Comment by tboyd47 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tboyd47 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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 radiation 24/7. Residents of these areas will be exposed to this radiation whether they use it or not - there is no opt-out.

There is some quackery in this space (i.e. cures for "radiation sickness," etc.), but I don't consider it blameworthy to have caution concerning new technology in general, especially when the benefits of 5G to the consumer are so dubious. It seems to me like a push by the telecoms to re-implement wireless internet on their terms from the ground up in as many areas as they can before public opinion forces neutrality back on them again.

I also don't think they'll actually succeed (at least in America anyway), but mostly end up selling people the same product under the label "5G LTE" or something.

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)

> 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...

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.

This!

You can put a mmwave basestation in a factory (a couple of cells near the ceiling) and controll everything (machines, "robots", transporters, forklifts, inventory,...) via LTE.

But why not just use wifi then ?

Wifi has low capacity (in terms of number of connected devices) and offers no guarantee on anything (latency, reliability). It is not suited for critical and industrial applications.

Right, so far we've learned:

1) 5G improves wireless internet - though it only works over short-range and can't go through walls.

2) 5G needs a massive deployment of new devices to reach consumers - though most consumers are not willing to pay even $1 more for 5G.

3) 5G is a prerequisite for amazing new tech like IoT and self-driving cars - many of which already exist and will continue to use existing 3G and 4G bands.

"Dubious" is actually me being generous!

You're obsessed with "5G can't go through walls". This is a meme and does a dis-service to your knowledge.

5G reuses existing 3G and 4G frequencies, but with better rf management (among other things). The mmwave frequencies are to address mass-crowd scenarios, which currently today already cause 4G DAS deployments to almost burst at the seams.

These are not "my" opinions. These are the current state of affairs re RF management and planning.

Well, it might be unsophisticated of me to belabor my point, but it doesn't take a genius to see that there are major technical drawbacks with 5G, and the industry has not been successful in convincing consumers to buy into the hype.

Telcos are blowing $26 billion on this new tech, so I think it's important to question how they're going to make that money back. If you read how the industry itself answers this question, hint: it's not self-driving cars. It is 5G network slicing. The current wireless infrastructure is built on net neutrality, so they cannot differentiate traffic without rebuilding it all from scratch. That is the real reason behind the $26 billion rollout and millions of new devices. They need to rebuild the internet to charge enterprise customers high prices and 5G is just how they decided to market this project to the public. They need to do this before the political environment changes or else they lose their opportunity.

>3) 5G is a prerequisite for amazing new tech like IoT and self-driving cars - many of which already exist and will continue to use existing 3G and 4G bands

That sounds like marketing hype from an ISP.

A self-driving car that is dependent on a radio network to operate is by defonition, not self-driving.

You've never been in an expo hall with 10k people all trying to post an instagram photo, have you?

So the solution is the radiate the entire group of people for instagram?

As already said, this will use beam forming, which means that the radio energy is focused at the receiver.

This means less interference to others around, and higher capacity.

It's already radiated, but now with less power.

5G is safer than previous tech (3-5 orders safer than radio that has been around for something like 2 centuries).

> 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...?

This fact has nothing to do with 5G. It is physics. A high-frequency carrier is not able to penetrate objects as well as it does with a lower frequency.

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.

The short range and poor transmission of the higher frequencies leads me to speculate that the intended use case is micro cells that replace wifi. There will be a micro cell in every conference room and hotel lobby.

Its a tin foil hat thing. The mmWave frequencies are only going to be used in high population dense areas and will run at a lower power. Other than this, 5G will operate much like LTE with a few additions like beamforming antenna arrays. Frequency has very little to do with health risk until you get into MUCH higher frequencies than what we operate in. Its about output power, and this is federally regulated by most countries.

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com