5G means the end for all non-5G phones but will take forever to implement

[Rukbat]

It's like the switch from 1G (yes, there was such a thing) to 2G, from 2G to 3 G and from 3G to 4G being the fastest protocol. They won't increase your monthly bill from, say, $60 to $160. But prices keep going both up and down. (Back in 2004, 70 minutes per month, voice, text or data, was, depending on the carrier, somewhere around $80/month. 70 minutes/month. Now we have unlimited talk and text, and fast date which is limited in amount for that money. So you can get a minimal data account (3GB/month) with unlimited talk and text for $15/month, or "unlimited" data (if you start downloading multigigabyte files as fast and as long as you can, they'll cap your speed to dialup speeds [about 48kbps]) for not much more than what we used to pay for 70 minutes.

5G is most likely going to be the same. In 5 years, you'll still be able to get "unlimited" data for under $100/month, and limited data for a lot less.

But remember something - if you have WiFi available, who cares? You don't need 5G to download emails. And even 4G is fast enough to stream videos.

 

[TheWounded]

in Belgium i am afraid we won't get 5G for years .
Not looking good .

https://www.brusselstimes.com/all-n...risks-being-left-behind-in-the-5g-revolution/

 

[tgm1024]

Excuse the passionate rant.

The problem with posts like these is that they have to sidestep many fundamentals, because to bring those fundamentals into the discussion properly will open androidcentral to physics AND political arguments, neither of which are anywhere near productive.

For instance, you can't tell the whole story of "falling behind China" without mentioning:

1. No one is really that far behind anyone in terms of the technology itself. OH GREAT, NOW THIS IS A PHYSICS FORUM.

2. Other country deployment schedules can't be discussed properly without discussing funding, which brings in economic structure arguments, where in the Chinese case certainly brings in quality of life, (etc.)..... OH GREAT, NOW THIS IS A POLITICAL FORUM.

Trust me. These rat-holes are worth avoiding.

 

[tgm1024]

Well Verizon seems to be fueling high expectations on 5G, while at the same time customers are not being particularly educated.

Who's more at fault? Well, look at this and decide regarding simple coverage issues, not even 5G:

I was at a Verizon store a few days ago. There was an irate customer in front of me nearly yelling at the rep. Here's the conversation.

Customer (in bold)

"My phone doesn't work. I can't hear anything clearly sometimes. Here, see?"
"Yes, this is the same as my phone here. Verizon has terrible coverage in various sections of this town."
"You told me my phone would work!"
"Yes, but we can't offer any further coverage than what we have. I told you about the spotty coverage right here. All carriers have weak spots."
"Well you said that my phone would work!, so how long do I have to return it?"
"The first of the month."
"Thanks for nothing." (leaves)​

I then said to the rep. "You think this is bad now, just wait until customers are in here clamoring that their 5G coverage 'isn't working'."

Rep replied sadly while looking down, "(sigh) I know. I can't wait."

 

[Almeuit]

Well Verizon seems to be fueling high expectations on 5G, while at the same time customers are not being particularly educated.

Who's more at fault? Well, look at this and decide regarding simple coverage issues, not even 5G:

I was at a Verizon store a few days ago. There was an irate customer in front of me nearly yelling at the rep. Here's the conversation.

Customer (in bold)

"My phone doesn't work. I can't hear anything clearly sometimes. Here, see?"
"Yes, this is the same as my phone here. Verizon has terrible coverage in various sections of this town."
"You told me my phone would work!"
"Yes, but we can't offer any further coverage than what we have. I told you about the spotty coverage right here. All carriers have weak spots."
"Well you said that my phone would work!, so how long do I have to return it?"
"The first of the month."
Thanks for nothing. (leaves)​

I then said to the rep. "You think this is bad now, just wait until customers are in here clamoring that their 5G coverage 'isn't working'."

Rep replied sadly while looking down, "(sigh) I know. I can't wait."

You just described every carrier store since 3g came out lol. Acting as if 5G made any difference with this happening is funny.

 

[tgm1024]

You just described every carrier store since 3g came out lol. Acting as if 5G made any difference with this happening is funny.

Well, keep in mind that the customer wasn't complaining about 5G, she was complaining about simple coverage.

And I do believe that it got worse from 3G to 4G and will be even worse with 4G to 5G (for both the over promotion and the extended expectation set that results).

Besides, I don't think it much matters if this is a new phenomenon or not. Hype happens everywhere, as does customer crankiness.

 

[Almeuit]

Well, keep in mind that the customer wasn't complaining about 5G, she was complaining about simple coverage.

And I do believe that it got worse from 3G to 4G and will be even worse with 4G to 5G (for both the over promotion and the extended expectation set that results).

Besides, I don't think it much matters if this is a new phenomenon or not. Hype happens everywhere, as does customer crankiness.

Got worse? How did it get worse? The old network was still there and it would fall back. It only seemed to "get worse" because people wanted the higher 4G LTE and dismissed the old. It wasn't like 4G LTE came around and instantly all the old networks disappeared so there was no coverage loss. I mean hell they are still active as of now....

