Verizon can't cover a basketball stadium with 5G

[bcredeur97]

it might as well be Wi-Fi geez

[dalekphalm]

14 hours ago, Bacon soup said:

I'll have some season tickets in the cancer zone please.

Radio is non-ionizing radiation. Non-ionizing radiation doesn't cause cancer.

14 hours ago, Bacon soup said:

did you see the study from japan that tested sperm count under multiple 2.4GHz sources? Dont put your phone in your pants pocket without airplane mode lads.

So does putting your laptop on your lap. Or standing too close to a space heater. Or turning on a car seat warmer. Or putting your phone in your pocket (it's the heat, not the radio, that causes issues).

 

And it's all short term issues with no long term side effects. Move the heat away, let your balls cool back down, and your sperm count goes back up.

14 hours ago, leadeater said:

You shouldn't do that not because RF but because of heat, the same thing happens if you use a hot laptop actually on your lap too long/often. Roasted nuts don't grow 

This.

10 hours ago, RejZoR said:

5G is the dumbest, most worthless standard I've seen in ages. I'm already having problems using 5GHz WiFi inside single house and these idiots are trying to apply similar shitty range tech to outdoors. Good luck retards. It was destined to fail even before it even really took off. The fact you need so many base stations makes absolutely no sense. I mean littering locations with hundreds of transmitters in space of few 100m2 is just ridiculous.

You're confusing things, I think.

 

First - and I know you've already touched on this a bit, but just to make sure everyone is clear - 5G and 5GHz have literally nothing to do with each other, outside of the fact that both use radio waves of some description.

 

5G stands for 5th Generation. 5 GHz stands for WIFI that operates in the 5 GHz frequency band.

 

5G itself has multiple substandards, as mentioned before. 5G NR is actually just a straight up improvement over 4G/LTE, with similar range as 4G/LTE but with better speeds and some other improvements. The speed increases, however, are not amazing, since we're dealing with physical radio limitations.

 

5G millimeter band is the one that uses ultra high frequencies to push much more massive speeds - and as we know, the downside is penetration, and to a lesser degree, range.

 

TL;DR, 5G doesn't suck. It's not pointless. But it's also not going to revolutionize the world. Most problems with 5G are two-fold: people deploying the wrong frequency in the wrong scenario, or there simply not being enough transmitters installed yet.

 

Both are easily solvable, and most of the problems are the latter, which will get much better over time.

[Brooksie359]

7 hours ago, TechyBen said:

Temp. It's literally temp and airflow. Put anything in your pants is bad for sperm count... actually, even pants are bad for...

Hotubs are bad as well. My parents had tried to have kids for the longest time and then gave up. My dad stopped going into hotubs as much and bam started having kids. 

[Brooksie359]

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

What are you talking about? A few countries have implemented it successfully so far.

I wouldn't say needing a massive amount of stations and power is considered successful. 5G is just dumb in my opinion because it is such a waste of resources. 

[RejZoR]

@dalekphalm

Like I've said to someone else, I never stated it's the same. What I did state is that they are both equally as useless because of garbage penetration and range. I have one of most expensive routers from its era and I can't get reliable 5GHz signal frigging 2 rooms and 1 floor away. Using it outside of house is basically impossibility. 5G is the same in terms of being shit. From what I've seen so far, it's even worse. For WiFi you sort of understand limited range since access point is 1 and is fixed. Base stations are all over the place and you expect mobility. And it falls flat even there since coverage is garbage as you need hundreds of base stations in small zones to even do anything with it. So, that is what I said.

[dalekphalm]

8 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

@dalekphalm

Like I've said to someone else, I never stated it's the same. What I did state is that they are both equally as useless because of garbage penetration and range. I have one of most expensive routers from its era and I can't get reliable 5GHz signal frigging 2 rooms and 1 floor away. Using it outside of house is basically impossibility. 5G is the same in terms of being shit. From what I've seen so far, it's even worse. For WiFi you sort of understand limited range since access point is 1 and is fixed. Base stations are all over the place and you expect mobility. And it falls flat even there since coverage is garbage as you need hundreds of base stations in small zones to even do anything with it. So, that is what I said.

WIFI congestion is exactly the same thing. You can't just replace 5G with a small number of AP's and expect it to be better.

 

5G isn't shit. Though some companies may be installing it incorrectly, or with spotty coverage.

 

For the super fast speeds, you need a lot of base stations. This was always known, and is a physics limitation trade-off between speed and frequency.

