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.
“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.”
“[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.”
>The trouble with 5G is that it will be the final nail in the coffin of location privacy,
And yet it's first deployed set of standards that encrypts IMSI? (this is pushing Stingrays to obsolescence, Harris stopped making them) https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwide-digital-identity-an... < from one of the world's primary producers of SIM cards.
In a densified enough network (cities) the carrier knows where users are within a few meters by correlating timing advance from the towers. This is independent of any software installed on user equipment. mmwave spectrum in the most populated areas (stadiums/train stations) brings this to centimeter-level due to physics, but we're just splitting hairs. This should be a key area of focus on privacy legislation, on 'who' should be allowed to access this data (LEO with a warrant). Even if user device lacks the hardware, the network side can have hardware installed to measure precise location of user equipment
Other wireless technologies independent of the cellular network can be used for correlation and privacy relies on the device randomizing macaddr for beacons, both Bluetooth and WiFi. GNSS (except for Beidou, which is disabled in firmware in the US) are one-way comms unless the phone is snitching on you.
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.
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.
Add to this "smart" washing machines, fridges, dishwashers, air conditioners, irons, stoves, etc. and of course cars and TVs, all happily phoning home the user's personal data with their always on internal module that nobody can disable or filter, since they don't make use anymore of the user's home network.
I expect in a few years even shoes will connect somewhere while being powered and recharged by walking. And of course free gait analysis through internal pressure sensors and accelerometers, apps for running or dancing (turn on a IoT device by doing a tip-tap, find your ideal dancing partner, etc) will be the way manufacturers will sell them to the masses, at the price of more and more personal data being surrendered.
I don't care much about what people do with their privacy, that's their business, but how can I enter someone's house, shop or car knowing that there will be no less than a half dozen devices listening to my voice or shooting a picture of me without asking?
Note that I absolutely love the good that 5G and further technologies can bring. It's just some of their uses that concern me.
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.
Yeah, accurate positioning is the inevitable end result of massive-MIMO.
You need to know where the handset is to point the antenna beam towards it.
And it needs to update fast enough that it can be in a vehicle on the highway or a high speed train and still maintain connectivity.
The need to have more users on the same spevtrum requires sharper antenna beamwidths and smaller cells. All of which either require more precise positioning or make it possible.
All of this is linked with the technology used.
Sadly I only see legistlation limiting what can be collected and used being a counter for this getting exploited.
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.
I can't believe what I just read from Sabine. But then if she dont gets it. No wonder why 99% of HN still don't get 5G. Like I said in my HN bubbles post [1], which had lots of upvote but the only disagreement was on 5G.
5G isn't mmWave. mmWave isn't REAL 5G. This is the most common misconception on the internet inclusive but not limited to HN. AFAIK, till late 2021, no county other than USA has used or plan to use mmWave for their mobile network. The only usage outside of USA are for residential Wireless Internet. And those were on trial only.
Even the biggest proponent of mmWave, Verizon are backing off mmWave expansion.
5G has lots of things other than mmWave. As a matter of fact mmWave isn't even 1% of the initial 5G ( 3GPP R15 ) spec. And the same goes to 6G, which is NOT about higher frequency either. Another misconception is you need higher frequency for more bandwidth. Which is true in Shannon's law [2]. But we dont need more maximum bandwidth, we need higher capacity, or same bandwidth in ( e.g 1Gbps ) available to more people at the same time. i.e Network Capacity. And that, is what 5G ( Massive MIMO ) and 6G ( Distributed MIMO ) is about. ( Along with dozens of other things )
[2] I still remember my professor told me the exact same thing in the 90s when I was doing work on 3G. How we will soon reach those limit. So for people who has not worked in the Wireless / Mobile industry space. A lot of what we take for granted today were essentially miracle or black magic not that long ago.
I have to say I find that Sabine is more pondering to the nutjob crowd. I really enjoyed some of here posts with deep insights into quantum physics and cosmology, an area where she is a subject expert. Now she is posting on all sorts of topics, some of them where she clearly has very little background and limited understanding.
They also have this strongly science sceptic undertone. While I appreciate that an healthy amount of skepticism is a good thing, the undertones in her posts are much more of a general criticism of science/scientists without any actual arguments.
> As a matter of fact mmWave isn't even 1% of the initial 5G ( 3GPP R15 ) spec
What a silly argument. I'm sorry about nitpicking on one minor point of a long post, but percentage of the text of the standard is a rediculous thing to bring up and very irrelavent.
