5G Could Mean Less Time To Flee a Deadly Hurricane, Heads of NASA and NOAA Warn

[DamianTV]

https://science.slashdot.org/story/1...-and-noaa-warn

As reported by The Washington Post and CNET, the heads of NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) warn [5G wireless networks] could set back the world's weather forecasting abilities by 40 years -- reducing our ability to predict the path of deadly hurricanes and the amount of time available to evacuate. It's because one of the key wireless frequencies earmarked for speedy 5G millimeter wave networks -- the 24 GHz band -- happens to be very close to the frequencies used by microwave satellites to observe water vapor and detect those changes in the weather. They have the potential to interfere. And according to NASA and NOAA testimony, they could interfere to the point that it delays preparation for extreme weather events. Last week, acting NOAA head Dr. Neil Jacobs told the House Subcommittee on the Environment that based on the current 5G rollout plan, our satellites would lose approximately 77 percent of the data they're currently collecting, reducing our forecast ability by as much as 30 percent.

"If you looked back in time to see when our forecast skill was 30 percent less than today, it's somewhere around 1980. This would result in the reduction of hurricane track forecast lead time by roughly 2 to 3 days," he said. If we hadn't had that data, Jacobs added, we wouldn't have been able to predict that the deadly Hurricane Sandy would hit. A European study showed that with 77 percent less data, the model would have predicted the storm staying out at sea instead of making landfall. Jacobs said later that we currently have no other technologies to passively observe water vapor and make these more accurate predictions. On April 19th, NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine made similar comments to the House Science Committee. "That part of the electromagnetic spectrum is necessary to make predictions as to where a hurricane is going to make landfall," he told the committee. "If you can't make that prediction accurately, then you end up not evacuating the right people and/or you evacuate people that don't need to evacuate, which is a problem."

[ATruepatriot]

We should never even open that 5G door. When fully implemented by force over half this country will lose what data service they have now.

[Fox McCloud]

Bastiat's case of the seen versus the unseen.

Who knows how many lives will be saved by the the introduction of a cheaper, faster, more expansive cellular broadband network?

I'm not a super big fan of 5G, but for a completely different reason.

It's a logical next step, and I support it (...and I really think the interference problem can be handled). What I don't like about it is that it's hugely overblown in how good it is.

The vast bulk of 5G speeds that are getting touted will only apply to super dense urban centers; the millimeter wave 5G has incredibly short range in the hundreds of feet; that's why there's all this talk about putting antennas on every city block or every intersection's traffic lights.

Out in rural and low density areas, 5G will be an upgrade, but not much. It won't be like when we went from 3G to 4G, where speends went from 1-3 meg up to 20-100 meg; it's going to be a 10-30% boost in speeds, at best; if you've used a 4G LTE-Advance network, then you're already pretty much operating, speed wise, on what you can expect from 5G networks.

So, while I do think 5G is a good thing---I'm just not a huge fan of how it's being marketed as some huge next step for everyone. Sure....it will be, but only for places like NYC, Chicago, San Fran, and other ultra-dense urban areas.

For people like me who live in the middle of nowhere, where there's only 4-6 houses per mile of road? The difference we notice won't be spectacular.

[nikcers]

Bastiat's case of the seen versus the unseen.

Who knows how many lives will be saved by the the introduction of a cheaper, faster, more expansive cellular broadband network?

I'm not a super big fan of 5G, but for a completely different reason.

It's a logical next step, and I support it (...and I really think the interference problem can be handled). What I don't like about it is that it's hugely overblown in how good it is.

The vast bulk of 5G speeds that are getting touted will only apply to super dense urban centers; the millimeter wave 5G has incredibly short range in the hundreds of feet; that's why there's all this talk about putting antennas on every city block or every intersection's traffic lights.

Out in rural and low density areas, 5G will be an upgrade, but not much. It won't be like when we went from 3G to 4G, where speends went from 1-3 meg up to 20-100 meg; it's going to be a 10-30% boost in speeds, at best; if you've used a 4G LTE-Advance network, then you're already pretty much operating, speed wise, on what you can expect from 5G networks.

So, while I do think 5G is a good thing---I'm just not a huge fan of how it's being marketed as some huge next step for everyone. Sure....it will be, but only for places like NYC, Chicago, San Fran, and other ultra-dense urban areas.

For people like me who live in the middle of nowhere, where there's only 4-6 houses per mile of road? The difference we notice won't be spectacular.

5G is as much for government surveillance than it is for demand. If the cell phone companies put as much money into 4G LTE tech they could build a network far better in terms of interference. The 5G frequencies can bounce off your skin, and make it light up the same way as in the DARK KNIGHT. They don't have to stick a radio on you anymore to track you, you just have to resonate with the frequencies that they use.

[nikcers]

[Stratovarious]

A land line is starting to look a lot more attractive these days.

