Sprint Launching 5G Network in May Starting in Four Cities

v0lume4 said:
Yes. I'd hardly consider it tinfoil hat territory.

The fact of the matter is that we have basically NO data telling us whether it is or isn't harmful to our health. It's asinine to just assume "Nah we're good."

Like anyone ever complained about 4G speeds anyway. 60+ Mbps down? That is fast enough for a cell phone. Heck that's fast enough for a house.
Click to expand...
from everything ive seen its much more dangerous than anything before it. I need to do some more research on it.
 
I don't really understand what the big deal is for 5g, at least on mobile phones. Our issue is the amount of data we can use, with a 5g connection what little data we have is just going to get sucked up that much faster. My kids can already burn through my entire 20gb with a few hours use of YTkids. Seems like 4g is plenty fast enough to stream HD video as well, so I can't see the benefit there. For something like a home connection that's unlimited or has a large amount of data then yeah, it seems like it would be great. But for your everyday phone consumer it just seems like massive massive overkill. I'd rather they spent all that money deploying and marketing 5g to defray the costs of letting me have more data. Although I suspect the cost of data is nowhere near what consumers pay for it and the carriers are just bleeding us dry, like back in the day when they metered voice minutes and text message minutes.
 
x-evil-x said:
anybody else worried about all these health risks that 5g causes?
Click to expand...

No.

There's nothing specific about 5G that is a health risk.

Some are focusing on the fact that 5G will require more transmitter sites each covering a smaller "cell" area.

Those who think there is some increased risk to this need to understand (they don't...) that RF power density obeys an inverse-square law. The power density varies with the square of the distance. That is, it RAPIDLY drops off with distance from the origin.

While cell sites CAN (but generally do NOT) transmit at higher power than cell phones, the power density of RF around your body from your own phone's transmitter is MUCH greater than that received from the cell site. The signal received from the site at your location is a very, very tiny fraction of that measured locally from your own phone.

The arguments about the close spacing of the cell sites are bogus and pseudo-scientific.

The only valid arguments against are related to potential loss of property value due to the appearance of the transmitters and the pseudo-scientific perceptions of potential buyers.
 
"Sprint chief technology officer John Saw said the carrier saw speeds of 430 Mbps in one demo, according to The Verge, significantly faster than LTE."

LTE is also fast when your the only one connecting to the service.
 
DakotaGuy said:
The range of 5G is so limited it'll be years before most of us will ever see it.
Click to expand...
5G's only usefulness is to supply high speed internet to homes with a few hundred feet of a tower (Utility pole transmitter.) No cable required for the last 200 feet. Due to the limited range its usefulness for truly mobile devices is questionable.
 
69Mustang said:
Sprint is not using what we have come to consider 5G: mm wave tech. It's not using it because it doesn't own any of the spectrum needed for it. Instead they are going with a much, much slower variation. So yeah, technically it meets the lower end of the 5G specification. But is that where Sprint wants to get on the 5G bandwagon? They're already considered a 2nd rate carrier. Their 2nd rate 5G implementation will do nothing to improve that.
Click to expand...

If they don't own the spectrum, they don't have much choice, do they? They know they need to get started on a 5G program in order to be remotely competitive, so I assume they're doing what they have to do to ensure that happens. Are any potential Sprint 5G customers going to care if they're using a different technology that has slightly lower theoretical speeds?

For that matter, is anyone really on the edge of their seat waiting for 5G? Anyone have any good reason(s) for me to care at all about 5G right now?
 
jtara said:
No.

There's nothing specific about 5G that is a health risk.

Some are focusing on the fact that 5G will require more transmitter sites each covering a smaller "cell" area.

Those who think there is some increased risk to this need to understand (they don't...) that RF power density obeys an inverse-square law. The power density varies with the square of the distance. That is, it RAPIDLY drops off with distance from the origin.

While cell sites CAN (but generally do NOT) transmit at higher power than cell phones, the power density of RF around your body from your own phone's transmitter is MUCH greater than that received from the cell site. The signal received from the site at your location is a very, very tiny fraction of that measured locally from your own phone.

The arguments about the close spacing of the cell sites are bogus and pseudo-scientific.

The only valid arguments against are related to potential loss of property value due to the appearance of the transmitters and the pseudo-scientific perceptions of potential buyers.
Click to expand...
 
fourthtunz said:
People really don't care about health concerns..That's why we're in the worst shape of all the industrialized countries.
Click to expand...

I agree.

But discussion of the FDA's non-regulation of both drugs and/or completely inert ingredients (WATER a.k.a. "homeopathic medicine") passed-off as "nutritional supplements" - and which Europe is WAY ahead of us on (they don't allow this quackery) is off-topic...
 
Last edited:
MacRumors said:
Update: T-Mobile has delayed the launch of its own 5G network until the second half of 2019, according to CNET.
Click to expand...

