5G Internet at home?

[Gangster]

Hi all,

Just had a look after a few emails re: 5G launching soon and wondered if there is a discussion on using it as an alternative to Sky Fibre, for example.

I've just had a quick look and seen that Vodafone offer a Gigacube and an 18-month contract £50 down, £50 per month but no mention of speeds. A Google reveals '1-10Gbps or higher' I am assuming it depends on coverage and signal strength.

Thoughts?

 

[MrRockliffe]

Hi all,

Just had a look after a few emails re: 5G launching soon and wondered if there is a discussion on using it as an alternative to Sky Fibre, for example.

I've just had a quick look and seen that Vodafone offer a Gigacube and an 18-month contract £50 down, £50 per month but no mention of speeds. A Google reveals '1-10Gbps or higher' I am assuming it depends on coverage and signal strength.

Thoughts?

I imagine you'll get speeds around 250Mb, depending on signal and the carrier

But likely download limitations of say 50GB

 

[Semple]

I imagine you'll get speeds around 250Mb, depending on signal and the carrier

But likely download limitations of say 50GB

This is the biggy. It's all well and good having superfast download speeds, but if you're given measley download limits then they're effectively just throttling your connection in another way.

 

[dizzy078]

I've heard the 5g has difficulty penetrating through walls or other obstacles because of how high the frequency is. Will be interesting to see how reliable the service actually is.

 

[Caged]

Vodafone are launching with a home 5G option for £50 a month that they claim is unlimited, but also a limited offer. It will be interesting see how it shakes out once the offers are over and each carrier has launched their offerings.

 

[ninezerofive]

I think there is more than a concern surrounding 5G impact on health to bring it to your home.

 

[blueacid]

I think there is more than a concern surrounding 5G impact on health to bring it to your home.

Nope, there are just muppets who think this, but there's no actual concrete fact.

Up next: these crystals will help your energy flow, this deck of tarot cards will predict your future, and this vaxxine will be bad for your child.

 

[ninezerofive]

Nope, there are just muppets who think this, but there's no actual concrete fact.

Up next: these crystals will help your energy flow, this deck of tarot cards will predict your future, and this vaxxine will be bad for your child.

Same as there's no facts that it doesn't. Do you want to test it out on yourself ? Would save some research costs for them

Just don't use Fluoride and Aspartame when you do this. We want to be sure that it's 5G that caused it.

 

[WJA96]

I think there is more than a concern surrounding 5G impact on health to bring it to your home.

Not really. It doesn't come into your home as radiation. The demo site I've seen has an external dish-type antenna/modem that sends the signal to a conventional home router so as far as the customer is concerned it's exactly the same as now. The external antenna is required because the signal penetration through breeze blocks, bricks and stone is pitiful. I see lots and lots of reports where they say that the current issue with broadband in the countryside will be fixed by 5G but the range is so awful that you'll need lots and lots of repeater sites so the people I'm talking to are still looking at using point to point wireless bridges for anything over a couple of kilometers. Even in cities it's going to need lots of repeaters to give proper signal strength.

 

[WJA96]

Same as there's no facts that it doesn't. Do you want to test it out on yourself ? Would save some research costs for them

Just don't use Fluoride and Aspartame when you do this. We want to be sure that it's 5G that caused it.

Pretty much everything is toxic at some level. You should take whatever precautions you see fit. Generally these issues have some basis in fact but the real underlying issue in most cases is genetic. Some people are more sensitive than others. Some people do also suffer from phantom symptoms but if they feel ill, who is to say they're not actually ill?

Fluoride certainly does more good than harm. Aspartame is old enough now that if there really was a major health effect we'd probably have seen it by now. The real dangers are still alcohol, tobacco and traffic exhaust fumes. And even all of those put together pale into insignificance compared to road traffic deaths and injuries.

 

[ninezerofive]

Pretty much everything is toxic at some level. You should take whatever precautions you see fit. Generally these issues have some basis in fact but the real underlying issue in most cases is genetic. Some people are more sensitive than others. Some people do also suffer from phantom symptoms but if they feel ill, who is to say they're not actually ill?

Fluoride certainly does more good than harm. Aspartame is old enough now that if there really was a major health effect we'd probably have seen it by now. The real dangers are still alcohol, tobacco and traffic exhaust fumes. And even all of those put together pale into insignificance compared to road traffic deaths and injuries.

Exhaust fumes of course, Tobacco definitely. Alcohol depends, low dose of strong substance would actually help you liver. I am still not buying that Aspartame is safe ideology. Even if it wasn't they wouldn't tell us.