I was forced out of 2g, now , before long they will force me out of 4g.

[Fox McCloud]

5G is as much for government surveillance than it is for demand. If the cell phone companies put as much money into 4G LTE tech they could build a network far better in terms of interference. The 5G frequencies can bounce off your skin, and make it light up the same way as in the DARK KNIGHT. They don't have to stick a radio on you anymore to track you, you just have to resonate with the frequencies that they use.

[citation needed]

We've already largely tapped out on the capabilities of 4G; the only way we can get more out of it is by either increasing the frequency we run it at or by using a higher level of QAM modulation---or alternatively, using better antenna arrays with better beamforming.

...Except that's exactly what 5G already is. 5G isn't the huge shift in a singular technology like 2G->3G and 3G->4G was. It's more about combining a whole bunch of little things together for incremental improvements in various spaces, then branding it "5G" for the sake of better understanding on the consumer level.

Human bodies are both reflectors and absorbers of RF--and how much/where we reflect that varies highly, from the thickness of our skin, to the skin color, all the way down to the body fat percentage we have; even FM radio can bounce OR conduct over a body.

I really don't understand why conspiracy people have jumped onto 5G as being "the" thing that allows government surveillance to work---the frequencies that 5G uses are of such a power rating and of such a high frequency, that their effectiveness will be so diminish that stepping inside a regular wooden building (let alone thicker building materials) is going to be enough for you to lose your millimeter wave 5G signal and have to fall back to the low-band 5G one.

[nikcers]

[citation needed]

We've already largely tapped out on the capabilities of 4G; the only way we can get more out of it is by either increasing the frequency we run it at or by using a higher level of QAM modulation---or alternatively, using better antenna arrays with better beamforming.

...Except that's exactly what 5G already is. 5G isn't the huge shift in a singular technology like 2G->3G and 3G->4G was. It's more about combining a whole bunch of little things together for incremental improvements in various spaces, then branding it "5G" for the sake of better understanding on the consumer level.

Human bodies are both reflectors and absorbers of RF--and how much/where we reflect that varies highly, from the thickness of our skin, to the skin color, all the way down to the body fat percentage we have; even FM radio can bounce OR conduct over a body.

I really don't understand why conspiracy people have jumped onto 5G as being "the" thing that allows government surveillance to work---the frequencies that 5G uses are of such a power rating and of such a high frequency, that their effectiveness will be so diminish that stepping inside a regular wooden building (let alone thicker building materials) is going to be enough for you to lose your millimeter wave 5G signal and have to fall back to the low-band 5G one.

No it makes their government surveillance high definition instead of standard definition. You can do the same thing with 4g by putting more towers, you know isntead of 5G towers. It just wouldn't be as fast, but most users wouldn't tell the difference in the speed.

[nikcers]

https://www.rfsafe.com/5g-network-us...ntrol-systems/


5G Network Uses Nearly Same Frequency as Weaponized Crowd Control Systems

Today’s cellular and Wi-Fi networks rely on microwaves – a type of electromagnetic radiation utilizing frequencies up to 6 gigahertz (GHz) in order to wirelessly transmit voice and data. This era of wireless frequency is almost over making room for new 5 G applications will require using new spectrum bands in much higher frequency ranges above 6 GHz to 100 GHz and beyond, utilizing submillimeter and millimeter waves.

5G-Crowd-ControlMillimeter waves are utilized by the U.S. Army in crowd dispersal guns called Active Denial Systems. Dr. Paul Ben-Ishai pointed to research that was commissioned by the U.S. Army to find out why people ran away when the beam touched them. “If you are unlucky enough to be standing there when it hits you, you will feel like your body is on fire.” The U.S. Department of Defense explains how: “The sensation dissipates when the target moves out of the beam. The sensation is intense enough to cause a nearly instantaneous reflex action of the target to flee the beam.”

It uses radio frequency millimeter waves in the 96GHz range to penetrate the top 1/64 of an inch layer of skin on the targeted individual, instantly producing an intolerable heating sensation that causes them to flee.

A lot of respected people have posted warnings about the mass deployment of commercial millimeter-wave technology.

[Fox McCloud]

No it makes their government surveillance high definition instead of standard definition. You can do the same thing with 4g by putting more towers, you know isntead of 5G towers. It just wouldn't be as fast, but most users wouldn't tell the difference in the speed.

This is quite literally arguing "we have to hold back the available bandwidth in society because it means that, as we have more bandwidth, government apparatus' will be able to engage in more spying activities". The problem is the state doing this. Holding back all of society because of one bad actor is dumb and counter-productive; this is like advocating for banning firearms because a few bad actors abuse it.

