5G network upgrade in (sweet) T&T

[redmanjp]

5G sounds like it is even more dangerous to your health than 2G, 3G and 4G. If it’s operating on frequencys is in that range and add the fact that even more towers and repeaters has to be built to operate the service properly plus what your cell phon is putting out. Might as well start removing the doors from our microwave ovens. Because 5G is going to be passing focused beams of radiation through you at all times

Lol no no no......it's not dangerous dan, stop with the conspiracy theory. It's non ionising radiation.

have studies been done specifically with the much higher frequencies that 5G uses? and considering there will need to be 10 times the amount of cell towers everywhere due to the limits this frequency would have?

[adnj]

No studies specifically on cell towers at the upper GHz LTE frequencies but studies have been done to 300 GHz.

The technology has been deemed as likely safe but studies do continue.

------



All studies done so far have limitations

In summary, most studies of people published so far have not found a link between cell phone use and the development of tumors. However, these studies have had some important limitations that make them unlikely to end the controversy about whether cell phone use affects cancer risk.

First, studies have not yet been able to follow people for very long periods of time. When tumors form after a known cancer-causing exposure, it often takes decades for them to develop. Because cell phones have been in widespread use for only about 20 years in most countries, it is not possible to rule out future health effects that have not yet appeared.

Second, cell phone usage is constantly changing. People are using their cell phones much more than they were even 10 years ago, and the phones themselves are very different from what was used in the past. This makes it hard to know if the results of studies looking at cell phone use in years past would still apply today.

Third, most of the studies published so far have focused on adults, rather than children. (One case-control study looking at children and teens did not find a significant link to brain tumors, but the small size of the study limited its power to detect modest risks.) Cell phone use is now widespread even among younger children. It is possible that if there are health effects, they might be more pronounced in children because their bodies might be more sensitive to RF energy. Another concern is that children’s lifetime exposure to the energy from cell phones will be greater than adults’, who started using them at a later age.

Finally, the measurement of cell phone use in most studies has been crude. Most have been case-control studies, which have relied on people’s memories about their past cell phone use. In these types of studies, it can be hard to interpret any possible link between cancer and an exposure. People with cancer are often looking for a possible reason for it, so they may sometimes (even subconsciously) recall their phone usage differently than people without cancer.

With these limitations in mind, it is important that the possible risk of cell phone exposure continue to be researched using strong study methods, especially with regard to use by children and longer-term use.



https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phones.html
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phone-towers.html

5G sounds like it is even more dangerous to your health than 2G, 3G and 4G. If it’s operating on frequencys is in that range and add the fact that even more towers and repeaters has to be built to operate the service properly plus what your cell phon is putting out. Might as well start removing the doors from our microwave ovens. Because 5G is going to be passing focused beams of radiation through you at all times

Lol no no no......it's not dangerous dan, stop with the conspiracy theory. It's non ionising radiation.

have studies been done specifically with the much higher frequencies that 5G uses? and considering there will need to be 10 times the amount of cell towers everywhere due to the limits this frequency would have?

[death365]

There is a article in today’s guardian the Huawei with tstt to supply 5G by the end of 2019.

[Ben_spanna]

5G sounds like it is even more dangerous to your health than 2G, 3G and 4G. If it’s operating on frequencys is in that range and add the fact that even more towers and repeaters has to be built to operate the service properly plus what your cell phon is putting out. Might as well start removing the doors from our microwave ovens. Because 5G is going to be passing focused beams of radiation through you at all times

Yes but financial return and future development is more important that any ones health!

[redmanjp]

There is a article in today’s guardian the Huawei with tstt to supply 5G by the end of 2019.
782121A2-3BAE-4A3C-8189-AB1FDDA7689D.jpeg

End of 2019 my foot. You know how much antennas have to be installed for 5G? We still doh have LTE in all areas including my area.

[death365]

Not if they use 300 ghz and not the lower millimeter wave frequency

[adnj]

5G networks have divided network services into three categories: enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB) or handsets; Ultra-Reliable Low-Latency Communications (URLLC), which includes industrial applications and autonomous vehicles; and Massive Machine Type Communications (MMTC) or sensors. Initial 5G deployments will focus on eMBB and fixed wireless, which makes use of many of the same capabilities as eMBB.

5G will use spectrum in the existing LTE frequency range (600 MHz to 6 GHz) and also in millimeter wave bands (24–86 GHz).

5G technologies have to satisfy ITU IMT-2020 requirements and/or 3GPP Release 15; while IMT-2020 specifies data rates of 20 Gbit/s, 5G speed in sub-6 GHz bands is similar to 4G.

Not if they use 300 ghz and not the lower millimeter wave frequency

[timelapse]

5G--Making dotish people even more dotish FASTER...