As for Fluoride, I have to disagree. There I am human experiment myself. Haven't used it for about 7 years now and recently went for a check up and got my x-rays done. Nothing has changed. I don't want to brag but they are in excellent shape and I intended them to keep it that way, and if there was even slightest reduction in my oral health I would be first to jump back on Fluoride train.

 

[WJA96]

Exhaust fumes of course, Tobacco definitely. Alcohol depends, low dose of strong substance would actually help you liver. I am still not buying that Aspartame is safe ideology. Even if it wasn't they wouldn't tell us.

As for Fluoride, I have to disagree. There I am human experiment myself. Haven't used it for about 7 years now and recently went for a check up and got my x-rays done. Nothing has changed. I don't want to brag but they are in excellent shape and I intended them to keep it that way, and if there was even slightest reduction in my oral health I would be first to jump back on Fluoride train.

Alcohol is a poison. It just is. It kills huge numbers of brain cells and in high doses it just flat-out kills. It’s certainly responsible for far more deaths than fluoride or aspartame.

I’d love to do microbial numbers in your mouth with and without fluoride toothpaste. Even just rinsing after you brush washes almost all the usable chemical away, so pretty safe really. My grandad literally smoked high tar Woodbines every day until he died of old age so like your teeth, not really a scientifically valid sample.

Fundamentally it’s about rationalising the risk vs. the benefit.

 

[Avalon]

I'd love to see 5G as a genuine option, but it's only this year we have seen a truly unlimited 4G offering re-introduced by Three, 5G launch sites are limited, it could potentially be years before coverage is rolled out beyond city centres and densely populated areas in significant enough volume to be an option, then we still have the data cap issue as rather than competing with fixed providers, mobile networks still cling to a capped service. The irony is those densely populated areas tend to have the best connectivity anyway.

 

[Rroff]

Same as there's no facts that it doesn't. Do you want to test it out on yourself ? Would save some research costs for them

Just don't use Fluoride and Aspartame when you do this. We want to be sure that it's 5G that caused it.

There are massive studies that go back decades on marine vessels into the effects of non-ionizing radiation exposure due to the use of powerful transmitters - and there is a reason there is usually a small exclusion area on navy vessels, etc. around their [more powerful] antenna with time limits but only a small area - the way electromagnetic radiation propagates means that its power diminishes rapidly with distance. I would caution spending too much time within a short range of things like 4G routers, etc. but if placed a couple of metres away or so the exposure will be no different to background levels unless you live somewhere very isolated with thick walls.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

An external antenna is basically a requirement for 5G. One of the main reasons I am not buying the hype for smart phones.

Most people are indoors most of the time so their phones will be on WiFi or 4G almost exclusively in this period. Likewise there is basically zero need for anyone to stream 4K on a 4-5” screen.

All the advantages are for the telcos (capacity) and their ability to launch viable fixed line alternative.

 

[WJA96]

5G will be a game-changer, just not the way the telco’s are selling it. It absolutely will wipe out Openreach’s pathetic 76-200Mbps service and areas that it would never have been viable to have Gigabit fibre installed will get Gigabit speeds from 5G and an external antenna.

The first time I ever logged in to the OcUK forums I was using a bonded 128kbps ISDN connection that cost £100/month because that was quite literally the fastest connection available on a domestic property at the time. At home now I have 330Mbps that costs me £80/month (don’t ask about the FTTP on demand install charge) but there remain plenty of UK homes who are stuck on sub-5Mbps phone lines and for them, 5G will be the answer.

 

[WJA96]

There are massive studies that go back decades on marine vessels into the effects of non-ionizing radiation exposure due to the use of powerful transmitters - and there is a reason there is usually a small exclusion area on navy vessels, etc. around their [more powerful] antenna with time limits but only a small area - the way electromagnetic radiation propagates means that its power diminishes rapidly with distance. I would caution spending too much time within a short range of things like 4G routers, etc. but if placed a couple of metres away or so the exposure will be no different to background levels unless you live somewhere very isolated with thick walls.

I agree if you’re talking about microwave radars and the more extreme ULF/VLF/LF arrays but they are running kW power levels, but surely not the mW you get from a 4G router? By definition, a 4G router cannot transmit any more power than a mobile phone.

 

[Rroff]

I agree if you’re talking about microwave radars and the more extreme ULF/VLF/LF arrays but they are running kW power levels, but surely not the mW you get from a 4G router? By definition, a 4G router cannot transmit any more power than a mobile phone.