They could build more 4G towers, but...why not upgrade the existing 4G towers to 5G, then the towers that you were going to build for 4G you put 5G tech on them, instead? You'll have more bandwidth for users, on the whole...and more bandwidth means lower latency, less congestion, jitter, packet loss, and less time spent listening to individual cell users of "ok, you can transmit now, there won't be a problem" and more time just letting them use data. On the whole, it means a better experience for more users; it could potentially mean cheaper, less capped service, with lower latency---an actual competitor for landline services.

https://www.rfsafe.com/5g-network-us...ntrol-systems/


5G Network Uses Nearly Same Frequency as Weaponized Crowd Control Systems

The Active Denial Systems require 11-12 watts per square centimeter of flesh to be able to induce pain. The power required to drive this much wattage is insane; you're talking hundred of kilowatts of power and for it to only be on for a few seconds.

Cellphone towers radiate at typically radiate at 100 watts.

Even if we assume worst case...let's say 100 watts and an insane 40 dBi antenna, with the user at only 100 feet away, at 95 GHz they'd be receiving 22 milliwatts of power into their skin, per square inch. That's 0.022 Watts. Nowhere close to the wattage needed to heat up human skin....and this was a horrendous overexaggeration; no one is going to be 100 feet away from a 100 watt transmitter and they're not going to be using 40 dBi antennas, either.

The amount of wattage you'd need, radiated at the antenna, with a 40 dBi antenna, to match the 11 watts per square centimeter would be a massive 50,000 Watts. Nevermind the amount power to drive such an antenna array would be insane (which is why you always hear about these trucks that power them having something like a megawatt power supply and they only leave it on in bursts for a few seconds).

It's just not possible to reach that kind of power output with the antennas they're mounting--you'd need ultra ultra directional antennas (they're not; these are designed to cover hundreds of customers) radiating thousands of watts (they're not), at very close distances.

ANd this isn't even getting into the frequencies used: https://www.fcc.gov/5G

Most of 5G is thought to be using around 28 GHz. Sure, you can use above 95 GHz, but this probably isn't going to happen for the majority of cases. Why? While it has increased bandwidth, the amount of power you're going to have to drive through the antenna to get that extra bandwidth will be crazy.

In short, while there's legitimate criticism of 5G (mostly how it's being marketed and touted), the fact it's "dangerous" is utterly laughable.

[nikcers]

This is quite literally arguing "we have to hold back the available bandwidth in society because it means that, as we have more bandwidth, government apparatus' will be able to engage in more spying activities". The problem is the state doing this. Holding back all of society because of one bad actor is dumb and counter-productive; this is like advocating for banning firearms because a few bad actors abuse it.

They could build more 4G towers, but...why not upgrade the existing 4G towers to 5G, then the towers that you were going to build for 4G you put 5G tech on them, instead? You'll have more bandwidth for users, on the whole...and more bandwidth means lower latency, less congestion, jitter, packet loss, and less time spent listening to individual cell users of "ok, you can transmit now, there won't be a problem" and more time just letting them use data. On the whole, it means a better experience for more users; it could potentially mean cheaper, less capped service, with lower latency---an actual competitor for landline services.



The Active Denial Systems require 11-12 watts per square centimeter of flesh to be able to induce pain. The power required to drive this much wattage is insane; you're talking hundred of kilowatts of power and for it to only be on for a few seconds.

Cellphone towers radiate at typically radiate at 100 watts.

Even if we assume worst case...let's say 100 watts and an insane 40 dBi antenna, with the user at only 100 feet away, at 95 GHz they'd be receiving 22 milliwatts of power into their skin, per square inch. That's 0.022 Watts. Nowhere close to the wattage needed to heat up human skin....and this was a horrendous overexaggeration; no one is going to be 100 feet away from a 100 watt transmitter and they're not going to be using 40 dBi antennas, either.

The amount of wattage you'd need, radiated at the antenna, with a 40 dBi antenna, to match the 11 watts per square centimeter would be a massive 50,000 Watts. Nevermind the amount power to drive such an antenna array would be insane (which is why you always hear about these trucks that power them having something like a megawatt power supply and they only leave it on in bursts for a few seconds).

It's just not possible to reach that kind of power output with the antennas they're mounting--you'd need ultra ultra directional antennas (they're not; these are designed to cover hundreds of customers) radiating thousands of watts (they're not), at very close distances.

ANd this isn't even getting into the frequencies used: https://www.fcc.gov/5G

Most of 5G is thought to be using around 28 GHz. Sure, you can use above 95 GHz, but this probably isn't going to happen for the majority of cases. Why? While it has increased bandwidth, the amount of power you're going to have to drive through the antenna to get that extra bandwidth will be crazy.

In short, while there's legitimate criticism of 5G (mostly how it's being marketed and touted), the fact it's "dangerous" is utterly laughable.

You know I didn't say they were going to use it as an active denial system, I said they would use it to monitor us more. The government spends lots of money monitoring social media so they know where you go and when you go, but with this it doesn't matter if you don't bring your phone or post it on social media. That frequency hits your skin and it is literally radar.

