![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
In 13 June 2010 a deletion proposal template was added to the article, with the motivation "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also, citation needed." The article may be deleted if the message remains in place for seven days. What is your vote?
![]() | This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
The 5G section of that article quotes the 18 June 2010 version of this Wikipedia article.
The article starts off with some garbage, and is vague in the rest. 184.151.127.131 ( talk) 22:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
And should be deleted. The entire Research section is a random speculative list containing a number of non peer-reviewed writings.
I've never tagged an article for deletion before; how do we do it? Otherwise I'll have to use this as an example to my Mobile Wireless Networking Class next semester of why not to use Wikipedia. Jpgs ( talk) 22:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I work now in the wireless industry, and have been in academia previously. This article and especially the research section feels like a parody of a bad conference article: poor grammar, incoherent sentences, and lousy acronyms. :-) I guess it's important to have a 5G article, but I'm not certain this article is a help to know what's happening in the industry or academia. Sanpitch ( talk) 17:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I removed the following unsourced paragraph, but put some of the mentioned technologies under "See also":
5G is sometimes citation needed used to refer to alternatives to these technologies based on the IEEE standards: mesh networks based on 802.11n protocol, IEEE 802.11u authentication and IEEE 802.21 handoff, the IEEE P1905 hybrid networking and the OpenFlow/ OpenRadio methods of sharing backhaul (telecommunications). citation needed Almost all smartphones and tablets as of 2012 supported these standards, along with literally all notebook/ laptops, and were able to prefer their (generally unmetered) use to 4G networks. However, to use these as a genuine replacement for 4G would typically require more coverage than is thought feasible outside large urban areas.
IEEE 802.11n is not a mesh network protocol, but a MIMO technology, which already exsists in 3G and 4G. Mange01 ( talk) 11:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Added a new "Investment" section, given recent mainstream news reports regarding a test facility planned in the UK (see report in video form here – from 09:11: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01nhbzw). I believe there are other investments happening worldwide that could be added, when known. In fact AFAIR didn't South Korea similarly invest in a new facility, according to a (now removed?) recent version of this 5G page? Though I could be wrong. Jimthing ( talk) 08:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
The article states that the first 2G standard came out in 1991. I assume it is referring to GSM. I believe this is incorrect, since Digital AMPS (D-AMPS or TDMA) came out about a year earlier in 1990. ANDROS1337 TALK 02:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
The page indicates that "international 5G development projects have yet to be launched officially." However the 3GPP standards body recently (mid-September 2015) had its first official 5G planning meeting and its member companies have started their efforts in earnest to develop the technology. Here's a link to their press release, with presentations given by a few dozen member companies.
http://www.3gpp.org/news-events/3gpp-news/1734-ran_5g — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.45.109.66 ( talk) 16:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
(source: http://www.telecomasia.net/content/huawei-validates-key-5g-technologies) Huawei validates key 5G technologies... Dylan Bushell-Embling... May 30, 2016... telecomasia.net
Huawei has announced it has completed the first stage of key 5G technology tests as part of a series of 5G field trials organized by the IMT-2020 5G Promotion Group.
The vendor completed outdoor macro-cell tests in Chengdu, China consisting of a number of key 5G enabling technologies and an integrated 5G air interface.
As part of the trial, Huawei evaluated three foundational technologies - filtered orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (F-OFDM), sparse code multiple access (SCMA) and polar code - the air interface technology.
Results show that F-OFDM was able to improve system throughput by 10%, SCMA was able to increase uplink connections by 300% and downlink system throughput by up to 80%, and polar code provided coding gain of between 0.5dB and 2dB compared to the code used in LTE systems.
Huawei said results of the test demonstrate that the new 5G air interface technology can improve spectral efficiency and meet the ITU-R's diverse service requirements for the standard.
The IMT-2020 5G Promotion Group was launched by the China Academy of Information and Communication Technology to encourage joint efforts to promote 5G field trials and evaluations among the global mobile industry.
Earlier this year the group announced a three-phase 5G trial plan spanning from 2016 to 2018.
-- Jo3sampl ( talk) 13:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
In 2018 Verizon plans to roll out 5G FWA <--- FWA??? definition???
"Is 5G Over-Hyped?
" . . . [speed] depends on what frequency bands are used — 6GHz, 28GHz, 27 GHZ. The higher the frequency the more fibre you need closer to the user in order to deliver those higher speeds. Currently less than 50% of mobile towers are connected to fibre, and the rollout of fibre can't keep up with the rapid deployment of mobile broadband. 5G means more mobile towers so it is unlikely that all of these towers will be linked to fibre in the near future. [etc.]"
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20160530_is_5g_over_hyped/
-- Jo3sampl ( talk) 20:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
"Sprint Shows Off 5G With Blazing Fast Speeds At Copa América Centenary”
Excerpts:
“The demonstration employed beam stitching, which works by tracking the device in use, selecting the best antenna and sending the signal to a set location.”
"An FCC spectrum auction last month also showed strong implication, further paving the way toward fast and reliable 5G networks. AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile will likely spend billions on 600 MHz spectrum, but Sprint is not interested. Sprint already has plenty of 2.5 GHz spectrum – more than any of its rivals – and when it comes to 5G, it's considered low-frequency spectrum. This means that it should be better at penetrating walls and buildings and traveling farther, thus translating to wider coverage.”
Also — up to 2Gbps during demo; used 73 GHz millimeter wavelength spectrum for demo.
-- Jo3sampl ( talk) 15:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
"5G remains the driver for new product development . . .
"However there is no standard for 5G deployments and no one knows what the final specs will look like. Consensus suggests that 5G will utilize Massive MIMO (multiple input, multiple output) antennas — perhaps dozens (or hundreds) per basestation — each with their own spectrum and modulation scheme. Thus, every RF supplier — no matter how narrow their focus — will claim a slot among the MIMO attachments. "If you can’t find channel bandwidth on the upper spectrum of the millimeter wave bands, consider carrier aggregation at lower frequencies. WiFi and LTE, for example, will likely “co-exist” on the same tower.
"Orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) is one way of putting additional data channels on a given frequency range . . . . OFDM is a modulation technique, which can utilize multiple carriers, within an allocated bandwidth and could enable a 10 Gbits/second data. Each carrier utilize one of the several available digital modulation techniques such as binary phase shift keying (BPSK) or quadrature phase shift keying (QPSK), or quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) with 256 or 1024 constellation points. (802.11ac, for example, uses a 256-point QAM for every data bit transmitted.)"
http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=36&doc_id=1329841 accessed 20160707
-- Jo3sampl ( talk) 13:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
And:
Power amplifier research with implications for 5G phones
"Purdue research could lead to faster cell phone technology
"[A team of researchers at Purdue created for the first time] power amplifiers (components commonly used in cell phones) using silicon technology that are efficient enough to be suitable for 5G cell phones. . . ."
( http://www.purdueexponent.org/campus/article_91c49b5e-e38f-5be0-8ca1-c16d2ba4f2f2.html)
-- Jo3sampl ( talk) 17:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
retrieved 20160920
'Stéphane Téral, an analyst at IHS Markit, recently weighed in by criticizing the use of “5G” to describe sub-6 gigahertz developments in a research note.'
'Many [carriers] have set their sights on much shorter millimeter waves that fall between 30 and 300 GHz. There are plenty of frequencies available in the millimeter-wave range, because they’ve been used only for specialized applications such as remote sensing and military radar. But waves at these frequencies can’t travel as far or make it through as many obstacles . . .'
'[5G analyst Anshel] Sag thinks it’s a mistake to rule out anything other than millimeter waves as true 5G. He says 5G New Radio, a wireless standard defined by the global wireless standards group 3GPP, should count as 5G no matter which frequencies it handles.'
-- Jo3sampl ( talk) 20:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
AT&T will launch its first 5G wireless service in Indianapolis and Austin later this year, offering theoretical top speeds of 400Mbps or higher, the company said.
-- Jo3sampl ( talk) 22:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
'Asked about plans in South Korea to launch some form of 5G in 2018, Alex Wang said 5G can be a marketing name, with different operators defining 5G in different ways: “We follow closely the 3GPP standard and believe it’s a more neutral and technically sound definition.”
' “We consider Chinese and Japanese operators as following the more strict 3GPP-based definition, with 5G launches around 2020. Any launch earlier than that is up to the indivdual operator to define, but we don’t think that’s standard compliant 5G.”
'With phase two of China’s national 5G implementation already underway, ZTE is working closely with China Mobile on different aspects of the operator’s 5G trials, including radio and core networks, and the interworking of network features.'
-- Jo3sampl ( talk) 17:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 5G. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
As 5G is approaching to us, I think it would be beneficial for us to know the practical speed (not written in the book) and bandwidth for average users. I updated some simulation results and comparison table to 3G and 4G. Please update further actual test results and references to this article when it's possible. Goodtiming8871 ( talk) 21:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
The article was mostly unchanged since 2016 in a very fast moving field. Many references were to 2011 and 2013. Rewrote entire article, removing many out of date datapoints, obvious pr, and errors. Actual deployments replaced trials. Shortened some sections with extraneous material. (I'm a tech reporter covering this field and have written over 50 articles. That doesn't mean I got everything right. Improvements welcome.) I made a major change/update to paragraph 2, which said 5G was millimeter wave only. Since then, Massive MIMO and low band 5G have been accepted by most as part of 5G. There's no formal definition so I included all 3 saying "some consider." At the MWC this week, it appeared 3/4ths of the announced 5G plans were low band, which had been left out. Is that the right solution? The article would be improved with more technical information and more links to recently published books/articles. Dave Burstein daveb@dslprime.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveburstein ( talk • contribs) 09:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Daveburstein ( talk) 14:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC) I corrected major confusion in the article. After more than a year of dispute, the term 5G has generally been accepted to include any system utilizing 3GPP New Radio. Hundreds of regulator statements, news reports, and much of this article use the "new definition." (Which I think is highly misleading but has become common usage.) That means much of "5G" does not meet the ITU IMT-2020 standard of 20 gigabits, which the article was claiming. It's 70% to 90% slower. Made several changes to make clear what was IMT-2020 (20 gigabits, mostly microwave) and which was not (everything below 6 GHz.) If anyone sees it differently, please email me daveb@dslprime.com and I will send more data to you. Daveburstein ( talk) 14:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC) Removed "technology" section except New Radio. All listed were developed for 4G before 5G. Further changes necessary in a fast-moving field.
Hi - I see you have edits that are clearly very important to you. They contain a number of technical inaccuracies. I don't personally see how you will get them to a state where they are accurate. Not quite sure what the Wikipedia rules are for things like this, but I'm sure everyone's preference is that people not make earnest but inaccurate contributions. Hawerchuk ( talk) 05:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi, as you are well aware of it, the 3G and 4G mobile are now standard for the world; the 5G mobile could affect most of the people in the world shortly within a few years(examples, the year 2020-2021). It would be crucial not for few people but the significant population. As the standard of 5G is not yet fixed, and still one of the primary agenda, [1] it would be impossible to write the concrete result of the capabilities of 5G technology. However, it would be possible to predict the practical outcomes based on the real-world test by the 5G professionals. Please update the article or provide the feedback on talk page based on further references. We would be able to achieve better understanding what could be the realistic 5G standard. Goodtiming8871 ( talk) 22:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't quite know what you're saying. But let me give you an example of what I mean from your text:
"The technology of small cell was already utilised to 3G and 4G mobile radio technology. However, small cell in 5G is now the crucial part of achieving several gigabits per second Bandwidth and low latency. It is now indispensable to use the small cell when you deploy high bandwidth 5G fixed wireless service because of characteries of the new 5G mobile band which is Millimeter wave frequencies(24-86GHz)."
-> "several gigabits per second Bandwidth" -> "gigabits per second" is throughput; Bandwidth in the context of 5G is measured in MHz -> "indispensable...when you deploy high bandwidth 5G fixed wireless service" -> 5G needs small cells to enable much more than mmWave fixed wireless
"It is one of the primary technology for 5G networks; it will transmit data through targeted beams and advanced signal processing that could speed up data rates and boost bandwidth using massive MIMO antennas, it is a technique that sends the radio signals intensively to the places where many data are actually needed."
-> "it will transmit data...that could...boost bandwidth" -> again, there's no notion of beamforming increasing bandwidth, you're mixing it up with throughput -> "it is a technique that sends the radio signals intensively to the places where...actually needed" -> this is not a technically-accurate description of beamforming -> "it will transmit data through...advanced signal processing" -> this is not an action that the transmission of data can take
I don't really see the point of re-inserting erroneous text like this. Hawerchuk ( talk) 05:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I believe that it's highly beneficial for us to articulate the definition of the 5G technology area.
