Even if full self driving is a ways off, Level 4 also benefits from these technologies.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
I think 5G isn't worth it
- Thread starter Herb Alpert
- Start date
For tweets and Facebook posts, yes. There is more potential to high speed low latency wireless Internet than that though.
Whats happening here is you're blaming 5G for the problems of capitalism (obsolescence of commodities, unequal distribution of rewards, redundancy of labor, trivial gains for entertainment purposes, etc).
I'll give you a counterargument.
www.epa.gov
So it cancels out. What you really want is not 4G over 5G, but UBI and social democracy/socialism. Alternatively:
en.wikipedia.org
I'll give you a counterargument.
This will reduce commute times (remote work = no commute) and car use is by far the greatest emissions source in the US.
Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions | US EPA
Sources of greenhouse gas emissions, inculding electricity production, tranportation, industry, agriculture, and forestry.
www.epa.gov
So it cancels out. What you really want is not 4G over 5G, but UBI and social democracy/socialism. Alternatively:
Degrowth - Wikipedia
Last edited:
Not fast enough for industrial application like traffic control. You need lower latency and higher density to have cars synchronized on the road. This is a step towards that. It may not be 5G that realizes it but the infrastructure and research being done now on 5G is paving the way. To halt the technological curve because you can't see beyond "why do I need to download tweets faster" is kind of nonsense. Something like automated traffic control will reduce carbon emissions and increase safety which is just one of many things these "connected" systems are promising.
For personal use it's about reaching more people. 5G allows for more connections and higher throughput in dense environments. Then they are continuously building more infrastructure in rural areas. You can have information reach more people and the type information shared, while not realized yet, can be more than just tweets/news feeds.
Well said.
If you've ever been to a park in the summer in a city like NYC, you'll realize that in those places more bandwidth is definitely needed.
5G isn't really about faster phones. It's just that phone development is rapid and super competitive so that's where we see it first. It will help with phone bandwidth but the speed part is mostly to get people excited about it. The big impact is going to be for home internet and smart devices. Rural areas will get way better home internet options from this. It's already starting.
OP, other than the environmental angle you are literally recapitulating the arguments of the Luddites. At least two of those arguments can be levied against pretty much every technological advance that has ever happened. So yes, you are in fact against technological progress.
The reason you think that geographically distributed low-latency bandwidth is only good for "downloading things faster" is that the consumer electronics you use don't take advantage of technology and infrastructure that doesn't exist yet. However, I assure you that the space of technological possibility extends far beyond the functionality of the consumer electronics you currently use.
The reason you think that geographically distributed low-latency bandwidth is only good for "downloading things faster" is that the consumer electronics you use don't take advantage of technology and infrastructure that doesn't exist yet. However, I assure you that the space of technological possibility extends far beyond the functionality of the consumer electronics you currently use.
It's not that it's not worth it. It's just not worth it yet*
*Depends on where you live and your typical quality of service from your provider.
Low Band 5G is great when it works. It's everything I expected 4G to be. My main need is consistent speeds. I don't give a shit about theoretical maximum speeds. It's all bout how it runs when I'm at home and my internet drops out. Can I use my cell service is a backup?
Same if I'm on the go and need connectivity.
Look at all the technology and industries that mobile connectivity helps support these days. We don't know what the next level of high speed mobile data will allow and how companies will leverage it. Back in 2007 I didn't think I'd be streaming movies to my mobile device.
*Depends on where you live and your typical quality of service from your provider.
Low Band 5G is great when it works. It's everything I expected 4G to be. My main need is consistent speeds. I don't give a shit about theoretical maximum speeds. It's all bout how it runs when I'm at home and my internet drops out. Can I use my cell service is a backup?
Same if I'm on the go and need connectivity.
Look at all the technology and industries that mobile connectivity helps support these days. We don't know what the next level of high speed mobile data will allow and how companies will leverage it. Back in 2007 I didn't think I'd be streaming movies to my mobile device.
OP
OP
Sorry, that's in French, but here is something explaining how it will help to get rid of more human workers in factories.
I'd be really enthusiastic about this if we had some UBI coming, but I'm not really optimistic about this possibility...