 

[mustang7757]

Got worse? How did it get worse? The old network was still there and it would fall back. It only seemed to "get worse" because people wanted the higher 4G LTE and dismissed the old. It wasn't like 4G LTE came around and instantly all the old networks disappeared so there was no coverage loss. I mean hell they are still active as of now....

Exactly
5G will be deployed in major cities and other parts of the country still need 2g,3g,4g

 

[tgm1024]

Got worse? How did it get worse? The old network was still there and it would fall back. It only seemed to "get worse" because people wanted the higher 4G LTE and dismissed the old.

Funny, that's the hype I'm talking about. Did you notice?

It wasn't like 4G LTE came around and instantly all the old networks disappeared so there was no coverage loss. I mean hell they are still active as of now....

Exactly
5G will be deployed in major cities and other parts of the country still need 2g,3g,4g

Of course, but I have no idea what the two of you are talking about with regard to my post if you think that you (mustang) didn't just accidentally agree with me, which it looks like you did.

Look at it this way: Let's pretend that the promotions and expectations from 2G to 3G to 4G to 5G are linear (marketing effort + customer expectations). However the effort to implement the technology deltas are not linear. With (for example) the increase from 4G to 5G, the 5G antennas are purportedly going to have a nominal transmitter density of 1 per every 500 feet. That's an incredible increase in infrastructure that has to happen before customers get to realize just how cool it is to have 5G as much as it seems to be in the ads.

This means that the reality/expectation mismatch is going to widen further than before. Certainly much worse than with 4G.

Now, I've already made the point that the increase in 5G will further bulletproof the 4G network. But that's only in ever tighter population densities than ever before.

Did the population densities always get better coverage? Of course, that on its face is nothing new. But will now the disparity between the technology in population densities be dramatically higher than before?

You bet.

 

[mustang7757]

I was agreeing and tag Almeuit comment about falling back on older tech , I didn't tag your name so don't know why you think that?

 

[Almeuit]

Funny, that's the hype I'm talking about. Did you notice?





Of course, but I have no idea what the two of you are talking about with regard to my post if you think that you (mustang) didn't just accidentally agree with me, which it looks like you did.

Look at it this way: Let's pretend that the promotions and expectations from 2G to 3G to 4G to 5G are linear (marketing effort + customer expectations). However the effort to implement the technology deltas are not linear. With (for example) the increase from 4G to 5G, the 5G antennas are purportedly going to have a nominal transmitter density of 1 per every 500 feet. That's an incredible increase in infrastructure that has to happen before customers get to realize just how cool it is to have 5G as much as it seems to be in the ads.

This means that the reality/expectation mismatch is going to widen further than before. Certainly much worse than with 4G.

Now, I've already made the point that the increase in 5G will further bulletproof the 4G network. But that's only in ever tighter population densities than ever before.

Did the population densities always get better coverage? Of course, that on its face is nothing new. But will now the disparity between the technology in population densities be dramatically higher than before?

You bet.

I guess I have no idea what your post is about either then. I simply said you are describing every piece of new tech -- consumers won't get it, it won't work perfect, etc. -- and then you came back as if that wasn't true.

Either way this thread is funny because the OP acts as if 4G LTE is going away soon or something which ... no.

 

[tgm1024]

I simply said you are describing every piece of new tech -- consumers won't get it, it won't work perfect, etc. -- and then you came back as if that wasn't true.

No that isn't what happened. I established that was true on its face, it's just that it's a disproportionately larger chasm between reality and expectations now.

All these "been here before" arguments are missing the problem entirely.

In any case, it's clear that you're not agreeing that things are disproportionately different, so that's the bottom line. The old shake hands and walk away thing I guess. No worries.

 

[Almeuit]

No that isn't what happened. I established that was true on its face, it's just that it's a disproportionately larger chasm between reality and expectations now.

All these "been here before" arguments are missing the problem entirely.

In any case, it's clear that you're not agreeing that things are disproportionately different, so that's the bottom line. The old shake hands and walk away thing I guess. No worries.

Yep I don't agree because I don't get how it is different. They screamed about LTE as well and most customers had no clue how it worked or why. Same thing here with 5G. I see zero difference from when I had my first 3G phone to now LTE and soon 5G in small pockets until it expands over the next decade.

I agree tech is more in peoples face because it is getting easier to use more and more versus back in the day but that again goes back to describing tech over the years in general.

 

[tgm1024]

Either way this thread is funny because the OP acts as if 4G LTE is going away soon or something which ... no.

Well if that was the OP's thrust, then you're quite right. No way, no how, is that going to happen in any kind of turnkey timeframe.

I'll further contend that a full withdrawal from 3G, unless mandated by a frequency throttle by law, just isn't going to happen by 1/1/2020. I can't imagine how that could work, and no, I'm not buying any commitment of Verizon to that end.

IF hidden in that commitment, Verizon is committing to a dumping of everything below 4G, then their coverage map would (IMO) be a joke.