Let me add the reference of the examples that I see what is correct:
1) (Hawerchuk) Bandwidth in the context of 5G is measured in MHz
-> (Goodtiming88781) the function of Millimeter-wave bands: it can deliver greater capacity of the data comparing the Centimeter waves, but the bandwidth should not be measured with MHz but "bits per second (bps)".
2) (Hawerchuk) again, there's no notion of beamforming increasing bandwidth, you're mixing it up with throughput
(Goodtiming88781), The reference on ieee.org exaplined clearly that Beamforming(= targeted beams) boost bandwidth, and as per the reference(1) above network throughput is directly linked with bandwidth on the network.
[3]
3) (Hawerchuk) this is not a technically-accurate description of beamforming
(Goodtiming88781), Please see the IEEE reference 2)above and the description below, it also accurately described the meaning of beamforming.
"For millimeter waves, beamforming can help by focusing a signal in a concentrated beam that points only in the direction of a user, rather than broadcasting in many directions at once."
Goodtiming8871 (
talk) 02:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Goodtiming8871. What is the relationship between connected cars and smart medicine? Hawerchuk ( talk) 20:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC) It was a typo. I fixed it. Goodtiming8871 ( talk) 02:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
The text in the beamforming section was copied verbatim from the reference cited in that section, so I removed it. Hawerchuk ( talk) 06:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC) I don't think the summary of the long contents of reference: it is not the copy of the material. I will recover it with additional clarification. If you think it is an exact copy of the reference, please paste the evidence of contents here. Goodtiming8871 ( talk) 06:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
1) "The proposed 5G applications": the same information is in the next section. If someone is trying to say something different, clarification is required.
2) "Small Cell": Clarification required. I think I understand what the text is trying to say, but it's not correct (small cell is key to 5G, not just for mmWave)
3) "Network Bandwidth and Deployments": There are numerous technical inaccuracies, there's irrelevant info, and some of this section contradicts some of the other sections tagged above for clarification.
Hawerchuk (
talk) 02:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Please note that mmWave must use a small cell, however a small cell is not an essential part of centimetre wave, and a centimetre wave is also used in a 4G network. if you think that a small cell is an essential part of the centimetre wave in 5G, Please place the proper references on here if possible.
Goodtiming8871 (
talk) 06:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Daveburstein ( talk) 03:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC) Thanks Hawerchuk and others for improving this page. There is enormous confusion about the definition of "5G," which remains under dispute amid changes. Originally, "5G" was defined as 20 Gbps downloads, which in practice meant millimetre wave only. Those building and deploying in lower bands, from 600 MHz to 6 GHz, wanted to call their equipment 5G and persuaded the important 3GPP standards committee to include in "5G" what more closely resembled 4G than millimetre wave. (It's really 4G with a software tweak, New Radio, and only slightly faster. Opinion) Almost all the companies are delighted to apply the much-hyped term "5G" to their slower and less expensive mid-band deployments. That seems to be becoming generally accepted, including in policy work at the EU & FCC. That means some 5G will actually be slower than some 4G, which has some features - including LAA - that have not yet been implemented in 5G. There's no standard of what's right or wrong here, but the changes have led to very frequent errors. The result is that many ordinarily reliable sources get this wrong. If low & band are included in 5G, there are only modest performance improvements. (I preferred the older definition, but common usage seems now to accept the inclusion of low and mid-band.) Many assume that "5G" is much faster and has much lower latency. That's not true except for millimetre wave 5G, which will be a minority of deployments for the next five years. (Unproven but likely true.) I've reported broadband since 1999 and am working on a book, Gigabit Wireless. My sources include dozens of authorities in the field. That doesn't mean I will be right about everything, of course. But if you think my changes are in error, please email me daveb@dslprime.com and I'll be happy to point you to primary sources. Dave Burstein
Hawerchuk ( talk) 05:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Daveburstein ( talk) 22:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC) Kashmiri and Hawerchuk I made some changes as you suggested. Your comments are sensible but unfortunately the problem is that the world doesn't agree on the definition of 5G. Moved down and rewrote the section on predicted speeds. I added three more citations. The Qualcomm model is consistent with many other datapoints including Verizon's data on millimetre wave and is well documented. I put at the top this is uncertain until we have more results from the field. With the caveat, I believe it right to leave it in because it provides a well-resourced, less technical way to understand what is coming.
This is more than semantics; the article in earlier drafts had major errors due to the confusion. Most "5G" is not much better. (Millimetre wave is much faster but based on telco announcements will only be a minor part.)
Under the newer definition, much - probably the strong majority for five years - of "5G" will not be much faster than "4G" with the same number of antennas and spectrum. That has important implications for policy, where lobbyists are demanding major changes to "incent 5G."
Here's what I came up with. Improvements welcome. Dave daveb@dslprime.com
Hawerchuk ( talk) 22:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
The combination of the two frequencies below; that is 5G network as per the proposed 5G standard.
Frequency range 1 (< 6 GHz) - for coverage
Frequency range 2 (24–86 GHz) for speed by
Small cell
I believe that we can say the maximum speed of 5G via millimetre waves only which is the much higher performance of the current 4G.
Goodtiming8871 (
talk) 03:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
The references for this section do not meet WP:RS. I have removed the section and invite editors to discuss changes at talk before re-adding them to the article.
As I mentioned, this section does not meet WP:RS. Some examples:
However the matter should be classified properly, I believe
Hawerchuk has identified legitimate problems with the proposed text, problems that should be cleared up before it is added to the article. Perhaps
User:Goodtiming8871 would like to create a sandbox section at his/her talk page where interested editors could help to improve and refine the text first, before submitting it here for approval for inclusion? It would be great to harness the interest that User Goodtiming8871 clearly has for the subject.
--
papageno (
talk) 21:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
: Hi Hawerchuk, regarding the technical descriptions, I believe that the content just need to be refined instead of removal as per the example reasons below- part (a)
Hawerchuk' comment; a) "In 2016, Federal Communications Commission(FCC) approves the usage of the new Extremely high frequency (EHF) frequencies range (in another word; Millimeter wave) in next-gen 5G technologies. As the EHF frequencies range is finally accessible on the mobile network, there is an opportunity of the new bandwidth with the requirement of small cell infrastructure because of propagation characteristics of shortwave(example: Millimeter wave). [59]" While reference [59] does indeed talk about mmWave spectrum allocations by the FCC, it's not clear what is meant by "opportunity of the new bandwidth", nor does the reference to shortwave (up to 2 MHz) make any sense in the context of mmWave (up to 86 *GHz*). Also, nobody in this industry refers to these bands as EHF - if someone wants to use that term, they should find references from relevant sources.
1) [59] does specify mmWave spectrum allocations by the FCC, it is clear that "opportunity of the new bandwidth": example 20 Gbps bandwidth by mmWave
2) Professional of mobile industry refers to these band ( 30GHz- 86 GHz) are
EHF; it is also known as mmWave. Please see
EHF
3)
EHF = millimetre wave;
"
Hawerchuk" believes that if someone wants to use that term, they should find references from relevant sources --> (3) above, It is a just fundamental technical term, I don't believe it is probable for unpaid Wikipedia editor could add 10 references to every single line in the Wikipedia article.
I believe that more than about 99.999% Professional in the mobile industry would understand that
millimetre wave is the another terminology of
EHF.
Goodtiming8871 (
talk) 05:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
References
Hawerchuk ( talk) 06:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Hawerchuk ( talk) 06:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
:
EHF can be redirected from MmWave, it means that it is precisely the same meaning: just a fundamental technical term. It will be an unreasonable claim that if someone says MmWave is a different meaning of Extremely high frequency because the corporate websites (example: Qualcomm) did not use the term of "Extremely high frequency" on their website. Please place a reliable reference in this place if you believe EHF is different terminology to MmWave. From my understanding, MmWave would be a popular terminology in the mobile industry, but we can not say EHF does not match with MmWave. Goodtiming8871 ( talk) 02:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
:
Qualcomm.com: 230 results for "mmWave"; 2 results for "EHF"
Intel.com: 258 results for "mmWave"; 0 results for "EHF" as used in this context (2 results for a different meaning)
Nokia.com: 130 results for "mmWave"; 0 results for "EHF"
Ericsson.com: 153 results for "mmWave"; 0 results for "EHF" as used in this context (2 results for a different meaning)
Hawerchuk ( talk) 14:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
:
I don't believe EHF is different terminology to MmWave regarding your examples above. that is just example of "popular usage" of terminology. Would you please be able to write a specific definition associated with the reference concerning: your claim: "EHF is different terminology to MmWave" otherwise please let other professional write their opinion. Goodtiming8871 ( talk) 23:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
The summary of the two parts was removed continuously by the user: Hawerchuk, but he did not leave any proper reason or reference. ( Hawerchuk edits appear to be disruptive as the contents could be clarified or improved by other professional users in the future.)
I would like to get consensus with other users about the requirement of the summary of the two topics below instead of linking to several pages of information which might be too much data to read for general users.
Small cell
Main article:
Small cell
The technology of small cell was already utilised to
3G and
4G mobile radio technology. However, small cell in 5G is now the crucial part of achieving several gigabits per second
Bandwidth and low
latency. It is now indispensable to use the small cell when you deploy high bandwidth 5G fixed wireless service because of characteries of the new 5G mobile band which is
Millimeter wave frequencies(24-86GHz). The
ITU released the new mobile Radio frequencies on the World Radio-communications Conference which is the range of Extremely high frequency. Technically, Millimeter-wave spectrum(mmWave) has the functionality that "mmWave (Extremely high frequency)’ could be able to handle breakneck 5G speeds."
[1]
Beamforming
Main article:
Beamforming
It is one of the primary technologies for 5G networks; it will transmit data through targeted beams and advanced signal processing that could speed up data rates and boost bandwidth
using massive
MIMO
antennas. It is a technique that sends the radio signals intensively to the places where lots of data is actually needed.
[2]
References
Goodtiming8871 ( talk) 04:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
"However, small cell in 5G is now the crucial part of achieving several gigabits per second Bandwidth and low latency. It is now indispensable to use the small cell when you deploy high bandwidth 5G fixed wireless service because of characteries of the new 5G mobile band which is Millimeter wave frequencies(24-86GHz)."
"Technically, Millimeter-wave spectrum(mmWave) has the functionality that "mmWave (Extremely high frequency)’ could be able to handle breakneck 5G speeds.""
"It is one of the primary technologies for 5G networks; it will transmit data through targeted beams and advanced signal processing that could speed up data rates and boost bandwidth using massive MIMO antennas."
"It is a technique that sends the radio signals intensively to the places where lots of data is actually needed."
Hawerchuk ( talk) 14:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Hawerchuk, Please restrain to write your own idea without proper reference and let other professionals describe their opinion as the consensus of talk in this section might require about several people's views with reference not a discussion between two people. Goodtiming8871 ( talk) 23:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Hawerchuk ( talk) 18:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
: Although you said a lot of details were misinterpreted, it could also be your misunderstanding about several technologies. As one example of technologies: bandwidth, let me know whether IEEE Spectrum Staff: Amy Nordrum, Kristen Clark accept your advice whether they made a crucial mistake of using the wrong terminology on their IEEE public press release. Goodtiming8871 ( talk) 23:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
: I explained this above. One person wrote the article, somebody else wrote the headline, and that person misused a word. Just because one person made a mistake, it doesn't mean we propagate it into this article. Please, let's move on.
Hawerchuk ( talk) 16:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Daveburstein ( talk) 19:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC) Dave Burstein Major change: Pointed out IMT-2020 & 3PPP have different definitions. IMT-2020 goes to 20 Gbps, 3GPP to 2 or 4. Removed 200-300 meter cell size because Verizon is getting more. Many small updates and language fixes. Hypesters are implying that "5G" is 20 gigabits in deployments at less than 6 GHz. That's just an error. 20 gigabits is possible at millimeter frequencies like 28 GHz. That's the IMT standard. Nothing more than 4 gigabits has been demonstrated below 6 GHz frequencies, which are included in the 3GPP definition. Article confused them. Shortened stuff, took out unsourced claims that were dubious, etc. More work needed.