[Fox McCloud]

You know I didn't say they were going to use it as an active denial system, I said they would use it to monitor us more. The government spends lots of money monitoring social media so they know where you go and when you go, but with this it doesn't matter if you don't bring your phone or post it on social media. That frequency hits your skin and it is literally radar.

...You quoted an article and bolded the portion that talks about Active Denial, then you go on to mention that you weren't mentioning that they were going to be used for active denial? What are you even on about.

High frequency would be terrible for radar-like systems, as just pointed out, it gets absorbed, quite readily by the skin. Note; absorbed, not reflected.

You're better off using lower frequencies...and even then, even at lower frequencies, you're liable to absorb, reflect, or refract the signal depending on your fat composition, how thick your skin is, and the pigmentation of your skin.

The higher the frequency, the more likely it is to just straight up get absorbed by your skin alone...which would make millimeter wave 5G horrible for triangulation purposes.

If you want to talk about tracking, accessing a phone's GPS data, remotely, over 2G would be far superior in the vast bulk of situations, especially when 95% of the population owns a cellphone.

There's much easier and cheaper ways they could track you, that already exist. To posit that 5G is being built out because of government surveillance, or that it'll benefit from it (aside from having increased bandwidth in more areas, thus allowing for more data to be sent in less time), is a bit ludicrous. We live in an internet driven world that needs ever increasing amounts of cheap data delivered to us over low-latency, high-bandwidth connections; that's the big driver of 5G, not this "it's actually radar to spy on you!" nonsense.

[nikcers]

...You quoted an article and bolded the portion that talks about Active Denial, then you go on to mention that you weren't mentioning that they were going to be used for active denial? What are you even on about.

High frequency would be terrible for radar-like systems, as just pointed out, it gets absorbed, quite readily by the skin. Note; absorbed, not reflected.

You're better off using lower frequencies...and even then, even at lower frequencies, you're liable to absorb, reflect, or refract the signal depending on your fat composition, how thick your skin is, and the pigmentation of your skin.

The higher the frequency, the more likely it is to just straight up get absorbed by your skin alone...which would make millimeter wave 5G horrible for triangulation purposes.

If you want to talk about tracking, accessing a phone's GPS data, remotely, over 2G would be far superior in the vast bulk of situations, especially when 95% of the population owns a cellphone.

There's much easier and cheaper ways they could track you, that already exist. To posit that 5G is being built out because of government surveillance, or that it'll benefit from it (aside from having increased bandwidth in more areas, thus allowing for more data to be sent in less time), is a bit ludicrous. We live in an internet driven world that needs ever increasing amounts of cheap data delivered to us over low-latency, high-bandwidth connections; that's the big driver of 5G, not this "it's actually radar to spy on you!" nonsense.

The 5G frequencies can bounce off your skin, and make it light up the same way as in the DARK KNIGHT. They don't have to stick a radio on you anymore to track you, you just have to resonate with the frequencies that they use.

cheaper ways? whats cheaper than getting Americans to pay for it in their cellphone bills, America loves buying the best cell phone out, it makes you popular the cell phone ads say.

If you want to talk about tracking, accessing a phone's GPS data, remotely, over 2G would be far superior in the vast bulk of situations, especially when 95% of the population owns a cellphone.

So they get to surveil the 5% who don't have a cellphone or social media, how is that not beneficial?

[Fox McCloud]

I said "[citation needed]", which you then provided the link to the article about active denial and bolded the portion about using it to heat up the skin....what else am I supposed to think you're implying?

[nikcers]

I said "[citation needed]", which you then provided the link to the article about active denial and bolded the portion about using it to heat up the skin....what else am I supposed to think you're implying?

That you can take a picture of someones skin with something that penetrates just a little bit of the skin, you might not be able to burn them, but you could get a picture. You could probably know where everybody is at all times as long as you aren't hiding in a faraday cage/elevator type enviornment at all times. As soon as you walk outside they can detect it with the radar, and then they could even connect it to a camera in the sky that can see a fingernail from 500 miles in the air. Meaning they know where you go and when you go and they can watch it all in real time.

[nikcers]

Its the same type of $#@! we use to detect stuff in the water, hydrophones, we blast radio waves in the water and we can see if they are attacking us with submarines. We know where every whale is.

[Fox McCloud]

....it's not. Sonar operates at especially low frequencies (usually in the kilohertz range). Radar tops out at 40 GHz.

Radar *specifically* for water vapor is 24 GHz, but those use extremely huge arrays with lots of power---nowhere near what a celltower uses.

[nikcers]

....it's not. Sonar operates at especially low frequencies (usually in the kilohertz range). Radar tops out at 40 GHz.

Radar *specifically* for water vapor is 24 GHz, but those use extremely huge arrays with lots of power---nowhere near what a celltower uses.

