5G Poll

[tmski23]

I posted about 5G for a school project earlier, but this is just genuine curiosity. What are your thoughts? Do you support it? Are you against it? Why?

[EL02]

Why not to support it? Sure, 5g compatible devices cost more, but that is because it is a new technology.

[Worstcaster]

Kind of needs a 3rd option.  I'm not against it, but I'm not going to go out and get a new/more expensive cellphone just to get it.

[tmski23]

1 minute ago, EL02 said:

Why not to support it? Sure, 5g compatible devices cost more, but that is because it is a new technology.

I say this because I know a looot of ppl who are against it bc it apparently emanates harmful radiation. I personally am for it, because there's no real proof for the radiation.

[RonnieOP]

Whats not to support?

 

Im not going to replace my phone for it or even pay extra for a model with it. but im all for people that want to to be able to.

 

I dont use alot of mobile data though basically everywhere I go has wifi.

[EL02]

3 minutes ago, tmski23 said:

I say this because I know a looot of ppl who are against it bc it apparently emanates harmful radiation. I personally am for it, because there's no real proof for the radiation.

If it were a real problem, goverments would in no way allow it. Faster internet speed means no harm at all.

[DarkShame2]

28 minutes ago, Worstcaster said:

Kind of needs a 3rd option.  I'm not against it, but I'm not going to go out and get a new/more expensive cellphone just to get it.

I agree since 5G needs like a few years to mature as phones and data plans to be more affordable.

[Blademaster91]

I agree, there needs to be a 3rd option, I'm not against 5G either but I don't plan on getting a phone just to have 5G. Also considering there isn't even decent 4G coverage in some places, I don't see the point in rushing out to get an expensive 5G phone that wouldn't really be an upgrade.

[TetraSky]

I don't think you'll find someone against it on this forum.

The crazies on social media against it, likely never finished High School or simply failed their science class. It's non-ionizing "radiation".
Meaning it doesn't affect your cells in any way, bad or good.
The same way FM radio or WiFi is non-ionizing.

Regardless of how high on the electromagnetic spectrum 5G is. It's still non-ionizing radiation.

But the clueless sees the word "radiation" and they jump up the curtains thinking it's bad. Hence why I say they failed their science class. Then they latch onto every little things they think they understand and twist the wording to fits their bias.

[Ashiella]

40 minutes ago, tmski23 said:

I say this because I know a looot of ppl who are against it bc it apparently emanates harmful radiation. I personally am for it, because there's no real proof for the radiation.

While it is indeed true that the energy emitted CAN burn your skin if it is powerful enough.
Think your microwave, how small it is and how much power is needed too cook things.
You can look up the Inverse square law which basically disproves any real "danger" to the general populace as far as 4g and 5g towers go.
The FCC permits an ERP of up to 500 watts per channel depending on tower height, but the majority of cell towers in urban and suburban areas operate at an ERP of 100 watts per channel or less, which over a distance of about 10 inches would effectively be about 1w of energy. (if I did my math correctly)

[Roswell]

1 hour ago, TetraSky said:

I don't think you'll find someone against it on this forum.

The crazies on social media against it, likely never finished High School or simply failed their science class. It's non-ionizing "radiation".
Meaning it doesn't affect your cells in any way, bad or good.
The same way FM radio or WiFi is non-ionizing.

Regardless of how high on the electromagnetic spectrum 5G is. It's still non-ionizing radiation.

But the clueless sees the word "radiation" and they jump up the curtains thinking it's bad. Hence why I say they failed their science class. Then they latch onto every little things they think they understand and twist the wording to fits their bias.

While I understand what you're getting at, there are plenty of forms of harmful non ionized radiation that seriously compromise cells. For a great example, take a look at melanoma.

[bob345]

3 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

While I understand what you're getting at, there are plenty of forms of harmful non ionized radiation that seriously compromise cells. For a great example, take a look at melanoma.

If you're going to talk about how RF burns can damage cells, then you better also talk about how grabbing a hot pan can as well because cell damage is cause by the same mechanism.

[Roswell]

6 minutes ago, bob345 said:

If you're going to talk about how RF burns can damage cells, then you better also talk about how grabbing a hot pan can as well because cell damage is cause by the same mechanism.

Melanoma has nothing to do with RF, lol.

[Kisai]

2 hours ago, tmski23 said:

I posted about 5G for a school project earlier, but this is just genuine curiosity. What are your thoughts? Do you support it? Are you against it? Why?

There is no reason not to support it unless:

 

a) it will compromise your quality of life (see what happened with Pokemon Go)

b) you work in the customer/tech support department of a wireless company

 

Basically with A, there's the potential for rollouts to be haphazard, but otherwise should be no different from existing 4G and 3G sites. With Pokemon Go, specific locations attracted a lot of foot traffic that otherwise rarely has any. So couple that with locations with "good" 5G access and it does create a potential for people to congregate near good access nodes. But it's also mostly a non-issue if there are no attractions nearby (eg shopping, hotels, conventions, sporting events, music festivals, etc)

 

As it is right now indoor places suck for 4G, especially convention centers, since the property owner will not permit enough cellular coverage indoors because they want to charge guests to use their expensive congested WiFi instead.

