AT&T Sees 5G Speeds of 10 Gbps in Early Trials

Isn't the 28 GHz spectrum the LMDS spectrum that some of these carriers have been sitting on for 15 years or more?

no one has been "sitting" on anything. except Dish.

stictly speaking that's not true.. both ATT and verizon have systematically bought spectrum to keep away from both Sprint and Tmobile for YEARS, and it got to the point that the FCC was considering making MINORITY spectrum a reality, that only Sprint and Tmobile could bid on.. so in order to avoid that, the big carriers had to put an end to sitting on spectrum in the 700, 800 and 1700-2100mhz bands..

yes, I agree NOW that doesn't happen any more but go back and check historically what they did

I disagree. If this is in fact the LMDS spectrum I'm thinking it is Verizon picked at least some of this up through their acquisition of MCI who got it from WorldCom. When I worked there back in the early 2000's they were talking about using this spectrum for access to buildings (Wireless Local Loop). It's gone unused for at least 16 years. I'm not sure how that wouldn't fit the definition of "sittting" on it.

I live in a sparsely populated rural area. I wish AT&T would deploy fixed 4G service at the caf II definitions now. Rural areas(15-30 minutes or more from a town or city)like mine have NO options other than cellular or satelite or dial up internet.

I live in a sparsely populated rural area. I wish AT&T would deploy fixed 4G service at the caf II definitions now. Rural areas(15-30 minutes or more from a town or city)like mine have NO options other than cellular or satelite or dial up internet. At a reasonable price and data alottment(150GB).

So my cap will disappear in how many seconds now??

Oh I'm sure they will gracefully double your data limits now that the service is capable of 100x more bandwidth.

Now if they can only offer wired faster than 6Mbps... However, if it's reliable, I might switch from WOW's unreliable 30Mbps.

Just curious, don't frequencies this high have problems passing through walls?

Yes, all frequencies have its unique propagation characteristics, what concerns me is and we'll know as time passes is the effect of this frequency passing trough biological tissues... like brains or eyes.

I try to not think about how we are all basically subjects in the biggest medical study in the history of the world. The effect of long term exposure to microwave radio radiation.

This nonsense and the equally absurd reply about a medical study got multiple up votes?

The physics of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation are well understood. The effect when RF is absorbed is thermal, i.e., heating, and when talking about cell phones (max transmit power: <=25dBm) it is an extremely insignificant amount of heating.

The human body is two thirds water. That's ~60 liters for a 90kg individual. Just how fast do you suppose you can heat 60 liters of water with a 250mW energy source? How fast do you suppose you can do it with only a fraction of that energy? Remember, you don't absorb 100% of the energy from a cell phone, nor does it typically transmit at maximum power.

This FUD really needs to die already.

Reaching conclusions without any proof is easy and without knowing your academic background I don't know if I should take you seriously.

quote:

---

The physics of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation are well understood.

---

Depends on who you ask, if you ask the phone manufacturers they say it is safe if you ask consumer or medical research groups they say other things. I for one not willing to be a guinea pig for anyone, I play it safe with hands off devices like car cell-phone links or earbuds.

quote:

---

The human body is two thirds water. That's ~60 liters for a 90kg individual. Just how fast do you suppose you can heat 60 liters of water with a 250mW energy source? How fast do you suppose you can do it with only a fraction of that energy? Remember, you don't absorb 100% of the energy from a cell phone, nor does it typically transmit at maximum power.

---

How about the focused energy on a tiny part of the brain or eyes or exposure time? Many people are constantly on the phone, over time that "fraction" of focused energy on a tiny part of the body can add up to something significant. People who work with nuclear materials use dose meters for this reason. It's not really the strength of the radiation is the constant focused energy.

This "FUD" needs to be investigated and properly researched for the safety of everyone. I'm not going to blindly follow the lead lemming into a cliff.

Don't think you understand - it's not cumulative in this case, but one-time. You don't keep absorbing heat until your blood boils or you'd never be able to be in the sunlight.

Ask a physicist. Don't have access to one? Ask a high school chemistry teacher. These are not advanced or theoretical concepts. Electromagnetic radiation has been studied for decades -- centuries even -- by people with no agenda save the pursuit of knowledge.How do you get "focused energy" off an omnidirectional antenna? Shine a reasonably powerful flashlight into your eyes or spend 20 minutes in an infrared sauna; congratulations, you've now exposed yourself to "focused" electromagnetic radiation many times more powerful than a cell phone. Are you now blind? Are you worried about getting cancer?Now you betray your ignorance. Nuclear workers are exposed to ionizing radiation, the effects of which are cumulative. Non-ionizing radiation does not work that way.It has been already been "properly researched." I don't know what more you expect.

"The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) states that the weight of the current scientific evidence has not conclusively linked cell phone use with any adverse health problems, but more research is needed."

So they are researching. Bunch of people are researching. And everyone hopes you and the physicists are right.

