Since 5G cells are smaller than prior cells, 4G and earlier, when 5G is
well-established, won't they still have to keep 4G to reach into the
unpopulated woods, mountains, and deserts as far as cellular signals go
now?

Surely they don't plan to build even more 5G cell towers in unpopoulated
areas where it hasn't been worth it to build a smallar number of 4G
towers.

Am 23.05.24 um 06:51 schrieb micky:
>
> Since 5G cells are smaller than prior cells, 4G and earlier, when 5G is
> well-established, won't they still have to keep 4G to reach into the
> unpopulated woods, mountains, and deserts as far as cellular signals go
> now?

G4 is here to stay.

> Surely they don't plan to build even more 5G cell towers in unpopoulated
> areas where it hasn't been worth it to build a smallar number of 4G
> towers.

???

--
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)

micky wrote:

> Since 5G cells are smaller than prior cells, 4G and earlier

Cell sizes are inversely proportional to their frequency, The USA does
have mmWave 5G which is far higher than traditional cell frequencies,
most of Europe doesn't yet

n257/n261 ~ 27,000 MHz

but the USA also has lower frequency 5G too, so large cells are possible.

n77 = 3,500 MHz
n41 = 2,500 MHz
n25/n2 = 1,900 MHz
n5 = 850MHz
n12 = 700MHz
n71 ~ 650MHz

On 2024-05-23 06:51, micky wrote:
>
> Since 5G cells are smaller than prior cells, 4G and earlier, when 5G is
> well-established, won't they still have to keep 4G to reach into the
> unpopulated woods, mountains, and deserts as far as cellular signals go
> now?
>
> Surely they don't plan to build even more 5G cell towers in unpopoulated
> areas where it hasn't been worth it to build a smallar number of 4G
> towers.

The other day I read that here (Spain) three companies have agreed to
jointly use 5G on the 700 Mhz band on rural areas.

https://www.adslzone.net/noticias/operadores/movistar-vodafone-masorange-acuerdo-historico-0524/

Movistar, Vodafone and MasOrange sign a historic agreement that is
unprecedented

With a totally unexpected agreement in the telecommunications industry,
Movistar, Vodafone and MasOrange are willing to make an impact in the
Spanish market . The three operators have agreed to seal an alliance
that will change the rules so that there is a radical change in the way
in which customers access their services.

There were many people who hoped that something like this would come
true. Movistar, MasOrange and Vodafone have agreed to share the spectrum
of their 5G frequencies so that a revolution can occur in the mobile
telephone sector in our country. With this, they will share the 700 MHz
frequency and will ensure that citizens living in rural areas can
benefit from a notable improvement. Not only will they have more hiring
capacity, but they will also enjoy better levels of connection. For the
way in which 5G services are offered in Spain, it is a very high-level
change.

....

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 5/23/2024 12:51 AM, micky wrote:
>
> Since 5G cells are smaller than prior cells, 4G and earlier, when 5G is
> well-established, won't they still have to keep 4G to reach into the
> unpopulated woods, mountains, and deserts as far as cellular signals go
> now?
>
> Surely they don't plan to build even more 5G cell towers in unpopoulated
> areas where it hasn't been worth it to build a smallar number of 4G
> towers.
>
With urban cellphone users living on their cellphones it's
easy to be unaware that much of the US has no cellphone
access. I have a brother who's never had cellphone access
at home and currently has to use one of Musk's satellite
dishes for Internet. He doesn't live in the middle of the
woods. But it is 100 yds to 1/4 mile between houses, and
no one subsidizes towers. Verizon's not going to pay the
costs to get a handful of new customers.

At the other extreme, I have a friend who lives in
a brick apt building built in the 1920s. The walls are mortar
and metal lath. He often misses or loses the signal if he's
not close to a window.

There's a cabin I sometimes stay in that has electricity
and phone... even nearby wifi... but no chance of cellphone
connection.

Cellphones are still officially optional, even if not in practice.
In rural areas, landlines are strung with electricity to virtually
every house. But cell towers are only installed if they provide
maximum profit. In Europe and in cities that's not so obvious.
But if you take a ride out to the country, in the US or Canada,
you're in a different world. (Not just unpopulated, deep woods.
Anyplace with low population density is left out.)

I don't see any reason to think that that 1/4 to 1/3 of the
land mass is going to get cellphone service. (Regardless of what
Verizon and AT&T maps claim.)

On 5/23/24 5:23 AM, Newyana2 wrote:

>There's a cabin I sometimes stay in that has electricity
>and phone... even nearby wifi... but no chance of cellphone
>connection.