Yeah the same frequencies can't be used in the water as they can in the air, but the 5G frequences can be used in the air and penetrate just a little bit of the skin which is just enough to image somebody.

[nikcers]

Why do yiu think the government military is advising the Trump administration not to partner with countries with Chinese 5G

[ATruepatriot]

For people like me who live in the middle of nowhere, where there's only 4-6 houses per mile of road? The difference we notice won't be spectacular.

Worse than that, if they make it the standard across the board like they did 3G and then 4G you wont have any coverage at all. The transmit wattage is much less and will require many more towers to be installed to even provide the coverage rural folks like us have now. And they are just not going to spend the money to add these towers. The last thing AT&T and Verizon and carriers give a crap about is rural folks. They would rather not even have to deal with us at all, and if they could they would just shut all rural off so that they don't have to maintain those towers for just a few customers let alone add anymore to provide 5G coverage. So what will happen is they will have only 5G "service packages" available and rural folks like us will have to pay it just to get service at all even though we will not have 5G capability. I have dealt with these companies for many many years now as a rural customer and I have their extortion and discriminatory business model down to a science.

[nikcers]

Worse than that, if they make it the standard across the board like they did 3G and then 4G you wont have any coverage at all. The transmit wattage is much less and will require many more towers to be installed to even provide the coverage rural folks like us have now. And they are just not going to spend the money to add these towers. The last thing AT&T and Verizon and carriers give a crap about is rural folks. They would rather not even have to deal with us at all, and if they could they would just shut all rural off so that they don't have to maintain those towers for just a few customers let alone add anymore to provide 5G coverage. So what will happen is they will have only 5G "service packages" available and rural folks like us will have to pay it just to get service at all even though we will not have 5G capability. I have dealt with these companies for many many years now as a rural customer and I have their extortion and discriminatory business model down to a science.

The cell phone networks get oversold that's why they are so satured. They lease their spectrum for pennies on the dollar to generic cell phone companies like Walmart. You pay a premium for the brand name only nowadays, they saturate their nodes and just make up excuses like you need to buy the next gen wireless, and even in the las vegas area which was one of the first 3g spots I still use 3g exclusively even though I have had 4g since its first launch it doesn't work indoors whatsoever in apartment complexes because they oversell the spectrum.

[Fox McCloud]

Worse than that, if they make it the standard across the board like they did 3G and then 4G you wont have any coverage at all. The transmit wattage is much less and will require many more towers to be installed to even provide the coverage rural folks like us have now. And they are just not going to spend the money to add these towers. The last thing AT&T and Verizon and carriers give a crap about is rural folks. They would rather not even have to deal with us at all, and if they could they would just shut all rural off so that they don't have to maintain those towers for just a few customers let alone add anymore to provide 5G coverage. So what will happen is they will have only 5G "service packages" available and rural folks like us will have to pay it just to get service at all even though we will not have 5G capability. I have dealt with these companies for many many years now as a rural customer and I have their extortion and discriminatory business model down to a science.

I'm not so sure of that; I believe it'll be transmitting at the same power as 4G. If they utilize existing spectrum and repurpose it for 5G, then it should travel relatively the same distance. Carriers are also petitioning the FCC to allow more radiated power, at the antenna, to help boost coverage and especially to ensure millimeter wave can actually do its job.

Either case, I'm fairly confident to say 4G will exist alongside 5G for years and years. 1xRTT (for CDMA areas anyway) is still operated and maintained, and it's been around for nearly 20 years.

Even rural areas will get benefit, it just won't be as huge; a 20-35% increase in bandwidth isn't particularly stellar, but it is still an improvement---the real improvement is the touted benefits latency reduction, with promises that this will finally be the generation that has landline like latency (I won't hold my breath on this one, but 4G -> 3G did seem to improve things by 40-50% from my testing...so if we got that kind of improvement again, or better, then it'd be within the ballpark of what landline is).

[ATruepatriot]

I'm not so sure of that; I believe it'll be transmitting at the same power as 4G. If they utilize existing spectrum and repurpose it for 5G, then it should travel relatively the same distance. Carriers are also petitioning the FCC to allow more radiated power, at the antenna, to help boost coverage and especially to ensure millimeter wave can actually do its job.

Either case, I'm fairly confident to say 4G will exist alongside 5G for years and years. 1xRTT (for CDMA areas anyway) is still operated and maintained, and it's been around for nearly 20 years.

Even rural areas will get benefit, it just won't be as huge; a 20-35% increase in bandwidth isn't particularly stellar, but it is still an improvement---the real improvement is the touted benefits latency reduction, with promises that this will finally be the generation that has landline like latency (I won't hold my breath on this one, but 4G -> 3G did seem to improve things by 40-50% from my testing...so if we got that kind of improvement again, or better, then it'd be within the ballpark of what landline is).