I think the intro to the article is confusing now. Do you want to re-write it? Hawerchuk ( talk) 05:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
There is so much confusion in the article. 3GPP doesn't define standards, it develops specifications: https://www.qualcomm.com/news/onq/2017/08/02/understanding-3gpp-starting-basics That Verge reference at the industry standards group 3GPP has included any system using NR (New Radio) software does not support the claim.
the term was defined by the ITU IMT-2020 standard, which required a theoretical peak download capacity of 20 gigabits required for who/what? For candidate radio interfaces like NR. There is no 5G requirements for networks. There is only requirements for radio interfaces. See ITU document: https://www.itu.int/md/R15-SG05-C-0040/en : These requirements are not intended to restrict the full range of capabilities or performance that candidate RITs/SRITs for IMT-2020 might achieve, nor are they intended to describe how the RITs/SRITs might perform in actual deployments under operating conditions that could be different from those presented in other ITU-R Recommendations and Reports on IMT-2020.
It is actually ITU that defines a system to be 5G if it just uses a 5G radio interface like NR: As defined in Resolution ITU-R 56-2, International Mobile Telecommunications-2020 (IMT-2020) systems are mobile systems that include new radio interface(s) which support the new capabilities of systems beyond IMT-2000 and IMT-Advanced. Sbsail ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
References
Goodtiming8871 ( talk) 04:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I looked this article up having come across some stuff on the Internet warning about the dangers of 5G. I found the article completely incomprehensible. (I don't have a physics background, though I know a fair bit about the philosophy of science and I've read a lot of popular science.) There are many technical terms even in the lead that don't have relevant links. I accept that with such a technical subject some level of incomprehensibility for the layperson may be inevitable. However, I do think there could be a paragraph or two, if only in the introduction, setting out in plain language what the article is about. I also couldn't find anything on the supposed dangers of 5G, which ought to be included or at least linked to. If anyone who knows the subject well enough feels up to doing this, that would be great. Thanks :-)
Be-nice:-) (
talk) 22:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
References
Hi, me again :-) I understand there is some issue re the status of whatever negative information on 5G is out there. However, I'm more interested in actually getting the info than in modifying the article in one direction or another. I can make my own decision re the trustworthiness, or otherwise, of the info. So if someone could kindly direct me to the pre-deletion version so I can follow up the sources without stepping on anyone's toes, that would be great. I presume its in the archive somewhere, so it should be just a question of finding it. Thanks! Be-nice:-) ( talk) 00:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
What might be worth mentioning in that the International Society of Doctors for the Environment has called for standstill of the roll out in the respect of the precautionary principle. [1] That report has about 50 references in the scientific literature to biological effects and 17 of those are specific to MMW.
"Furthermore, specific preliminary evidence showed the exposure to frequencies over 30GHz could alter gene expression(16,36,37,38,39), increase the temperature of the skin(40), stimulate cell proliferation(41,42,43), alter the functions of cell membrane (44,45)and neuro-muscular systems (46,47,48,49,50,51,52),
and are able to modulate the synthesis of proteins involved in inflammatory and immunologic
processes (53), with possible systemic effects."
There is also press coverage of this although is the Daily Mail [2] and local news in Cornwall [3] which is going to be one of the first rollout areas.
While I'm skeptical of the health benefits I think we should at least document that some major orginisations have protested. -- Salix alba ( talk): 13:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Who is the developer? The name BCI is deadlinked. The problem with no named developer, is that there is no accountability. Does 5G require replacing the 4G network? Does 5G require the public to throw away working 4G phones? Is it that 4G phones present industry with a problem in that they are durable, and industry wants to keep selling phones? - Inowen ( nlfte) 03:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi all
I don't understand enough about the subject to integrate this information, but this seems important, could someone take a look?
Thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 11:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
The refferences in this section all lead to conspiracy sites and articles based on them. There is one link to a petition signed by 180 fringe (as far as I can tell) scientists. Manufacturversy? i am particularly concerned about the Lucid dreamer youtube channel being used as a source - this guy has a legit psychiatric disorder Benvenuto ( talk) 01:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
The information in https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=5G&diff=891244641&oldid=891243558 is not in the cited source. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Daveburstein ( talk) 01:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC) The actual deployment of tens of thousands of cells by Verizon, SKT, Korea Telecom and LG+ has now given us data from the field from about a dozen independent testers, mostly journalists. I put the actual data and removed a great deal of previous speculation. I also removed a great deal of now outdated and less important matter. I removed the "should be reviewed by an expert." I'm sure I have some errors here but I have written dozens of articles about 5G and am working on a book. Thank you to anyone who fixes my mistakes. The comment above that the description at the beginning is unclear is sensible. Unfortunately, there are many different opinions about the proper description, including the note above about ITU vs 3GPP. I eliminated challenged definitions here and simply called it "advanced wireless." While many have further opinions, that's as far as consensus goes for now. That the city of Brussels has stopped 5G trials because of fears about radiation is an objective datapoint from a responsible entity. I don't think Brussels is right based on the evidence I've seen, but some reputable professionals including Harvard Professor Susan Crawford have doubts. It is not the job of Wikipedia to make a judgment when responsible parties hold conflicting views. The article, for now, has the Brussels decisions as well as links to the (more popular) opposite view. Improvements of course welcome. If anyone wants to review the evidence at lenght, I suggest they create a separate article and link to it. I've written about 200 pages on 5G so have a great deal of data. If anyone has questions about this Wikipedia article, my email is daveb@dslprime.com and much of my work is at wirelessone.news. Daveburstein ( talk) 23:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC) replaced "supercedes" 4G with neutral term "follows." 4G will be important for many years 2025. Reworded claim that 3GPP is a definitive definition, pending agreement with ITU. (India has said they may block 3GPP at the ITU.) Wikipedia should stay neutral while the ITU (part of the U.N) and 3GPP are not in agreemnt. 3GPP is an industry association with essentially no direct or indirect public representation. Almost all countries, many companies, and civil society groups are represented in ITU. The ITU vs 3GPP is an active issue in Internet Governance, so I wanted to be precise.
This jargon-ridden, poorly organized, fragmented article will be practically incomprehensible to general readers who are not familiar with cellular technology. It desperately needs a plain language introduction. For those of you who are concerned about the myths, pseudoscience, and conspiracy theories growing up around 5G, I'd suggest that one reason non-technical people believe these myths is a lack of accessible explanations of the technology. A Wikipedia article that actually explains this new technology in an understandable, human-friendly way might help demystify it. -- Chetvorno TALK 19:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I think I see the issue now:
1. For the IEEE article [1], the person who wrote the title is not the same person who wrote the article. This is not uncommon. Unfortunately, the person who wrote the title made a mistake in the way they used the term 'bandwidth'. Note that 'bandwidth' does not appear in the article itself.
2. For the other page [2], that is a different industry, which uses a different definition of bandwidth. In cellular, bandwidth refers to the quantity of frequency allocated to the user; throughput refers to the data rate. In ethernet or optical transports, the frequency range is (essentially) unlimited, so 'bandwidth' is used in a different way without ambiguity.
Given that, hopefully you'll fix your contributions...
Hawerchuk (
talk) 06:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Would you be able to place the reference of your idea? I was unable to see any reference to your understanding.
Goodtiming8871 (
talk) 05:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I placed the previous topic about bandwidth that you consider that the author of IEEE confused the definition of bandwidth on a professional article from IEEE. Please write the reference if you believe that the expert author of this article does not understand what bandwidth is. If you are more knowledgeable than the IEEE Spectrum Staff: Amy Nordrum, Kristen Clark, Please advise them their confusion via email on the article. Goodtiming8871 ( talk) 00:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Hawerchuk ( talk) 18:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
:
Please find another advice explains the meaning of Mobile Bandwidth "An Expert Explains 3G, 4G, WiFi" [5] As I described your misunderstanding about bandwidth, Speeds in Mbit/s = it is data throughput in the mobile network, and it is also terminology: bandwidth. If you are confident that IEEE Spectrum Staff: Amy Nordrum, Kristen Clark is wrong with their understanding about mobile bandwidth, please advise them to fix their mistake in the public release below on IEEE. Goodtiming8871 ( talk) 23:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
References
I urge editors to refrain any further suppression over the matter. And demand the section re-instalment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.230.75.49 ( talk) 15:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Daveburstein ( talk) 05:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC) I made a major change by deleting the section on Huawei security controversies. There is a (long) separate article on the subject. It is important, but applies to much more than 5G. It's certainly appropriate for someone to add here some references to 5G, Huawei and security, but please keep it brief and link to the main article. I also made numerous small changes reflecting new information as the first 300,000 users have been connected.
I note the discussion here about radiation dangers. I added two highly credible sources with citations. "In April, 2019, the city of Brussels in Belgium blocked a 5G trial because of radiation fears.[57] In Geneva, Switzerland, a planned upgrade to 5G was stopped for the same reason.[58]" I also added "Most authorities do not believe there is conclusive evidence of harm.[56]" I think this is a neutral, well-sourced section on an issue of concern. Improvements welcome, but I haven't seen solid information that adds much to the discussion.