Yes. I talked to someone involved in that research . There IS some impact on human health. However, there has not been found any proof of a SIGNIFICANT impact . With other words : You are far safer talking on your cell phone than sitting in a room with closed windows and "air fresheners" plugged in.

Yea, I am way more concerned about someone on a cell txting/browsing and killing me with their SUV, or the Takata airbag in my car deploying and finishing me off.

Ok everybody so Shakai said it's safe.. it MUST be safe.

You can believe countless 19th, 20th, and 21st century physicists, who made studying this their life's work, or you can believe the tin-foil hat brigade, herein represented by an individual that doesn't understand high school level physics, e.g., the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation.

Hint: Going outdoors at solar noon without sunscreen is more detrimental to your health than covering your body with active cell phones. The latter would make for an amusing picture though.

Uh, you want to trust physicists go read about Louis Slotin. Brilliant people make mistakes.

Louis Slotin used a screwdriver for something it was not designed to be used for. He may not have intended to cause an criticality incident, but his misuse of a tool led to one. The repeated misuse of radioactive material by scientists attempting to demonstrate some nuclear physics principle led to the design of a machine that allowed stable incremental motion of radioactive material.

They're not worth engaging. Whatever you say they'll twist and throw back at you.

Of course, INDIVIDUALS can make mistakes, but if you're going to question centuries of scientific observation I think the onus is on you to put forward a reasonable alternative hypothesis. What's the mechanism of action for the supposed negative effects of electromagnetic radiation? They can not say. I consider them in the same category as the anti-vaccine crowd.

The only halfway plausible theory I ever read on this subject had to do with the eyes, specifically the cornea. The cornea lacks a connection to the circulatory system, so its theorized that localized heating caused by non-ionizing EM radiation may not be quickly dissipated. I'm not an optometrist, so I can't speak to the dangers of a heated corena, but even with the small size of the organ it would be an extremely limited effect; we're talking about a tiny fraction of the RF energy off a low powered (25dBm at most, typically less) transmitter.

I've spent many hours in Finnish saunas, at 80° to 100°C, as have millions of others, and I'm sure air temperatures that high heat the corena more than the tiny amount of RF energy it may absorb from a mobile phone. I've never seen it suggested anywhere that sauna is bad for your vision and it has been studied extensively...

Higher frequencies penetrate better but have less kick in them to go the distance.

It is the exact opposite. Higher frequencies penetrate less. That is why the cellular companies wanted the 700MHz and 600MHz television frequencies, to get better penetration.

They want those frequencies to get further range from the site. 600 - 700 mhz in say a large factory building with many walls internal construction will do worse then 1900. You also need to consider the distance away of the site.

I think one primary reason for using from 600 to 800 MHz is to increase the ability to use indoor antennas. Yes the antenns may still have to be carefully positioned near windows, but that can still be easier than outdoor placement.

Lower frequencies also better spread in the field, especially with geographic obstacles. The old analog NMT network which served Scandinavia for decades operated at 400 MHz for that reason.

You got me thinking. Basic data transfer using the really low channels from the OTA television frequencies. Should have relatively excellent penetration. With advanced LTE technology the bitrate would probably be tolerable.

Quite possible. I would hate to see my OTA TV go though.

just wait for the next announcement

Sprint can only do 2gb on their 5g demo. How did ATT trounce their demo?

Via the enron accounting practice speed test.

on an empty network in a lab under optimal conditions. rofl.

And at about 4 inches from transmitter.

I think the minimum is 1 meter, about 40 inches.

Millimeter radio? Point to point line of sight links, similar to the ones that now require parabolic dish antennas. So, they get rid of the dishes and use some flat panel phased array antennas. It will still need clear line of sight.

This service will be highly cherry picked.Some say this will be a good product for us rural folk.Don't think so

Us rural folk can't even get decent cell service. Why the hell would they come and install this

Or do they have to be on at&t wireless?

When will Cricket Wireless get 5G. I want to get a Asus Zenfone 2 Laser, should I wait for a different phone or go head and buy the phone later this year?

I live in northern Dallas and sometimes pass by an AT&T satellite office when I'm out running errands.
Back in early May, for about a week, two vans with big "Samsung 5G" decals were parked in their parking lot. On their roofs were what looked like point-to-point antenna systems. On one of the days, one van was parked at the far end of the parking lot, and the other right in front of the main entrance. Some guys in suits were gathered around the truck by the entrance, so they might have been demoing it to some execs.
Unfortunately, I was in a rush and didn't want to attempt to take pics while I was driving, so I dont have any photo proof, but thought I'd share it nonetheless.

These guys already have way more spectrum than they need. What they need to do is densify the networks with fiber, not this crap. 2500mhz is already problematic, how on earth is this going to work? Heck, Verizon's network is largely spaced for 850/1900. By the time they add enough sites for these frequencies to have a prayer at working, they will have way more capacity than they need on their existing bands.