On November 12, 2019 6:43:11 PM PST, "Shawn K. Quinn" <skquinn@rushpost.com> wrote:
>On 11/12/19 19:16, jim bell wrote:
>>
>https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/12/common-networks-bets-5g-will-replace-cable-internet-in-your-home.html
>
>Doubtful. You will always be able to get more bandwidth out of wires
>than out of any wireless connection.


>The more I read about problems with 5G (health

>Lower power, 5" wavelength, will operate at 4g almost all the time (because 2 watts at 240ghz most likely won't even make it the length of a football field and is entirely line-of-sight. Even at 2.4 ghz rain fog and dust interferes with signal strength.) What 'health problem'?

It won't be immediately obvious, but limited range isn't necessarily a disadvantage:  It may sometimes actually be an advantage.  The concept of "cellular" systems is that the same frequencies can be used 'nearby' (what constitutes 'nearby' depends on factors...).  A single city or suburban block could be served by one (or a couple) of cell sites.  

An old friend of mine (Who, like me, is a 'ham', an amateur radio operator) who was working on the problem for a company explained it this way:  There are certain frequencies which are fairly strongly absorbed by oxygen molecules in the atmosphere.  You'd actually benefit if you could place more (and very cheap) cells.   I'm talking about frequencies of about 60 gigahertz.    Extremely high frequency