 

With B, Siebel was awful when it was used by AT&T Wireless, and I hope the current AT&T (formerly cingular) dumped it the second they got the chance. For those who don't know, AT&T actually had like a dozen different systems that you needed logins for, of which the GSM system added an additional three or so logins to the already insane amount of logins. It was a miracle it worked at all.

 

So I do expect a lot of teething problems with 5G rollouts, no matter which carrier in which country you use, though especially Verizon. Verizon is the one carrier in the world who partners with nobody else, and thus I'm guessing they probably rolled their own software to have that hybrid LTE 4G with CDMA fallback rollout.

[TetraSky]

19 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

While I understand what you're getting at, there are plenty of forms of harmful non ionized radiation that seriously compromise cells. For a great example, take a look at melanoma.

Last I checked, that's caused by high frequency UV radiation from the sun and such things. UV can be both non-ionized radiation and ionized radiation depending on the frequency. But even the higher end of UV on the spectrum, can at most only penetrate the skin (hence melanoma, or skin cancer).

5G is WAY lower on the spectrum than even the lowest end of UV, which is non-ionized radiation.

You'd have to basically hug the antenna for long period of times to have any negative effects. Inches away from it and it's essentially harmless... Even microwaves, if you fire one up without a door, just standing a few feet away is safe.

 

As for the sun... It's not for nothing that while you are recommended to spend some time in the sun for your daily dose of Vitamin D, it's recommended that you stay out of the sun as much as possible and that even sunblock lotion isn't as effective as wearing clothes or staying out of the sun altogether.

[bob345]

10 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

Melanoma has nothing to do with RF, lol.

Then what is your point exactly? 5G is RF, specifically mm wave around 29ghz and 31ghz depending on the band. Mid and low band 5g is not all that different from current cellular infrastructure.

[Roswell]

8 minutes ago, TetraSky said:

Last I checked, that's caused by high frequency UV radiation from the sun and such things. UV can be both non-ionized radiation and ionized radiation depending on the frequency. But even the higher end of UV on the spectrum, can at most only penetrate the skin (hence melanoma, or skin cancer).

5G is WAY lower on the spectrum than even the lowest end of UV, which is non-ionized radiation. You'd have to basically hug the antenna for long period of times to have any negative effects.

 

As for the sun... It's not for nothing that while you are recommended to spend some time in the sun for your daily dose of Vitamin D, it's recommended that you stay out of the sun as much as possible and that even sunblock lotion isn't as effective as wearing clothes or staying out of the sun altogether.

UV that reaches your skin is non ionized. Shortwave UV -is- ionized but is entirely filtered out by our atmosphere. However, that pesky non ionized UV can still cause your skin cells to mutate. 

 

Regardless, I was giving you an example of non ionized radiation that does infact damage cells. You stated in blanket terms that it can't, which is false.

[Roswell]

1 minute ago, bob345 said:

Then what is your point exactly? 5G is RF, specifically mm wave around 29ghz and 31ghz depending on the band. Mid and low band 5g is not all that different from current cellular infrastructure.

I was replying to someone who incorrectly stated that non ionized radiation can't harm cells. I'm guessing you didn't read the post I was replying to.

[Donut417]

3 hours ago, tmski23 said:

I posted about 5G for a school project earlier, but this is just genuine curiosity. What are your thoughts? Do you support it? Are you against it? Why?

I support it because its the only chance I might be able to tell Comcast to fuck off. But we will have to see. 

[Marbo]

From what I understand faster mobile Internet is just a byproduct of 5g. 

 

It seems inevitable that we are going to see self driving vehicles relatively soon. 5g is is vital for safe operation. 

 

Then there is the case for smart cities. Again the low latency is so important for the smooth running. 

 

A lot more to it than gaming and 4k noods on the go. 

[Donut417]

2 minutes ago, Marbo said:

inevitable that we are going to see self driving vehicles relatively soon

Yeah in about 3 or 4 decades when they have it all worked out. Currently on the current infustructure its not going to work well. Our roads are not equiped and well unless these AI's are smart as fuck, they going to crash because many people are not giving up on driving yet. 

[Marbo]

2 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Yeah in about 3 or 4 decades when they have it all worked out. Currently on the current infustructure its not going to work well. Our roads are not equiped and well unless these AI's are smart as fuck, they going to crash because many people are not giving up on driving yet. 

Yep, I agree. If we're working on the vehicles now then we also need to work on infrastructure. It all needs to advance together. 

[find_better_name_later]

Ordered a S20 Ultra 5G a few days ago. Seems like a pretty future-proof phone.

 

I live in a city with 5G, but having a 5G phone here doesn't seem to be worth it. When I'm walking around I only get a couple seconds of 5G before it becomes 4G and then 5G again.

[beersykins]

This kind of seems like a 'would you still prefer 56k' or 'how about them 1xRTT'.

 

That being said, Sprint is doing a terrible job locally of impacting existing tower connectivity as they upgrade.  We have a lot of remote workers at my company and there's hundreds of 'omg I get no coverage now' tickets.