[redmanjp]

https://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsroom/releases/2018/november1/index.cfm

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, November 1, 2018, 10:00 a.m. EDT Contact: Virginia Guidry, NIEHS
919-541-1993
National Toxicology Program releases final reports on rat and mouse studies of radio frequency radiation like that used in 2G and 3G cell phone technologies
The National Toxicology Program (NTP) concluded there is clear evidence that male rats exposed to high levels of radio frequency radiation (RFR) like that used in 2G and 3G cell phones developed cancerous heart tumors, according to final reports released today. There was also some evidence of tumors in the brain and adrenal gland of exposed male rats. For female rats, and male and female mice, the evidence was equivocal as to whether cancers observed were associated with exposure to RFR. The final reports represent the consensus of NTP and a panel of external scientific experts who reviewed the studies in March after draft reports were issued in February.

“The exposures used in the studies cannot be compared directly to the exposure that humans experience when using a cell phone,” said John Bucher, Ph.D., NTP senior scientist. “In our studies, rats and mice received radio frequency radiation across their whole bodies. By contrast, people are mostly exposed in specific local tissues close to where they hold the phone. In addition, the exposure levels and durations in our studies were greater than what people experience.”

The lowest exposure level used in the studies was equal to the maximum local tissue exposure currently allowed for cell phone users. This power level rarely occurs with typical cell phone use. The highest exposure level in the studies was four times higher than the maximum power level permitted.

“We believe that the link between radio frequency radiation and tumors in male rats is real, and the external experts agreed,” said Bucher.

The $30 million NTP studies took more than 10 years to complete and are the most comprehensive assessment, to date, of health effects in animals exposed to RFR with modulations used in 2G and 3G cell phones. 2G and 3G networks were standard when the studies were designed and are still used for phone calls and texting.

“A major strength of our studies is that we were able to control exactly how much radio frequency radiation the animals received — something that’s not possible when studying human cell phone use, which has often relied on questionnaires,” said Michael Wyde, Ph.D., lead toxicologist on the studies.

He also noted the unexpected finding of longer lifespans among the exposed male rats. “This may be explained by an observed decrease in chronic kidney problems that are often the cause of death in older rats,” Wyde said.

The animals were housed in chambers specifically designed and built for these studies. Exposure to RFR began in the womb for rats and at 5 to 6 weeks old for mice, and continued for up to two years, or most of their natural lifetime. The RFR exposure was intermittent, 10 minutes on and 10 minutes off, totaling about nine hours each day. RFR levels ranged from 1.5-6 watts per kilogram in rats, and 2.5-10 watts per kilogram in mice.

These studies did not investigate the types of RFR used for Wi-Fi or 5G networks.

“5G is an emerging technology that hasn’t really been defined yet. From what we currently understand, it likely differs dramatically from what we studied,” said Wyde.

For future studies, NTP is building smaller RFR exposure chambers that will make it easier to evaluate newer telecommunications technologies in weeks or months, rather than years. These studies will focus on developing measurable physical indicators, or biomarkers, of potential effects from RFR. These may include changes in metrics like DNA damage in exposed tissues, which can be detected much sooner than cancer.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration nominated cell phone RFR for study by NTP because of widespread public use of cell phones and limited knowledge about potential health effects from long-term exposure. NTP will provide the results of these studies to FDA and the Federal Communications Commission, who will review the information as they continue to monitor new research on the potential effects of RFR.

NTP uses four categories to summarize the evidence that a substance may cause cancer:

Clear evidence (highest)
Some evidence
Equivocal evidence
No evidence (lowest)

so evidence of cancer in rat at least from 2 & 3G as well as an admission that 5G 'differs dramatically from what we studied', as in it's likely worse.

[aaron17]

Damn ..now i thinking to unplug the wireless tstt box now.

[DTAC]

Won't happen for ages even though now they'll be loads of 5G infrastructure equipment rejected from first world countries available.

Also, not enough 1%ers to afford the ridiculous prices Digicel and bMobile will no doubt want to charge us for the luxury of 5G.

[redmanjp]

TATT should limit the prices

[maj. tom]

I for one, welcome our Chinese Overlords (through Huawei) and their PNM selection for government for the next 50 years.
Just putting it on record here, so I can look forward to a contractor big wuk one day.

[ek4ever]

yeah but according to the itu https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Regional-Presence/ArabStates/Documents/events/2016/NTD/Presentations/Session1/Intel-ITU%20Forum-5G-Intel.pdf

5G will help develop 3rd world countries with Healthcare, automotive,Industrial, education, sustainability, smart cities & homes etc etc. So we needs it ..bad bad bad

not this third world country...

