Kuo: All Three iPhones Coming in 2020 Will Support 5G

[Infinite Vortex]

Have you been following him closely over the years though?

For me he's just like Tim Cook when he say the product line is deep and what's coming will blow your mind. There's a moment when he's in China saying it that's stuck in my mind… and that was like 5 years ago. The only things that are blowing my mind are how much they're wanting this year for what I could get last year but cheaper.

 

[MrGuder]

Why would it suck for them? The 2019 iPhone will be a huge upgrade for anyone with a 3 year old device and, like all iPhones, will work great for many years.

You think when 5G comes out that LTE gets switched off and their phones stop working? Or that LTE is going to get downgraded and provide a miserably slow experience?

What really sucks is people paying top dollar for a flagship that has 5G and having to put up with the growing pains (poor coverage, increased battery draw, not supporting all networks) while having to wait several years before it’s established enough to work seamlessly. And after all that realizing your phone works about the same on 5G as your last phone did on 4G.

These are good points.

I’m still debating on getting a 2019 vs waiting for 2020. My 6s works great but I’d like a bigger screen and longer battery. But since I don’t buy new iPhones often I want to make the right choice. I know I don’t want the XR.

 

[ZeitGeist]

These are good points.

I’m still debating on getting a 2019 vs waiting for 2020. My 6s works great but I’d like a bigger screen and longer battery. But since I don’t buy new iPhones often I want to make the right choice. I know I don’t want the XR.

Get an iPhone 8 Plus if you absolutely need to spend money this year.

Otherwise, replace your 6s’ battery ($79 at Apple, or $29 if you had done it last year).

 

[ix.heart]

How do you refute the people that claim 5G needs more study on possible health impacts?

[doublepost=1564445665][/doublepost]The overwhelming information about safety concerns regarding 5G should give EVERYBODY pause. when fire departments have to takedown the 5G cell site due to diminished health of firefighters, what the hell does that mean. Great 5G summit coming up regarding health aspects of 5G. Personally, I have zero intention of getting a 5G phone and totally Fu*king up my families health.
[doublepost=1564445942][/doublepost]http://urltag.net/DBbQB

 

[chatin]

As usual, a dumb call from Cook to pay billions for tech few people need or trust.

 

[fairuz]

There is no need to refute nonsense.

5G, just like all cellular tech before it, uses NON-IONIZING radiation. It has no effect on living tissues.

Dangerous radiation is IONIZING radiation. In order to get there you have to go to MUCH shorter wavelengths, through even the entire visible light spectrum until you get to ultraviolet. 6GHz is not even close to infrared light, which is still harmless. IR starts at 300GHz!

Stop being overly paranoid and trust the science.

Microwave ovens use high-powered non-ionizing radiation, very dangerous if you're exposed. Same with being directly next to a satellite transmitter. The FCC imposes limits on cellphone radiation as it stands. I don't know what all the risks are, but the usual is something small and important in your body resonating with whatever frequency they chose and heating up.

Problem is there's no way to get an unbiased study. The industry has hidden known health risks many times in the past that have resurfaced decades later, and now a lot of money is behind 5G, so please tell me how I can trust this. I'd take the risk anyway if 5G were greatly useful, but so far it's been unimpressive. I say let China test it for us
[doublepost=1564451244][/doublepost]

And, why would I ever want it to work anyway? It will be ridiculously limited, and expensive. It will never perform better than a local Gigabit hardline, with wireless access points.

I can't ever imagine wanting it to work...god forbid I accidentally use it and consume the few gigs of data I'm allotted.

For web browsing, latency is usually the bottleneck, not bandwidth. I expect 5G to deliver lower latency.

 

[Shirasaki]

Which "opinion" did I propose as a fact, please refer me to that statement!

Second, I am a researcher at the department of Genetics and Biotechnology at Wageningen University. As a researcher in these fields, there are absolutely zero journals that we can publish our data in the absence of empirical evidence. In short, one cannot publish a paper to disprove anything (how to disprove something in the absence of its existence, and how statistically verify that specific data?)
I cannot refer you to a non existing paper, go figure (PubMed!)