More power output will help but there are a lot of factors working against us rural folks.

Currently the true speed capabilities of 4G and 4G LTE are already not even what they are advertised to be and it gets even worse when you get out in the sticks and I predicted this reality when 4G came out. As it is now with 4G LTE, true LTE service is fringe in rural areas sometimes not even available. And since a 5G higher frequency shorter wave length is even more susceptible to being obstructed by physical mass and does not travel as far this reality is going to get worse. This is why 5G requires more towers closer together to provide the same coverage as 4G has now. Even with more output from existing towers truly getting the capability is going to be very limited if you are indoors or behind buildings blocking "line of site" to the tower.

It will also be much more affected by weather such as snow, heavy rain, dust storms, or even just high winds because of wind the static. 5G is also more susceptible to decreased performance concerning number of devices. So the number of devices your one local tower is now handling at 4G is going to affect the capability of 5G even more and just reduce it back down to 4G speeds anyway. 5G requires more infrastructure and equipment to handle the same amount of devices and bandwidth within a coverage area to actually provide true 5G capability.

If we get it at all on the current tower density there will be a renewed trend of front porch sitting because that will be the only place it might work. It will indeed require more towers to be put up in order to replace current 4G coverage, and the carriers are just not going to spend the money to do this in rural areas. They absolutely do not care if rural folks can take full advantage of a service or not. Not enough customers and demand to spend the money on. But you can bet that the service contracts will be "one size fits all, take it or leave it" that includes pricing for 5G capability that most rural folks will not even be able to take advantage of. And you can also bet they will force everyone to buy new 5G capable phones whether they can take advantage of 5G or not, remember when AT&T and Verizon forced all their customers to do this when they went from 3G to 4G? Crooked bastards.

Even the recent tests they have conducted in the city with what they thought was enough tower coverage and power were spotty and insufficient compared to 4G...

"Starting with the Verizon store on Michigan Avenue, Dolcourt tested the 5G node, and the results were mixed. She experienced intermittent 5G connectivity, often resorting to switching in and out of Airplane Mode to get the network to connect.

Unable to get a clean comparison test in the store, Dolcourt moved onto round two of testing at the Merchandise Mart, which is also the headquarters for Motorola. Across the street just outside of the Shamrock Club is another 5G node. While the speed tests were better, Dolcourt found that downloading the large PUBG app took six minutes, indicating that the phone was not receiving 5G speeds—the download time was the same as that of the 4G network.

For the third round of testing, Dolcourt utilized the 5G node right outside of the Chicago Art Institute. Standing directly underneath the node, she described the 5G service as "flickering," and even though she received 5G-level speeds during the speed test, the network completely stalled when she tried to download an episode from the Netflix app. Removing the 5G mod, Dolcourt tested the 4G network to see if it fared better but experienced the same issue.

The final test took place a couple blocks away from the famous Chicago Theater. Dolcourt conducted her tests in the same manner, but was unable to connect to the 5G network at all, despite standing directly beneath the node. She made several attempts to connect: Toggling in and out of Airplane Mode four times, removing and reattaching the 5G mod, only to discover that the mod had 0% power, meaning there was no way for her to connect. In this case, the node might not have been the issue, and there is no way to know how it would have performed during testing.

Here's what she said about how the testing went: "Not very well, actually. It was more like a wild goose chase. But remember: This network is only one-day old, so I wasn't expecting this to be amazing speeds with absolutely no problems whatsoever. But it was basically a complete and utter disaster, unfortunately." Dolcourt predicted that even a year from now, 5G phones will not be the norm, as not all cities or areas of cities will have coverage."

https://www.techrepublic.com/article...rk-in-chicago/

"Walking around Chicago, we saw how fleeting 5G connectivity can be. It’s roughly a third of a mile from the Verizon Store on the Magnificent Mile to the CTA station at State and Chicago. Once we left the store, we never saw the 5G UWB logo flash up on our phone.

Some of the test sites where we had the most stable 5G connections proved how fleeting 5G connectivity can be at this point in its development. Standing on the steps of the Merchandise Mart, we enjoyed a fairly stable connection. But when we walked 13 paces to a sign with the Motorola logo, the logo on our phone fluctuated between LTE and 5G. By the time we crossed the street to the front of the Kenzie Chophouse, the 5G signal was gone.

It was a similar story at Ontario and Wells. Right outside of Al’s Beef, 5G connectivity was fleeting. It was stronger across the street though, with the signal becoming more consistent in the middle of the crosswalk. (We do not advise standing in the middle of Ontario Street to test 5G networks.)