To name a few: Enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB), Ultra Reliable Low Latency Communications (URLLC), Massive Machine Type Communications (mMTC), massive MIMO (multiple-input, multiple-output), beam forming, etc.
mmWave is also deployed at least here in Japan since 2020. I have Galaxy Z Fold3 with mmWave (though I don't need), it seems that only US/JP models have mmWave antenna. It's natural to misunderstood as it's only in the US since iPhone supports mmWave only for the US IIRC. Where I could test it is only on mobile phone shop becaues I'm on local, and I got 2Gbps. No use case for now.
Small sample size, but I'm typing this on a Fold4 on a Verizon UW cell, inside a hotel in California. Admittedly I could probably hit the tower with a free hotel breakfast muffin thrown hard out the window.
Another data point: I speed tested at more than 3GBits down on UWB service on the street in Chicago.
If I'm buying into your line of reasoning, then you should concede that 5G is a terrible name for this suite of services as anyone who has home 5G wifi or understandably conflates 5G with mmWave would say that 5G is junk because it cannot penetrate walls (or glass).
Then you are not getting 5G. In FR1 (sub 6GHz), we are not going to get much advantage. In the end, there is a limit of data you can send per Hz. This is not increasing from 4G to 5G (yes, you can use higher coding mechanism, but that's only for short distance, otherwise noise impact negates all advantages). To get the higher bandwidth as predicted and expected, industry has to move to FR2 (24GHz+/mmWave, I don't want to go into the discussions that mmWave starts at later band, the difference is statistical error).
To support mmWave, standards bodies defined new standards/adopted technologies like beam forming, higher matrix antennas etc. And thats really a difference in 5G from 4G standards releases (along with cloud native core network with more simplistic IP routing and use of polar codes for control plane). In 6G, we are going to see Tera Hz band allocated for mobile network.
Saying mmWave is not 5G is not accurate. You would not have needed 1000s of pages of standards for FR1, with little enhancement, LTE would have supported.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
> 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.
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.
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:
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.
I remember doing the same thing (minus one) during the 4G/LTE transition. I forced 3G for several years for better battery life and more reliable signal.
A trouble with 5G that nobody has mentioned in the comments is that we'll be redeploying hundred of millions of new devices, which has a significant cost on the environment for very little benefits.
Posts like this remind me most of HN just likes to hear itself talk. Health conspiracy, incorrect information, linking posts to incorrect information...
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.
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.
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
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?
For those of you that have migrated to 5G, have you found it useful? Do you feel bandwidth limited by 4G? Do you run into oversubscribed areas where you don't also have WiFi as an alternative?
My biggest hurdle, has always been access in remote areas, not bandwidth.
This post was near the top of page one, a few minutes ago, now it's page 3 or 4. If you think this article, by a renowned scientist is wrong, or misinformation then the way to deal with that is to address it and explain why. Not bury it.
There's no trouble, just purchase one of my patented tin foil helmets to prevent the transmitter that was installed during your covid vaccination to prevent it from reporting your thoughts to The Agency
[+] [-] Lammy|3 years ago|reply
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.”
[+] [-] joecool1029|3 years ago|reply
And yet it's first deployed set of standards that encrypts IMSI? (this is pushing Stingrays to obsolescence, Harris stopped making them) https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwide-digital-identity-an... < from one of the world's primary producers of SIM cards.
In a densified enough network (cities) the carrier knows where users are within a few meters by correlating timing advance from the towers. This is independent of any software installed on user equipment. mmwave spectrum in the most populated areas (stadiums/train stations) brings this to centimeter-level due to physics, but we're just splitting hairs. This should be a key area of focus on privacy legislation, on 'who' should be allowed to access this data (LEO with a warrant). Even if user device lacks the hardware, the network side can have hardware installed to measure precise location of user equipment
Other wireless technologies independent of the cellular network can be used for correlation and privacy relies on the device randomizing macaddr for beacons, both Bluetooth and WiFi. GNSS (except for Beidou, which is disabled in firmware in the US) are one-way comms unless the phone is snitching on you.
[+] [-] ok_dad|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] diebeforei485|3 years ago|reply
For very privacy-conscious users, you can always turn off UWB.