Now I am asking you again, please refer me to a specific paper, author and issue-number that provides empirical evidence about the danger of 5G.

I have one more question to you, about which (exact) frequency are you talking about when you refer to 5G? The W-band of the microwave part of the electromagnetic spectrum or millimeter waves which are currently in use by the cellular and wireless industries (5G f=30Ghz)?

As for this 5G thing, I will just put this here: at this point, no one can convince each other with ample evidence and reproducible test methods. I will give 5G benefit of doubt saying it is potentially harmful but no solid conclusion as of yet. The proper response I think for general users is to leave it behind for the moment. Try not to be paranoid and stay calm.

 

[Timemaster]

Can someone show me the threads of complaints that LTE is slow?

I do not think people are call LTE slow but ask that question again in 1-2 years.

Only a few years ago we where calling 3g fast and now we say that is slow when we have to be on it. It is all relative.

 

[Datalinks]

It is infuriating me that Apple only offers phablets and no decent sized small iPhone, regardless of being a budget or high end phone.

Apple execs are living in their own world, their reality distortion field, not realizing that there are people in this word, who think, that smartphones aren’t that important in their lives. They don’t want to carry bricks around.

I completely agree with you and that's why I was stuck with an iPhone 5 for ages. Ended up getting an iPhone 8 recently. I am more than happy with its performance and its size.

 

[Infinite Vortex]

I do not think people are call LTE slow but ask that question again in 1-2 years.

Only a few years ago we where calling 3g fast and now we say that is slow when we have to be on it. It is all relative.

I know what answer I'm going to give to you in a year or 2 already… what do I care if 5G is faster?! Yes its faster, significantly faster (please note in the best case - but yes faster), but what does that faster change for me exactly when it comes to my usage experience? An over that air update downloads faster… you mean that update I'm probably not installing anyway? And not only that my service provider will probably want to charge me more for it.

Yes there are gains to be had with 5G but none that for my usage, and I'm only talking about my usage, will bring anything but higher prices all round.

 

[PastaPrimav]

I expect 5G to deliver lower latency.

The overwhelming odds are that it won't.

 

[apolloa]

Which "opinion" did I propose as a fact, please refer me to that statement!

Second, I am a researcher at the department of Genetics and Biotechnology at Wageningen University. As a researcher in these fields, there are absolutely zero journals that we can publish our data in the absence of empirical evidence. In short, one cannot publish a paper to disprove anything (how to disprove something in the absence of its existence, and how statistically verify that specific data?)
I cannot refer you to a non existing paper, go figure (PubMed!)

Now I am asking you again, please refer me to a specific paper, author and issue-number that provides empirical evidence about the danger of 5G.

I have one more question to you, about which (exact) frequency are you talking about when you refer to 5G? The W-band of the microwave part of the electromagnetic spectrum or millimeter waves which are currently in use by the cellular and wireless industries (5G f=30Ghz)?

You are presenting your opinion that 5G isn’t harmful as fact, it is an opinion as you’ve not provided one single link to back your claim, yet apparently your a researcher, one would think it would be easy for you to do so, I mean according to this article their are lots of papers claiming no effects:


The Brussels government has halted the rollout of 5G because they delivered by booster antenna can’t actually be measured:

https://www.mobileeurope.co.uk/press-wire/brussels-blocks-5g-over-radiation-concerns

And we do have the test that showed prolonged 2G and 3G can cause cancer in rats:

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsroom/releases/2018/november1/index.cfm
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/

If you want you can buy this report, and I’m not doing that to prove my point:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10669-011-9307-z

And more and more scientists and doctors are putting their names to requests for standards to be changed for non iodising radiation, and they have a lot of fears over 5G as it is untested:

http://emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal

http://www.5gappeal.eu/scientists-and-doctors-warn-of-potential-serious-health-effects-of-5g/

And I’m not the only one who is worried, the post from above which I’m guessing you do not accept either? Those pesky fire stations must be stupid eh?