Verizon is using mmWave technology for its 5G network which depends heavily on line of sight. Coverage figures to improve over time, as Verizon builds out its 5G network in this city and elsewhere — the carrier plans to launch 5G in 30 cities by the end of 2019. But if you’re expecting ubiquitous 5G coverage at this point, you’re going to be disappointed, something Verizon itself would readily acknowledge."

https://www.tomsguide.com/us/verizon...ews-29802.html


How Will 5G Use New Cell Towers?

In order to provide 5G service on a large scale, carriers will need to add at least 250,000 new small cell sites nationwide. However, though these small cell technologies perform similar functions, they’re not your typical cell tower.

While most current cell towers are large, freestanding behemoths, the cell towers of the future are smaller devices which companies aim to mount onto lampposts, rooftops, traffic lights and other appropriate spots around cities and towns.

Because 5G uses shorter radio wavelengths, the towers needed to pick them up can be smaller than their predecessors. This makes them easier to place in great numbers. However, these new cell towers are also causing conflict between telecom companies and local governments and municipalities, since they need to be installed on a large amount public property.

The location and appearance of new 5G cell sites in your area will likely depend on your local government’s negotiations with service providers — unless, of course, you live in one of the 13 states which have passed legislation restricting local oversight of 5G infrastructure.
Will Traditional Cell Towers Be Replaced?

The answer to this question, at least for now, remains “no.” It seems most traditional cell phone towers will remain active for the foreseeable future.

Some carriers will upgrade existing cell towers for use with 5G signals, effectively integrating current infrastructure into the new system. These existing towers could especially help transmit signals through rural locations where very few objects stand in the way.

However, it’s important to note that existing cell towers may also continue transmitting 4G signals to areas without 5G service. Though companies expect 5G to increase coverage overall, 5G won’t launch everywhere immediately.

Urban areas, like the cities companies are currently using as test sites for the technology, will likely benefit from 5G before more rural areas. Some communities with very low populations may not see 5G service for some time due to the high cost of setting up several smaller 5G “towers” to serve a low population area. Because of this, existing cell towers and other communication infrastructure will remain essential for keeping people connected to the rest of the world.

Eventually, it’s possible that cell phone towers will become obsolete. After all, some companies are already developing direct device-to-device mobile connections, which could eliminate the need for bulky cell phone towers altogether. Whatever the future holds, the transition will occur slowly.

https://www.thewhizcells.com/will-ce...olete-with-5g/

[ATruepatriot]

The cell phone networks get oversold that's why they are so satured. They lease their spectrum for pennies on the dollar to generic cell phone companies like Walmart. You pay a premium for the brand name only nowadays, they saturate their nodes and just make up excuses like you need to buy the next gen wireless, and even in the las vegas area which was one of the first 3g spots I still use 3g exclusively even though I have had 4g since its first launch it doesn't work indoors whatsoever in apartment complexes because they oversell the spectrum.

Sometimes there is no advantage with the 4G capability because of device usage numbers, bandwidth, and physical mass obstructing it , and this is going to be even worse with 5G because it requires more infrastructure and equipment to provide true 5G capability to the same number of devices using it.

Why the Older, Slower 3G Network is Sometimes Better Than 4G

"In general, you want your iPhone or iPad to connect to the fastest available mobile network when you're out and about, especially now that all new and recent models of these products support fast "4G" networks. But, sometimes, the reliability of a mobile network is more important than the maximum potential speed of that network, and in these cases you might actually be better off intentionally limiting your iDevice to an older, slower mobile networking standard.

Mac Geek Gab listener Andrew illustrated this advice with an example: while recently attending a busy sporting event, Andrew and others had difficultly accessing online services like Facebook and Twitter. Andrew's iPhone was successfully connected to his mobile carrier's 4G network with plenty of "dots" of signal strength, but the process of uploading or downloading data from the Internet took forever, if the task completed at all.

Then Andrew noticed some other spectators sitting nearby who seemed to have no problem tweeting or posting Instagram photos. These folks weren't using a different, seemingly superior mobile network. Instead, their success in getting online at this busy sporting event was due to the fact that their phones were older, and didn't support the latest 4G networking standards, thereby limiting them to the area's 3G network."

https://www.macobserver.com/tmo/arti...better-than-4g

[Zippyjuan]

I'm not so sure of that; I believe it'll be transmitting at the same power as 4G. If they utilize existing spectrum and repurpose it for 5G, then it should travel relatively the same distance. Carriers are also petitioning the FCC to allow more radiated power, at the antenna, to help boost coverage and especially to ensure millimeter wave can actually do its job.

Either case, I'm fairly confident to say 4G will exist alongside 5G for years and years. 1xRTT (for CDMA areas anyway) is still operated and maintained, and it's been around for nearly 20 years.

Even rural areas will get benefit, it just won't be as huge; a 20-35% increase in bandwidth isn't particularly stellar, but it is still an improvement---the real improvement is the touted benefits latency reduction, with promises that this will finally be the generation that has landline like latency (I won't hold my breath on this one, but 4G -> 3G did seem to improve things by 40-50% from my testing...so if we got that kind of improvement again, or better, then it'd be within the ballpark of what landline is).