Fuh real

[ek4ever]

i does real laugh when I hear "5g will help develop ...."
kinda like saying chirren will get smarter and achieve more when they get laptops in school

you could forget digicel getting 5g anytime soon for sure
heavily cash strapped and was long behind tstt to upgrade

The only thing 5G gonna do for this sh1thole country is allow ppl to watch more porn and listen to more zessing stupidness

[DTAC]

yeah but according to the itu https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Regional-Presence/ArabStates/Documents/events/2016/NTD/Presentations/Session1/Intel-ITU%20Forum-5G-Intel.pdf

5G will help develop 3rd world countries with Healthcare, automotive,Industrial, education, sustainability, smart cities & homes etc etc. So we needs it ..bad bad bad

5G has as much of a hype bubble around it as Blockchain at the moment. There are a lot of people and companies (myself included) looking to make mountains of cash by using (exploiting the hype around) the technology . This same hyperbole was said about the advent of 4G, LTE, 3G and 6G will cast 5G as not fit for the tasks they are touting right now. The potential with 5G is tremendous, it's the practical application is where the rubber hits the road.

99% or broadband users in T&T don 't go anywhere near the limit of bandwidth they have but does that stop broadband providers from pushing people to purchase higher and higher speeds? No. You always have to see an increase in sales year on year. You have to meet ever increasing sales targets of customer uptake. You achieve that by up selling. Convincing people with flashy "aspirational" TVCs that they need the fastest Internet possible to have the life you've always wanted.

[redmanjp]

Each generation of mobile technology was touted as better mainly in terms of increases in speed, but 5G is much more than that, it's not just about mobile phones. It will facilitate IOT (the Internet of Things); from your fridge, stove , dryer to your car, traffic lights, even the clothes you wear would have an IP address.

of course this would surely ramp up privacy concerns that we already have with current technology, as well as health concerns, including the study i posted that shows that even non-ionizing radiation can be cancerous

[unimatrix-001]

5G will actually be the first real implementation for "the internet of things" as envisioned by developers of networking. All devices will be able to connect to a global internet and allow more people to access information and communication like never before in history.

Not true, LTE-CatM and nbIoT already has enormous capacity for tens-of thousands of always-connected things per cell-tower sector-carrier (each tower typically having 3 sectors and 3 carriers), and all it takes is a SW upgrade to LTE towers to enable this. (see https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/ ... ionId=2440)

does anyone really NEED 5G speed on a mobile device? seriously? people are already screen addicted as it is, and so many accidents involving people driving with phones, hell people cant even walk properly their heads are buried in a phone...………..

5G isn't so much about bandwidth as it is about latency.
That low latency will enable communication between devices much much quicker.
Good example are new upcoming cars with V2V (vehicle to vehicle) accident avoidance systems.
Imagine a car in front has to apply emergency braking to avoid an accident, it has to be able to communicate that to the cars behind it so they don't crash and pile up. The low latency of 5G makes this possible as the data gets to the other vehicles much faster than with current 4G. It's a tiny amount of data so bandwidth isn't the issue, it's how quickly it can establish a connection get that data across. Also known as ping, the lower the ping rate, the quicker you can communicate with less lag.

Its also about bandwidth...LTE+ only provisions for 5x20MHz carriers (total 100MHz) where as 5G currently allows for 2x100MHz carriers, increasing to 5x100MHz within the next decade.
To achieve the low-latency is mostly a function of your backhaul and core network. TSTT/Digicel will need to upgrade their cores/backhaul to support network slicing et al.
Yuh really tink V2V cars could eva hope tuh avoid accident with Joe PHDriver and Dan d'Maximan?

If it’s operating on frequencys is in that range and add the fact that even more towers and repeaters has to be built to operate the service properly plus what your cell phon is putting out.

One only need to read the 3gpp spec (https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/ ... ionId=3202)
5G will work on existing frequencies used for 2G/3G/4G. When 5G is deployed in Trini, TSTT/Digicel will most likely deploy on n12 (700MHz) or re-farm n5 (850MHz) to avoid building more towers as these already cover the majority of T&T. These frequencies wont give gigabit speeds though. For areas where they want gigabit speeds, most likely they will deploy on n25 (1900MHz), n38 (2500MHz TDD) or n78 (3.5GHz TDD), all of which can cover a good bit of T&T with their current infrastructure.

[h1tach1]

when all yuh think Bmobile or Digicel or that critical and mythical third provider will upgrade to 5G ?

At CANTO's 35th Conference and Trade Exhibition in July 2019, the Minister of Public Utilities indicated that TSTT would deploy 5G by the end of the year. He said that he would be holding them to that commitment. I suspect it would be some type of limited roll out like they did with LTE (in POS and Sando).

Like others have mentioned, I don't know how both Digicel and TSTT would justify the rollout of a new network / upgrade, when they recently rolled out / are still rolling out their respective LTE networks. It does not make "cents" to me.