[doublepost=1564445665][/doublepost]The overwhelming information about safety concerns regarding 5G should give EVERYBODY pause. when fire departments have to takedown the 5G cell site due to diminished health of firefighters, what the hell does that mean. Great 5G summit coming up regarding health aspects of 5G. Personally, I have zero intention of getting a 5G phone and totally Fu*king up my families health.
[doublepost=1564445942][/doublepost]http://urltag.net/DBbQB

Now unless your going to try and argue 5G isn’t as or more powerful then 2G and 3G signals, then please I invite you (again), to post your factual proof from recognised bodies independent of the mobile phone industry.
Otherwise I’m done with this conversation and you still have failed to see my point. Any other posts by you without any links to back up your claims is nothing but personal opinion and deflection.
[doublepost=1564506872][/doublepost]

The overwhelming odds are that it won't.

Yeap, the talk is how 5G will apparently be used to connect ‘everything’, including fridges, now last time I checked most people lived in cities with internet and WiFi at home, and your smart devices connect to that including your fridge.. but what ever. The more and more devices that connect to it the slower the latency can be.

 

[NBAasDOGG]

You are presenting your opinion that 5G isn’t harmful as fact, it is an opinion as you’ve not provided one single link to back your claim, yet apparently your a researcher, one would think it would be easy for you to do so, I mean according to this article their are lots of papers claiming no effects:


The Brussels government has halted the rollout of 5G because they delivered by booster antenna can’t actually be measured:

https://www.mobileeurope.co.uk/press-wire/brussels-blocks-5g-over-radiation-concerns

And we do have the test that showed prolonged 2G and 3G can cause cancer in rats:

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsroom/releases/2018/november1/index.cfm
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/

If you want you can buy this report, and I’m not doing that to prove my point:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10669-011-9307-z

And more and more scientists and doctors are putting their names to requests for standards to be changed for non iodising radiation, and they have a lot of fears over 5G as it is untested:

http://emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal

http://www.5gappeal.eu/scientists-and-doctors-warn-of-potential-serious-health-effects-of-5g/

And I’m not the only one who is worried, the post from above which I’m guessing you do not accept either? Those pesky fire stations must be stupid eh?

Did you even read the NTP papers at all (I’m taking about the actual papers on PubMed)

NTP research (this study is already claimed as irrelevant according to many researchers):
The RFR exposure was nine hours each day. RFR levels ranged from whole-body SAR of 2.5-10 watts per kilogram body weight in mice and rats. Average mice weight around 25g and 400g for rats. In total, the mice and rats were exposed to 81.000Wh-324.000Wh of energy levels per day per full body weight. In average male that would be 25,31Wh-101,25Wh energy exposure per day per full body weight of 80Kg. That’s a difference factor 3200. In short, the rats and mouse were exposed to 2G-3G energy levels that were 3200x times stronger when compared to humans.

As a conclusion, the NTP 10 year study showed that it was unclear if tumors observed in the studies were associated with RFR used by cell phones. However, there is a positive correlation between radio frequency radiation and tumors in male rats (at UTTERLY high and unrealistic energy levels as explained previously). Therefore, there is no evidence that 2G-3G cellphones usage causes cancer humans!

The NTP study actually disproved your point
(Eating 20Kg peanuts per day also gives cancer, but peanuts are not dangerous!)

The researchers exposed thousands of rats and mice to radiation levels that were equivalent to an average mobile user’s lifetime (mouse do not live as long as humans). That’s a perfect study to find statistical correlation regarding health concerns, just like the peanut example I gave above..., but does not prove any danger to humans, mice and rats at lower energy levels. (5G is still below 1.5W/kg, therefore non-dangerous to humans and animals)

I will be reading the "Nonthermal GSM RF and ELF EMF effects upon rat BBB permeability" paper tomorrow afternoon and report on that later (reading and understanding a scientific paper takes time!). Very sad that you send me a paper that you can’t even read for yourself. This paper is actually for free if you’re a researcher or student at any university.
Fortunately, I do have access and can send you the full paper in PDF if you are interested. For the love of yourself, READ THE NTP PAPERS FIRST!

