill you hit the ionizing threshold, each higher frequency is no more dangerous than the last one. There's a big difference between "being concerned enough to regularly run studies and check results" (what WHO does) and "assuming that because the WHO runs studies, there must be incredible risks!" without any cited proof (what your second link is basically saying)
Click to expand...

But there was an article on the internet that told me to be afraidz!

5G is a plot from the lizard people to give me vaccines.
 
Its important to also realize, that just because a frequency exists doesn't mean its in a state that will readily harm a person. The power out is a big requirement, typically you wouldn't want to stand next to a 25,000 volt emitter, but one that works on 5v's won't hurt you, even if you hug it.

Just like nuclear material, you can hold most of it without ever receiving anything harmful from it, but if it ever goes critical (power output grows rapidly) you will die.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Farva
like this
Living in a mountainous area with Verizon, I can drive 5 minutes and be in an area with no coverage (or emergency coverage only through another carrier). 5g in cities won't do anything to change that... If the spacex internet isn't vaporware that would be much more of a game changer to me.
 
Zorachus said:
5G, I don't even want it, never asked for it, don't care to have it. Why do I care if my app downloads on my cellphone is a few seconds quicker, than compared to LTE?

Especially with the health hazards it supposedly does to humans, Tons of articles on the dangers that 5g may pose

https://www.radiationhealthrisks.com/5g-radiation-dangers/

https://eluxemagazine.com/magazine/dangers-of-5g/
Click to expand...

... LMAO.

Another poster has fully dragged you for this, but please go back under your rock.
 
I'm more worried about chewing through my data limit and getting throttled 20x faster than my current usage of 4G LTE...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top