What do you think about 5G?

3 views
Skip to first unread message

Unbreakable Disease

unread,
Jan 17, 2020, 7:39:30 AM1/17/20
to
5G is probably the most controversial cellular technology ever. While it
will provide even faster connection speeds than 4G, it carries many
concerns: interference, health, survelliance and security ones.

Interference:

5G, as it uses spectrum that is near of those of weather satellites, has
the potential to significatly degrade the accuracy of data collected by
them. As the performance of weather models is degrading more and more
with each day, it is more likely that in future more and more people
will die as a result of not being sufficiently warned against possible
severe weather.

Health:
This one is probably the most controversial, and for a reason. First, no
scientific study regarding possible health effects of 5G technology has
ever been conducted. As it uses much higher spectrum and more base
transceiver stations than current-generation cellular technology, those
concerns are *really* more than ever relevant.

Survelliance:
While mass survelliance is already bad these days. 5G has the potential
to make it even worse. It will become easier to monitor people through
installing cameras in a nearly every corner of the nation.

Security:
When more and more devices can connect to the Internet at the
faster-than-ever bandwidth rates, it can open an attack surface that
cybercriminals are waiting for. It will become easier to perform DDoS
attacks, cryptojacking, send spam, etc.

nospam

unread,
Jan 17, 2020, 8:50:06 AM1/17/20
to
In article <qvs9tv$u0h$1...@dont-email.me>, Unbreakable Disease
<unbre...@secmail.pro> wrote:

> 5G is probably the most controversial cellular technology ever. While it
> will provide even faster connection speeds than 4G, it carries many
> concerns: interference, health, survelliance and security ones.

more idiocy.

> Interference:
>
> 5G, as it uses spectrum that is near of those of weather satellites, has
> the potential to significatly degrade the accuracy of data collected by
> them. As the performance of weather models is degrading more and more
> with each day, it is more likely that in future more and more people
> will die as a result of not being sufficiently warned against possible
> severe weather.

false.

> Health:
> This one is probably the most controversial, and for a reason. First, no
> scientific study regarding possible health effects of 5G technology has
> ever been conducted. As it uses much higher spectrum and more base
> transceiver stations than current-generation cellular technology, those
> concerns are *really* more than ever relevant.

false. numerous studies already have been done and which found *no*
link with health issues. same for wifi too.

> Survelliance:
> While mass survelliance is already bad these days. 5G has the potential
> to make it even worse. It will become easier to monitor people through
> installing cameras in a nearly every corner of the nation.

5g has no effect on that.

> Security:
> When more and more devices can connect to the Internet at the
> faster-than-ever bandwidth rates, it can open an attack surface that
> cybercriminals are waiting for. It will become easier to perform DDoS
> attacks, cryptojacking, send spam, etc.

5g has no effect on that either.

Michael Christ

unread,
Jan 17, 2020, 3:47:45 PM1/17/20
to
Look out for stuff like Alexa which monitors what goes on in the home
24/7. Since I have nothing hide, I have one. It is amazing what it can
be used for and that is why it (or something similar) is headed into
everyone's home, just like the TV did.






Michael Christ

--
Rom 5:8  But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
yet sinners, Christ died for us.

"If God is not first in everything He is not first in anything."

Michael Christ

unread,
Jan 17, 2020, 3:53:52 PM1/17/20
to
You are in denial, Buddy.

Everything gets ramped up with 5g.

nospam

unread,
Jan 17, 2020, 6:15:01 PM1/17/20
to
In article <qvt6su$eu3$5...@dont-email.me>, Michael Christ
<jesusisth...@hotmail.con> wrote:

>
> Everything gets ramped up with 5g.

not true.

5g mmw is low power short range.

Michael Christ

unread,
Jan 17, 2020, 10:22:02 PM1/17/20
to
You're in denial.

Trusting in man, no doubt.

Well, we'll just see what happens when millions and millions of towers
go up around us and when masses of more information starts running
around and through us, won't you.

nospam

unread,
Jan 17, 2020, 10:30:55 PM1/17/20
to
In article <qvttkp$2jj$8...@dont-email.me>, Michael Christ
<jesusisth...@hotmail.con> wrote:

> >> Everything gets ramped up with 5g.
> >
> > not true.
> >
> > 5g mmw is low power short range.
> >
>
> You're in denial.
>
> Trusting in man, no doubt.
>
> Well, we'll just see what happens when millions and millions of towers
> go up around us and when masses of more information starts running
> around and through us, won't you.

cellphones have been around since the 1980s, became very popular in the
90s and today just about everyone has one, yet cancer rates have not
increased at the rate cellphone usage did, plus early on, phones were
analog and transmit power was a *lot* higher.

and then there all the *other* sources of rf, including radio and tv
transmitters, which are *far* more powerful than anything a cell tower
could ever possibly put out, by several orders of magnitude.