[leadeater]

11 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

@dalekphalm

Like I've said to someone else, I never stated it's the same. What I did state is that they are both equally as useless because of garbage penetration and range. I have one of most expensive routers from its era and I can't get reliable 5GHz signal frigging 2 rooms and 1 floor away. Using it outside of house is basically impossibility. 5G is the same in terms of being shit. From what I've seen so far, it's even worse. For WiFi you sort of understand limited range since access point is 1 and is fixed. Base stations are all over the place and you expect mobility. And it falls flat even there since coverage is garbage as you need hundreds of base stations in small zones to even do anything with it. So, that is what I said.

But you don't have to deploy 5G ultra high frequency at all, you can completely skip that and just deploy 5G towers with all the technology advancements in the standard radio bands and get much better per client bandwidth and more clients per tower.

 

5G is not just ultra high frequency, it's part of not all of.

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, RejZoR said:

It's a stupid network that is nerfed by physics. It's literally that simple.

So your just going to ignore the people who independently tested the 5g network and said it worked? 

I know you like to stick hard to your preconceptions, but this is one that is has several working examples.  Not to mention many customers (more than half a million in Sth Korea).

2 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

I wouldn't say needing a massive amount of stations and power is considered successful. 5G is just dumb in my opinion because it is such a waste of resources. 

It's successful because it is working and doing what it is intended to do.  Sure it's no where near polished as 4G is, but it was only turned on this year and is absolutely bleeding edge radio technology.  

 

 

Sorry to all those who want to hate, but the reality is this tech has a very good chance of working (assuming the company that rolls it out does so properly), initial trials have been successful, coverage is growing, network congestion issues are bei9ng resolved and fine tuning is occurring.  It is by no means a dead technology that can't work and anyone who thinks that it is  is ignoring the information we have on it and being purposefully ignorant.

 

 

 

[RejZoR]

Just because "it works" it doesn't mean it's good. That's like saying, Ferrari is a very fast car, it must be great for offroad hill climbing then...

[dalekphalm]

Just now, RejZoR said:

Just because "it works" it doesn't mean it's good. That's like saying, Ferrari is a very fast car, it must be great for offroad hill climbing then...

Yeah but nobody is trying to say that Ferrari's should be good at hill climbing except you.

 

You use the right tool for the right job.

 

For dense high speed applications, you can use Millimeter Band 5G, which has very significant speed increases over 4G, but requires a large increase in the number of Base Stations per square km.

 

For physically long distance applications - or areas where extreme speed increases are not warranted, you use 5G NR - which is basically just 4G, but better. It does not have the penetration issues of 5 GHz WIFI, since 5G NR does not operate at frequencies even approaching 5 GHz (the highest listed is... band n79 at 4.7 GHz).

 

The vast majority of 5G NR implementations use existing 4G/LTE frequency bands in the 700 to 2100 MHz range.

 

What's the problem?

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Just because "it works" it doesn't mean it's good. That's like saying, Ferrari is a very fast car, it must be great for offroad hill climbing then...

This just proves you want to remain willingly ignorant to the how the tech works or why it would be used.  

 

Your analogy would only work if people were arguing 5g is great for things it wasn't designed for.    You however are trying to argue it's not great for anything even though we have working examples. 

[kpluck]

17 hours ago, Bacon soup said:

did you see the study from japan that tested sperm count under multiple 2.4GHz sources? Dont put your phone in your pants pocket without airplane mode lads.

Link?

 

-kp

[Bacon soup]

4 minutes ago, kpluck said:

Link?

 

-kp

you are the second person to ask that. Sorry I dont have a link. It was in the media earlier this year.

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, Bacon soup said:

you are the second person to ask that. Sorry I dont have a link. It was in the media earlier this year.

You should look up the link then and post it. Otherwise we will discount the claim as unsubstantiated, or correlation only (not causation).

[Bacon soup]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

You should look up the link then and post it. Otherwise we will discount the claim as unsubstantiated, or correlation only (not causation).

ok go ahead and do that.

[dalekphalm]

Just now, Bacon soup said:

ok go ahead and do that.

Will do. As previously noted, non-ionizing radiation doesn't cause cancer (of which, Radio waves are).

 

And there's already a known process in which heat will cause sperm counts to drop (since they are very temperature sensitive) - this is an environmental response, and as soon as the environmental factor is gone (excess heat), sperm counts return to normal.

 

There's no risk of cancer in such a scenario - and it's not even "unhealthy" unless you're actively trying to procreate - and it literally only takes hours before the sperm count starts to return to normal.

 

So yeah. Not a problem. And no cancer either.

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

So your just going to ignore the people who independently tested the 5g network and said it worked? 

I know you like to stick hard to your preconceptions, but this is one that is has several working examples.  Not to mention many customers (more than half a million in Sth Korea).

It's successful because it is working and doing what it is intended to do.  Sure it's no where near polished as 4G is, but it was only turned on this year and is absolutely bleeding edge radio technology.  

