Quote from: Neenyah on November 01, 2023, 21:04:06It's more like manufacturers are creating "problems" on their own just to justify the cost of their products, like this here what you mentioned with Qualcomm.

Just like Intel and AMD are adding more and more functions to their laptop SoCs, justifying the rise in prices, but laptop manufacturers cynically and greedily do not bring these functions out into the majority of mass-market laptops, i.e. in fact, the end consumer overpays Intel and AMD for functionality that he will not be allowed to use anyway, for his own money, greedy laptop manufacturers. This all speaks to the lack of real competition in the global market and oligopolistic conspiracies.

Only in the case of mobile networks - the real costs of coverage are actually very expensive (unlike cynical and greedy laptop manufacturers) and, moreover, extremely dangerous to people's health as coverage density increases.

Why are you all surprised that telecom operators behave in the same way, despite supporting a ton of advanced features in mobile SoCs? The same eggs, side view, only the number of rational excuses operators have for this state of affairs is many times greater than that of laptop manufacturers.

Quote from: Lеna Dahlgaard on November 01, 2023, 19:27:55

QuoteCan anyone define a reasonable use case for gb mobile?

Yeah well Qualcomm charges a hefty premium for its "flagship" chipsets so we definitely have a right to ask for those Gigabits even if we have no use for them

That is true and I agree but it is still not an answer to Mark Hahn's question. You can have much lower latency with much lower speed so what exactly is the point of having such speed in a phone when most data plans with most carriers are still either capped or heavily overpriced? It's more like manufacturers are creating "problems" on their own just to justify the cost of their products, like this here what you mentioned with Qualcomm.

QuoteCan anyone define a reasonable use case for gb mobile?

Yeah well Qualcomm charges a hefty premium for its "flagship" chipsets so we definitely have a right to ask for those Gigabits even if we have no use for them

Can anyone define a reasonable use case for gb mobile?

Not voice, not video calls.  Not any form of social networking.  Gaming: maybe latency, but not bandwidth.

I would also like to remind you that wireless shares the frequency band and total capacity among all consumers trying to use it at the same time, unlike cable with star switches (but they are clearly dependent on the bandwidth of the core network before them). Therefore, an order of magnitude greater density of coverage with base stations on the ground and routers at home is required (certainly not a cheap one for $60, but at least a router for $250 with 8-12 antennas for a family of 4 people), which further increases the spectral intensity and energy density of electromagnetic fields on the street and at home.

Do you really want to live in this increasingly terrible electromagnetic Hell? If you don't care about your health personally, think about your children and heirs..

QuoteWith Wi-Fi, there is no such ambiguity and no fine print; get a US$60 Wi-Fi 6-enabled access point, get a lower mid-range laptop that comes with a Wi-Fi 6-enabled network adapter, and that's it, ~1 Gbit connection speeds accessible in any room of the house are no longer a dream.

Complete technical nonsense from an incompetent author. Firstly, such cheap and fast routers simply do not exist for sale. Secondly, the 5-6 GHz bands are extremely sensitive to obstacles and interference in their path than the 2.4 GHz band, so even in the room next to the router, the author will NEVER receive even 500 Gbit / s at a safe signal level for people who use this gadget for hours next to tissues of the body.

The author's call to increase the electromagnetic field strength in cities and countries in general is insane and dangerous. Like all such crazy people on the planet. Technological progress should be safe for people's health, but now complete madness is happening with an ever-increasing degradation of the real education of the majority of the population in terms of the impact of gadgets on their health.

The use of smartphones is the most dangerous for people and is 100% proven to provoke cancer of the skin and other organs. Like any microwave radiation with a high spectral energy density. Scandals, even the latest one in France, with the same Apple violating SAR emission levels (a locomotive and, in general, an example for other manufacturers in the smartphone industry), only proves what I write and how scary things really are with health safety for those using everything these filthy gadgets are as ignorant and insane as possible.

The further the device is from the base station, the more dangerous the smartphone and any modem are. The more powerful the base station is in terms of radiation, the more dangerous it is to be near it, especially for a long time (the longer, the more the dangerous radius expands). Therefore, wi-fi at home is just as dangerous if it is set to 100% power, and especially in smartphones/tablets, because people hold them in their hands or on their bodies, in direct violation of safety instructions, because all SAR levels are officially measured no closer than 1.5cm from body tissue, and the radiation power increases by the square of the distance to body tissue decreases. All manufacturers are trying to hush up these real facts, and the criminal and corrupt authorities of most countries, including "developed" ones, deliberately turn a blind eye to the ever-increasing danger of microwave wireless communication technologies.

If at home you set (if the device allows it - smartphones and most laptop drivers DO NOT allow this) the radiation of Wi-Fi antennas to relatively safe levels, as well as the router (if you often walk near it closer than 1-1.5 m), then you are here You will find that even 150-200Mbit/s will be unattainable for you even in the room next to the router. Especially with the cheap price of $60.

"The majority is always wrong, because the majority are illiterate idiots" (c).

Sooner or later it was bound to happen - technology companies drinking their own 'up to' Koolaid and somehow believing that it actually happens.

The underlying facts remain that even IF you have some high "connection speed" the ACTUAL speed of the data over that connection is almost ALWAYS going to be much much slower.

This is because the often overlooked reality that "connection speed" does not equal actual "bandwidth". (nor if the required bandwidth is actually available or even purchased)

While there might be a Gigabit (or faster/slower) connection between each and every data hop between the user and the server they are accessing the reality is that there are countless other systems and users also using those connections at the same time.

There might be 'up to' 1Gigabit speed when there is no other congestion however that may rarely if ever actually happen.

The example of WiFi6 providing gigabit speeds at home is a good example. Sure you might have high speeds between your mobile device and your router. However beyond the router are you getting 'up to' some useless number from your internet provider or an actual quoted minimum data bandwidth?