News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, ... by godelski on Saturday August 24, 2019 @02:12PM (#20788698)
Video is still pretty constrained by bandwidth. I still have songs buffer at times. So I wouldn't even say our current media isn't constrained. Additionally we'll probably see new uses for that bandwidth, just the same way we have found new uses in the past and every people again said we already have enough. That notion is ridiculous.

We can already guess at some use cases. AR, VR, or other types of environment simulation. Data processing for vehicles: cars, trucks, drones. And I'm sure that people will figure out more things they can do. But the notion of "there isn't anything else" so why do we need more, is like saying 640K is all you'll ever need (I know he didn't actually say that, but the myth stands)

Re:Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, ... by Wowfunhappy on Saturday August 24, 2019 @03:41PM (#20789260)
> I still have songs buffer at times.

I'd posit that happens not because your connection is too slow per se, but because your Wifi/LTE coverage is spotty, and speeds on the margins of coverage can be very slow.

So the real problem is coverage, not speed.

Re:Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, ... by _bxg1 on Saturday August 24, 2019 @04:35PM (#20789549)
Exactly. There are lots of places where coverage and bandwidth are still bad, but 5G is actually less suited to solve that problem than 4G, especially given where it's being deployed. They're pushing on the already-high peak instead of filling the massive gaps at the lower end.
Re:Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, ... by godelski on Saturday August 24, 2019 @07:50PM (#20790434)
Well if you have download more data per second then you can deal with more spottiness. Because the goal is to download something. A 1Gb/s connection for half a second is better than a 100mb/s connection for 5 seconds
Re:Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, ... by _bxg1 on Saturday August 24, 2019 @09:02PM (#20790702)
That's not the point; the point is 4G is still mostly just in major cities, and 5G is only in very select major cities. There are places where you still can't even get a reliable 3G signal. It'll be decades before those places get 5G.
Re:Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, ... by dictum on Saturday August 24, 2019 @07:54PM (#20790455)
Isn't the average server more likely to sustain 100Mb/s for 5 seconds than 1Gb for half a second?
Re:Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, ... by godelski on Saturday August 24, 2019 @09:26PM (#20790777)
From data I've seen? No. 500ms is a pretty short time.

But my point is that there's the consideration that it takes half a second to download 500Mb (roughly a 720p video). So if you have 0.5s uninterrupted that's pretty convenient. I'm also pretty positive that coverage will increase from current conditions (I don't see a reason why it wouldn't). So the speed helps with the spottines. Basically what I'm saying is you don't need as long of a connection to download the same amount. If your spottiness is the same then you get more on 5G. Alternatively since it is 10x the speed, that would be equivalent to 10x spottines (which were not considering a fallback to 4/3G).