One more thing.... You mentioned that I did not provided one single link to back my claim. That’s because there are no "scientific" papers claiming no effect (I’m not talking about your average internet articles). That still holds true, because there are actually no papers that claim no effect. Those papers are finding correlations of "positive and negative effects". ONE CANNOT PUBLISH DATA TO DISPROVE SOMETHING IN THE ABSENCE OF ITS EXISTENCE, DON’T YOU GET IT?
[doublepost=1564515785][/doublepost]

As for this 5G thing, I will just put this here: at this point, no one can convince each other with ample evidence and reproducible test methods. I will give 5G benefit of doubt saying it is potentially harmful but no solid conclusion as of yet. The proper response I think for general users is to leave it behind for the moment. Try not to be paranoid and stay calm.

Thank you for the advise

 

[apolloa]

Did you even read the NTP papers at all (I’m taking about the actual papers on PubMed)

NTP research (this study is already claimed as irrelevant according to many researchers):
The RFR exposure was nine hours each day. RFR levels ranged from whole-body SAR of 2.5-10 watts per kilogram body weight in mice and rats. Average mice weight around 25g and 400g for rats. In total, the mice and rats were exposed to 81.000Wh-324.000Wh of energy levels per day per full body weight. In average male that would be 25,31Wh-101,25Wh energy exposure per day per full body weight of 80Kg. That’s a difference factor 3200. In short, the rats and mouse were exposed to 2G-3G energy levels that were 3200x times stronger when compared to humans.

As a conclusion, the NTP 10 year study showed that it was unclear if tumors observed in the studies were associated with RFR used by cell phones. However, there is a positive correlation between radio frequency radiation and tumors in male rats (at UTTERLY high and unrealistic energy levels as explained previously). Therefore, there is no evidence that 2G-3G cellphones usage causes cancer humans!

The NTP study actually disproved your point
(Eating 20Kg peanuts per day also gives cancer, but peanuts are not dangerous!)

The researchers exposed thousands of rats and mice to radiation levels that were equivalent to an average mobile user’s lifetime (mouse do not live as long as humans). That’s a perfect study to find statistical correlation regarding health concerns, just like the peanut example I gave above..., but does not prove any danger to humans, mice and rats at lower energy levels. (5G is still below 1.5W/kg, therefore non-dangerous to humans and animals)

I will be reading the "Nonthermal GSM RF and ELF EMF effects upon rat BBB permeability" paper tomorrow afternoon and report on that later (reading and understanding a scientific paper takes time!). Very sad that you send me a paper that you can’t even read for yourself. This paper is actually for free if you’re a researcher or student at any university.
Fortunately, I do have access and can send you the full paper in PDF if you are interested. For the love of yourself, READ THE NTP PAPERS FIRST!

One more thing.... You mentioned that I did not provided one single link to back my claim. That’s because there are no "scientific" papers claiming no effect (I’m not talking about your average internet articles). That still holds true, because there are actually no papers that claim no effect. Those papers are finding correlations of "positive and negative effects". ONE CANNOT PUBLISH DATA TO DISPROVE SOMETHING IN THE ABSENCE OF ITS EXISTENCE, DON’T YOU GET IT?
[doublepost=1564515785][/doublepost]

Thank you for the advise

As I said your deflecting and only have a personal opinion on the matter and nothing more, you aren’t able to prove otherwise.

 

[Shirasaki]

As I said your deflecting and only have a personal opinion on the matter and nothing more, you aren’t able to prove otherwise.

Disbelieve all you want. Nothing will change whether you choose to believe or not.
[doublepost=1564517833][/doublepost]

Did you even read the NTP papers at all (I’m taking about the actual papers on PubMed)

NTP research (this study is already claimed as irrelevant according to many researchers):
The RFR exposure was nine hours each day. RFR levels ranged from whole-body SAR of 2.5-10 watts per kilogram body weight in mice and rats. Average mice weight around 25g and 400g for rats. In total, the mice and rats were exposed to 81.000Wh-324.000Wh of energy levels per day per full body weight. In average male that would be 25,31Wh-101,25Wh energy exposure per day per full body weight of 80Kg. That’s a difference factor 3200. In short, the rats and mouse were exposed to 2G-3G energy levels that were 3200x times stronger when compared to humans.