5g has a shorter range and only works "line of sight" because it is using a different frequency spectrum. It can be blocked by things like trees too. That is why you need more, closer towers. It is also a huge energy hog on your phone battery so most will be programmed to avoid 5g unless it is using some resource intensive app (like gaming). Most of the time, people will still be using 4g. 5g isn't just a faster version of 4g.

https://www.businessinsider.com/5g-h...-switch-2019-4

First, we need a whole new infrastructure. Your cell phone provider, for example, will need to install a lot of new equipment for this new technology because 5G uses a totally different wavelength than the 4G standard your phone currently uses. The 5G standard uses millimeter waves, which are a lot shorter than the wavelengths 4G uses. The shorter wavelength means 5G can carry a lot of data much faster than 4G, but it also means a much shorter range. 4G wavelengths have a range of about 10 miles. 5G wavelengths have a range of about 1,000 feet, not even 2% of 4G's range. So to ensure a reliable 5G signal, there needs to be a lot of 5G cell towers and antennas everywhere. We're talking on every lamppost, traffic light, etc. because even trees can block 5G signals.

Antonio Villas-Boas: 5G isn't gonna be cheap. You know, each node, or mini cell tower, needs some kind of connection to it, and that means laying down fiber optic cables, and, you know, it's still an undertaking, and it's definitely not in the millions. It's definitely in the billions, possibly hundreds of billions.

Michelle: Not only will this cost billions of dollars, but there's also pushback from many local communities.

https://www.computerworld.com/articl...-everyone.html

Motorola’s Moto Z3 is the only phone currently available that can be upgraded to 5G. That would require a 5G Moto Mod add-on, which more than doubles the thickness of the phone. Still, it’s technically true that the first phone that can support 5G is already on the market.

When companies such as Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon say they’re going to roll out 5G in a city, what they mean is that 5G will be available in some limited pockets in that city.

Because 5G connections suck more power, the chips that power 5G will be designed to favor 4G and kick into 5G mode only when the application demands high bandwidth.

Because of the need to save battery, because of limited distribution of antennas and towers and because of interference issues, our 5G-enabled smartphones will face huge barriers to actually making 5G connections.

Let me be very clear: Five years from now your smartphone will be using 4G almost all the time, even when you’ve got a 5G phone in a 5G city.

It is also estimated to add another couple $hundred to the cost of each phone.



https://arstechnica.com/information-...erizon-admits/

Verizon's early rollout of millimeter-wave 5G is producing high speeds and throughput, but the high-frequency spectrum isn't suitable for widespread coverage, Verizon CEO Hans Vestberg said today.

One day after T-Mobile CTO Neville Ray wrote that millimeter-wave spectrum "will never materially scale beyond small pockets of 5G hotspots in dense urban environments," wireless industry analyst Craig Moffett asked Vestberg about Ray's statement during a Verizon earnings call.

Vestberg responded that millimeter-wave spectrum "has lived up to our expectation on performance" and will get better as Verizon improves the software for managing the spectrum. But he added a significant caveat.

"We will need to remind ourselves, this is not a coverage spectrum," Vestberg said.

Separately today, Moffett told CNBC that he thinks there is "zero chance" 5G becomes a ubiquitous technology by 2021.

[Fox McCloud]

That's all dependent on the frequency used. The millimeter wave is, indeed short-ranged and needs those super hefty chips to do the lifting that you talk about.

The low band 5G will have similar range to standard 4G LTE, as it operates in the 600-900 MHz range...of course, it'll have far less bandwidth than the millimeter wave, but it will still be an improvement over 4G.

Mid-band 5G will have pretty decent speeds (definitely capable of over 100 megabits per connection), and is at a frequency range that it'll still work for rural areas and will pair well with micro-cells placed in a window. This is where it's expected that Sprint will have the real chance to dominate if the T-Mobile+Sprint merger goes through, since they have a plethora of 2.5 GHz spectrum, which, while it isn't great at penetrating structures, it does an "ok" job, can be paired easily with microcells, and isn't impacted by rainfade.


Incidentally your post brings up exactly the problem 5G has. It means different things to different people--it's not like 4G (where everyone standardized around LTE); it's a mish-mash of differnet technologies that operates at different frequencies. So to say "5G has less range" is very highly dependent on what *type* of 5G that you're talking about. If it's millimeter wave? Absolutely. If you're talking about low band or mid-band 5G? That's going to have similar range to most of the LTE networks already out there---though, again, the performance improvement over 4G will not be nearly as hue of a step as with 3G -> 4G. The main improvement will be lowering of latency.

It is incredibly important to mention frequency and 5G together, otherwise, it's a bit of a moot discussion point as who knows what you're really talking about.