Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

5g.systemsapproach.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 113 posts

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#41

Post by tboyd47 »

s_dev wrote: post #15
bkovacev wrote: post #14

As someone new to the 5G world I'm hearing a lot about health concerns. Can someone please explain to me the actual health concerns? My GF has been talking about it for a while now, but when I looked up health related studies of 5G on google scholar - I didn't get any meaningful hits. Is it a tin foil thing or are there really some concerns?

It's a tin foil hat thing. It's just wireless frequencies -- which may have some minor impact but it wouldn't be any different to 4G or 3G really and you can see that tech came and hasn't caused any major health issues.

Are you aware of any longitudinal studies on the effect of wireless internet (or even electricity in general) on human health to prove your point?

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#42

Post by windsurfer »

tboyd47 wrote: post #25
bkovacev wrote: post #14

As someone new to the 5G world I'm hearing a lot about health concerns. Can someone please explain to me the actual health concerns? My GF has been talking about it for a while now, but when I looked up health related studies of 5G on google scholar - I didn't get any meaningful hits. Is it a tin foil thing or are there really some concerns?

Theoretically, 5G will use a higher frequency band of radiation (24Ghz-86Ghz). This band has a harder time penetrating obstacles, so you will need many more transmitters at a higher power level to cover an area. Opponents are uncomfortable with the enthusiasm of the telecom companies over 5G without sufficient (they feel) long-term research on the health effects of saturating entire neighborhoods with millimeter-wave…

For those that are curious, the wavelength of 86Ghz radiation is about 3mm.

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#43

Post by 0xDEEPFAC »

itcrowd wrote: post #22
bkovacev wrote: post #14

As someone new to the 5G world I'm hearing a lot about health concerns. Can someone please explain to me the actual health concerns? My GF has been talking about it for a while now, but when I looked up health related studies of 5G on google scholar - I didn't get any meaningful hits. Is it a tin foil thing or are there really some concerns?

5G safety is a long story, but the tl;dr is that it's not something to worry about. I tried to explain this a while back in a long thread here on HN. I tried to cite many scientific articles with more details. Please refer to that if you'd like. Maybe I'll write a blog post some day. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20454375

I've lost faith in industry funded research. After all PFOA and GenX got approved for use in teflon and that stuff is most definitely toxic.

Maybe we all could benefit from being a little more paranoid.

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#44

Post by rjzzleep »

l0000p wrote: post #16
s_dev wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a tin foil hat thing. It's just wireless frequencies -- which may have some minor impact but it wouldn't be any different to 4G or 3G really and you can see that tech came and hasn't caused any major health issues.

Unfortunately, a statement like that, has just as much value as the conspiracy theory. Since 5G is a vastly different technology, the only thing we can say for certain is that we don't know the health risks at this point.

Funny I would call it almost the same. It's 4g plus channel coding, massive mimo, beamforming and more ML which influences the spectrum choices.

The vastly different is a marketing term.

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#45

Post by mytailorisrich »

tboyd47 wrote: post #25
bkovacev wrote: post #14

As someone new to the 5G world I'm hearing a lot about health concerns. Can someone please explain to me the actual health concerns? My GF has been talking about it for a while now, but when I looked up health related studies of 5G on google scholar - I didn't get any meaningful hits. Is it a tin foil thing or are there really some concerns?

Theoretically, 5G will use a higher frequency band of radiation (24Ghz-86Ghz). This band has a harder time penetrating obstacles, so you will need many more transmitters at a higher power level to cover an area. Opponents are uncomfortable with the enthusiasm of the telecom companies over 5G without sufficient (they feel) long-term research on the health effects of saturating entire neighborhoods with millimeter-wave…

The mmwave range is only one of the 5G ranges. 5G will also use the same ranges as 3G and 4G.

In the mmwave range transmitters will not have to transmit higher power levels. First because the use-case for this range is when there is NO obstacles to go through (it does not really work otherwise...), in short distance situations, and then also because beam forming will always be used.

> especially when the benefits of 5G to the consumer are so dubious

Benefits are not limited to browsing speed on your smartphone.

5G is designed to be able to handle massive number of connected devices (e.g. IoT), very low latency (e.g. self-driving cars, industrial control), and very high reliability (industrial control, etc)

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#46

Post by bluGill »

monkeynotes wrote: post #30
bluGill wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rural areas are getting 4g. 3g is common, and 2g is even being turned off in some places. 5g will start coming to rural areas soon as some of the options make it more suited to rural areas than 4g. In 10 years we will probably be talking about 6g...

