Computer Hope

Tonight  I am upset about the 5G propaganda.
This is my rant.

Please don't misunderstand, I know that the 5G technology is coming and will be very useful. My rant is about the senseless stupid propaganda some people are putting out about why it's needed and what it will do for us. I am talking about tech writers who don't know anything about technology. You would think people that write about technology could have some understanding about communications theory and the real world. In the real world we do not need high-speed data rates for weather stations, heartbeat monitors, traffic lights and other kinds of ordinary telemetry systems.

For example, tele-printers many years ago operated at either 45 or 50 baud. 
That is actually pretty slow, yet it served for the military, the newspapers and anybody else that wanted to transmit information from one place to another in written form. For some reason that I do not understand, there is a tech writer who is writing about why he doesn't have any concept of what data transmission speed means. You do not have to have a speed of 1 Gb per second in order to transmit information about a person's blood pressure, heart rate and blood chemistry. High-speed data is not a requirement to monitor functions of the human body.
So I am ranting about the tech writer that is promising that 5G will make it better for people who need intensive medical care. What is he talking about? Doctors already have available to them systems at work over low speed telephone lines to transmit information about a person heartbeat. The information is transmitted at a 300 Bd modem and sent to a computer somewhere that analyzes the person heartbeat and then sends back a report to the position on to a teleprinter.
No way does that ever require high-speed data.
As I said above, I understand that the new 5G technology will be very helpful for some things that we would like to do. But so far there is no proof that this should do anything to improve medical care. What hospitals really need right now are more trained doctors nurses and other medical technicians. Better bandwidth is not going to make much difference. Yeah, I know, you can have video over Internet stuff. But that does not require a gigabit service. The existing Internet structure is plenty fast enough for a doctor to do a video conference was somebody.
But the new 5G technology will do is lower the cost of data transmission for some types of services. For the average Internet user it will probably offer little benefits.
Does anybody here understand what I'm talking about? The propaganda for the by the technology is a lot of hype and has little substance.
Existing technology already provides Internet data speeds of over 10 million bits per second. That is a lot of data, enough for video conferencing and a lot more.

Sorry if I'm boring you. Just ignore me. 

I'm at a loss for words...

At Cable-Tec Expo in late 2018, the head of the NCTA, America's internet and television providers association, Michael Powell – also a former head of the FCC – said that "5G is 25 per cent technology, 75 per cent marketing."

I can assure you that's not true ST. 5G will be a major game changer for both business ahd consumers. Watch closely over the next two years.

I am sure it will be, but certain telcos, and not just in the US (we have it too) are promising more than they can actually deliver right now. Millimeter-wave 5G, the foundation of AT&T and Verizon's early 5G deployment, can deliver download and upload speeds competitive with fiber-optic links. But that high-band spectrum can't deliver them more than a block or two. 5G networks built on slower but longer-range mid- and low-band spectrum cover far less ground than 4G. Consensus seems to be that a 5G build-out probably won't need decades, but it's not something measured in months either.

I agree with everything you said. The current plan here in the States is for Vz & ATT to have comprehensive 5G coverage within the next 5 years. And yes, their high frequencies require "towers" to be in close proximity to one another (in some areas as many as one a block!). T-Mobile/Sprint, on the other hand, grabbed up as much of the 600 mhz spectrum as they could in the FCC auctions (plus a bunch acquired in acquisitions) and while the speed is a bit less than the higher bands, the penetration is much greater and most of those towers are already in place. They're looking at 99% coverage in less than 3 years!

And yes, I work closely with these folks

Speaking of branding something that doesn't really exist, I see the hype people have invented another number-followed-by-a-big-G thing, '10G', not to be confused with 10GE (10 gigabit ethernet) (which is a thing). They were calling Docsis 3.1 '10G' because it is theoretically capable of delivery 10 Gbps to the home, and now it's coming out again for DOCSIS 4.0. As people point out, until telcos upgrade their edge and backhaul networks to multiple 100/400 Gb/s links and more, delivering 10Gb networks to end users looks pretty useless.

Amen brother.  I do not understand why everyone is "all-a twitter" about 5G. I can see no great benefit from utilizing it instead of 2.4G. The range of 5G really isn't that far, and what little extra speed you might get is not worth it (thanks to your ISP). I have a home network, and our cell phones will sometimes connect to 5G, but none of our computers will connect to 5G because if you have an older PC, you know, like maybe 3-years old, ::, your wireless adapter (or card)  probably only has one antenna. In order to get dual-bandwidth, you must have a wifi adapter installed on your computer with 2-antennas.  DUH--After almost a year of searching, a very nice guy finally provided me with the answer. I think he wrote maybe 3-lines of text. I felt like a real winner that day.

I think that all this 5g propaganda had only one benefit regarding the stock price.

The main reason for most businesses is profit. You buy a loaf of bread, you have made several people richer. The society we have built up around us is so reliant on technology now, there is no going back, and industry cannot remain stagnant or it doesn't increase profit. There will be parts of 5G that will be of real benefit, such as its low latency for real time control of medical robots, but it is going to take years to get to the point where it is mainstream.
The only companies who are going to benefit from the start of 5G are the mobile networks, who will probably just promote faster download speeds under the guise of 5G, and that is why the 600 mhz spectrum was all grabbed, even though on average it will only be about 20% faster than 4G.
So yes, 5G is here, sort of, and by the time the dust has settled and we start getting used to the new advantages it brings, they will be talking about 6G - the inevitable march of progress goes on.

No need to Quote your own Posts...carry on.

From what I understand (via Rob Braxman Tech) it appears that "5G" isn't really what it was advertised to be - because the infrastructure isn't in place - yet. When it is in place, it will only be in cities - and it cannot be used indoors.
So it isn't until "10G" or whatever that you'll really have what was advertised as "5G."
I'm in a rural area; I don't want it anyway. The thought of a signal "beam-forming" directly to my body just makes me squeamish.