All I hear about 5G is that it requires a large amount of antennas on both your phone (4 because a hand covering the antenna can cause a drop in signal) and around you. I don't want to be near a high power transmitter that's low frequency, and I really don't want to be near a high frequency one.
What's the sell of 5G? I guess the speed, but what? 1 Gbit to my phone? Why. Considering that I only get 15GB of "Unlimited" data now, it isn't going to replace Wi-F. Because of the density required of the towers, it's not going to replace 4G/LTE as some areas it's just unrealistic to have the required density.
First, 5G should increase available bandwidth. Industry analysts are predicting that data usage will go up 7x between now and 2024. More speed/bandwidth can help with that. Without increasing capacity, would we just see our usage stagnate?
Second, 5G should have much better ping times. Not only will this make browsing noticeably better, but it also means that latency applications can work well over wireless.
Third, there's a decent possibility that 5G will bring home broadband competition. If you're fed up with Comcast or Charter, 5G could mean choice in your internet service.
Fourth, I believe that 5G has a lot more flexibility than LTE. Part of that might mean low-power narrow connections that will allow cheap and battery-efficient sensor connections. Part of that might mean ultra-wide-band connections allowing for high-bandwidth devices that can't be served by the more limited carrier aggregation of LTE.
Fifth, sometimes applications happen when the technology is there to accommodate it. The broad availability of broadband let Netflix pivot from shipping DVDs to streaming. Broadband has meant online gaming, richer online applications, digital distribution, etc. As mobile bandwidth increased, we went from loading music from our computer, to streaming music, to streaming video. I think the broadband speed you have to support in your applications tends to be 10Mbps+, but if that floor raises over the next 5 years, it could change which applications and experiences people invent.
I mean, before the iPhone was announced, a lot of people wanted a phone dial pad on one side and an iPod click wheel on the other. People wanted Blackberries. The iPhone laid the technological foundation for all sorts of new experiences that people hadn't really thought about. Successive iPhones have been comparatively minor upgrades, but even then the faster processors, better screens, better wireless connectivity, etc. have allowed for better experiences to be built.
It's also important to remember that there are different deployments of 5G. While Verizon has pushed out its ultra-high-band, short-range 5G, other companies are going to be rolling out 5G on more traditional spectrum offering much the same range as LTE. 5G NR is a new radio interface and it promises better spectral efficiency than LTE.
I think it's also likely that many areas will see high-density deployments. Companies like Comcast run a wire to every house they serve and require coordination with property owners to get it into the building. If you could run a wire to one point every 18 acres, that's a lot easier (that's assuming a 500 ft transmission range). Higher density than that is certainly achievable in dense cities.
It can certainly be hard to predict what a new technology might make happen. It's also possible that 5G won't make a huge impact beyond what LTE has already done.
I start to observe, that previously I was pretty much covered with HSPA. But now more and more without LTE it's hard. I guess when most technologists are within LTE coverage one is at disadvantage outside of it.
Sadly it seems that at least where I live mobile transfer limits are stagnant.
I like to call it the "infrastructure pattern", via . If something serves (or could serve) as an enabler for other activities, it's important to make it more capable than the immediate needs would dictate, as this allows for new applications to appear. Internet speed & bandwidth is a great example of this, and so is CPU speed, RAM, and storage size. I'd go as far as saying that the history of civilization is one big series of "I know we don't need this" followed by new applications spawned by the surplus.
 - https://wiki.hackerspaces.org/The_Infrastructure_Pattern
In general, only one radio can transmit on one frequency at a time. So a city wide network quickly becomes congested. Reducing the time everyone spends transmitting greatly increases the quality of service and the amount of users that can be serviced.
The increased antenna count is also a benefit in crowded situations. If each antenna covers a smaller range, then more people can use the network in a given area- two antennas that would interfere with each other in a longer range system will operate simultaneously.
I think a better argument could be made about spending R&D on making 4G/LTE require a smaller band. I think LTE (assuming 850MHz) can be 1.4, 3, 5, 10MHz per band- which is non-optional. If you could cut the required Tx/Rx band width in half; I think that would be better use of effort.
With 4G I routinely see situations in busy areas where the phone claims "full bars" but data performance is sub-dialup.