 

 

Sorry to all those who want to hate, but the reality is this tech has a very good chance of working (assuming the company that rolls it out does so properly), initial trials have been successful, coverage is growing, network congestion issues are bei9ng resolved and fine tuning is occurring.  It is by no means a dead technology that can't work and anyone who thinks that it is  is ignoring the information we have on it and being purposefully ignorant.

 

 

 

I'm sorry but nobody is going to convince me 5g is worth it. It is an incredibly wasteful technology in terms of space and power usage. I mean does it work? Yeah but the cost is too high imo. 

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

For dense high speed applications, you can use Millimeter Band 5G, which has very significant speed increases over 4G, but requires a large increase in the number of Base Stations per square km.

And even then the deployment density isn't any different to enterprise wireless APs, 5G in a way is trying to step in to where traditionally you would use wifi not cellular. Ideally you would deploy dual stack access points that have wifi and 5G capability and then form a partnership with a telecommunication company to peer with them so you have full coverage of both technologies and can offer excellent service to corporate devices, personal employee devices and guest devices. 

[Blademaster91]

33 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

I'm sorry but nobody is going to convince me 5g is worth it. It is an incredibly wasteful technology in terms of space and power usage. I mean does it work? Yeah but the cost is too high imo. 

Idk people probably said the same thing about 4G, in cities 5G is proven to work well, but in areas outside large cities 5G isn't ideal and I would rather have decent 4G coverage everywhere than 5G being pushed.

[spartaman64]

3 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Idk people probably said the same thing about 4G, in cities 5G is proven to work well, but in areas outside large cities 5G isn't ideal and I would rather have decent 4G coverage everywhere than 5G being pushed.

at least 4G doesnt stop working when it gets too hot in the summer

[Drak3]

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

eah but nobody is trying to say that Ferrari's should be good at hill climbing except you.

I can, with absolute certainty, guarantee that there is a grease monkey that either made that or is wanting to make that, somewhere in the world.

[dalekphalm]

18 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

I can, with absolute certainty, guarantee that there is a grease monkey that either made that or is wanting to make that, somewhere in the world.

Making a Ferrari that can climb a hill is a neat idea - taking an existing design and modifying it for offroad usage. In fact, I almost guarantee that someone has done it before.

 

But yeah - his comparison made no sense.

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

I'm sorry but nobody is going to convince me 5g is worth it. It is an incredibly wasteful technology in terms of space and power usage. I mean does it work? Yeah but the cost is too high imo. 

How much does it cost to implement and how much return on that investment is there?  How much does it effect business? have you seen a feasibility study that says otherwise?

I don't know about anyone else, but when companies like telstra invest millions in building this stuff they don't do it on a whim that it might pay for itself,  they have heavily researched where they are investing.  EDIT: this is the Telstra that will lay off 3000 people to make it's $4B profit look better on paper.  The same telstra that doesn't like making house calls to fix their shit.  The Telstra that works to make money not waste it ruining their reputation with dodgy drop ridden networks.

 

9 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

at least 4G doesnt stop working when it gets too hot in the summer

I haven't seen any reports that telstra's 5g does that yet.

[TechyBen]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

How much does it cost to implement and how much return on that investment is there?  How much does it effect business? have you seen a feasibility study that says otherwise?

I don't know about anyone else, but when companies like telstra invest millions in building this stuff they don't do it on a whim that it might pay for itself,  they have heavily researched where they are investing.  EDIT: this is the Telstra that will lay off 3000 people to make it's $4B profit look better on paper.  The same telstra that doesn't like making house calls to fix their shit.  The Telstra that works to make money not waste it ruining their reputation with dodgy drop ridden networks.

 

I haven't seen any reports that telstra's 5g does that yet.

I assume they mean the batteries. As the 5G Note 10, gets super hot when using 5G, and if in a hot country/summer, would throttle/die under those conditions.

[Brooksie359]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

How much does it cost to implement and how much return on that investment is there?  How much does it effect business? have you seen a feasibility study that says otherwise?

I don't know about anyone else, but when companies like telstra invest millions in building this stuff they don't do it on a whim that it might pay for itself,  they have heavily researched where they are investing.  EDIT: this is the Telstra that will lay off 3000 people to make it's $4B profit look better on paper.  The same telstra that doesn't like making house calls to fix their shit.  The Telstra that works to make money not waste it ruining their reputation with dodgy drop ridden networks.

 

I haven't seen any reports that telstra's 5g does that yet.

You 100% missed my point. Companies don't care at all the cost to the environment and others around them and that is the cost I was referring to. I don't care at all if they see a proper return on investment because that has nothing to do with me. Again it's an incredibly wasteful technology.