Get WiFi calling. It made my sketchy around the house (and yard) cell
service as good as as my landline, which I then promptly got rid of...

> micky wrote:
> Since 5G cells are smaller than prior cells, 4G and earlier, when
5G is
> well-established, won't they still have to keep 4G to reach into
the
> unpopulated woods, mountains, and deserts as far as cellular
signals go
> now?
>
> Surely they don't plan to build even more 5G cell towers in
unpopoulated
> areas where it hasn't been worth it to build a smallar number of 4G
> towers.

Lets be realistic. 4G -> 5G is literally akin to
32-bit -> 64-bit computing. That 32-bit power is barely a grain of
sand from the greater whole. Like if you took a cracker and hit it to
make a tiny piece fall off. That is how much power is 64-bit.

The towers are smaller because the technology to make them smaller has
become cheaper. So these smaller towers in fact could be more powerful
and have multiple functions outside the regular towers.

The problem with this is the fact that most people do not use the
bandwidth at all. Which means phone companies ( or cable ) have all
this extra space that is not being used at all. This is why they could
offer you services with all these extras because it is not costing
them anything to run.

However a danger with 5G outside the radiation awareness. Because
radiation = signal. Is the lack of privacy. Right now from the days of
the "Star Wars" ( Regan Era Satellite photos ) and FCC
triangulating control over the air-waves. Is privacy. Take Princess
Latifa. With a just one phone call they were able to zero in on the
probably position of the boat, and take her back captive.

The same with smart cars with cameras, that talks to guidance systems.
Imagine your on the run and your car stops and locks the doors on you.
Next thing you know your surrounded by police officers.

Then again your going to compare yourself to an dating-scammer or
young-mother and say "How could this happen to me, I am a coward
I depend on others" ? Not think anything of it. But the flat fact
remains, things do happen. Your device should not ask to "report
images" let alone dictate if "rape" is occurring in
your vehicle. This is a world being engulf into fear street.

It is the same argument with carbine-technologies. If people would
STFU about them. nobody would care. I am more aware then ever and
probably would purchase a couple just because of that. However
disarming people is more or less a direct threat duet to marketing (
wrongly influencing ). However by talking about it, we have tweens (
11-12 year olds ) arming themselves. That being said creates a greater
problem.

If anything is wrong it is the fact that with 5G towers we could give
everybody extra fast 4G speeds and not limit everybody.

Honestly building towers in the middle of nowhere is acceptable. Even
if it is 4G towers but the cost of the 5G towers is just as good.
Using a combine conglomerate of companies to construct and share the
tower would work to every-bodies advantage

This is a response to the post seen at:
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=665827038#665827038

On 5/23/2024 11:20 AM, AJL wrote:
> On 5/23/24 5:23 AM, Newyana2 wrote:
>
>> There's a cabin I sometimes stay in that has electricity
>> and phone... even nearby wifi... but no chance of cellphone
>> connection.
>
> Get WiFi calling. It made my sketchy around the house (and yard) cell
> service as good as as my landline, which I then promptly got rid of...
>

I don't have a problem myself. (And the cabin doesn't have Internet.
I just see wifi nearby if I run a computer.) I have no trouble making
calls because I live near a city. I was only pointing out that up to
1/3 of the country doesn't have cell service at home or even in
the neighborhood, and they're not likely to in the future. Perhaps my
brother could get wifi calling over Musk's satellite dish, but then that
also wouldn't work if he wanders too far from the house. And it won't
work in much of the area where he lives. It's a different way of life in
the country. Landlines are critical. Cellphones are impractical.

On 5/23/2024 11:21 AM, Danart wrote:

> Lets be realistic. 4G -> 5G is literally akin to
> 32-bit -> 64-bit computing. That 32-bit power is barely a grain of
> sand from the greater whole. Like if you took a cracker and hit it to
> make a tiny piece fall off. That is how much power is 64-bit.
>

I don't know about 5G, but 64-bit computing is not increased
"power". What makes it 64-bit is that the standard data package
is 8 bytes instead of 4. Pointers are 8 bytes, so memory beyond
4 GB can be accessed. It's an important development, but has
limited practical effect on computing.

Newyana2 wrote:
>    I don't know about 5G, but 64-bit computing is not increased
> "power".
5G has better spectral efficiency, e.g.
4G downlink = 15 bits/second/Hz
5G downlink = 23 bits/second/Hz
<https://www.5g-networks.net/5g-technology/spectral-efficiency-5g-nr-and-4g-lte-compared/>