Does this translate from "T-Mobile has delayed the launch of its own 5G network" => "T-Mobile buys Sprint's 5G network"

Can't wait to never get this in parts of Irvine, CA. A place where cell towers have been banned mostly because of how they look... there are places still without decent 2G.
 
fourthtunz said:
Click to expand...

Haha. We've just been trolled by RT, an outlet of the Russian State...

At least they are being transparent, and have their logo prominently displayed.

Physician, heal thyself!

"Russia to rapidly scale 5g following launch of first 5g network"

https://www.gsma.com/newsroom/press...rst-5g-networks-in-2020-finds-new-gsma-study/

It is in the interest of the Russian state to convince the American public that 5G is evil, and so impede it's deployment in the U.S.

OMG, he actually used the term "Big Brother" LOLOLOL "If I were your Big Brother, giving you advice..."

[doublepost=1551113770][/doublepost]
x-evil-x said:
from everything ive seen its much more dangerous than anything before it.
Click to expand...

And what have you seen? YouTube videos from RT?
[doublepost=1551113972][/doublepost]
x-evil-x said:
I need to do some more research on it.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
 
Last edited:
It decided that the peak download speeds for 4G should be 100Mbit/s for high mobility devices, such as when you're using a phone in a car or on a train.

When you're stationary, (low-mobility local wireless access) it decided that 4G should be able to deliver speeds up to around 1Gbit/s.
https://www.techadvisor.co.uk/feature/mobile-phone/4g-vs-lte-whats-the-difference-3605656/

Yet, in real life, we are typically seeing speeds well below (~1-5%) of what 4G is supposed to offer. How about you make 4G reach 75% of it's goal, before you upgrade AGAIN, to deliver only 10% of what you promise?
 
joeblow7777 said:
Seriously asking: is there a reason why I should be any more concerned about 5G than for being exposed to wifi and cellular signals 24/7, wearing bluetooth devices in my ears (AirPods), or FaceID emitting IR beams directly in my eyes?
Click to expand...

Read up on RF radiation and the Inverse Square Law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

So: no. You are exposed to far more RF radiation from your bluetooth devices in your ears and your phone held next to your head (or even held out from your body, as I sometimes see people walking down the street) than you are from the cell tower.
 
tooloud10 said:
If they don't own the spectrum, they don't have much choice, do they? They know they need to get started on a 5G program in order to be remotely competitive, so I assume they're doing what they have to do to ensure that happens.
Click to expand...
Of course they have choices. This was just one of them. They're also counting on the TMob merger to gain access to that spectrum. This is just reminiscent of their WiMax rollout.

tooloud10 said:
Are any potential Sprint 5G customers going to care if they're using a different technology that has slightly lower theoretical speeds?
Click to expand...
You'd have to ask potential 5G customers. Slightly lower? Tee hee.

tooloud10 said:
For that matter, is anyone really on the edge of their seat waiting for 5G? Anyone have any good reason(s) for me to care at all about 5G right now?
Click to expand...
Is anyone on the edge of their seat? Who knows. Are there any good reasons for you to care? Again, who knows. Well you, but probably no one else. Unless you've been sharing your thoughts. Super high def super fps pR0n maybe.:D:p
 
69Mustang said:
Sprint is not using what we have come to consider 5G: mm wave tech. It's not using it because it doesn't own any of the spectrum needed for it. Instead they are going with a much, much slower variation. So yeah, technically it meets the lower end of the 5G specification. But is that where Sprint wants to get on the 5G bandwagon? They're already considered a 2nd rate carrier. Their 2nd rate 5G implementation will do nothing to improve that.
Click to expand...

This is considered industry-standard 5G. There’s nothing in the spec about requiring millimeter wave.
 
MacRumors said:



Sprint today at Mobile World Congress announced that its commercial 5G network will launch in May, starting in Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas, and Kansas City. The carrier plans to expand service to Houston, Los Angeles, New York City, Phoenix, and Washington D.C. in the first half of 2019.

sprint-5g-network-800x450.jpeg

5G coverage will initially be limited to select areas of each city:Sprint plans to build a nationwide 5G network in partnership with T-Mobile should the proposed merger of the two companies be approved.

lg-v50-sprint-800x515.jpg

Sprint said its first 5G smartphone will be the new dual-screen LG V50 ThinQ 5G unveiled at Mobile World Congress this week, followed by the HTC 5G Hub hotspot in the spring and the Samsung Galaxy S10 5G in the summer.

Sprint also announced that it will offer 5G service to Google Fi customers with a compatible device, but there is no timeframe for the rollout.

Sprint's network will operate on the 2.5GHz spectrum and use Massive MIMO radio equipment supplied by Samsung, rather than use millimeter wave technology. Sprint chief technology officer John Saw said the carrier saw speeds of 430 Mbps in one demo, according to The Verge, significantly faster than LTE.

Update: T-Mobile has delayed the launch of its own 5G network until the second half of 2019, according to CNET.

Article Link: Sprint Launching 5G Network in May Starting in Four Cities
Click to expand...
[doublepost=1551116112][/doublepost]Bad news: it’s sprint.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top