Dave
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/un-staff-member-5g-war-humanity?utm_source=Daily+Greenmedinfo.com+Email+List&utm_campaign=743bc53cdc-UN+Staff+Member%3A+5G+Is+War+on+Humanity&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_193c8492fb-743bc53cdc-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D&ct=t%28Institute+for+Scientific+Freedom_COPY_01%29&mc_cid=743bc53cdc&mc_eid=%5BUNIQID%5D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.8.81 ( talk) 19:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Even if we don't discuss whether the source is effective, there is no UN document to prove this.At least I have not seen any relevant information on the official UN website. by 61.224.2.10
Disinformation. Zezen ( talk) 18:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
20gbps capacity per cell. Great. But what is the theoretical maximum capacity per area? This must obvious relate to the cells being used. As 5G is constantly praised as a serious competitor to wired networks, I wonder how this may actually really work in a world of more and more FTTH networks, which do not use shared networks as 5G obviously does. Any more serious info on this subject available? Yeah 20gbps per cell is great, but what about all those other people who may take that capacity away from me ... 2A00:1398:300:202:0:0:0:102E ( talk) 15:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I mentioned elsewhere that I looked in vain for anything on potential problems with 5G. This is to signal that, if I get a chance, I hope to start a section, or at least a link, to reputable sources that have flagged these issues: for example the danger that trees that get in the way may be destroyed, aesthetic issues around the proliferation of masts, possible health issues, etc. I intend to use only serious mainstream sources (e.g. newspapers of record) and not amateur blogs and the like. It would save me a lot of time and effort if anyone who has a problem with that idea could let me know before I spend the time on the research, and also indicate what kind of literature is acceptable, as well as what isn't. (I don't have a technical background so I'm winging it a bit on this, but I'll do the best I can.) Thanks. Be-nice:-) ( talk) 22:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks :-) That's helpful to know. I wasn't up to speed on the editorial history. The following is the kind of thing I wss thinking of, from the website of RTE, the state broadcaster in Ireland (equivalent of the BBC). The article is balanced, directly relevant to 5G, written by a professor in the area, mentions the issues without over-egging them (as far as I can tell) and cites relevant sources. Would that pass muster, and if not why not? As I said, I'm not an expert in the area so I can only go on what seem to be appropriate sources https://www.rte.ie/eile/brainstorm/2019/0313/1036125-should-we-be-worried-about-radiation-from-5g-networks/ Be-nice:-) ( talk) 14:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I'm a bit flummoxed here. Obviously I can't begin to argue the case re the technicalities, but I'm puzzled why an article (a) written by a professor in the area and (b) in a reputable publication, would not be regarded as at least having arguable status in this entry. Are you saying that anything that raises health issues is ipso facto to be dismissed without a hearing, even if it's written by Einstein (or whoever the equivalent may be in this area)? But leaving aside the health issues, there are in any case other concerns. As you write yourself: "Thus, with a shorter range per each antenna, more antennas are needed to cover a given area than with lower frequencies." This would potentially raise aesthetic, cultural and environmental issues (extraneous to health matters) which are surely worth noting and including in the discussion. So if I can source material critical of the proliferation of antennae, is it appropriate to include it in the entry, and if not, why not? Be-nice:-) ( talk) 22:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, so if I can source material from medical experts in reputable publications who question 5G, is that OK? (Though I imagine that people with expertise in both medicine and mobile phone technology are kind of scarce...) Apart from the medical issues though, is there any objection to citing issues that have been raised about the potential proliferation of antennae, from (e.g.) an environmental, aesthetic or cultural POV? NB I do not intend to go down the "Soapbox" road, insofar as I understand the policy/guidelines, simply to note the objections that are out there. Thank you. Be-nice:-) ( talk) 23:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, that looks like a useful site. I'm wondering though why this article doesn't link to it already (?) On a separate matter, can I assume that there is no objection to including non-health issues that have been raised to 5G in this article, e.g. environmental, aesthetic or cultural, due to the proliferation of antennae? Be-nice:-) ( talk) 13:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Here is an example of the issues raised re the proliferation of antennae, from the conservative British newspaper The Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/03/30/400000-extra-phone-masts-needed-bring-5g-network-rural-britain/?fbclid=IwAR3GH73TXBkNO4sbuakGjCfup_l6rVLf0pqKro5yX6oWnMmRWud-2q_Uhe8. (There is also a lot of stuff on the Internet re the supposed connection between preparation for 5G and widespread tree-felling in the UK and ROI, though I've struggled to find any "respectable" sources on the tree issue, i.e. not self-published blogs and the like. There is certainly an inordinate amount of tree-felling going on, and 5G is certainly being rolled out, though whether there is any connection between the two is another matter). Be-nice:-) ( talk) 00:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
From WP: SOURCE: "Other reliable sources include:
University-level textbooks Books published by respected publishing houses Magazines Journals Mainstream newspapers"
The Telegraph is undoubtedly a mainstream newspaper, though as it happens I don't normally agree with its politics. It seems to me that you have a somewhat dogmatic view of what should and shouldn't be included here. Anyway, I've better things to do than to get into a Wikipedia squabble. Have a nice day. Be-nice:-) ( talk) 01:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I remind everyone, neither Ebahapo nor anyone else has the authority to WP:OWN this page. The whole section above beginning with "No, it does not pass muster. Microwaves are not ionizing radiation (implying something that is emitted by rays) and therefore does not cause cancer, unlike ionizing radiation, like β rays. " is WP:OR without any sources. I assess the text in that section as bullying. I certainly will be keeping an eye open here. 18:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Reading this whole talk I get the impression that owning content and shooting down concerns is a priority. Also, seeing "Radiation FEARS" and "Espionage FEARS" as index points seem very biased. When looking up a hot topic like 5G, one would expect at least a broad spectrum rather than the rather narrow one of technical jargon, which those who DO understand such would not need in detail. I know this balance to be an old discussion, but I DO suggest you make room for (wider) concerns, starting with a change of the index. A central heading just called CONCERNS containing the present concerns, OR a referral from such to separate topic, eg "5G concerns". I mean: 5G implies a changed Earth in the way we communicate and utilise data, and concerns are 4 measly lines, of which 2 are mine! Krabat —Preceding undatedcomment added 10:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
On the assumption that, at some state, a section on problems/concerns/criticisms/controversy will be added to this entry (though maybe I'm being too optimistic) here is another article from a mainstream publication, this time the respected magazine the New Yorker. It adds the issues of surveillance/political security to the issues already mentioned (i.e. danger to trees, aesthetic and environmental concerns, health issues, etc.): https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-communications/the-terrifying-potential-of-the-5g-network Be-nice:-) ( talk) 12:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Oops...I just noticed that there is in fact the basis for a surveillance section in the article. The above New Yorker article might be a useful source for expansion of that. Be-nice:-) ( talk) 12:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I came across this recent article in The Lancet which may be a useful link for the issue of health effects. It specifically mentions 5G: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(18)30221-3/fulltext Be-nice:-) ( talk) 12:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
This looks like a useful source for scientific research on 5G and potential problems: https://www.emf-portal.org/en/search/results?query=5G&languageIds%5B%5D=en Be-nice:-) ( talk) 23:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I came across this, which looks like a useful source on the potential effects of 5G on trees in the UK. I did a "find" on words like "trees," "leaves," "foliage" etc with some interesting results: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/684420/OS_Final_report__5g-planning-geospatial-considerations.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2ST3D9it88y1Ie-qrFhJLWFXCiJX9OzVcelTrBLEPJHI7ytH6_VlnMqNA Be-nice:-) ( talk) 12:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
BoogaLouie The New York times recently made a report that seems like an op-ed that accuses RT America of spreading fake news about 5G radiation effects. I have found many news outlets that are not related to RT that are "spreading fears" of 5G like how it might cause cancer. According to DW around 250 scientists from around the world have signed a petition to slow down the roll out of 5G because they fear that 5G could cause cancer. I don't think that what RT America reported at that day was unusual in mainstream media. Most of American mainstream media have reported news about 5G radiation fears. According to a report from 2019/1/8 [ https://www.engadget.com/2019/01/08/verizon-disney-the-new-york-times-5g/ thus source] "Verizon will partner with The New York Times to create a 5G journalism lab, though the full details of how that program will work exactly are still unclear." so for me it does seem suspicious that the only news paper to report this was the New York times and therefore it looks biased towards Verizon. This section in my opinion needs to be updated with real scientific research sources not news outlets agenesis and even if we need to add something like that it should be summarised and not given too much details. So that's why I reverted your addition here -- SharabSalam ( talk) 15:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
This is a notable topic for inclusion. SharabSalam's characterization of the NYT as an "op-ed" is an opinion that wouldn't hold up to community scrutiny or a RSN review. The NYT article is a top-shelf investigative report that is feature length. Unlike other news sources the NYT has a higher threshold of reliability and fact checking. The inclusion doesn't need to be so lengthy and detailed, I agree, but some mention of it needs to be here. -- Green C 23:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
“The challenge for the upcoming years is to organize universal access to high-speed internet, to start operation of the fifth-generation communication systems,” and quoted US-based analysts worrying that “Russia doesn’t have a good 5G play, so it tries to undermine and discredit ours” (Ryan Fox of New Knowledge) and that the Russian government “would really enjoy getting democratic governments tied up in fights over 5G’s environmental and health hazards,”these informations doesn't really belong to the section and more about RT America than radiation fears. Would it be okay if I summarised these informations?. I said that the NYT report seems like an op-ed because IMO it wasn't actually accurate and full of baseless accusations. I explained what RT America reported that day about how 5G could cause cancer is not something unusual in the mainstream media but the NYT chose only RT America to attack, then the NYT said that all of radiation fears reports are Russian propaganda. I also pointed out that the NYT report might be biased because it has business relationship with Verizon. I guess I will have to discuss this here WP:V/N.-- SharabSalam ( talk) 01:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
A crazy thought: what if Russian propaganda has taken a leading role in spreading fears over 5G safety not because it wants to undermine its implementation in the West, but to actually discredit these claimed safety issues by associating it with Russia, in the hope they are actually valid? -- A man without a country ( talk) 13:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
A lot of this isn't unique to 5G. The main point about 5G is that it's reportedly much faster than 4G and will lead to ubiquity of connectivity. The article as a whole is also written far too much in terms of mobile (voice) telephony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.237.221 ( talk) 09:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Recent edits delete some statements based on WP:NPOV. As well as I know, that mostly applies to editors. If the majority of WP:RS say something, then it should be good enough for WP. The references are to the Washington Post and New York Times, usually considered reliable sources. Gah4 ( talk) 05:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
In 2018, RT America began airing programming linking 5G to what they called harmful health effects, such as "brain cancer, infertility, autism, heart tumors and Alzheimer’s disease". The stories have soon spread to hundreds of blogs and websites. [106] The channel's claims have not been backed by solid evidence and some suggested that this was merely an effort by the Russian government to discredit the 5G technology.— kashmīrī TALK 21:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I've been a bit bold and added (carrier) to the end of each carrier. I realize this is an inelegant solution, so I've opened this talk topic. As it stands, the table is quite confusing since "City" is on the same column as the cities (bottom) but also on the same row as the carriers. It didn't even click for me that each one was supposed to be a carrier, since I'm really not all that familiar with other country's carriers like Three or O2. The point being is that inversely, some readers might just as confused as what "Sprint" is, for instance. I'm not really good enough with tables to know how we should do this. Will wikilinks to carriers suffice? Can we set up the table to make it clearer which is the city and which is the carrier? hbdragon88 ( talk) 22:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the following paragraph about Russia Today (or substantially similar content) be included in the article? R2 ( bleep) 17:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC) The whole paragraph is at issue, though I'm bolding the portion that has been the primary focus of some recent edit warring and discussion.
sources
|
---|
References
|
(Please note, there's a related discussion going on concurrently at WP:ORN#Is this original research or not?.) R2 ( bleep) 17:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 May 2020 and 3 July 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Yuxin L-.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 16:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
"RT America, a propaganda outlet for the Russian government"it makes it in Wikivoice also the extraordinary claim is that RT America is the one that is promoting fear from 5G implementation because Russia can't afford one. This claim is an extraordinary claim when we have a lot of other media outlets who have also promoted concerns about 5G radiation as mentioned before in this discussion. Also we only have the NYT report which is the main source for the 5G-RT_America issue. The other sources are used by the editor as SYNTH in order to support the claim that RT is a propaganda outlet. They aren't about 5G. They are not relevant sources.-- SharabSalam ( talk) 20:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
5.44.170.9 is edit warring over this content and has demanded a non-Western source describing RT as propaganda. So here are two: Hong Kong, Brazil. R2 ( bleep) 16:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
One man's propaganda is another person's 5-o'clock news. Propaganda has a negative connotation, and should be, in most modern cases (imo) be couched as "alleged", "purported", or "several governments and/or organizations call it". Previous propaganda machines, such as existed during WWII are largely and almost universally declared as such by reputable commentators and historians. Modern organizations are usually still building their reputations or modifying them. I would add the paragraph, but specify that claims of a propaganda arm of the Russian government be specifically mentioned by source and date, e.g. "RT, seen by some news outlets (such as the New York Times in June 2019) as a propaganda dissemination arm of the Russian Government". For the record, the Kremlin is a pseudonym for the Russian Government, like the White House or the Hill is for the US Government. — Trumblej1986 ( talk) 10:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
This part about RT seems to reflect particular editorialising on the part of New York Times, as if it was fact. I am not sure there is sufficient evidence to backup these claims that the Russian government is against the west adopting 5G because of economic reasons. Does this really fit into the section of health effects? Is this really the reason why people are concerned about the health effects of 5G?
It would appear to me that a lot of people are concerned because they are reading the scientific literature regarding how non-ionising microwave radiation can profoundly effect biological life or are already being negatively effected by 4G. This is not mentioned, nor the petitions by scientists which could give the reader some idea as to why people have concerns about the rollout of 5G. I.E. no scientific studies have been carried out to show how the wattage and frequencies of 5G effect the human population.
Probrooks ( talk) 11:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
It's really not that surprising that 5G in the existing bands does not currently do much better than 4G in terms of throughput: 4G technology already approaches the Shannon limit. Where 5G begins to shine is in the higher bands, with much more abundant bandwidth and shorter range, and hence greater frequency reuseability. We should have a discussion of this in the article, appropriately sourced. There's a good discussion of this here. -- The Anome ( talk) 12:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Daveburstein ( talk) 10:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC) Added lede as requested. Numerous updates based on recent field results. Much more needed. Please help.
There is a recent edit changing "speed" to "frequency". Does this make sense? There is much discussion about "high speed internet" connections, but none about high frequency. They are connected, but not so simply. Digital communications are often described in terms of bit rate, which also might be described as speed. For a given modulation method, the bit rate is proportional to the frequency bandwidth in use. Radio communications systems require a carrier frequency greater, often much greater, than the system bandwidth. It is not unusual to use a frequency value when a bit rate is needed. This is especially true with more complicated modulation methods. Gah4 ( talk) 00:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Shouldn't some reference be made to the difference between a network being "5G" because it uses New Radio RAT and a "full" 5G service that includes a fully deployed 5G Core (which is needed for things like network slicing, edge computing, etc. which are mentioned here)?
Some sources:
https://www.rfglobalnet.com/doc/g-core-network-architecture-network-functions-and-interworking-0001
https://www.gsma.com/futurenetworks/wiki/5g-implementation-guidelines/
Effectively there's "5G" for subscribers - faster mobile internet - but the rest of 5G technology isn't as widespread/has a separate dependency. -- 213.160.140.100 ( talk) 08:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The sentence written are very tough to understand can you make it more simple. Leoshaji ( talk) 03:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Editors involved in editing the 5G article might be interested in requests at Talk:Verizon Wireless and Talk:Verizon Communications to update Verizon's 5G efforts. As I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, I ask others to review my work and make edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric ( talk) 21:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
In 13 June 2010 a deletion proposal template was added to the article, with the motivation "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also, citation needed." The article may be deleted if the message remains in place for seven days. What is your vote?
