earth is provably flat and motionless, but I guess you haven't done any research and are still believing that globe-suppository that bill 'cia' nye rammed up your ass.
Look up how the michaelson-morley experiment proves the earth is motionless, or how the lack of visible stellar parallax shows that we aren't whizzing through space at 8000000 miles per hour.
A) 5G is only meant to make you pay more for internet+LAN
B) 5G health issues = 99% uncharted territory
A)
local wireless networking is currently dominated by wifi.
wifi equals free.
once you have "one" internet provider, your local area network is fully covered.
adding more devices to your wifi is easy and free.
you'll pay some extra only when you need internet outside of your wifi area (say, a wireless data SIM-card for your tablet), and that's that.
bUt ThErE mUsT eXiSt SoMe TrIcK to make you pay MORE MONEY!!
enter 5G.
all your future devices will be on 5G.
providers will make you pay both on data volume and total devices connected.
basically they want you forget wifi (free, under your control at home) to embrace 5G (faster, not under your control, not actually free)
B)
5G uses high frequency channels (24 to 73 GHz frequencies, with plans to go up to 90 GHz and more; wikipedia for some details).
the higher the frequency, the larger the useful bandwidth, channels, LAN, etc.
note: imagine 1000 "5G" devices transmitting 1 gigabit each, while the "5G towers mesh" backbone can't handle more than 100 gigabits. "Overbooking", anyone? "Throttling", anyone?
the higher the frequency, the smaller the coverage, the larger the number of 5G towers needed.
also, the higher the frequency, the higher irradiated power. cramp even more irradiate power with MIMO technology.
you'll be showered with 24 to 73 GHz RF with unpredictable issues. no true large scale tests exist yet (technology wasn't advanced enough to even start).
99% uncharted territory.
well, good luck with your Muh Gigabits Gigahertz 5G.
Note:
- emails, tweets, SMS, ssh maintenance, etc: in the order of kilobytes.
- pictures, music, documents, bills, PDF's, small videos, websites, etc: in the order of megabytes.
- videos, movies, games, entire operating systems, etc: in the order of gigabytes.
do we actually need "more maximum theoretical speed" or "more minimum guaranteed speed"?
which of them is easier to market?
TL;DR: "5G" is needed to extract more money from customers, while not giving a fuck about their health
With the exception of high resolution video streaming (including shit like Stadia and Netflix), existing infrastructure is basically good enough.
A guaranteed "one megabit throughput" is enough for your job, your youtube entertainment, documents, services.
Anyway, you can't notice the difference between "full HD" and "4k", even less "4k" vs "8k".
>existing infrastructure is basically good enough.
Good enough for what? For current devices? A bit like rural tracks were perfectly fine for horse and carts, so even though we invented the car we didn't need highways?
how does it feel to have no mental capabilities whatsoever? how does it make you arrogant?
>Anyway, you can't notice the difference between "full HD" and "4k", even less "4k" vs "8k".
you literally can jackass. whats next, are you gonna tell me the human eye can't detect higher framerates than 30?
Vicious circle:
- ISPs offering "high speeds"
- websites getting insanely bloated because dem "high speeds"
- people demanding "higher speeds" because websites don't load fast enough
Somethings is really wrong.
Go read the small print of a contract you sign of a 5g phone. It stats that you're ok with it causing biological harm. Now why insert that clause if 5g is safe?! But i know youre too mucj of a kike loving nigger to think for yourself
water finds and maintains its own level. If earth were a sphere, then the water would be unable to find its level. This also holds true for rivers - if the earth were a globe then how would water in the Mississippi river ascend 11 miles uphill on its way to the ocean?