I've had 5G this whole year on my mobile plan, but, haven't been able to make any use of it at all for obvious reasons.
At this rate, I have no idea what kinds of speeds 5G gets in the UK as yet.
At this rate, I have no idea what kinds of speeds 5G gets in the UK as yet.
This is actually part of the reason fiber rollout has slowed so much. Companies like Google see more value in offering 5G home base units than laying down fiber.
Absolutely not. Just because it doesn't seem worth it to you at the bleeding edge doesn't mean it's not worth it overall. 4G speeds are too slow to keep mobile locked in at that. Think long term.
OP
OP
I have a 5G smartphone and don't expect to actually connect to a 5G tower for a while, but I got a great deal on it and I expect it to last at least 3 years...
And there are lots of uses for 5G other than fast internet on phones lol
And there are lots of uses for 5G other than fast internet on phones lol
Yeah, I expected the thread to mostly be about this so I was a little surprised...
I think game streaming will eventually take off on 5G, but for other tasks, 4G is generally fast enough. I don't know many smartphone users that really honestly need something faster than that. You can stream good quality video at 4G without any fuss and who really is downloading massive 5GB+ files onto their phone constantly anyway.
But game streaming will likely be the one "holy crap, can't do that on 4G feature".
But game streaming will likely be the one "holy crap, can't do that on 4G feature".
Calling it power hungry for having to send infinitely more data isn't a con to me, if it was proportionally sucking power like my 3080 you'd have a point. The amount power per packet it takes is not a huge jump.
I do agree obsolescence is bad. I don't care if it kills off more maintenance needed to keep it up. That's not a plus to me when it comes to networking or infrastructure. Something that needs love consistently and tons of people means the company has to invest more in that vs actual hardware. Upkeep is not good to me.
The same applies for just saying it's faster. Both it and Wifi6 or the net satellite tech are amazing in abilities not just for bandwidth but latency. There is nothing to stop those involve with 5g from making it better or more effective at power usage.
I do agree obsolescence is bad. I don't care if it kills off more maintenance needed to keep it up. That's not a plus to me when it comes to networking or infrastructure. Something that needs love consistently and tons of people means the company has to invest more in that vs actual hardware. Upkeep is not good to me.
The same applies for just saying it's faster. Both it and Wifi6 or the net satellite tech are amazing in abilities not just for bandwidth but latency. There is nothing to stop those involve with 5g from making it better or more effective at power usage.
Recently switched from AT&T to T-Mobile and they gave me a new iPhone and as such I have 5G, but I don't really notice much difference. Think I get slightly worse coverage, but nine times out of ten it works fine. Not that I care much, I just like that it's unlimited and cheaper than AT&T.
So the question is, do you focus on the symptoms or the disease?
That's always been the case of tech when it first drops. It's never needed day one. Then as it matures and companies utilize it's capabilities we use it.
Whats happening here is you're blaming 5G for the problems of capitalism (obsolescence of commodities, unequal distribution of rewards, redundancy of labor, trivial gains for entertainment purposes, etc).
I'll give you a counterargument.
This will reduce commute times (remote work = no commute) and car use is by far the greatest emissions source in the US.
Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions | US EPA
Sources of greenhouse gas emissions, inculding electricity production, tranportation, industry, agriculture, and forestry.
So really, it cancels out. What you really want is not 4G over 5G, but UBI and social democracy/socialism. Alternatively:
Degrowth - Wikipedia
The cries of "remote work means reduction in people" is based in fear mongering. It's things companies could be doing right this second and for the last 10 years. Shit if they really cared about saving money they'd go full remote and stop paying millions in office space.
OP
OP
I know what I would do, but I think UBI has a looooong way to go before being accepted. Here in France, a lot of people already think unemployed people are getting paid too much and should accept any crappy job they are offered... I can't imagine what they think about UBI...
If you're advocating against technological progress because capitalism will fuck it up you're basically calling for full Return To Monke.
OP
OP
Whats happening here is you're blaming 5G for the problems of capitalism (obsolescence of commodities, unequal distribution of rewards, redundancy of labor, trivial gains for entertainment purposes, etc).