![]() | This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
The 5G section of that article quotes the 18 June 2010 version of this Wikipedia article.
The article starts off with some garbage, and is vague in the rest. 184.151.127.131 ( talk) 22:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
And should be deleted. The entire Research section is a random speculative list containing a number of non peer-reviewed writings.
I've never tagged an article for deletion before; how do we do it? Otherwise I'll have to use this as an example to my Mobile Wireless Networking Class next semester of why not to use Wikipedia. Jpgs ( talk) 22:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I work now in the wireless industry, and have been in academia previously. This article and especially the research section feels like a parody of a bad conference article: poor grammar, incoherent sentences, and lousy acronyms. :-) I guess it's important to have a 5G article, but I'm not certain this article is a help to know what's happening in the industry or academia. Sanpitch ( talk) 17:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I removed the following unsourced paragraph, but put some of the mentioned technologies under "See also":
5G is sometimes citation needed used to refer to alternatives to these technologies based on the IEEE standards: mesh networks based on 802.11n protocol, IEEE 802.11u authentication and IEEE 802.21 handoff, the IEEE P1905 hybrid networking and the OpenFlow/ OpenRadio methods of sharing backhaul (telecommunications). citation needed Almost all smartphones and tablets as of 2012 supported these standards, along with literally all notebook/ laptops, and were able to prefer their (generally unmetered) use to 4G networks. However, to use these as a genuine replacement for 4G would typically require more coverage than is thought feasible outside large urban areas.
IEEE 802.11n is not a mesh network protocol, but a MIMO technology, which already exsists in 3G and 4G. Mange01 ( talk) 11:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Added a new "Investment" section, given recent mainstream news reports regarding a test facility planned in the UK (see report in video form here – from 09:11: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01nhbzw). I believe there are other investments happening worldwide that could be added, when known. In fact AFAIR didn't South Korea similarly invest in a new facility, according to a (now removed?) recent version of this 5G page? Though I could be wrong. Jimthing ( talk) 08:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
The article states that the first 2G standard came out in 1991. I assume it is referring to GSM. I believe this is incorrect, since Digital AMPS (D-AMPS or TDMA) came out about a year earlier in 1990. ANDROS1337 TALK 02:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
The page indicates that "international 5G development projects have yet to be launched officially." However the 3GPP standards body recently (mid-September 2015) had its first official 5G planning meeting and its member companies have started their efforts in earnest to develop the technology. Here's a link to their press release, with presentations given by a few dozen member companies.
http://www.3gpp.org/news-events/3gpp-news/1734-ran_5g — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.45.109.66 ( talk) 16:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
(source: http://www.telecomasia.net/content/huawei-validates-key-5g-technologies) Huawei validates key 5G technologies... Dylan Bushell-Embling... May 30, 2016... telecomasia.net
Huawei has announced it has completed the first stage of key 5G technology tests as part of a series of 5G field trials organized by the IMT-2020 5G Promotion Group.
The vendor completed outdoor macro-cell tests in Chengdu, China consisting of a number of key 5G enabling technologies and an integrated 5G air interface.
As part of the trial, Huawei evaluated three foundational technologies - filtered orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (F-OFDM), sparse code multiple access (SCMA) and polar code - the air interface technology.
Results show that F-OFDM was able to improve system throughput by 10%, SCMA was able to increase uplink connections by 300% and downlink system throughput by up to 80%, and polar code provided coding gain of between 0.5dB and 2dB compared to the code used in LTE systems.
Huawei said results of the test demonstrate that the new 5G air interface technology can improve spectral efficiency and meet the ITU-R's diverse service requirements for the standard.
The IMT-2020 5G Promotion Group was launched by the China Academy of Information and Communication Technology to encourage joint efforts to promote 5G field trials and evaluations among the global mobile industry.
Earlier this year the group announced a three-phase 5G trial plan spanning from 2016 to 2018.
-- Jo3sampl ( talk) 13:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
In 2018 Verizon plans to roll out 5G FWA <--- FWA??? definition???
"Is 5G Over-Hyped?
" . . . [speed] depends on what frequency bands are used — 6GHz, 28GHz, 27 GHZ. The higher the frequency the more fibre you need closer to the user in order to deliver those higher speeds. Currently less than 50% of mobile towers are connected to fibre, and the rollout of fibre can't keep up with the rapid deployment of mobile broadband. 5G means more mobile towers so it is unlikely that all of these towers will be linked to fibre in the near future. [etc.]"
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20160530_is_5g_over_hyped/
-- Jo3sampl ( talk) 20:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
"Sprint Shows Off 5G With Blazing Fast Speeds At Copa América Centenary”
Excerpts:
“The demonstration employed beam stitching, which works by tracking the device in use, selecting the best antenna and sending the signal to a set location.”
"An FCC spectrum auction last month also showed strong implication, further paving the way toward fast and reliable 5G networks. AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile will likely spend billions on 600 MHz spectrum, but Sprint is not interested. Sprint already has plenty of 2.5 GHz spectrum – more than any of its rivals – and when it comes to 5G, it's considered low-frequency spectrum. This means that it should be better at penetrating walls and buildings and traveling farther, thus translating to wider coverage.”
Also — up to 2Gbps during demo; used 73 GHz millimeter wavelength spectrum for demo.
-- Jo3sampl ( talk) 15:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
"5G remains the driver for new product development . . .
"However there is no standard for 5G deployments and no one knows what the final specs will look like. Consensus suggests that 5G will utilize Massive MIMO (multiple input, multiple output) antennas — perhaps dozens (or hundreds) per basestation — each with their own spectrum and modulation scheme. Thus, every RF supplier — no matter how narrow their focus — will claim a slot among the MIMO attachments. "If you can’t find channel bandwidth on the upper spectrum of the millimeter wave bands, consider carrier aggregation at lower frequencies. WiFi and LTE, for example, will likely “co-exist” on the same tower.
"Orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) is one way of putting additional data channels on a given frequency range . . . . OFDM is a modulation technique, which can utilize multiple carriers, within an allocated bandwidth and could enable a 10 Gbits/second data. Each carrier utilize one of the several available digital modulation techniques such as binary phase shift keying (BPSK) or quadrature phase shift keying (QPSK), or quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) with 256 or 1024 constellation points. (802.11ac, for example, uses a 256-point QAM for every data bit transmitted.)"
http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=36&doc_id=1329841 accessed 20160707
-- Jo3sampl ( talk) 13:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
And:
Power amplifier research with implications for 5G phones
"Purdue research could lead to faster cell phone technology
"[A team of researchers at Purdue created for the first time] power amplifiers (components commonly used in cell phones) using silicon technology that are efficient enough to be suitable for 5G cell phones. . . ."
( http://www.purdueexponent.org/campus/article_91c49b5e-e38f-5be0-8ca1-c16d2ba4f2f2.html)
-- Jo3sampl ( talk) 17:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
retrieved 20160920
'Stéphane Téral, an analyst at IHS Markit, recently weighed in by criticizing the use of “5G” to describe sub-6 gigahertz developments in a research note.'
'Many [carriers] have set their sights on much shorter millimeter waves that fall between 30 and 300 GHz. There are plenty of frequencies available in the millimeter-wave range, because they’ve been used only for specialized applications such as remote sensing and military radar. But waves at these frequencies can’t travel as far or make it through as many obstacles . . .'
'[5G analyst Anshel] Sag thinks it’s a mistake to rule out anything other than millimeter waves as true 5G. He says 5G New Radio, a wireless standard defined by the global wireless standards group 3GPP, should count as 5G no matter which frequencies it handles.'
-- Jo3sampl ( talk) 20:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
AT&T will launch its first 5G wireless service in Indianapolis and Austin later this year, offering theoretical top speeds of 400Mbps or higher, the company said.
-- Jo3sampl ( talk) 22:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
'Asked about plans in South Korea to launch some form of 5G in 2018, Alex Wang said 5G can be a marketing name, with different operators defining 5G in different ways: “We follow closely the 3GPP standard and believe it’s a more neutral and technically sound definition.”
' “We consider Chinese and Japanese operators as following the more strict 3GPP-based definition, with 5G launches around 2020. Any launch earlier than that is up to the indivdual operator to define, but we don’t think that’s standard compliant 5G.”
'With phase two of China’s national 5G implementation already underway, ZTE is working closely with China Mobile on different aspects of the operator’s 5G trials, including radio and core networks, and the interworking of network features.'
-- Jo3sampl ( talk) 17:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 5G. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
As 5G is approaching to us, I think it would be beneficial for us to know the practical speed (not written in the book) and bandwidth for average users. I updated some simulation results and comparison table to 3G and 4G. Please update further actual test results and references to this article when it's possible. Goodtiming8871 ( talk) 21:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
The article was mostly unchanged since 2016 in a very fast moving field. Many references were to 2011 and 2013. Rewrote entire article, removing many out of date datapoints, obvious pr, and errors. Actual deployments replaced trials. Shortened some sections with extraneous material. (I'm a tech reporter covering this field and have written over 50 articles. That doesn't mean I got everything right. Improvements welcome.) I made a major change/update to paragraph 2, which said 5G was millimeter wave only. Since then, Massive MIMO and low band 5G have been accepted by most as part of 5G. There's no formal definition so I included all 3 saying "some consider." At the MWC this week, it appeared 3/4ths of the announced 5G plans were low band, which had been left out. Is that the right solution? The article would be improved with more technical information and more links to recently published books/articles. Dave Burstein daveb@dslprime.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveburstein ( talk • contribs) 09:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Daveburstein ( talk) 14:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC) I corrected major confusion in the article. After more than a year of dispute, the term 5G has generally been accepted to include any system utilizing 3GPP New Radio. Hundreds of regulator statements, news reports, and much of this article use the "new definition." (Which I think is highly misleading but has become common usage.) That means much of "5G" does not meet the ITU IMT-2020 standard of 20 gigabits, which the article was claiming. It's 70% to 90% slower. Made several changes to make clear what was IMT-2020 (20 gigabits, mostly microwave) and which was not (everything below 6 GHz.) If anyone sees it differently, please email me daveb@dslprime.com and I will send more data to you. Daveburstein ( talk) 14:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC) Removed "technology" section except New Radio. All listed were developed for 4G before 5G. Further changes necessary in a fast-moving field.
Hi - I see you have edits that are clearly very important to you. They contain a number of technical inaccuracies. I don't personally see how you will get them to a state where they are accurate. Not quite sure what the Wikipedia rules are for things like this, but I'm sure everyone's preference is that people not make earnest but inaccurate contributions. Hawerchuk ( talk) 05:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi, as you are well aware of it, the 3G and 4G mobile are now standard for the world; the 5G mobile could affect most of the people in the world shortly within a few years(examples, the year 2020-2021). It would be crucial not for few people but the significant population. As the standard of 5G is not yet fixed, and still one of the primary agenda, [1] it would be impossible to write the concrete result of the capabilities of 5G technology. However, it would be possible to predict the practical outcomes based on the real-world test by the 5G professionals. Please update the article or provide the feedback on talk page based on further references. We would be able to achieve better understanding what could be the realistic 5G standard. Goodtiming8871 ( talk) 22:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't quite know what you're saying. But let me give you an example of what I mean from your text:
"The technology of small cell was already utilised to 3G and 4G mobile radio technology. However, small cell in 5G is now the crucial part of achieving several gigabits per second Bandwidth and low latency. It is now indispensable to use the small cell when you deploy high bandwidth 5G fixed wireless service because of characteries of the new 5G mobile band which is Millimeter wave frequencies(24-86GHz)."
-> "several gigabits per second Bandwidth" -> "gigabits per second" is throughput; Bandwidth in the context of 5G is measured in MHz -> "indispensable...when you deploy high bandwidth 5G fixed wireless service" -> 5G needs small cells to enable much more than mmWave fixed wireless
"It is one of the primary technology for 5G networks; it will transmit data through targeted beams and advanced signal processing that could speed up data rates and boost bandwidth using massive MIMO antennas, it is a technique that sends the radio signals intensively to the places where many data are actually needed."
-> "it will transmit data...that could...boost bandwidth" -> again, there's no notion of beamforming increasing bandwidth, you're mixing it up with throughput -> "it is a technique that sends the radio signals intensively to the places where...actually needed" -> this is not a technically-accurate description of beamforming -> "it will transmit data through...advanced signal processing" -> this is not an action that the transmission of data can take
I don't really see the point of re-inserting erroneous text like this. Hawerchuk ( talk) 05:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I believe that it's highly beneficial for us to articulate the definition of the 5G technology area.