 

[Almeuit]

Well if that was the OP's thrust, then you're quite right. No way, no how, is that going to happen in any kind of turnkey timeframe.

I'll further contend that a full withdrawal from 3G, unless mandated by a frequency throttle by law, just isn't going to happen by 1/1/2020. I can't imagine how that could work, and no, I'm not buying any commitment of Verizon to that end.

IF hidden in that commitment, Verizon is committing to a dumping of everything below 4G, then their coverage map would (IMO) be a joke.

I am sure they are going to do it. They are going to re-purpose the spectrum -- you don't want to keep old tech around forever. For some areas it definitely will cause some headaches but not for all. I have had Verizon for over 2 years now and every place I have visited I have had LTE so I haven't hit 3G. That would affect people in the middle of nowhere more I would say.

 

[tgm1024]

I agree tech is more in peoples face because it is getting easier to use more and more versus back in the day but that again goes back to describing tech over the years in general.

If you agree with the ~500 ft. radius statement on 5G, and compared to the several miles of 4G...I don't understand your conclusion. Think of the grid density required that increases exponentially. And forget the inverse square law: higher frequencies are attenuated by everything.

I'm seriously tempted to make a directed graph of a simple adjacency network to show the problem.

About data and attenuation: We communicate with underwater submarines with ultra long waves (unbelievably low frequency) EMS. They don't get attenuated by hardly anything, to the point where we can literally blast the signal through the earth. The problem there is that the inherent data capacity of such a low frequency is incredibly low. They can get very little information other than a command to surface for more. The bandwidth is a fixed issue that cannot be changed, hence the push for ever higher frequencies in our own data.

Anyway, enough of this......unsubscribing....

 

[Almeuit]

If you agree with the ~500 ft. radius statement on 5G, and compared to the several miles of 4G...I don't understand your conclusion. Think of the grid density required that increases exponentially. And forget the inverse square law: higher frequencies are attenuated by everything.

I'm seriously tempted to make a directed graph of a simple adjacency network to show the problem.

About data and attenuation: We communicate with underwater submarines with ultra long waves (unbelievably low frequency) EMS. They don't get attenuated by hardly anything, to the point where we can literally blast the signal through the earth. The problem there is that the inherent data capacity of such a low frequency is incredibly low. They can get very little information other than a command to surface for more. The bandwidth is a fixed issue that cannot be changed, hence the push for ever higher frequencies in our own data.

Anyway, enough of this......unsubscribing....

Because 5G isn't only going to be a 500 FT radius. If you truly think that will be the only way 5G is delivered I would suggest doing some research before trying to "teach" someone...

You think 5G is only mmWave and uh.. it isn't. Right NOW? Yes. Forever or the ONLY way? No.

 

[Golurk]

Erm...

 

[medic22003]

We just got fiber for Internet last year where I'm from in rural Missouri. It definitely makes a difference

 

[Eric Webb]

As milliniumdroid notes, worry not about the low frequency end of the EMS spectrum.

For example, every lifeform on earth since the creation of our solar system nearly 4.5 billions years ago has been exposed to the energy photons generated shortly after the creation of the Universe in the unfortunately named "Big Bang" nearly 14 billion years in the past.

While these energy packets began as incredibly short wavelength, high energy Gamma radiation, whose energy is now approximated only in the CERN particle accelerator, both the expansion of the universe at a rate faster than light speed and the cooling of the photons packets has stretched their wavelengths and reduced the photon energy to that of microwave and radio wave frequencies and energies.

Discovered accidentally by Penzias and Wilson of Bell Labs while trying to eliminate annoying, continual, faint static from their radiotelescopes, the two won the 1978 Physics Nobel for discovering the ghost signals of our own creation event. We call it the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and it passes harmlessly through our bodies every second of every day. Just like the radio waves produced by WiFi, Bluetooth, FM, AM, etc.

The energy level of a photon packet is directly proportional to the oscillation frequency of of the energy photon according to Planck's Law, where "h" is Planck's constant:

E = hf

So, lower EMS frequencies like radio, infrared and microwave have lower energy per packet than higher frequency waves like visible light, ultraviolet light, X-Rays and Gamma Rays.

MRI machines work by using supercooled magnets to align hydrogen ions in our bodily fluids like water and radio frequency waves that deflect off these aligned particles to produce detailed soft tissue images. You could have an MRI every day for your entire life without serious damage to your cells and DNA.

Conversely, Hard X-Rays produced in large quantities by one CT machine scan can bombard your cells and DNA with the equivalent of an entire year's worth of recommended maximum exposure to radiation expressed in Sieverts. Until this warning label was removed from CT imaging machines, hospitals and clinics were afraid to buy then because patients were afraid to have them! Ah just rip the radiation warning off and it no longer exists.

So, don't worry about damage from the radiation sources we know exist and that knowledgable sources constantly tell us are harmless. Worry about the damage and death from radiation sources we don't realize exist and whose effects are constantly hidden from us by knowledgable sources who say nothing.

Have a nice evening.