As a conclusion, the NTP 10 year study showed that it was unclear if tumors observed in the studies were associated with RFR used by cell phones. However, there is a positive correlation between radio frequency radiation and tumors in male rats (at UTTERLY high and unrealistic energy levels as explained previously). Therefore, there is no evidence that 2G-3G cellphones usage causes cancer humans!

The NTP study actually disproved your point
(Eating 20Kg peanuts per day also gives cancer, but peanuts are not dangerous!)

The researchers exposed thousands of rats and mice to radiation levels that were equivalent to an average mobile user’s lifetime (mouse do not live as long as humans). That’s a perfect study to find statistical correlation regarding health concerns, just like the peanut example I gave above..., but does not prove any danger to humans, mice and rats at lower energy levels. (5G is still below 1.5W/kg, therefore non-dangerous to humans and animals)

I will be reading the "Nonthermal GSM RF and ELF EMF effects upon rat BBB permeability" paper tomorrow afternoon and report on that later (reading and understanding a scientific paper takes time!). Very sad that you send me a paper that you can’t even read for yourself. This paper is actually for free if you’re a researcher or student at any university.
Fortunately, I do have access and can send you the full paper in PDF if you are interested. For the love of yourself, READ THE NTP PAPERS FIRST!

One more thing.... You mentioned that I did not provided one single link to back my claim. That’s because there are no "scientific" papers claiming no effect (I’m not talking about your average internet articles). That still holds true, because there are actually no papers that claim no effect. Those papers are finding correlations of "positive and negative effects". ONE CANNOT PUBLISH DATA TO DISPROVE SOMETHING IN THE ABSENCE OF ITS EXISTENCE, DON’T YOU GET IT?
[doublepost=1564515785][/doublepost]

Thank you for the advise

Could you PM me the paper in PDF form? Bothe the NTP test one you are using here and the “GSM RF” paper you are about to read. I would love to take a little bit deeper look and understand this “5G is harmful” saga a bit more.

As for random people, I am done. The beauty of scientific fact is its outcome does not change based on someone’s belief, even if government tries to twist it and interpret it in a seriously negative way.

 

[NBAasDOGG]

As I said your deflecting and only have a personal opinion on the matter and nothing more, you aren’t able to prove otherwise.

Then why did the papers you send my disproved your point?
Why did you lie about the harm of 2G and 3G by the NTP research?
The research literally concluded "it was unclear if tumors observed in the studies were associated with RFR used by cell phones". That’s what the research literally concluded!
Why did you lie about it?

How is my statement an opinion when the research concluded that extreme high dosage of 81.000Wh radiation does not cause cancer in humans (life-time exposure)?
How is my statement and opinion when 10 yeas worth $30.000.000 NTP study shows that 5G energy levels are not even close to 10W/kg energy dosage?

Your links are literally disproving your own points and you are absolutely embarrassing yourself by calling people keyboard warriors.
You cannot change the laws of physics in this universe. If you don’t like, go somewhere else, maybe to another universe where laws are psychologically satisfying to you

Do you even know what kind of data are eligible for publications?

 

[fairuz]

Well here comes Captain Obvious Kuo. Who would release any flagship phone in 2020 with no 5G...

Apple always lags behind on this. They did it with LTE and with 3G. I'm not saying it's bad; maybe people don't really care about having the latest wireless immediately since carriers take years to roll it out anyway.
[doublepost=1564561711][/doublepost]

I do not think people are call LTE slow but ask that question again in 1-2 years.

Only a few years ago we where calling 3g fast and now we say that is slow when we have to be on it. It is all relative.

3G is still fast for me, except for that one time every 4 years I want to watch soccer over cell data.

