I feel that you're deliberately missing the point. Most users don't max out their '4G' connections either.

> Most users don't Max out their '4G' connections either

But sometimes, some do. That margin is what describes new opportunity.

That margin is slim. For many users, vanishingly thin.

Somebody like you or I might frequently max our our cellular connections, but I wager most users never do. And how would they? Streaming 4k YouTube videos onto a screen smaller than a postcard? It just won't make a difference for them.

> It just won't make a difference for them

This is the 640kb argument.

Being able to download a move at the gate? Potentially game changing. Being able to stream video from a drone or car on the road to centralised servers? Potentially game changing.

People with capital are willing to bet this technology has legs. Your not being able to figure out why is not a good reason to block the investment.

You are unable to convince me I should look forward to it. Since we're apparently getting rude, I'll say your argument is nothing but naive dogmatic futurist optimism. Numerous potential harms to users (relating to privacy, not EM bullshit) have been raised in this thread and all you're offering up in return is vague nonsense about cyber-chauffeurs.

Services and products that will utilize more bandwidth aren't being built, because they're not usable without 5G. 5G needs to become ubiquitous before we'd find out what the new applications will be.

G5 will also reduce latency a lot, which is another vector that will open new possibilities.

But again, nobody wants to talk about how the reduced latency will empower even further the continuous surveillance we're being subjected to by our own devices.

Even as a techie, at some point I want to draw the line.

For me, if full state of each of my neurons can't be transferred in realtime to a server, we don't have enough 'surveillance'.

Yet the current 4G mesh is not enough to support higher overall utilization, hence 5G.