[+] [-] squarefoot|3 years ago|reply
I expect in a few years even shoes will connect somewhere while being powered and recharged by walking. And of course free gait analysis through internal pressure sensors and accelerometers, apps for running or dancing (turn on a IoT device by doing a tip-tap, find your ideal dancing partner, etc) will be the way manufacturers will sell them to the masses, at the price of more and more personal data being surrendered.
I don't care much about what people do with their privacy, that's their business, but how can I enter someone's house, shop or car knowing that there will be no less than a half dozen devices listening to my voice or shooting a picture of me without asking?
Note that I absolutely love the good that 5G and further technologies can bring. It's just some of their uses that concern me.
[+] [-] TheLoafOfBread|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RF_Savage|3 years ago|reply
And it needs to update fast enough that it can be in a vehicle on the highway or a high speed train and still maintain connectivity.
The need to have more users on the same spevtrum requires sharper antenna beamwidths and smaller cells. All of which either require more precise positioning or make it possible.
All of this is linked with the technology used. Sadly I only see legistlation limiting what can be collected and used being a counter for this getting exploited.
[+] [-] clairity|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ksec|3 years ago|reply
5G isn't mmWave. mmWave isn't REAL 5G. This is the most common misconception on the internet inclusive but not limited to HN. AFAIK, till late 2021, no county other than USA has used or plan to use mmWave for their mobile network. The only usage outside of USA are for residential Wireless Internet. And those were on trial only.
Even the biggest proponent of mmWave, Verizon are backing off mmWave expansion.
5G has lots of things other than mmWave. As a matter of fact mmWave isn't even 1% of the initial 5G ( 3GPP R15 ) spec. And the same goes to 6G, which is NOT about higher frequency either. Another misconception is you need higher frequency for more bandwidth. Which is true in Shannon's law [2]. But we dont need more maximum bandwidth, we need higher capacity, or same bandwidth in ( e.g 1Gbps ) available to more people at the same time. i.e Network Capacity. And that, is what 5G ( Massive MIMO ) and 6G ( Distributed MIMO ) is about. ( Along with dozens of other things )
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32635268
[2] I still remember my professor told me the exact same thing in the 90s when I was doing work on 3G. How we will soon reach those limit. So for people who has not worked in the Wireless / Mobile industry space. A lot of what we take for granted today were essentially miracle or black magic not that long ago.
[+] [-] cycomanic|3 years ago|reply
They also have this strongly science sceptic undertone. While I appreciate that an healthy amount of skepticism is a good thing, the undertones in her posts are much more of a general criticism of science/scientists without any actual arguments.
[+] [-] bawolff|3 years ago|reply
What a silly argument. I'm sorry about nitpicking on one minor point of a long post, but percentage of the text of the standard is a rediculous thing to bring up and very irrelavent.
[+] [-] simonebrunozzi|3 years ago|reply
> ( Along with dozens of other things )
To name a few: Enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB), Ultra Reliable Low Latency Communications (URLLC), Massive Machine Type Communications (mMTC), massive MIMO (multiple-input, multiple-output), beam forming, etc.
[+] [-] fomine3|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dboreham|3 years ago|reply
Another data point: I speed tested at more than 3GBits down on UWB service on the street in Chicago.
[+] [-] funstuff007|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Ballu|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] silisili|3 years ago|reply
It has no reach. It's for high density applications, which seems like a good idea, but is probably already covered adequately by wifi.
[+] [-] FollowingTheDao|3 years ago|reply
So why is my meter picking up signals up to 40 GHz from the towers in my small tourist town?
[+] [-] Animats|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] catlifeonmars|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] everdrive|3 years ago|reply
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|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Seattle3503|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] ec109685|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] simplyaccont|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] secondcoming|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peteradio|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nayuki|3 years ago|reply
> 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 1000×.
[+] [-] Georgelemental|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] johnklos|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] guerby|3 years ago|reply
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
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
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.
[+] [-] jc_811|3 years ago|reply
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|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aftbit|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] darksaints|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yodsanklai|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notananthem|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] snthd|3 years ago|reply
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_radar
[+] [-] zzzeek|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kriro|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xphos|3 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] ofou|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tolmasky|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mey|3 years ago|reply
My biggest hurdle, has always been access in remote areas, not bandwidth.
[+] [-] walterbell|3 years ago|reply
Previously, all USA 5G-enabled iPhones included support for mmWave.
[+] [-] mikotodomo|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Beltiras|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] irthomasthomas|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] temp0826|3 years ago|reply