I'll give you a counterargument.
This will reduce commute times (remote work = no commute) and car use is by far the greatest emissions source in the US.
Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions | US EPA
Sources of greenhouse gas emissions, inculding electricity production, tranportation, industry, agriculture, and forestry.
So it cancels out. What you really want is not 4G over 5G, but UBI and social democracy/socialism. Alternatively:
Degrowth - Wikipedia
The more I think about it, the more I agree about degrowth.
But I don't think this forum is a place where we can talk peacefully about it lol
I really wish they would focus on making calls better so that I could actually make a call without it dropping all the time. I have Verizon and live in a NY suburb and sometimes talking to my mom who live 15 minuets away can drop the call 5+ times. Really annoying if I am trying to walk her through something on the computer or we are talking about something that is too much to text.
A bit off topic, but I have a ton of friends who live in the sticks and are stuck on extremely slow speeds. With the range of 5g towers being so short, I see something like a Starlink benefitting them far sooner.
One person I know lives 2 miles from the closest line for Comcast, and they won't run service out to him. He has about a dozen neighbors in the area that would subscribe as well, but Comcast hasn't seen it as worthwhile in the 8 years he's lived there. I can't see 5g towers being built around there either, but I'm sure I could be wrong.
I work for Verizon, full disclosure. Contact us. We're on Facebook, Twitter, or you can call or chat with us. We'll look into what is going on. Your calls shouldn't be dropping that frequently.
5G has an astronomic amount of potential to change the world. Real 5G. Those saying they get worse speeds on their phones with 5G than LTE, you don't have real 5G. You're using a fancy LTE that companies are choosing to call 5G for marketing purposes. Some companies jumped on doing that awhile ago and eventually everyone else fell in line.
The nice (and not so nice) thing about 5G is that the true 5G doesn't use regular towers. It mostly uses small cells, tiny little towers that can even just be stuck on the side of a building. It significantly reduces the cost/land print/time commitment of building in an area. It also means each one has a smaller radius and you need to find more places to put them, so it isn't always too simple, but it can potentially make deploying in smaller areas like that more feasible. Also, with home 5G, you get a box that is put on the outside of your house that is then connected to the router inside your house. This not only gets around the trouble that 5G has with penetrating buildings to get you the service inside, but it also puts effectively a tower that can cover at least some area on the outside of your house long term. (that's not really being used much yet) Its a smart way to spread coverage.
This is all great, but I don't know if I'm getting the right vibe of rural across. Town population of about 4k. Hours from the closest city, and no other buildings to speak of aside from farms and houses, with those being fairly sparse. In the case of wired broadband, and what I assume will be the issue with 5g, is the number of potential customers out there at all. Most of those folk don't want broadband, and I have family in that area who "don't need to use the email" as they put it.
There are definitely folks in the area that need broadband for work, and would benefit from the infrastructure. They're just the minority in an already small population. I just don't see 1500ft range 5g being the answer for them. I hope I'm wrong.
This thread is an absolute mess.
How about we start with defining what 5G actually is. No value statements on what it means, just what it actually is.
5G is a series of standards on cellular radios, what frequency ranges they can use, the data encoding scheme, error correction scheme, and a few other features like specifications for beamforming, MIMO (look it up), and etc.
5G's goal, above all the fluff and bullshit that gets put out is to increase the ratio of devices per cell. That is the primary concern of every cellular network provider. The extra bandwidth and lower latency is just gravy and/or necessary to maintain quality of service for an increased number of users per cell and/or bullshit to help convince radio authorities to sell more spectrum for the sake of "economic growth". Any value statements about "This will enable self-driving cars!" or "This will increase automation!" or "This will enable VR!" are just fluff. Those things can all come without 5G. They may not come even with 5G. 5G is not the limiting factor.
The changes from 4G to 5G are split into three major categories:
1. More efficient use of existing 4G spectrum. This is where the new encoding schemes, beamforming, and MU-MIMO come in to fit more data and, particularly, more users per cell tower. This represents most of the 5G that people are actually going to see, especially those outside major metropolitan areas because its as drop-in a replacement for 4G as can be.