Chris in Makati

unread,
Jan 18, 2020, 1:48:21 AM1/18/20
to
On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 14:22:00 +1100, Michael Christ
<jesusisth...@hotmail.con> wrote:

>On 18/01/2020 10:14 am, nospam wrote:
>> In article <qvt6su$eu3$5...@dont-email.me>, Michael Christ
>> <jesusisth...@hotmail.con> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Everything gets ramped up with 5g.
>>
>> not true.
>>
>> 5g mmw is low power short range.
>>
>
>You're in denial.
>
>Trusting in man, no doubt.
>
>Well, we'll just see what happens when millions and millions of towers
>go up around us and when masses of more information starts running
>around and through us, won't you.

You religious nutters have been on about this for decades, and the
effects you predict never happen.

What the f**k are you doing calling yourself Christ? Who the hell do
you think you are?

JF Mezei

unread,
Jan 18, 2020, 3:46:03 AM1/18/20
to
On 2020-01-17 08:50, nospam wrote:
>Iterference:
>

> false.#

Actually true for one set of frequencies, I beleive is the mm wave ones
(but not sure). I know NOAA has made strong arguments which they lost at
the FCC to protect those frequencies as it affects satellite radar and
the cellular antennas and handsets will cause false images onto the
satelite imagery. (or something akin to that). I recall reading the
articles a year or two ago and they made valid points on the impact.


The one bigger effect for countrie slike USA without any network
neutrality rules (destroyed under Trump by Verizon,s lawyer who
infiltrated FCC). 5G gives carriers far mroe flexibility for pioritized
traffic or zero rating traffic because it becomes possible to create
many mroe applications with disctinct traffic "paths" (aka how packets
slots are allocated). With LTE, it is basically just data and VoIP
applicatiosn (each with their onw serapate APN). They will be able to
add far more apps with 5G.

VoIP for instance does not pass through the data path and its packets
not counted towards your monthly data cap, and gets priority access to
packet capacity).

----------- A t h e i s t ------------

unread,
Jan 18, 2020, 4:19:03 AM1/18/20
to
Thank you for the clarification.


--
There is no verifiable evidence of any god(s). None whatsoever.
Christian: a person afraid of a perpetually hiding [imaginary] god.
Extortion (Believe or Burn) is _THE_ foundation of Christianity.
A Jesus is as useful as a Zeus.

KWills Shill #2

unread,
Jan 18, 2020, 7:57:35 AM1/18/20
to
On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 12:39:00 +0000, Unbreakable Disease
<unbre...@secmail.pro> wrote:

>5G is probably the most controversial cellular technology ever. While it
>will provide even faster connection speeds than 4G, it carries many
>concerns: interference, health, survelliance and security ones.
>

There is nothing supporting a claim of health issues.
Surveillance and security concerns are no more or less serious than
they are now.
Interference might be a valid concern. Though not what you cite
below.

>Interference:
>
>5G, as it uses spectrum that is near of those of weather satellites, has
>the potential to significatly degrade the accuracy of data collected by
>them. As the performance of weather models is degrading more and more
>with each day, it is more likely that in future more and more people
>will die as a result of not being sufficiently warned against possible
>severe weather.
>

Phones aren't powerful enough to alter the accuracy of weather
satellite data. Even if they were, satellite receivers will only
accept signals within the bandwidth of the transmission. Something
being close will be disregarded.

>Health:
>This one is probably the most controversial, and for a reason. First, no
>scientific study regarding possible health effects of 5G technology has
>ever been conducted. As it uses much higher spectrum and more base
>transceiver stations than current-generation cellular technology, those
>concerns are *really* more than ever relevant.
>

More transceivers are necessary because of the short range of 5G.
And the ease with which the signal can be blocked. You could be 10
meters from a transceiver and not get 5G if there is tree in the way.

>Survelliance:
>While mass survelliance is already bad these days. 5G has the potential
>to make it even worse. It will become easier to monitor people through
>installing cameras in a nearly every corner of the nation.
>

When out in public, everyone has a decreased expectation of
privacy. And cameras can be installed anywhere in public. This is
perfectly legal.

>Security:
>When more and more devices can connect to the Internet at the
>faster-than-ever bandwidth rates, it can open an attack surface that
>cybercriminals are waiting for. It will become easier to perform DDoS
>attacks, cryptojacking, send spam, etc.

It won't be any easier. It will be faster.
If you have 100 units attempting a DDoS, 5G will allow it to
happen faster than 4G, but it won't be any easier.

