This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the 5G wireless power page were merged into 5G on March 31, 2024. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Hello everyone. I think this article should be split because there is a great deal of specific implementation, rollout, regulatory, etc information about the US. That's not bad it's just good enough for WP:SPLIT. Invasive Spices ( talk) 17 October 2022 (UTC)
The section on "fixed wireless" is a bit oddball. One of the references talks about the use of 5G for last-mile coverage, but the range and reliability (absorption by atmospheric gas, obstructions, variance based on humidity, etc) of the higher speed bands of 5G is so short that this doesn't apply much outside of the short ranges VDSL functions at, and VDSL has kinda proven itself to be a bad stop-gap. That particular ref is UK-specific; I'm less familiar with the population density in the countryside in the UK and the right of way laws that might prevent installation of physical connections. I threw out the verizon ref entirely because it was just a link to an ad for their home 5G->wifi modem which doesn't prove that it's an alternative (unless the mere existence of something makes it a worthwhile alternative, in which case a 14.4 modem and an AOL account is an great broadband alternative too.)
The ZDNet page's table (found around 20 pages down after talking up the technology constantly) says it all, with the mentioned:
4G | 5G | |
---|---|---|
Peak data rate (downlink) | 1Gb/s | 20 Gb/s |
User data rate | 10Mb/s | 100Mb/s |
... except those numbers aren't quite right. I was getting roughly 100Mb on 4G (sporadically) already. 5G raised it a whopping 20Mb/s in the same city, provider, etc. It's just not that big an improvement.
The UK article doesn't seem to know what "last mile" means, because those areas that don't have wired internet run already in some form tend to have the worst possible wireless signals. If 5G was a last mile alternative then so was 4G, since in that sort of deployment they won't be very different in speed. 11:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC) A Shortfall Of Gravitas ( talk) 11:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Here's an actual quote from the first reference in that subsection:
Executive Summary
Enterprises should explore their position on the digital twins’ continuum
Digital transformation is shaping conversations across Industry 4.0, with new technologies such as AI, IoT and edge computing making big promises on their ability to optimise processes and create value. However, in order to leverage these opportunities, enterprises will need to be prepared to make significant investments. This raises a key challenge for organisations: before investing in new technologies, they will want to understand the opportunities and value they will bring, but this requires at least some investment to be made. This chicken or egg situation could hinder adoption of certain technologies, and impede industry progress towards Industry 4.0. [1]
This is some of the most impressive "management making themselves look useful" type BS I've seen in 20 years, along with the many anonymous and confusing quotes from "Manufacturing Company" and such:
Network slicing
"Newtork[sic] slicing will be key, and the only way forward for certain use cases (but the impact of net neutrality is not yet solved)." -5G Testbed
Telemedicine 5G could revolutionise telemedicine – it will drive the conversation along with manufacturing -Global logistics and supply chain
If anyone can explain what exactly the hell Industry 4.0 is, why network neutrality is being mentioned, and why these people considered "AI, IoT, and edge computing" new technologies in 2020 when the reference was written... The entire global logistics and supply chain wants to drive the conversation about revolutionizing telemedicine, ALONG with manufacturing? Well punch me in the face and call me Sally! ...or in fact why this topic relates to 5G at all (I honestly can't tell. That reference is like somebody decided to play buzzword bingo while listening to a CEO talking at a shareholder's meeting while livestreaming a timeshare presentation, but overdosed on crack and PCP and had a stroke in the middle of it and got caught in some kind of horrible loop of circling back, bringing new paradigms to the table, and walking in circles to offices to let everyone know that they sent them an email.)
I'll leave it to somebody else to delete either that entire section or at least the reference as needed, I have to pull my eyes off it and go watch the entirety of 2girls1cup to scrub my brain of whatever the heck this was. A Shortfall Of Gravitas ( talk) 11:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
References
The redirect 5G conspiracies has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 3 § 5G conspiracies until a consensus is reached. – CopperyMarrow15 ( talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 22:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
The edit that was reverted was an effort to improve the citations for that section. Can you share more context on the revert? @ McSly [1] Tonymetz 💬 01:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Which is “not carcinogenic”Wrong. It is "we know nothing about whether it is carcinogenic or not." "Not carcinogenic" is logically impossible to prove, and there is no such substance. See IARC group 3. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 19:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
. They center on fringe claims that non-ionizing radiation poses dangers to human health... "exposure to intense, direct amounts of non-ionizing radiation may result in damage to tissue due to heat.
Bon courage How is my "weird editorializing"? You claimed this in your revert. I inserted the name of the source publication, which is indeed non-medical (i.e. non- WP:MEDRS), and summarized the key claim in the article that the misinformation was related primarily to COVID. The title is "COVID-19, 5G conspiracies and infrastructural futures" and the first line of the abstract is "This article examines the emergence of conspiracy theories linking COVID-19 with 5G, with a focus on Australia, the United States and United Kingdom." Aren't we supposed to summarize what is in the article rather than cherry-pick out pieces?
Since this section is titled "Health", shouldn't we be relying on WP:MEDRS rather than a publication from the field of media studies by writers who have not stated that they have a solid background in medicine, cancer research, or epidemiology? -- David Tornheim ( talk) 06:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)