2. Extended spectrum range beyond existing 4G spectrum. 5G will use whatever bands are available above the 4G bands up to 6ghz depending on what the local government allows or has allocated for cellular use. These bands above the 4G spectrum will have reduced range, albeit not by much, and will probably see major deployment in suburbs around major metropolitan areas, and smaller cities where population density is not especially high. We might see them in more rural areas as 5G becomes more commonplace, but I still doubt it, IMO.
3. The addition of Ka-Band (26-40ghz) and, eventually, mmWave (~60ghz) radios that work on mostly different tech from 4G entirely. These new super-high frequency ranges are intended for cells to replace the micro cells that you would find in dense city downtowns, major stadiums, malls, any place where thousands or tens of thousands of people with cell phones all within a hundred or two meters of each other. The extremely high frequencies will limit their usefulness outside of these super dense use cases and, frankly, I think that's the point. This is a solution to the problem of how you serve reasonable internet speed and connection stability to every individual in the Stade de France or Times Square, not a shiny toy for telecoms to chase to bankruptcy as they try and cover the earth in micro cells every 100m^2.
So, going back to the OP, I tried to read the paper that OP had linked to, but my French isn't good, so I fed it through a translator before reading. There's a fair amount of it that's vague because of the machine translation, but the basis seems solid. They're concerned that carbon emissions will increase because 5G might abnormally increase the number of cellular devices being produced, 5G will increase the amount of back-end network equipment being produced, and 5G cells may use more power than 4G cells (or that more/more dense cells will use more power collectively).
However, the paper does not agree with OP's judgement that 5G isn't "worth it". I have to agree instead with the paper's own conclusion that not deploying 5G slows, but does not avert, the increasing carbon emissions caused by the production of cellular and networking devices. I agree with the paper that the solution to the problem isn't to not deploy 5G, but instead to regulate the power consumption of cellular devices, network equipment, and cellular radios; and also to put hard caps on the amount of carbon emissions allowed in the production of cellular and networking devices that are sold in the country.
How about we start with defining what 5G actually is. No value statements on what it means, just what it actually is.
5G is a series of standards on cellular radios, what frequency ranges they can use, the data encoding scheme, error correction scheme, and a few other features like specifications for beamforming, MIMO (look it up), and etc.
5G's goal, above all the fluff and bullshit that gets put out is to increase the ratio of devices per cell. That is the primary concern of every cellular network provider. The extra bandwidth and lower latency is just gravy and/or necessary to maintain quality of service for an increased number of users per cell and/or bullshit to help convince radio authorities to sell more spectrum for the sake of "economic growth". Any value statements about "This will enable self-driving cars!" or "This will increase automation!" or "This will enable VR!" are just fluff. Those things can all come without 5G. They may not come even with 5G. 5G is not the limiting factor.
The changes from 4G to 5G are split into three major categories:
1. More efficient use of existing 4G spectrum. This is where the new encoding schemes, beamforming, and MU-MIMO come in to fit more data and, particularly, more users per cell tower. This represents most of the 5G that people are actually going to see, especially those outside major metropolitan areas because its as drop-in a replacement for 4G as can be.
2. Extended spectrum range beyond existing 4G spectrum. 5G will use whatever bands are available above the 4G bands up to 6ghz depending on what the local government allows or has allocated for cellular use. These bands above the 4G spectrum will have reduced range, albeit not by much, and will probably see major deployment in suburbs around major metropolitan areas, and smaller cities where population density is not especially high. We might see them in more rural areas as 5G becomes more commonplace, but I still doubt it, IMO.
3. The addition of Ka-Band (26-40ghz) and, eventually, mmWave (~60ghz) radios that work on mostly different tech from 4G entirely. These new super-high frequency ranges are intended for cells to replace the micro cells that you would find in dense city downtowns, major stadiums, malls, any place where thousands or tens of thousands of people with cell phones all within a hundred or two meters of each other. The extremely high frequencies will limit their usefulness outside of these super dense use cases and, frankly, I think that's the point. This is a solution to the problem of how you serve reasonable internet speed and connection stability to every individual in the Stade de France or Times Square, not a shiny toy for telecoms to chase to bankruptcy as they try and cover the earth in micro cells every 100m^2.