 

[fairuz]

Yeap, the talk is how 5G will apparently be used to connect ‘everything’, including fridges, now last time I checked most people lived in cities with internet and WiFi at home, and your smart devices connect to that including your fridge.. but what ever. The more and more devices that connect to it the slower the latency can be.

Only if there's queueing delay caused by overload, which happens at a certain threshold. Until that point, there's no effect on latency.

This is totally ignoring interference during the wireless part of the journey. I don't think either of us knows how that works, but I'd expect that to only affect bandwidth. Plus with 5G there will be way more access points instead of one tower serving miles around it.

 

[apolloa]

He doesn’t have to, since you haven’t been able to provide a single legitimate link to any real study supporting your claims - all you (and the other guy) have provided are doctored or misleading links to fake domains, registered with names meant to imply authority.

If you have to resort to subterfuge and fraud in order to support your claims, what does that say about your claims?

Exactly, it presents your claims as wing based on subterfuge, and fraud, and thus being false and fraudulent claims.

He doesn’t have to refute your nonsense - you are doing so yourself by only presenting misleading information and fraudulently created sources.

That is all. You should now stop.

It’s incredibly hypocritical to lay claims against someone with ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF to back up your claims. Analytical skills, really, so your pathetic argument is this persons analytical skills are higher then another’s based on a few posts in an Internet forum... yet only one person provides links, and the other side including you fail, or purposely deflect the argument that 5G has not been fully and properly tested, it if were surely too ha capable of providing links to back up your claims.
And your not some sort of authoritative on here demanding people to stop! Yet more proof you lack any credibly argument. And where’s your proof that these documents are apparently fake? Is the Brussels government fake too? You need unequivocal proof to back up your claim there, and unsurprisingly you’ve provided none, just your own personal opinion and nothing more.
And on the basis you and the other poster lack any argument and are incapable of providing any proof to back up your claims then I am done on the topic.
[doublepost=1564573346][/doublepost]

Only if there's queueing delay caused by overload, which happens at a certain threshold. Until that point, there's no effect on latency.

This is totally ignoring interference during the wireless part of the journey. I don't think either of us knows how that works, but I'd expect that to only affect bandwidth. Plus with 5G there will be way more access points instead of one tower serving miles around it.

Those cell towers are connected by the fibre backbone, the same backbone also has to support telephone exchange and cables connections, as more and more devices connect the limits are reached. Then contention comes into play.

 

[Shirasaki]

with ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF

He cites NTP research analysis, highlighting the fact that even with 3200x radioactive energy exposure, the correlation between tumour and energy level is still unclear. But, radio frequency has clear positive correlation with the chance of tumour, proving that high enough frequency radiation CAN potentially cause tumour.

What is the conclusion? Energy level does not have serious impact on human body. But frequency does.

Now go back to the 5G part. Depending on the frequency company is using, it can go from 6GHz to 48GHz and even 96GHz, a frequency that is weaponised to deter crowd. If those 5G devices uses the 48GHz to transfer data, sure, it can cause serious health problems. But what if they don’t use that frequency, but 6GHz? Suddenly the risk is very low.

To conveniently ignore that wall of text as “proof” and demand a researcher to post a random link of a random online article Clearly shows that your Argument is simply invalid and pointless.

here is a link if you like random link so much, about this god damn 5G.
https://www.rfsafe.com/5g-network-uses-nearly-same-frequency-as-weaponized-crowd-control-systems/

purposely deflect the argument that 5G has not been fully and properly tested

He does not. He just analyse 5G from one perspective.

providing links to back up your claims.

I get it. Internet user loves link and thinks researchers are doing research by googling all day without experiments, labs and tests. That’s why researchers are pushing the progress of technology, not internet users.

 

[apolloa]

He cites NTP research analysis, highlighting the fact that even with 3200x radioactive energy exposure, the correlation between tumour and energy level is still unclear. But, radio frequency has clear positive correlation with the chance of tumour, proving that high enough frequency radiation CAN potentially cause tumour.

What is the conclusion? Energy level does not have serious impact on human body. But frequency does.