[gastly369]

And 6g in the makings already

[redmanjp]

And 6g in the makings already

what's the difference? or is it mere marketing?

[gastly369]

And 6g in the makings already

what's the difference? or is it mere marketing?

duno just saw it posted up recently ..didnt read up on it yet

[adnj]

And 6g in the makings already

what's the difference? or is it mere marketing?

duno just saw it posted up recently ..didnt read up on it yet

Today, 5G networks are just starting to roll out. The current 4G LTE standard will dominate for several more years, as telecom carriers seek to recoup their massive investments on that infrastructure. Pouttu projects current 4G networks won’t really be used to their full potential until about 2025.

Meanwhile, carriers are proceeding cautiously with 5G. On one hand, Pouttu says the research community was surprised because some of the basic standards were settled much sooner than predicted. On the other hand, the rollout of 5G is going to be far more costly than 4G due to the short distances the signals can travel and the need for a greater density of equipment to transmit the signals. The capital costs are astronomically high, and the business models that would justify these investments are still fuzzy.

When 5G does become the dominant network, Pouttu says he expects it to be the most transformational leap since the evolution from 2G to 3G networks. Not only does 5G promise theoretical speeds of 20 Gbps compared to the max theoretical 1 Gbps for 4G, but there is no latency, and it supports a greater density of connections in a smaller area.

Coupled with advances in so-called “edge computing” that will push more intelligence toward end devices, the 5G era is being hyped for its ability to enable smart cities, smart factories, autonomous vehicles, untethered VR streaming, and more.

Pouttu says the next question he gets is a version of the same question he’s gotten for decades: “Why do we need 4G as we have 3G? Why do we need 5G as we have 4G?”

And so the research for the next standard proceeds, he says, by trying to map out that question: Why do we need 6G?

“We want to see what’s leftover from 5G, what things did 5G not address,” he says.

The most obvious starting points are speed and spectrum. The initial thinking is that 6G will target speeds of 1 terabyte per second. Yes, terabyte. To get those speeds, signals will need to be transmitted above 1 terahertz, compared to the measly gigahertz range where 5G operates.

But operating at that range in the spectrum may require breakthroughs in material research, new computing architectures, chip designs, and new ways of coupling that with energy sources, Pouttu says.

That sooner those experiments start, the better. The group hopes to produce a white paper by this summer following the Levi conference that will start to define critical areas of research

[URL]https://venturebeat.com/2019/03/21/6g-research-starting-before-5g/
[/URL]

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Launch of bmobile 5G Network

[l33t2]

5G is never really about max speeds. it's about reducing congestion, latency, number of devices that can be simultaneously connected.

Let's face it, TSTT 4G and Digicel 4G is crap when cell sites are congested. That's due to bandwidth limitations as well as their cell sure capacity. Things like back bone speed to the core doesn't matter. The limitation is on the access side. Always.

That's what 4G and 5G promises to fix.

5G isn't going to be a huge improvement, plus both networks can expand their 4G capacity much more than what they currently offer.

It's not as simple as we have a 4G cell sure to the speed will be this. There's loads of things Huawei can sell effectively tripling the price of one cell site, but it will offer more capacity. Bet your asses both providers went with the base capacity.

As far as 5G health scare, you need to see what frequencies we are supporting in Trinidad first. TATT will have to grant license for it.

Don't be afraid of high frequencies, because they will almost surely not be supported. High frequencies are trouble, much worse coverage(this more power needed), u need line or sight typically with it as it's more.directional.

What's good about 5G is that it gives providers the option to use 5G on bands they already own too (microwave bands). Those not gonna hurt u and even if they did, you not coming into contact with it anywhere.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

T-Mobile's new 600MHz 5G network



5G: Explained

[Ben_spanna]

my only concern is the supposedly reported health disadvantages of 5g

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

my only concern is the supposedly reported health disadvantages of 5g

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48616174

Radio waves are non-ionising
The radio wave band - used for mobile phone networks - is non-ionising, "which means it lacks sufficient energy to break apart DNA and cause cellular damage," says David Robert Grimes, physicist and cancer researcher.



Higher up the electromagnetic spectrum, well beyond those frequencies used by mobile phones, there are clear health risks from extended exposure.

The sun's ultra-violet rays fall within this harmful category, and can lead to skin cancers.

"People are understandably concerned over whether they might elevate their risk of cancer, but it's crucial to note that radio waves are far less energetic than even the visible light we experience every day," says Dr Grimes.

"There is no reputable evidence," he says "that mobile phones or wireless networks have caused us health problems."

[Dizzy28]

Still on H+. 5G is but a pipe dream to me

[redmanjp]

home by me doh even have 4G