So, going back to the OP, I tried to read the paper that OP had linked to, but my French isn't good, so I fed it through a translator before reading. There's a fair amount of it that's vague because of the machine translation, but the basis seems solid. They're concerned that carbon emissions will increase because 5G might abnormally increase the number of cellular devices being produced, 5G will increase the amount of back-end network equipment being produced, and 5G cells may use more power than 4G cells (or that more/more dense cells will use more power collectively).
However, the paper does not agree with OP's judgement that 5G isn't "worth it". I have to agree instead with the paper's own conclusion that not deploying 5G slows, but does not avert, the increasing carbon emissions caused by the production of cellular and networking devices. I agree with the paper that the solution to the problem isn't to not deploy 5G, but instead to regulate the power consumption of cellular devices, network equipment, and cellular radios; and also to put hard caps on the amount of carbon emissions allowed in the production of cellular and networking devices that are sold in the country.
What? No. You would only blow through your data plan if you changed how you consume media. a 1-3MB web page is still a 1-3MB web page, it just loads a tiny bit faster than before. If you don't increase your video streaming fidelity on your device then that won't change either.
We don't need 5g now but we will in the future
It's funny lte was the buzzword for so long everyone forgot lte is actually worse than 4g. Lte is just the evolution towards full 4g capability which we never even reached and now we are replacing it with 5g.
Still, progress is good, but it needs to be met by the grid of course with more sustainable energy.
It's funny lte was the buzzword for so long everyone forgot lte is actually worse than 4g. Lte is just the evolution towards full 4g capability which we never even reached and now we are replacing it with 5g.
Still, progress is good, but it needs to be met by the grid of course with more sustainable energy.
I imagine that for hotspotting, it's a valuable prospect for those who want modern broadband-quality internet via a mobile connection. I don't know how big that audience is, but it definitely exists.
For just browsing and watching media on phones, it's probably not going to do much over current 4G/LTE for 99% of customers.
For just browsing and watching media on phones, it's probably not going to do much over current 4G/LTE for 99% of customers.
Consumers (rightly) look at it from the perspective of phone usage but there are some bonkers stuff coming in certain other sectors, like construction and medical, like this:
www.reddit.com
Reddit - Dive into anything
www.reddit.com
In this day and age factories should be all machine. As it would nearly eliminate the danger but those people also deserve to survive so its the only course forward. The money goes back to the economy so its not like its wasted.
One example is We could chop our military budget in half and still be readily able to defend ourselves while having a massive fund to cover said costs.
A UBI means also several social programs can be converted or eliminated. So their is definitely ways to make it viable.
If most of those jobs are done by machines, production goes up, factories can operate 24/7. The key is doing it by benefitting all instead of only Jeff Bezos. We already have the resources to make UBI viable, the problem is those resources are hoarded by a few assholes.
Uh, Tesla? They're aggressively pursuing the idea of an autonomous network of taxis created by over-the-air updates to existing Tesla vehicles, and they have an insurmountable lead in autonomous vehicles over any other manufacturer.
Also isn't the area coverage smaller per antenna with 5G?
Are you seriously arguing we should stop progress to save your job, Herb Alpert ?
We didn't do it for the blacksmiths or the seamstresses or the phone switch operators but we should draw the line at ...local technicians?
Ok, so let's address that authoritative french report you linked to:
5G is for cities, not the boonies. We know this, so how the fuck would there be an environmental impact, exactly? Are we cutting trees? Chasing away birds? No. The key part of the french report is here, telling us that 5G would increase carbon emissions:
"Ces émissions de GES supplémentaires seraient principalement dues à la fabrication des terminaux dont le renouvellement ou l'adoption pourraient se voir accélérés (smartphones mais aussi casques de réalité virtuelle, objets connectés, etc.) et celles des équipements de réseau et de centres de données."
Translation? "5G will require us to make 5G terminals, and other network equipment. Also, electronics such as VR headsets and smartphones will also be manufactured and manufacturing electronics produces carbon emissions."