Now go back to the 5G part. Depending on the frequency company is using, it can go from 6GHz to 48GHz and even 96GHz, a frequency that is weaponised to deter crowd. If those 5G devices uses the 48GHz to transfer data, sure, it can cause serious health problems. But what if they don’t use that frequency, but 6GHz? Suddenly the risk is very low.

To conveniently ignore that wall of text as “proof” and demand a researcher to post a random link of a random online article Clearly shows that your Argument is simply invalid and pointless.

here is a link if you like random link so much, about this god damn 5G.
https://www.rfsafe.com/5g-network-uses-nearly-same-frequency-as-weaponized-crowd-control-systems/

He does not. He just analyse 5G from one perspective.

I get it. Internet user loves link and thinks researchers are doing research by googling all day without experiments, labs and tests. That’s why researchers are pushing the progress of technology, not internet users.

Soo you post a link that agrees with what I’m saying, and then complain about it and decide that something someone only types in a comment is more valid? Strange post to make.
I guess your someone that’ll believe anything some posts in a comment right?
If you can cite something then you can provide a link to the proof of your claim...

All your post does is backup my comments, 5G is untested on the heath risks and more and more people are demanding its roll out is stopped till it is tested properly. Otherwise it’s nothing but blind assumption. It’s being pushed out as rapid deployment at present.

 

[Shirasaki]

Soo you post a link that agrees with what I’m saying, and then complain about it and decide that something someone only types in a comment is more valid? Strange post to make.
I guess your someone that’ll believe anything some posts in a comment right? Unless it doesn’t match your own opinion that is...
If you can cite something then you can provide a link to the proof of your claim...

I will not feed your obsession of link, period.

My quote to a comment is one form of citing information, just like I quote a paragraph from a book. Same thing. It is up to you to accept it or not, though I doubt you will.

The only thing I agree with is your point that 5G is not fully researched yet before pushing towards general public. The thing is, if we wait until researchers know everything about 5G, we are still using 3G network as of today. Plus, even if 5G is not fully understood by general public, its underlying physics remain the same. Researchers choose to analyse that, and derive from the result to give a relatively comprehensive opinion of whether 5G is good or not.

Just to sum up my claim here: 5G signal energy does not pose serious threat to human. 5G frequency does. If company ignores the devastating damage potential of high frequency wave and push 5G with wrong radio frequency, then 5G can kill people. But, there is no telling how company will implement 5G as of yet. So, 5G is Neither safe nor dangerous on its own. Its implementation determines how much damage 5G can do.

Now, give me your link to attack my point if you are feeling good to do so.

 

[fairuz]

Those cell towers are connected by the fibre backbone, the same backbone also has to support telephone exchange and cables connections, as more and more devices connect the limits are reached. Then contention comes into play.

The backbone isn't a problem. What you described is the same as what we have with wifi. Smart fridges and whatever, they all use wifi. None of them use much bandwidth, so there won't be congestion.

LTE has bottlenecks in the edge network the carriers run, and maybe the wireless is a problem too but idk.

 

[ZeitGeist]

It’s incredibly hypocritical to lay claims against someone with ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF to back up your claims.

Kinda like what you are doing - and hence someone making claims with absolutely no proof can be easily dismissed, no matter how much they pout.

You have been unable to provide any proof or support for your claims. The ‘sources’ and links you have provided are deliberately misleading and can be classified as fraudulent - as I have explained, thus your entire set of claims can be dismissed on that basis alone.

That is all. Please stop hyperventilating.

 

[apolloa]

The backbone isn't a problem. What you described is the same as what we have with wifi. Smart fridges and whatever, they all use wifi. None of them use much bandwidth, so there won't be congestion.

LTE has bottlenecks in the edge network the carriers run, and maybe the wireless is a problem too but idk.

Well when your talking of billions of devices all connected to the net, you have contention. Even on fibre.
It always comes down to those backbone links and their capacity, from the cell towers, pop sites, telephone exchanges.

You just have to hope they fit enough links to cope with it all.