Thanks for all the info. Why don't we just skip phase 2 and continue using wifi?
How will telecomm's justify that ? what do you see as the big use cases ?
Interestingly, it might not be the experiment but rather the experimenters themselves. When this study came out, I mentioned it to my girlfriend at the time (a veterinarian), and she pointed to research [1] that suggests a correlation between the presence of male researchers and stress in mice. It's plausible that if male researchers were present, the increased stress response could contribute to greater susceptibility to certain cancers (it was only the male mice in the 5G study that were affected).
I have no idea how the study was done or the genders of the researchers who participated, but it's worth considering that other variables may be at play. Perhaps it should be replicated under an all-female research environment if it wasn't originally.
[1] https://www.nature.com/news/male-researchers-stress-out-rode...
Why would that be "despite"? That would have to be being confident in its failure despite having information that it would be a success. Surely they're confident in its failure because the information they have says it will be bad?
And then your comment becomes "I'm laughing because you're confident in your beliefs" which is content-free smugness, or "I'm laughing at you because you don't know what I know" which is more or less the same, if not worse.
This is the curse of being an expert (on anything) and engaging with kooks who think they are experts because they read something on the internet.
If you had direct experiences and you share them, those shouldn't be ridiculed, but if you pass on information that is not from your direct experience and which people who have direct experience believe to be false... that's also, as you say, "not a good look".
Then they go on to say "I mean my sources are the actual 5G Standards," - And it's never been the case that a standards document sounds great, but doesn't work well or is implemented badly? Or tries to address a problem but doesn't? "and on implementing electronics" - so not actual experience of trying it?
What someone says gives a very strong signal for where they heard it.
Yes, you could perhaps challenge the relevance of the standards here, but to do that, you would need to provide strong evidence.
"I heard someone used it and it didn't work well" is the same level of evidence as product reviews, and is strong enough for all of us to make day to day judgements on. "I read the spec and the spec says it should be good" is not strong evidence - all spec would say that, or be revised until it said that. Yet still bad products abound.
If I take your position as stated: 1) Those claims, by the time they to us, are hearsay and therefore have no value. 2) An Intel engineer stating that they have more knowledge and it should work well, is not hearsay and does have value. 3) Whether the Intel engineer respects the reader or not, matters.
Am I misrepresenting anything in your position here? If not, then I feel the opposite about all three points. This isn't about engineer vs user's knowledge, it's about differences between design-intent and real-world result.
Yes.
1) I never said "no value". The claims have value. Call it 2 bits per claim, with diminishing returns after the first few.
2) The Intel engineer has considerably more context, and more on the line, so their claim has considerably more weight. Call it... 8 bits. If they say it should work, then it should work, and if other people say it doesn't work, that doesn't mean someone is wrong, it might just mean that it should work, but for someone it isn't working, for whatever other reasons.
3) If the Intel engineer tells you your opinion is wrong or out of date, you should probably give that considerably more weight than if some random person on the internet without that context says it.
The engineer working in the field can be expected to know a lot more about both the intended design, the actual build, and the real-world issues arising in practice compared to what any individual user would know about any of those things. This is generally why experts don't like to engage with non-experts; the non-experts' priors on who to trust are likely to be all out of whack.
There are two phases in the 5G NR standard. The first phase relies on some elements of the LTE control plane to coordinate data services. These data services use new numerologies for their OFDM modulation, vastly more flexible resource block, allocation, improved error control coding, lower maximum latency, better channel allocation, and standardized MIMO support - all of which will improve reliability and throughput, especially in crowded channel conditions.
Phase 2 formally introduces millimeter wave signaling - this is what does primarily propagates through line of sight (LOS) channels. Clever beam forming and beamsteering can alleviate this to an extent but these cells are intended for dense urban environments or interiors of large buildings. These will supplement the lower frequency bands when available but 5G NR devices will still use the lowband when mmWave is unavailable. Phase 2 also switches over to an entirely 5G NR backed control plane (Standalone, or 5G NR SA) which has its own reliability and throughput improvements though these will all happen in the lowband since mmWave isn't suited for these tasks.