Let me add the reference of the examples that I see what is correct:
1) (Hawerchuk) Bandwidth in the context of 5G is measured in MHz
-> (Goodtiming88781) the function of Millimeter-wave bands: it can deliver greater capacity of the data comparing the Centimeter waves, but the bandwidth should not be measured with MHz but "bits per second (bps)".
2) (Hawerchuk) again, there's no notion of beamforming increasing bandwidth, you're mixing it up with throughput
(Goodtiming88781), The reference on ieee.org exaplined clearly that Beamforming(= targeted beams) boost bandwidth, and as per the reference(1) above network throughput is directly linked with bandwidth on the network.
[3]
3) (Hawerchuk) this is not a technically-accurate description of beamforming
(Goodtiming88781), Please see the IEEE reference 2)above and the description below, it also accurately described the meaning of beamforming.
"For millimeter waves, beamforming can help by focusing a signal in a concentrated beam that points only in the direction of a user, rather than broadcasting in many directions at once."
Goodtiming8871 (
talk) 02:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Goodtiming8871. What is the relationship between connected cars and smart medicine? Hawerchuk ( talk) 20:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC) It was a typo. I fixed it. Goodtiming8871 ( talk) 02:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
The text in the beamforming section was copied verbatim from the reference cited in that section, so I removed it. Hawerchuk ( talk) 06:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC) I don't think the summary of the long contents of reference: it is not the copy of the material. I will recover it with additional clarification. If you think it is an exact copy of the reference, please paste the evidence of contents here. Goodtiming8871 ( talk) 06:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
1) "The proposed 5G applications": the same information is in the next section. If someone is trying to say something different, clarification is required.
2) "Small Cell": Clarification required. I think I understand what the text is trying to say, but it's not correct (small cell is key to 5G, not just for mmWave)
3) "Network Bandwidth and Deployments": There are numerous technical inaccuracies, there's irrelevant info, and some of this section contradicts some of the other sections tagged above for clarification.
Hawerchuk (
talk) 02:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Please note that mmWave must use a small cell, however a small cell is not an essential part of centimetre wave, and a centimetre wave is also used in a 4G network. if you think that a small cell is an essential part of the centimetre wave in 5G, Please place the proper references on here if possible.
Goodtiming8871 (
talk) 06:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Daveburstein ( talk) 03:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC) Thanks Hawerchuk and others for improving this page. There is enormous confusion about the definition of "5G," which remains under dispute amid changes. Originally, "5G" was defined as 20 Gbps downloads, which in practice meant millimetre wave only. Those building and deploying in lower bands, from 600 MHz to 6 GHz, wanted to call their equipment 5G and persuaded the important 3GPP standards committee to include in "5G" what more closely resembled 4G than millimetre wave. (It's really 4G with a software tweak, New Radio, and only slightly faster. Opinion) Almost all the companies are delighted to apply the much-hyped term "5G" to their slower and less expensive mid-band deployments. That seems to be becoming generally accepted, including in policy work at the EU & FCC. That means some 5G will actually be slower than some 4G, which has some features - including LAA - that have not yet been implemented in 5G. There's no standard of what's right or wrong here, but the changes have led to very frequent errors. The result is that many ordinarily reliable sources get this wrong. If low & band are included in 5G, there are only modest performance improvements. (I preferred the older definition, but common usage seems now to accept the inclusion of low and mid-band.) Many assume that "5G" is much faster and has much lower latency. That's not true except for millimetre wave 5G, which will be a minority of deployments for the next five years. (Unproven but likely true.) I've reported broadband since 1999 and am working on a book, Gigabit Wireless. My sources include dozens of authorities in the field. That doesn't mean I will be right about everything, of course. But if you think my changes are in error, please email me daveb@dslprime.com and I'll be happy to point you to primary sources. Dave Burstein
Hawerchuk ( talk) 05:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Daveburstein ( talk) 22:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC) Kashmiri and Hawerchuk I made some changes as you suggested. Your comments are sensible but unfortunately the problem is that the world doesn't agree on the definition of 5G. Moved down and rewrote the section on predicted speeds. I added three more citations. The Qualcomm model is consistent with many other datapoints including Verizon's data on millimetre wave and is well documented. I put at the top this is uncertain until we have more results from the field. With the caveat, I believe it right to leave it in because it provides a well-resourced, less technical way to understand what is coming.
This is more than semantics; the article in earlier drafts had major errors due to the confusion. Most "5G" is not much better. (Millimetre wave is much faster but based on telco announcements will only be a minor part.)
Under the newer definition, much - probably the strong majority for five years - of "5G" will not be much faster than "4G" with the same number of antennas and spectrum. That has important implications for policy, where lobbyists are demanding major changes to "incent 5G."
Here's what I came up with. Improvements welcome. Dave daveb@dslprime.com
Hawerchuk ( talk) 22:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
The combination of the two frequencies below; that is 5G network as per the proposed 5G standard.
Frequency range 1 (< 6 GHz) - for coverage
Frequency range 2 (24–86 GHz) for speed by
Small cell
I believe that we can say the maximum speed of 5G via millimetre waves only which is the much higher performance of the current 4G.
Goodtiming8871 (
talk) 03:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
The references for this section do not meet WP:RS. I have removed the section and invite editors to discuss changes at talk before re-adding them to the article.
As I mentioned, this section does not meet WP:RS. Some examples:
However the matter should be classified properly, I believe
Hawerchuk has identified legitimate problems with the proposed text, problems that should be cleared up before it is added to the article. Perhaps
User:Goodtiming8871 would like to create a sandbox section at his/her talk page where interested editors could help to improve and refine the text first, before submitting it here for approval for inclusion? It would be great to harness the interest that User Goodtiming8871 clearly has for the subject.
--
papageno (
talk) 21:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
: Hi Hawerchuk, regarding the technical descriptions, I believe that the content just need to be refined instead of removal as per the example reasons below- part (a)
Hawerchuk' comment; a) "In 2016, Federal Communications Commission(FCC) approves the usage of the new Extremely high frequency (EHF) frequencies range (in another word; Millimeter wave) in next-gen 5G technologies. As the EHF frequencies range is finally accessible on the mobile network, there is an opportunity of the new bandwidth with the requirement of small cell infrastructure because of propagation characteristics of shortwave(example: Millimeter wave). [59]" While reference [59] does indeed talk about mmWave spectrum allocations by the FCC, it's not clear what is meant by "opportunity of the new bandwidth", nor does the reference to shortwave (up to 2 MHz) make any sense in the context of mmWave (up to 86 *GHz*). Also, nobody in this industry refers to these bands as EHF - if someone wants to use that term, they should find references from relevant sources.
1) [59] does specify mmWave spectrum allocations by the FCC, it is clear that "opportunity of the new bandwidth": example 20 Gbps bandwidth by mmWave
2) Professional of mobile industry refers to these band ( 30GHz- 86 GHz) are
EHF; it is also known as mmWave. Please see
EHF
3)
EHF = millimetre wave;
"
Hawerchuk" believes that if someone wants to use that term, they should find references from relevant sources --> (3) above, It is a just fundamental technical term, I don't believe it is probable for unpaid Wikipedia editor could add 10 references to every single line in the Wikipedia article.
I believe that more than about 99.999% Professional in the mobile industry would understand that
millimetre wave is the another terminology of
EHF.
Goodtiming8871 (
talk) 05:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
References
Hawerchuk ( talk) 06:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Hawerchuk ( talk) 06:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
:
EHF can be redirected from MmWave, it means that it is precisely the same meaning: just a fundamental technical term. It will be an unreasonable claim that if someone says MmWave is a different meaning of Extremely high frequency because the corporate websites (example: Qualcomm) did not use the term of "Extremely high frequency" on their website. Please place a reliable reference in this place if you believe EHF is different terminology to MmWave. From my understanding, MmWave would be a popular terminology in the mobile industry, but we can not say EHF does not match with MmWave. Goodtiming8871 ( talk) 02:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
:
Qualcomm.com: 230 results for "mmWave"; 2 results for "EHF"
Intel.com: 258 results for "mmWave"; 0 results for "EHF" as used in this context (2 results for a different meaning)
Nokia.com: 130 results for "mmWave"; 0 results for "EHF"
Ericsson.com: 153 results for "mmWave"; 0 results for "EHF" as used in this context (2 results for a different meaning)
Hawerchuk ( talk) 14:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
:
I don't believe EHF is different terminology to MmWave regarding your examples above. that is just example of "popular usage" of terminology. Would you please be able to write a specific definition associated with the reference concerning: your claim: "EHF is different terminology to MmWave" otherwise please let other professional write their opinion. Goodtiming8871 ( talk) 23:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
The summary of the two parts was removed continuously by the user: Hawerchuk, but he did not leave any proper reason or reference. ( Hawerchuk edits appear to be disruptive as the contents could be clarified or improved by other professional users in the future.)
I would like to get consensus with other users about the requirement of the summary of the two topics below instead of linking to several pages of information which might be too much data to read for general users.
Small cell
Main article:
Small cell
The technology of small cell was already utilised to
3G and
4G mobile radio technology. However, small cell in 5G is now the crucial part of achieving several gigabits per second
Bandwidth and low
latency. It is now indispensable to use the small cell when you deploy high bandwidth 5G fixed wireless service because of characteries of the new 5G mobile band which is
Millimeter wave frequencies(24-86GHz). The
ITU released the new mobile Radio frequencies on the World Radio-communications Conference which is the range of Extremely high frequency. Technically, Millimeter-wave spectrum(mmWave) has the functionality that "mmWave (Extremely high frequency)’ could be able to handle breakneck 5G speeds."
[1]
Beamforming
Main article:
Beamforming
It is one of the primary technologies for 5G networks; it will transmit data through targeted beams and advanced signal processing that could speed up data rates and boost bandwidth
using massive
MIMO
antennas. It is a technique that sends the radio signals intensively to the places where lots of data is actually needed.
[2]
References
Goodtiming8871 ( talk) 04:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
"However, small cell in 5G is now the crucial part of achieving several gigabits per second Bandwidth and low latency. It is now indispensable to use the small cell when you deploy high bandwidth 5G fixed wireless service because of characteries of the new 5G mobile band which is Millimeter wave frequencies(24-86GHz)."
"Technically, Millimeter-wave spectrum(mmWave) has the functionality that "mmWave (Extremely high frequency)’ could be able to handle breakneck 5G speeds.""
"It is one of the primary technologies for 5G networks; it will transmit data through targeted beams and advanced signal processing that could speed up data rates and boost bandwidth using massive MIMO antennas."
"It is a technique that sends the radio signals intensively to the places where lots of data is actually needed."
Hawerchuk ( talk) 14:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Hawerchuk, Please restrain to write your own idea without proper reference and let other professionals describe their opinion as the consensus of talk in this section might require about several people's views with reference not a discussion between two people. Goodtiming8871 ( talk) 23:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Hawerchuk ( talk) 18:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
: Although you said a lot of details were misinterpreted, it could also be your misunderstanding about several technologies. As one example of technologies: bandwidth, let me know whether IEEE Spectrum Staff: Amy Nordrum, Kristen Clark accept your advice whether they made a crucial mistake of using the wrong terminology on their IEEE public press release. Goodtiming8871 ( talk) 23:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
: I explained this above. One person wrote the article, somebody else wrote the headline, and that person misused a word. Just because one person made a mistake, it doesn't mean we propagate it into this article. Please, let's move on.
Hawerchuk ( talk) 16:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Daveburstein ( talk) 19:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC) Dave Burstein Major change: Pointed out IMT-2020 & 3PPP have different definitions. IMT-2020 goes to 20 Gbps, 3GPP to 2 or 4. Removed 200-300 meter cell size because Verizon is getting more. Many small updates and language fixes. Hypesters are implying that "5G" is 20 gigabits in deployments at less than 6 GHz. That's just an error. 20 gigabits is possible at millimeter frequencies like 28 GHz. That's the IMT standard. Nothing more than 4 gigabits has been demonstrated below 6 GHz frequencies, which are included in the 3GPP definition. Article confused them. Shortened stuff, took out unsourced claims that were dubious, etc. More work needed.