Wasn't trying to say they are comparable but there is hard science for the nature of how electromagnetic radiation works in terms of power and distance so if you are beyond a fairly short distance from the antenna (assuming it isn't a focussed beam) you are going to be exposed to atleast background levels anyway so banning 4G from your house, etc. doesn't really make any odds though I still wouldn't advise spending too much time in very close proximity to active sources - a WiFi router or 4G router will typically be more active than a mobile phone which will largely just be sending keep alive pulses when not in use for a call, etc.

As a precaution I wouldn't place a router within 1-2 metres of where my child was sleeping every night, etc. but I wouldn't worry about it if it was in the next room and so on.

5G will be a game-changer, just not the way the telco’s are selling it. It absolutely will wipe out Openreach’s pathetic 76-200Mbps service and areas that it would never have been viable to have Gigabit fibre installed will get Gigabit speeds from 5G and an external antenna.

The first time I ever logged in to the OcUK forums I was using a bonded 128kbps ISDN connection that cost £100/month because that was quite literally the fastest connection available on a domestic property at the time. At home now I have 330Mbps that costs me £80/month (don’t ask about the FTTP on demand install charge) but there remain plenty of UK homes who are stuck on sub-5Mbps phone lines and for them, 5G will be the answer.

Fixed connections still have significant advantages for stable latency even over 5G and even with comparable speeds and latency they need to improve the architecture generally if more people are using it as a replacement for wired broadband. Something I find amusing though - I've a 1.2KM FTTC line supposedly rated for 35-37 down, 5-7 up but struggles to get more than 24 down 1.1 up (which is LOL after having multiple full speed fibre for the last few years) but with 4G despite the masts being 2.5KM away with a hill blocking line of sight I get a pretty solid 30 down, 10 (sometimes as high as 14) up and stable latency.

 

[WJA96]

Wasn't trying to say they are comparable but there is hard science for the nature of how electromagnetic radiation works in terms of power and distance so if you are beyond a fairly short distance from the antenna (assuming it isn't a focussed beam) you are going to be exposed to atleast background levels anyway so banning 4G from your house, etc. doesn't really make any odds though I still wouldn't advise spending too much time in very close proximity to active sources - a WiFi router or 4G router will typically be more active than a mobile phone which will largely just be sending keep alive pulses when not in use for a call, etc.

As a precaution I wouldn't place a router within 1-2 metres of where my child was sleeping every night, etc. but I wouldn't worry about it if it was in the next room and so on.

Again, I don’t fundamentally disagree with what you’re saying. The issue I have is that mobile phones have been the subject of these scares for YEARS and is there is no peer-reviewed evidence at all to show that they have any effect. At one point VW put health warnings on their cars stating that if you weren’t using a car-kit with an external antenna there was a risk of cancer. They’ve stopped doing that as there doesn’t actually appear to be any increased cancer risk, just crappier signal without the external antenna.

As for a WLAN router, they operate on 2.4GHz and 5GHz. 2.4GHz has been the go-to frequency for anything domestic for at least 30 years because it wasn’t restricted. Pretty much anything wireless at home was on 2.4GHz so are you saying you wouldn’t let a child sleep next to a DECT Phone? Or travel on a car, bus or train with a WLAN hotspot? It’s literally sitting inside a Faraday cage with the transmitter.

As I said earlier, everyone must take any precautions they feel necessary. It’s the only way you’ll sleep at night.

 

[Rroff]

As for a WLAN router, they operate on 2.4GHz and 5GHz. 2.4GHz has been the go-to frequency for anything domestic for at least 30 years because it wasn’t restricted. Pretty much anything wireless at home was on 2.4GHz so are you saying you wouldn’t let a child sleep next to a DECT Phone? Or travel on a car, bus or train with a WLAN hotspot? It’s literally sitting inside a Faraday cage with the transmitter.

Several different environments there - AFAIK a DECT phone is putting out minimal activity when there isn't a call - though I still wouldn't leave one right beside a child's bed, etc. and there is a difference between now and again travelling in a vehicle with onboard WLAN and spending hours every day in close proximity.

A lot of schools these days have multiple boosters/access points dotted around and will spend significant time around WiFi enabled tablets, etc. but I still would try to remove things like routers and APs, etc. which tend to have higher activity level from close proximity.

I'm not endorsing this link but it generally covers what I'm talking about http://www.emfwise.com/distance.php and why, with some fairly basic precautions, most of the talk about 4G causing cancer and banning WiFi, etc. from a house is completely pointless - even assuming there is anything to it at full or close to full tranmission power.