6 ms·
> The signal should travel through walls better. I'm pretty sure this is exactly the opposite: the shorter wavelength signals in 5G are line of sight, much mor
by creato 7y ago
> The signal should travel through walls better.
I'm pretty sure this is exactly the opposite: the shorter wavelength signals in 5G are line of sight, much more so than 4G.
- samstave 7y agoI think this is why there is a decidedly specific marketing push talking about how 5G is going to really bring high speed to rural areas. Its slightly subtle, but not so much, in the commercials - but you can see that its there - and I believe its a CYA thing. Now imagine when 5G is mature, and coverage is blanketed AND the Drone ID legislation is passed.
- Scoundreller 7y agoI think the reality is that 5G could would enable telecoms to bypass physical to the home infrastructure entirely, further locking you into them. Until regulators force them to become dumb pipes; as they often have for physical infrastructure.
- Scoundreller 7y agoWhile the higher frequencies (shorter wavelengthS) dont penetrate as well, they’re less likely to be impacted by obstructions because of narrower fresnel zones. In other words, you don’t need your antennas to be as tall to get around curvature of earth (or that building in the way) with higher frequencies. So one tall tower and a bunch of receivers on the ground in the desert: 5.8ghz is probably a better choice than 2.4. Of course there are other factors.