Do you have any concerns about 5g?

Of course. It is definitely some conspiracy with 5G, but not one they try to push.

If so, what are they?

Shortly: 5G main official advantage over 4G is higher bandwidth and more clients for one BS. But significantly higher bandwidth you could get only in Frequesncy Range 2 (27GHz and 38GHz bands). But that bands barely works inside buildings, not even talking about outside - they are easily muted even by rain or fog. And even inside you need antennas in sight of each other to get some Gbit speeds. So, in reality, 5G gives slightly wider bandwidth and more clients for Base Station.

And now the most interesting thing - Base Station is definitely not the endpoint of your high bandwidth connection. You need thick fiber channels from BS - uplinks to some backbone. But nobody upgrade that uplinks. And that uplinks are the bottleneck of cellular networks.

4G hardly utilise 30% of it's possible capacity because uplinks can't provide necessary bandwidth. Even in towns. Situation in suburban and rural areas much worse, because even 1Gb radiolink is often a luxury for rural base station. And nobody want to bury fiber under all that fields and forests. So, 1000 clients who have 1Gb connection to base station will fight for that 1Gb uplink with all consequences. Changing 4G to 5G gives nothing in terms of real bandwith and number of clients.

So the question is - why they need 5G, when they can't even utilize 4G?

They often tell us about IoT crap in connection with 5G. Here the larger number of clients will be a significant advantage. But more spying devices will need much more bandwidth. So, all IoT traffic should be terminated on the base station. And here comes my theory - they will collect all surveillance from 5G IoT devices right on the BS. When they will need an info about you they will just downloand only data recorded from your devices using that narrow uplink.

So, 5G is a prerequisite for total surveillance network with local storage of all raw surveillance on BS with access to it provided to agencies and businesses.

Pretty logical scheme - you turn every base station into local network storage without any need to buld giant datacenters and upgrading uplinks and backbone. 4G base stations don't have large enough storages, and have lower maximum number of clients. So, add 5G modules to the base stations, and you get state wide surveillance storage that could hold data on every single person who use any smartphone, IoT device or use cellular network for internet access.

That concerns about creation of country-wide distributed storage surveillance network with enormous capacity was rised in the early days of 5G rollout. "What the fuck, we can't even utilize 4G, why roll out 5G instead of upgrading all BS uplinks?" Even Apple founder (real one) Stieven Wozniak rised that concern at the time, but all that was quickly buried under the insane "5G health issues" storm.

Hardly today any questions about 5G will be heard and answered.

Do you have any concerns about 5g?

Of course. It is definitely some conspiracy with 5G, but not one they try to push.

If so, what are they?

Shortly: 5G main official advantage over 4G is higher bandwidth and more clients for one BS. But significantly higher bandwidth you could get only in Frequesncy Range 2 (27GHz and 28GHz bands). But that bands barely works inside buildings, not even talking about outside - they are easily muted even by rain or fog. And even inside you need antennas in sight of each other to get some Gbit speeds. So, in reality, 5G gives slightly wider bandwidth and more clients for Base Station.

And now the most interesting thing - Base Station is definitely not the endpoint of your high bandwidth connection. You need thick fiber channels from BS - uplinks to some backbone. But nobody upgrade that uplinks. And that uplinks are the bottleneck of cellular networks.

4G hardly utilise 30% of it's possible capacity because uplinks can't provide necessary bandwidth. Even in towns. Situation in suburban and rural areas much worse, because even 1Gb radiolink is often a luxury for rural base station. And nobody want to bury fiber under all that fields and forests. So, 1000 clients who have 1Gb connection to base station will fight for that 1Gb uplink with all consequences. Changing 4G to 5G gives nothing in terms of real bandwith and number of clients.

So the question is - why they need 5G, when they can't even utilize 4G?

They often tell us about IoT crap in connection with 5G. Here the larger number of clients will be a significant advantage. But more spying devices will need much more bandwidth. So, all IoT traffic should be terminated on the base station. And here comes my theory - they will collect all surveillance from 5G IoT devices right on the BS. When they will need an info about you they will just downloand only data recorded from your devices using that narrow uplink.

So, 5G is a prerequisite for total surveillance network with local storage of all raw surveillance on BS with access to it provided to agencies and businesses.

Pretty logical scheme - you turn every base station into local network storage without any need to buld giant datacenters and upgrading uplinks and backbone. 4G base stations don't have large enough storages, and have lower maximum number of clients. So, add 5G modules to the base stations, and you get state wide surveillance storage that could hold data on every single person who use any smartphone, IoT device or use cellular network for internet access.

That concerns about creation of country-wide distributed storage surveillance network with enormous capacity was rised in the early days of 5G rollout. "What the fuck, we can't even utilize 4G, why roll out 5G instead of upgrading all BS uplinks?" Even Apple founder (real one) Stieven Wozniak rised that concern at the time, but all that was quickly buried under the insane "5G health issues" storm.

Hardly today any questions about 5G will be heard and answered.