That is the literal core of their , frankly, utterly stupid and meritless argument. Manufacturing electronics is bad, and 5G will make us manufacture more electronics. Do I even need to ridicule it further or is it clear how stupid it is?
I mean YIKES. I'm not making this shit up! ! I invite francophone era to go read the executive summary for themselves.
We didn't do it for the blacksmiths or the seamstresses or the phone switch operators but we should draw the line at ...local technicians?
Ok, so let's address that authoritative french report you linked to:
5G is for cities, not the boonies. We know this, so how the fuck would there be an environmental impact, exactly? Are we cutting trees? Chasing away birds? No. The key part of the french report is here, telling us that 5G would increase carbon emissions:
"Ces émissions de GES supplémentaires seraient principalement dues à la fabrication des terminaux dont le renouvellement ou l'adoption pourraient se voir accélérés (smartphones mais aussi casques de réalité virtuelle, objets connectés, etc.) et celles des équipements de réseau et de centres de données."
Translation? "5G will require us to make 5G terminals, and other network equipment. Also, electronics such as VR headsets and smartphones will also be manufactured and manufacturing electronics produces carbon emissions."
That is the literal core of their , frankly, utterly stupid and meritless argument. Manufacturing electronics is bad, and 5G will make us manufacture more electronics. Do I even need to ridicule it further or is it clear how stupid it is?
I mean YIKES. I'm not making this shit up! ! I invite francophone era to go read the executive summary for themselves.
I understand that. I think you're misunderstanding what I mean.
The faster the average data rate being used, the faster the data cap is able to be reached. It doesn't matter what the media consumption level is with what I was trying to say. I get ~50Mbps average on my current LTE connection. Assuming I pin this the entire time, I won't blow through my $135/month 50GB plan (I don't have this plan, it's just an example of the highest cap offered here) for roughly two and half hours.
Moving to 5G, this cap doesn't change. It's still the upper limit offered, but now if you pin it, you'll get to your cap in less than half the time.
So don't pin it, right? Don't change the data usage habits.
Well then what's the point of 5G? It's faster, sure, but that doesn't really matter because I can't download much anyway. A 3MB page is going to load in milliseconds even on LTE. And LTE has no issues streaming Standard Def video ~0.5-1GB/hour. Moving up to HD, you're blowing through ~3GB/hour using Netflix as an example.
You want the speed because it gives you the option to increase your streaming quality, and get faster downloads. But if you don't have the data cap, you'll never actually be able to benefit from the advantages of 5G over LTE (for long). At least, not in any meaningful way. People are still going to be downloading over WiFi before they head out, etc.
And this is all using the 50GB upper limit plans. The vast majority of people here have a more reasonable ~10GB plan for ~$85/month or even less. So for them, that's just over 3 hours of HD video streaming on Netflix per month. Unusable/Irrelevant for most.
China sends 'world's first 6G' test satellite into orbit
The satellite is meant to trial new technology expected to be many times faster than 5G.www.bbc.com
China already testing 6G, they've had 5G for a while
Right, test and measurement industry has to develop prototypes along with research. 5G was in the works in the 2000s.
And yes it is worth it - for future applications. Phones? Probably not as much but that market is developed.
We're due to get fibre here in rural France by 2025. Currently got patchy 2-5Mb ADSL.
I did a speed test on my phone on 4G the other day and got 95Mb on a country lane a few hundred metres from my house.
I think mobile, as long as it's unlimited, will overtake the fibre roll out. Some providers already offer a home 4G router, subsidised by the government, if you're in a slow ADSL area.
Can get one that's supposedly unlimited, but reading online that people say it's throttled at times, although Bouygues deny it.
If 5G requires line of site, our 70cm thick stone walls will fuck it. Barely get 4G in the house!
I did a speed test on my phone on 4G the other day and got 95Mb on a country lane a few hundred metres from my house.
I think mobile, as long as it's unlimited, will overtake the fibre roll out. Some providers already offer a home 4G router, subsidised by the government, if you're in a slow ADSL area.
Can get one that's supposedly unlimited, but reading online that people say it's throttled at times, although Bouygues deny it.
If 5G requires line of site, our 70cm thick stone walls will fuck it. Barely get 4G in the house!