I think the intro to the article is confusing now. Do you want to re-write it? Hawerchuk ( talk) 05:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
There is so much confusion in the article. 3GPP doesn't define standards, it develops specifications: https://www.qualcomm.com/news/onq/2017/08/02/understanding-3gpp-starting-basics That Verge reference at the industry standards group 3GPP has included any system using NR (New Radio) software does not support the claim.
the term was defined by the ITU IMT-2020 standard, which required a theoretical peak download capacity of 20 gigabits required for who/what? For candidate radio interfaces like NR. There is no 5G requirements for networks. There is only requirements for radio interfaces. See ITU document: https://www.itu.int/md/R15-SG05-C-0040/en : These requirements are not intended to restrict the full range of capabilities or performance that candidate RITs/SRITs for IMT-2020 might achieve, nor are they intended to describe how the RITs/SRITs might perform in actual deployments under operating conditions that could be different from those presented in other ITU-R Recommendations and Reports on IMT-2020.
It is actually ITU that defines a system to be 5G if it just uses a 5G radio interface like NR: As defined in Resolution ITU-R 56-2, International Mobile Telecommunications-2020 (IMT-2020) systems are mobile systems that include new radio interface(s) which support the new capabilities of systems beyond IMT-2000 and IMT-Advanced. Sbsail ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
References
Goodtiming8871 ( talk) 04:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I looked this article up having come across some stuff on the Internet warning about the dangers of 5G. I found the article completely incomprehensible. (I don't have a physics background, though I know a fair bit about the philosophy of science and I've read a lot of popular science.) There are many technical terms even in the lead that don't have relevant links. I accept that with such a technical subject some level of incomprehensibility for the layperson may be inevitable. However, I do think there could be a paragraph or two, if only in the introduction, setting out in plain language what the article is about. I also couldn't find anything on the supposed dangers of 5G, which ought to be included or at least linked to. If anyone who knows the subject well enough feels up to doing this, that would be great. Thanks :-)
Be-nice:-) (
talk) 22:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
References
Hi, me again :-) I understand there is some issue re the status of whatever negative information on 5G is out there. However, I'm more interested in actually getting the info than in modifying the article in one direction or another. I can make my own decision re the trustworthiness, or otherwise, of the info. So if someone could kindly direct me to the pre-deletion version so I can follow up the sources without stepping on anyone's toes, that would be great. I presume its in the archive somewhere, so it should be just a question of finding it. Thanks! Be-nice:-) ( talk) 00:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
What might be worth mentioning in that the International Society of Doctors for the Environment has called for standstill of the roll out in the respect of the precautionary principle. [1] That report has about 50 references in the scientific literature to biological effects and 17 of those are specific to MMW.
"Furthermore, specific preliminary evidence showed the exposure to frequencies over 30GHz could alter gene expression(16,36,37,38,39), increase the temperature of the skin(40), stimulate cell proliferation(41,42,43), alter the functions of cell membrane (44,45)and neuro-muscular systems (46,47,48,49,50,51,52),
and are able to modulate the synthesis of proteins involved in inflammatory and immunologic
processes (53), with possible systemic effects."
There is also press coverage of this although is the Daily Mail [2] and local news in Cornwall [3] which is going to be one of the first rollout areas.
While I'm skeptical of the health benefits I think we should at least document that some major orginisations have protested. -- Salix alba ( talk): 13:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Who is the developer? The name BCI is deadlinked. The problem with no named developer, is that there is no accountability. Does 5G require replacing the 4G network? Does 5G require the public to throw away working 4G phones? Is it that 4G phones present industry with a problem in that they are durable, and industry wants to keep selling phones? - Inowen ( nlfte) 03:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi all
I don't understand enough about the subject to integrate this information, but this seems important, could someone take a look?
Thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 11:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
The refferences in this section all lead to conspiracy sites and articles based on them. There is one link to a petition signed by 180 fringe (as far as I can tell) scientists. Manufacturversy? i am particularly concerned about the Lucid dreamer youtube channel being used as a source - this guy has a legit psychiatric disorder Benvenuto ( talk) 01:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
The information in https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=5G&diff=891244641&oldid=891243558 is not in the cited source. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Daveburstein ( talk) 01:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC) The actual deployment of tens of thousands of cells by Verizon, SKT, Korea Telecom and LG+ has now given us data from the field from about a dozen independent testers, mostly journalists. I put the actual data and removed a great deal of previous speculation. I also removed a great deal of now outdated and less important matter. I removed the "should be reviewed by an expert." I'm sure I have some errors here but I have written dozens of articles about 5G and am working on a book. Thank you to anyone who fixes my mistakes. The comment above that the description at the beginning is unclear is sensible. Unfortunately, there are many different opinions about the proper description, including the note above about ITU vs 3GPP. I eliminated challenged definitions here and simply called it "advanced wireless." While many have further opinions, that's as far as consensus goes for now. That the city of Brussels has stopped 5G trials because of fears about radiation is an objective datapoint from a responsible entity. I don't think Brussels is right based on the evidence I've seen, but some reputable professionals including Harvard Professor Susan Crawford have doubts. It is not the job of Wikipedia to make a judgment when responsible parties hold conflicting views. The article, for now, has the Brussels decisions as well as links to the (more popular) opposite view. Improvements of course welcome. If anyone wants to review the evidence at lenght, I suggest they create a separate article and link to it. I've written about 200 pages on 5G so have a great deal of data. If anyone has questions about this Wikipedia article, my email is daveb@dslprime.com and much of my work is at wirelessone.news. Daveburstein ( talk) 23:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC) replaced "supercedes" 4G with neutral term "follows." 4G will be important for many years 2025. Reworded claim that 3GPP is a definitive definition, pending agreement with ITU. (India has said they may block 3GPP at the ITU.) Wikipedia should stay neutral while the ITU (part of the U.N) and 3GPP are not in agreemnt. 3GPP is an industry association with essentially no direct or indirect public representation. Almost all countries, many companies, and civil society groups are represented in ITU. The ITU vs 3GPP is an active issue in Internet Governance, so I wanted to be precise.
This jargon-ridden, poorly organized, fragmented article will be practically incomprehensible to general readers who are not familiar with cellular technology. It desperately needs a plain language introduction. For those of you who are concerned about the myths, pseudoscience, and conspiracy theories growing up around 5G, I'd suggest that one reason non-technical people believe these myths is a lack of accessible explanations of the technology. A Wikipedia article that actually explains this new technology in an understandable, human-friendly way might help demystify it. -- Chetvorno TALK 19:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I think I see the issue now:
1. For the IEEE article [1], the person who wrote the title is not the same person who wrote the article. This is not uncommon. Unfortunately, the person who wrote the title made a mistake in the way they used the term 'bandwidth'. Note that 'bandwidth' does not appear in the article itself.
2. For the other page [2], that is a different industry, which uses a different definition of bandwidth. In cellular, bandwidth refers to the quantity of frequency allocated to the user; throughput refers to the data rate. In ethernet or optical transports, the frequency range is (essentially) unlimited, so 'bandwidth' is used in a different way without ambiguity.
Given that, hopefully you'll fix your contributions...
Hawerchuk (
talk) 06:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Would you be able to place the reference of your idea? I was unable to see any reference to your understanding.
Goodtiming8871 (
talk) 05:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I placed the previous topic about bandwidth that you consider that the author of IEEE confused the definition of bandwidth on a professional article from IEEE. Please write the reference if you believe that the expert author of this article does not understand what bandwidth is. If you are more knowledgeable than the IEEE Spectrum Staff: Amy Nordrum, Kristen Clark, Please advise them their confusion via email on the article. Goodtiming8871 ( talk) 00:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Hawerchuk ( talk) 18:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
:
Please find another advice explains the meaning of Mobile Bandwidth "An Expert Explains 3G, 4G, WiFi" [5] As I described your misunderstanding about bandwidth, Speeds in Mbit/s = it is data throughput in the mobile network, and it is also terminology: bandwidth. If you are confident that IEEE Spectrum Staff: Amy Nordrum, Kristen Clark is wrong with their understanding about mobile bandwidth, please advise them to fix their mistake in the public release below on IEEE. Goodtiming8871 ( talk) 23:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
References
I urge editors to refrain any further suppression over the matter. And demand the section re-instalment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.230.75.49 ( talk) 15:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Daveburstein ( talk) 05:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC) I made a major change by deleting the section on Huawei security controversies. There is a (long) separate article on the subject. It is important, but applies to much more than 5G. It's certainly appropriate for someone to add here some references to 5G, Huawei and security, but please keep it brief and link to the main article. I also made numerous small changes reflecting new information as the first 300,000 users have been connected.
I note the discussion here about radiation dangers. I added two highly credible sources with citations. "In April, 2019, the city of Brussels in Belgium blocked a 5G trial because of radiation fears.[57] In Geneva, Switzerland, a planned upgrade to 5G was stopped for the same reason.[58]" I also added "Most authorities do not believe there is conclusive evidence of harm.[56]" I think this is a neutral, well-sourced section on an issue of concern. Improvements welcome, but I haven't seen solid information that adds much to the discussion.