"No," the teacher sharply rebuked. "It's governed by well understood and reliable mathematical equations. Though difficult, it is far from magic."
There was a brief pause, the teacher was normally easy going and congenial. His harsh words caught us off guard.
"...antennas on the other hand, that is black magic."
>>It eliminates traffic disruptions from street construction, and there are no antennas awkwardly placed on buildings, marring the appearance of a neighborhood.
Said by someone who has never attempted to install anything inside a manhole. They will need to close the streets. You cannot just creep through the sewers installing stuff without disrupting the traffic above. Workers are not moles. They will need to run new lines. And in modern cities, the type without the huge walk-in storm sewers of NY/London/Paris/SF, there will still be digging.
With many innovations these days it is hard to determine feasibility from initial articles/claims. Lots of inventions seem to exist only to get grant money, with no hope of practicality (solar roads, solar windows). If these are lightweight manhole covers that cannot support traffic (ie just an antenna mounted atop an aluminum cover) then I'll chalk it up alongside those sidewalk tiles that generate electricity from pedestrians: might work, but will never be practical.
More modern cities have separate systems for sewage and stormwater, and these are contained in small pipes that people cannot walk around in. Upgrading from a combined system is a massive project, well beyond something like 5g imho.
No, it has not. "To date, research does not suggest any consistent evidence of adverse health effects from exposure to radiofrequency fields at levels below those that cause tissue heating" .
On the chance that there is an effect, it might not even be detectable, which means for all practical purposes it doesn't.
Not saying it's a direct correlation, this is a very difficult topic to analyze, but if you are a heavy phone user you take your chances. Cancer has a long latency period, so you may die of other causes before the damage is realized.
Personally I think other more immediate non-thermal effects of pulsed RF are of more concern than cancer at the moment. This may change, but that's what the current research seems to point towards.
> The electromagnetic fields produced by mobile phones are classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as possibly carcinogenic to humans.
So it's not settled science, even though there is some evidence pointing toward it not causing cancer.
So, if your car has keyless entry, your car keys would technically also be on the list.
Anecdotally, I see alongside some unpleasant-sounding items, a lot of common things on that same list like: aloe vera, Ginkgo biloba, engine exhaust, pickled vegetables, and cocamide DEA. It seems to me that mere presence on that list doesn't mean much without further context -- why it was put on the list, the relative danger of it compared to other things on that list, etc.
In fact The Lancet just published this article:
"Planetary electromagnetic pollution: it is time to assess its impact"
There is plenty of evidence of non-thermal and non-ionizing biological effects . The problem is at the moment most people are focused on cancer, when in fact there are a lot of other published effects that need to be looked into.
ICNIRP and FCC are both focused solely on thermal effects, with human modeling as a blob of jelly, when the latest science shows there also exists non-thermal effects on a cellular and bio-molecular level.
 An example of 500 published papers on EMR (electromagnetic radiation) since August 2016:
Thus a gap could be filled by a foundation which had the resources to provide a brand to peer review and follow up study for the most impactful publications/findings of the year. If this foundation had a significant amount of funding for research well beyond typical peer review, it would inspire some level of confidence in results that otherwise we cannot have from the peer review performed by people working for the publishing companies that profit from publication.
We don't let farmer joe and farmer bob review each other's operations, yet that is often what we do with the food for our minds.
I suspect that one aspect of this is to give them leverage in getting access to antenna sites.
The article presents a novel, non-obvious approach in some ealier-stage development.
Because the size is much less than a wavelength, the body can be at ground, while the active parts can be at RF potential.
Example: Your phone is grounded, but it still works.
"Swisscom and Ericsson have proved that city manholes can be used worldwide to improve capacity with small cells – even below street level – using the Ericsson Vault Remote Radio Unit and Kathrein’s Street Connect, an in-ground microcell antenna system. The use of existing street manholes where fiber and power already exists lowers total cost of ownership by 50 percent.
This, the world’s first vault site for LTE and small cells has been approved by the Swiss authorities, and 250 new rollouts are due during 2016 in the country’s cities. The solution effectively addresses cities’ needs by enabling the reuse of existing assets and underground space."
Really since 2016. Good framing by Voda to present this as "Building on its heritage of innovation".