Obviously you haven't been to rural Maine.

I follow national (and international to some extent) trends as my employer has many rural customers. What happens in any given location isn't a trend.

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#47

Post by est31 »

wallflower wrote: post #3

I heard the real reason we need 5G is to sell more new phones. Thinner and bigger and better cameras isn’t enough anymore. However, mobile phones running 5G radios will deplete their battery far more rapidly than LTE, right? And that is assuming the 5G phone user is in a major metropolitan area where there is sufficient coverage to begin with.

Newer standards like LTE are incredibly more bandwidth efficient. This means that any phone that's still using the old standards uses up the bandwith that multiple newer phones could use. As free bandwith is extremely rare, at least in urban areas, network operators are pushing towards new standards. This phenomenon is real. E.g. in Germany the provider Deutsche Telekom has put a clause into their TOS that allows them to turn off 3G from 2020 onward (idk about their US daughter company T-Mobile USA). Yes, this means you as a citizen have to buy a new phone that supports 5G/LTE. But it's driven mainly by customer demands for bandwidth, not by evil phone makers that conspire with network operators.

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#48

Post by tboyd47 »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #45
tboyd47 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theoretically, 5G will use a higher frequency band of radiation (24Ghz-86Ghz). This band has a harder time penetrating obstacles, so you will need many more transmitters at a higher power level to cover an area. Opponents are uncomfortable with the enthusiasm of the telecom companies over 5G without sufficient (they feel) long-term research on the health effects of saturating entire neighborhoods with millimeter-wave…

The mmwave range is only one of the 5G ranges. 5G will also use the same ranges as 3G and 4G. In the mmwave range transmitters will not have to transmit higher power levels. First because the use-case for this range is when there is NO obstacles to go through (it does not really work otherwise...), in short distance situations, and then also because beam forming will always be used. > especially when the benefits of…

> the use-case for this range is when there is NO obstacles to go through (it does not really work otherwise...)

So, on the one hand, 5G is going to make unicorns fly down and carry us to the heavens on wings of pure data, and on the other hand, it can't go through walls...?

Research shows that two thirds of consumers are not willing to pay even $1 more for 5G internet. [0] Regardless of the promises companies are making to each other and consumers today, the demand for 5G just doesn't seem consumer-driven.

---

[0] https://www.pwc.com/us/en/services/consulting/library/consum...

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#49

Post by mytailorisrich »

tboyd47 wrote: post #48
mytailorisrich wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mmwave range is only one of the 5G ranges. 5G will also use the same ranges as 3G and 4G. In the mmwave range transmitters will not have to transmit higher power levels. First because the use-case for this range is when there is NO obstacles to go through (it does not really work otherwise...), in short distance situations, and then also because beam forming will always be used. > especially when the benefits of…

> the use-case for this range is when there is NO obstacles to go through (it does not really work otherwise...) So, on the one hand, 5G is going to make unicorns fly down and carry us to the heavens on wings of pure data, and on the other hand, it can't go through walls...? Research shows that two thirds of consumers are not willing to pay even $1 more for 5G internet. [0] Regardless of the promises companies are ma…

Most data are consumed indoor anyway, so mmwave will likely be used through indoor micro cells. mmwave also allows to boost capacity.

As already written in my previous comment, 5G is not just about faster internet. Other use-cases are as important, if not more. Operators know they can't charge consumers extra.

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#50

Post by jmiskovic »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #45
tboyd47 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theoretically, 5G will use a higher frequency band of radiation (24Ghz-86Ghz). This band has a harder time penetrating obstacles, so you will need many more transmitters at a higher power level to cover an area. Opponents are uncomfortable with the enthusiasm of the telecom companies over 5G without sufficient (they feel) long-term research on the health effects of saturating entire neighborhoods with millimeter-wave…

The mmwave range is only one of the 5G ranges. 5G will also use the same ranges as 3G and 4G. In the mmwave range transmitters will not have to transmit higher power levels. First because the use-case for this range is when there is NO obstacles to go through (it does not really work otherwise...), in short distance situations, and then also because beam forming will always be used. > especially when the benefits of…

This is a very precise answer. Still, there is need for more cells as grandparent points out, and those cells will be closer to ground level than before.

Other anticipated benefits are providing connectivity to fast vehicles (for example high speed trains) and providing mobile internet to whole buildings in situations where it's cheaper or more convenient than fiber optics or copper.

Post reply on HN