Dave
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/un-staff-member-5g-war-humanity?utm_source=Daily+Greenmedinfo.com+Email+List&utm_campaign=743bc53cdc-UN+Staff+Member%3A+5G+Is+War+on+Humanity&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_193c8492fb-743bc53cdc-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D&ct=t%28Institute+for+Scientific+Freedom_COPY_01%29&mc_cid=743bc53cdc&mc_eid=%5BUNIQID%5D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.8.81 ( talk) 19:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Even if we don't discuss whether the source is effective, there is no UN document to prove this.At least I have not seen any relevant information on the official UN website. by 61.224.2.10
Disinformation. Zezen ( talk) 18:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
20gbps capacity per cell. Great. But what is the theoretical maximum capacity per area? This must obvious relate to the cells being used. As 5G is constantly praised as a serious competitor to wired networks, I wonder how this may actually really work in a world of more and more FTTH networks, which do not use shared networks as 5G obviously does. Any more serious info on this subject available? Yeah 20gbps per cell is great, but what about all those other people who may take that capacity away from me ... 2A00:1398:300:202:0:0:0:102E ( talk) 15:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I mentioned elsewhere that I looked in vain for anything on potential problems with 5G. This is to signal that, if I get a chance, I hope to start a section, or at least a link, to reputable sources that have flagged these issues: for example the danger that trees that get in the way may be destroyed, aesthetic issues around the proliferation of masts, possible health issues, etc. I intend to use only serious mainstream sources (e.g. newspapers of record) and not amateur blogs and the like. It would save me a lot of time and effort if anyone who has a problem with that idea could let me know before I spend the time on the research, and also indicate what kind of literature is acceptable, as well as what isn't. (I don't have a technical background so I'm winging it a bit on this, but I'll do the best I can.) Thanks. Be-nice:-) ( talk) 22:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks :-) That's helpful to know. I wasn't up to speed on the editorial history. The following is the kind of thing I wss thinking of, from the website of RTE, the state broadcaster in Ireland (equivalent of the BBC). The article is balanced, directly relevant to 5G, written by a professor in the area, mentions the issues without over-egging them (as far as I can tell) and cites relevant sources. Would that pass muster, and if not why not? As I said, I'm not an expert in the area so I can only go on what seem to be appropriate sources https://www.rte.ie/eile/brainstorm/2019/0313/1036125-should-we-be-worried-about-radiation-from-5g-networks/ Be-nice:-) ( talk) 14:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I'm a bit flummoxed here. Obviously I can't begin to argue the case re the technicalities, but I'm puzzled why an article (a) written by a professor in the area and (b) in a reputable publication, would not be regarded as at least having arguable status in this entry. Are you saying that anything that raises health issues is ipso facto to be dismissed without a hearing, even if it's written by Einstein (or whoever the equivalent may be in this area)? But leaving aside the health issues, there are in any case other concerns. As you write yourself: "Thus, with a shorter range per each antenna, more antennas are needed to cover a given area than with lower frequencies." This would potentially raise aesthetic, cultural and environmental issues (extraneous to health matters) which are surely worth noting and including in the discussion. So if I can source material critical of the proliferation of antennae, is it appropriate to include it in the entry, and if not, why not? Be-nice:-) ( talk) 22:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, so if I can source material from medical experts in reputable publications who question 5G, is that OK? (Though I imagine that people with expertise in both medicine and mobile phone technology are kind of scarce...) Apart from the medical issues though, is there any objection to citing issues that have been raised about the potential proliferation of antennae, from (e.g.) an environmental, aesthetic or cultural POV? NB I do not intend to go down the "Soapbox" road, insofar as I understand the policy/guidelines, simply to note the objections that are out there. Thank you. Be-nice:-) ( talk) 23:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, that looks like a useful site. I'm wondering though why this article doesn't link to it already (?) On a separate matter, can I assume that there is no objection to including non-health issues that have been raised to 5G in this article, e.g. environmental, aesthetic or cultural, due to the proliferation of antennae? Be-nice:-) ( talk) 13:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Here is an example of the issues raised re the proliferation of antennae, from the conservative British newspaper The Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/03/30/400000-extra-phone-masts-needed-bring-5g-network-rural-britain/?fbclid=IwAR3GH73TXBkNO4sbuakGjCfup_l6rVLf0pqKro5yX6oWnMmRWud-2q_Uhe8. (There is also a lot of stuff on the Internet re the supposed connection between preparation for 5G and widespread tree-felling in the UK and ROI, though I've struggled to find any "respectable" sources on the tree issue, i.e. not self-published blogs and the like. There is certainly an inordinate amount of tree-felling going on, and 5G is certainly being rolled out, though whether there is any connection between the two is another matter). Be-nice:-) ( talk) 00:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
From WP: SOURCE: "Other reliable sources include:
University-level textbooks Books published by respected publishing houses Magazines Journals Mainstream newspapers"
The Telegraph is undoubtedly a mainstream newspaper, though as it happens I don't normally agree with its politics. It seems to me that you have a somewhat dogmatic view of what should and shouldn't be included here. Anyway, I've better things to do than to get into a Wikipedia squabble. Have a nice day. Be-nice:-) ( talk) 01:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I remind everyone, neither Ebahapo nor anyone else has the authority to WP:OWN this page. The whole section above beginning with "No, it does not pass muster. Microwaves are not ionizing radiation (implying something that is emitted by rays) and therefore does not cause cancer, unlike ionizing radiation, like β rays. " is WP:OR without any sources. I assess the text in that section as bullying. I certainly will be keeping an eye open here. 18:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Reading this whole talk I get the impression that owning content and shooting down concerns is a priority. Also, seeing "Radiation FEARS" and "Espionage FEARS" as index points seem very biased. When looking up a hot topic like 5G, one would expect at least a broad spectrum rather than the rather narrow one of technical jargon, which those who DO understand such would not need in detail. I know this balance to be an old discussion, but I DO suggest you make room for (wider) concerns, starting with a change of the index. A central heading just called CONCERNS containing the present concerns, OR a referral from such to separate topic, eg "5G concerns". I mean: 5G implies a changed Earth in the way we communicate and utilise data, and concerns are 4 measly lines, of which 2 are mine! Krabat —Preceding undatedcomment added 10:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
On the assumption that, at some state, a section on problems/concerns/criticisms/controversy will be added to this entry (though maybe I'm being too optimistic) here is another article from a mainstream publication, this time the respected magazine the New Yorker. It adds the issues of surveillance/political security to the issues already mentioned (i.e. danger to trees, aesthetic and environmental concerns, health issues, etc.): https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-communications/the-terrifying-potential-of-the-5g-network Be-nice:-) ( talk) 12:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Oops...I just noticed that there is in fact the basis for a surveillance section in the article. The above New Yorker article might be a useful source for expansion of that. Be-nice:-) ( talk) 12:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I came across this recent article in The Lancet which may be a useful link for the issue of health effects. It specifically mentions 5G: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(18)30221-3/fulltext Be-nice:-) ( talk) 12:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
This looks like a useful source for scientific research on 5G and potential problems: https://www.emf-portal.org/en/search/results?query=5G&languageIds%5B%5D=en Be-nice:-) ( talk) 23:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I came across this, which looks like a useful source on the potential effects of 5G on trees in the UK. I did a "find" on words like "trees," "leaves," "foliage" etc with some interesting results: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/684420/OS_Final_report__5g-planning-geospatial-considerations.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2ST3D9it88y1Ie-qrFhJLWFXCiJX9OzVcelTrBLEPJHI7ytH6_VlnMqNA Be-nice:-) ( talk) 12:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
BoogaLouie The New York times recently made a report that seems like an op-ed that accuses RT America of spreading fake news about 5G radiation effects. I have found many news outlets that are not related to RT that are "spreading fears" of 5G like how it might cause cancer. According to DW around 250 scientists from around the world have signed a petition to slow down the roll out of 5G because they fear that 5G could cause cancer. I don't think that what RT America reported at that day was unusual in mainstream media. Most of American mainstream media have reported news about 5G radiation fears. According to a report from 2019/1/8 [ https://www.engadget.com/2019/01/08/verizon-disney-the-new-york-times-5g/ thus source] "Verizon will partner with The New York Times to create a 5G journalism lab, though the full details of how that program will work exactly are still unclear." so for me it does seem suspicious that the only news paper to report this was the New York times and therefore it looks biased towards Verizon. This section in my opinion needs to be updated with real scientific research sources not news outlets agenesis and even if we need to add something like that it should be summarised and not given too much details. So that's why I reverted your addition here -- SharabSalam ( talk) 15:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
This is a notable topic for inclusion. SharabSalam's characterization of the NYT as an "op-ed" is an opinion that wouldn't hold up to community scrutiny or a RSN review. The NYT article is a top-shelf investigative report that is feature length. Unlike other news sources the NYT has a higher threshold of reliability and fact checking. The inclusion doesn't need to be so lengthy and detailed, I agree, but some mention of it needs to be here. -- Green C 23:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
“The challenge for the upcoming years is to organize universal access to high-speed internet, to start operation of the fifth-generation communication systems,” and quoted US-based analysts worrying that “Russia doesn’t have a good 5G play, so it tries to undermine and discredit ours” (Ryan Fox of New Knowledge) and that the Russian government “would really enjoy getting democratic governments tied up in fights over 5G’s environmental and health hazards,”these informations doesn't really belong to the section and more about RT America than radiation fears. Would it be okay if I summarised these informations?. I said that the NYT report seems like an op-ed because IMO it wasn't actually accurate and full of baseless accusations. I explained what RT America reported that day about how 5G could cause cancer is not something unusual in the mainstream media but the NYT chose only RT America to attack, then the NYT said that all of radiation fears reports are Russian propaganda. I also pointed out that the NYT report might be biased because it has business relationship with Verizon. I guess I will have to discuss this here WP:V/N.-- SharabSalam ( talk) 01:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
A crazy thought: what if Russian propaganda has taken a leading role in spreading fears over 5G safety not because it wants to undermine its implementation in the West, but to actually discredit these claimed safety issues by associating it with Russia, in the hope they are actually valid? -- A man without a country ( talk) 13:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
A lot of this isn't unique to 5G. The main point about 5G is that it's reportedly much faster than 4G and will lead to ubiquity of connectivity. The article as a whole is also written far too much in terms of mobile (voice) telephony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.237.221 ( talk) 09:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Recent edits delete some statements based on WP:NPOV. As well as I know, that mostly applies to editors. If the majority of WP:RS say something, then it should be good enough for WP. The references are to the Washington Post and New York Times, usually considered reliable sources. Gah4 ( talk) 05:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
In 2018, RT America began airing programming linking 5G to what they called harmful health effects, such as "brain cancer, infertility, autism, heart tumors and Alzheimer’s disease". The stories have soon spread to hundreds of blogs and websites. [106] The channel's claims have not been backed by solid evidence and some suggested that this was merely an effort by the Russian government to discredit the 5G technology.— kashmīrī TALK 21:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I've been a bit bold and added (carrier) to the end of each carrier. I realize this is an inelegant solution, so I've opened this talk topic. As it stands, the table is quite confusing since "City" is on the same column as the cities (bottom) but also on the same row as the carriers. It didn't even click for me that each one was supposed to be a carrier, since I'm really not all that familiar with other country's carriers like Three or O2. The point being is that inversely, some readers might just as confused as what "Sprint" is, for instance. I'm not really good enough with tables to know how we should do this. Will wikilinks to carriers suffice? Can we set up the table to make it clearer which is the city and which is the carrier? hbdragon88 ( talk) 22:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the following paragraph about Russia Today (or substantially similar content) be included in the article? R2 ( bleep) 17:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC) The whole paragraph is at issue, though I'm bolding the portion that has been the primary focus of some recent edit warring and discussion.
sources
|
---|
References
|
(Please note, there's a related discussion going on concurrently at WP:ORN#Is this original research or not?.) R2 ( bleep) 17:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 May 2020 and 3 July 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Yuxin L-.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 16:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
"RT America, a propaganda outlet for the Russian government"it makes it in Wikivoice also the extraordinary claim is that RT America is the one that is promoting fear from 5G implementation because Russia can't afford one. This claim is an extraordinary claim when we have a lot of other media outlets who have also promoted concerns about 5G radiation as mentioned before in this discussion. Also we only have the NYT report which is the main source for the 5G-RT_America issue. The other sources are used by the editor as SYNTH in order to support the claim that RT is a propaganda outlet. They aren't about 5G. They are not relevant sources.-- SharabSalam ( talk) 20:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
5.44.170.9 is edit warring over this content and has demanded a non-Western source describing RT as propaganda. So here are two: Hong Kong, Brazil. R2 ( bleep) 16:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
One man's propaganda is another person's 5-o'clock news. Propaganda has a negative connotation, and should be, in most modern cases (imo) be couched as "alleged", "purported", or "several governments and/or organizations call it". Previous propaganda machines, such as existed during WWII are largely and almost universally declared as such by reputable commentators and historians. Modern organizations are usually still building their reputations or modifying them. I would add the paragraph, but specify that claims of a propaganda arm of the Russian government be specifically mentioned by source and date, e.g. "RT, seen by some news outlets (such as the New York Times in June 2019) as a propaganda dissemination arm of the Russian Government". For the record, the Kremlin is a pseudonym for the Russian Government, like the White House or the Hill is for the US Government. — Trumblej1986 ( talk) 10:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
This part about RT seems to reflect particular editorialising on the part of New York Times, as if it was fact. I am not sure there is sufficient evidence to backup these claims that the Russian government is against the west adopting 5G because of economic reasons. Does this really fit into the section of health effects? Is this really the reason why people are concerned about the health effects of 5G?
It would appear to me that a lot of people are concerned because they are reading the scientific literature regarding how non-ionising microwave radiation can profoundly effect biological life or are already being negatively effected by 4G. This is not mentioned, nor the petitions by scientists which could give the reader some idea as to why people have concerns about the rollout of 5G. I.E. no scientific studies have been carried out to show how the wattage and frequencies of 5G effect the human population.
Probrooks ( talk) 11:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
It's really not that surprising that 5G in the existing bands does not currently do much better than 4G in terms of throughput: 4G technology already approaches the Shannon limit. Where 5G begins to shine is in the higher bands, with much more abundant bandwidth and shorter range, and hence greater frequency reuseability. We should have a discussion of this in the article, appropriately sourced. There's a good discussion of this here. -- The Anome ( talk) 12:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Daveburstein ( talk) 10:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC) Added lede as requested. Numerous updates based on recent field results. Much more needed. Please help.
There is a recent edit changing "speed" to "frequency". Does this make sense? There is much discussion about "high speed internet" connections, but none about high frequency. They are connected, but not so simply. Digital communications are often described in terms of bit rate, which also might be described as speed. For a given modulation method, the bit rate is proportional to the frequency bandwidth in use. Radio communications systems require a carrier frequency greater, often much greater, than the system bandwidth. It is not unusual to use a frequency value when a bit rate is needed. This is especially true with more complicated modulation methods. Gah4 ( talk) 00:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Shouldn't some reference be made to the difference between a network being "5G" because it uses New Radio RAT and a "full" 5G service that includes a fully deployed 5G Core (which is needed for things like network slicing, edge computing, etc. which are mentioned here)?
Some sources:
https://www.rfglobalnet.com/doc/g-core-network-architecture-network-functions-and-interworking-0001
https://www.gsma.com/futurenetworks/wiki/5g-implementation-guidelines/
Effectively there's "5G" for subscribers - faster mobile internet - but the rest of 5G technology isn't as widespread/has a separate dependency. -- 213.160.140.100 ( talk) 08:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The sentence written are very tough to understand can you make it more simple. Leoshaji ( talk) 03:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Editors involved in editing the 5G article might be interested in requests at Talk:Verizon Wireless and Talk:Verizon Communications to update Verizon's 5G efforts. As I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, I ask others to review my work and make edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric ( talk) 21:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)