71–80 of 433 posts
It seems to be the Oscar Wilde practically satirical "Anything which is of practical use is ugly and anything which isn't is beautiful".
There's such weird marketing zealotry behind 5G. They're acting like it's going to completely reshape society, but at best it's just... faster internet. In places where the internet is already pretty fast. I can only assume it's a mixture of political and economic stakeholders that have their own reasons for really wanting it to succeed (looking competitive against China, selling new phones, etc.)
Nilay Patel wrote an editorial over at The Verge titled "Wait, why the hell is the ‘race to 5G’ even a race?": https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/23/18637213/5g-race-us-leade... > All I’m asking is that the next time you hear a wireless industry person talk about the “race” to 5G, stop and ask them why it’s a race. Ask who the competitors are, and what happens if we come in second place. See if you buy the answer. I sus…
> I'm quite concerned about NASA's warning that 5G will weaken our ability to forecast the weather NASA issued no such warning. 5G would interfere with one satellite-based moisture measure around populated areas. NOAA’s commentary was around how that one measure would need to be statistically tweaked or supplemented. (The headlines resulted from NOAA’s head warning the Congress that if the latter didn’t give him fund…
Is 5G actually innovative? Are we talking order of magnitude improvements over 4G?
Cause right now all I hear is that 5G achieves faster speeds and added throughput by simply putting more towers and access points around. That doesn't sound like innovative engineering. At that point, just wire fiber everywhere and create a giant Wifi mesh network with an access point at every house. Like that would give faster internet, but not very innovative.
Normally a good innovative tech would cost less, take up less resources, and achieve higher speeds and throughput. I'm not sure 5G is that from what I heard.
EDIT: Even if you downvote, I am asking a question that I'm interested in hearing answers for, so please still try and answer my questions. Thank you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm quite concerned about NASA's warning that 5G will weaken our ability to forecast the weather NASA issued no such warning. 5G would interfere with one satellite-based moisture measure around populated areas. NOAA’s commentary was around how that one measure would need to be statistically tweaked or supplemented. (The headlines resulted from NOAA’s head warning the Congress that if the latter didn’t give him fund…
I was repeating what I've read. When The Washington Post reported[1] about NOAA director Neil Jacobs's testimony before congress on the issue, they wrote: > With this reduced forecast skill, the European model would not have predicted 2012′s Superstorm Sandy hitting the Northeast coast several days in advance, Jacobs said. Instead, the model would have steered the storm out to sea. Lead time to prepare for the storm…
No, they’re reporting on a valid dialectic. The topic of the story is the discussion, not the science. (The Post is a political paper. That their May story produced zero further reporting from reputable sources is a hint.)
In lieu of listening to the hearing [1], the American Institute of Physicists (AIP) provides a good summary [2].
TL; DR The Science Committee is debating emission limits. Nobody suggests scrapping 5G.
[1] https://science.house.gov/hearings/the-future-of-forecasting...
[2] https://www.aip.org/fyi/2019/noaa-warns-5g-spectrum-interfer...
Nilay Patel wrote an editorial over at The Verge titled "Wait, why the hell is the ‘race to 5G’ even a race?": https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/23/18637213/5g-race-us-leade... > All I’m asking is that the next time you hear a wireless industry person talk about the “race” to 5G, stop and ask them why it’s a race. Ask who the competitors are, and what happens if we come in second place. See if you buy the answer. I sus…
That’s kind of a silly and easily-answered question by itself, especially for tech.
If you asked anyone with a minimal business background they’d have an easy answer for that: it’s a strategy leveraging first-mover advantage.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-mover_advantage
In tech, there are tons of historical instances of imperfect implementations gaining high market share because of first-mover advantage. It’s a really effective tech strategy. Switching costs, vendor lock-in, and technical debt are huge driving forces for this.
There's such weird marketing zealotry behind 5G. They're acting like it's going to completely reshape society, but at best it's just... faster internet. In places where the internet is already pretty fast. I can only assume it's a mixture of political and economic stakeholders that have their own reasons for really wanting it to succeed (looking competitive against China, selling new phones, etc.)
Everything I've heard about it indicates that it's a trash technology. Unless you're standing next to an emitter, it's no faster than 4G and potentially even slower. Like you walk one block or behind a wall and it's not good anymore. So you gotta put one of these up on every block. I'm banking on it being a complete dud, like 3D televisions.
I remember the abundant “cell phones cause cancer” and “WiFi is like a microwave” scares 20 years ago, they all ended when people got their hands on nice and shiny touchscreen smartphones.
They generally chose not to believe me and stick with the "the government is going to give us all cancer because... ...money?" narrative, but I did change the occasional mind.
And yeah, all the people who freaked out about radio towers and electrical transmission lines are now freaking out about 5G. The best bit is how an article that stated "5G could interfere with weather radar" was converted by their hive-mind panic into "5G will change the weather!!!"
I wish I was making that up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Competition to cable should improve speed and reduce internet prices. Right now we only have cable in most of the country, when 5g is out we will have three more last-mike providers: ATT, Verizon, and T-Mobile.
Well, that it certainly isn't going to do unless wireless providers suddenly decide to stop capping data so tightly. I don't think wireless providers are cheaper today if you include things like that in the calculation. Not to mention many people already use AT&T and Verizon for their home internet...
People with things like nest cameras routinely go over 1tb data cap on comcast fiber. These people started moving to att. Over time, i do expect competition to work its way, on data cap matters at least.