--
Shill #2
Los Angeles Branch.
Strategic Writer, Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3618/5747904676_1e202191d3_b.jpg
All hail the taco! http://www.taconati.org/

KWills Shill #2

unread,
Jan 18, 2020, 7:57:58 AM1/18/20
to
On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 14:22:00 +1100, Michael Christ
<jesusisth...@hotmail.con> wrote:

>On 18/01/2020 10:14 am, nospam wrote:
>> In article <qvt6su$eu3$5...@dont-email.me>, Michael Christ
>> <jesusisth...@hotmail.con> wrote:
>>
>>> Everything gets ramped up with 5g.
>>
>> not true.
>>
>> 5g mmw is low power short range.
>
>You're in denial.
>

He (I am presuming nospam is male, but I could be wrong) is 100%
correct on this. It's not as if 5G's strength is a secret.

>Trusting in man, no doubt.
>

It was man who developed 5G.

>Well, we'll just see what happens when millions and millions of towers
>go up around us and when masses of more information starts running
>around and through us, won't you.

Massive amounts of information has been running around and
through us for decades. This has been the case since, at least, radio
was new.

Unbreakable Disease

unread,
Jan 18, 2020, 5:25:01 PM1/18/20
to
On 18.01.2020 09:19, ----------- A t h e i s t ------------ wrote:
> JF Mezei wrote:
>
>> On 2020-01-17 08:50, nospam wrote:
>>
>>> Iterference:
>>>
>>
>>
>>> false.#
>>
>>
>> Actually true for one set of frequencies, I beleive is the mm wave ones
>> (but not sure). I know NOAA has made strong arguments which they lost at
>> the FCC to protect those frequencies as it affects satellite radar and
>> the cellular antennas and handsets will cause false images onto the
>> satelite imagery.  (or something akin to that).  I recall reading the
>> articles a year or two ago and they made valid points on the impact.
>>
>>
>> The one bigger effect for countrie slike USA without any network
>> neutrality rules (destroyed under Trump by Verizon,s lawyer who
>> infiltrated FCC). 5G gives carriers far mroe flexibility for pioritized
>> traffic or zero rating traffic because it becomes possible to create
>> many mroe applications with disctinct traffic "paths" (aka how packets
>> slots are allocated). With LTE, it is basically just data and VoIP
>> applicatiosn (each with their onw serapate APN). They will be able to
>> add far more apps with 5G.
>>
>> VoIP for instance does not pass through the data path and its packets
>> not counted towards your monthly data cap, and gets priority access to
>> packet capacity).
>
> Thank you for the clarification.
>
>
And don't forget: social media will become even more addictive.

--
Tip me: bc1qtwmjzywve5v7z6jzk4dkg7v6masw2erpahsn9f

bitcoin:bc1qtwmjzywve5v7z6jzk4dkg7v6masw2erpahsn9f

Unbreakable Disease

unread,
Jan 18, 2020, 5:45:41 PM1/18/20
to
On 18.01.2020 12:57, KWills Shill #2 wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 12:39:00 +0000, Unbreakable Disease
> <unbre...@secmail.pro> wrote:
>
>> 5G is probably the most controversial cellular technology ever. While it
>> will provide even faster connection speeds than 4G, it carries many
>> concerns: interference, health, survelliance and security ones.
>>
>
> There is nothing supporting a claim of health issues.
For now, of course.
> Surveillance and security concerns are no more or less serious than
> they are now.
> Interference might be a valid concern. Though not what you cite
> below.
>
>> Interference:
>>
>> 5G, as it uses spectrum that is near of those of weather satellites, has
>> the potential to significatly degrade the accuracy of data collected by
>> them. As the performance of weather models is degrading more and more
>> with each day, it is more likely that in future more and more people
>> will die as a result of not being sufficiently warned against possible
>> severe weather.
>>
>
> Phones aren't powerful enough to alter the accuracy of weather
> satellite data. Even if they were, satellite receivers will only
> accept signals within the bandwidth of the transmission. Something
> being close will be disregarded.

Yes, but millions of those transceivers working at the same spectrum can
make a big difference.

>> Health:
>> This one is probably the most controversial, and for a reason. First, no
>> scientific study regarding possible health effects of 5G technology has
>> ever been conducted. As it uses much higher spectrum and more base
>> transceiver stations than current-generation cellular technology, those
>> concerns are *really* more than ever relevant.
>>
>
> More transceivers are necessary because of the short range of 5G.
> And the ease with which the signal can be blocked. You could be 10
> meters from a transceiver and not get 5G if there is tree in the way.

Yes, but what when you are outside?

>> Survelliance:
>> While mass survelliance is already bad these days. 5G has the potential
>> to make it even worse. It will become easier to monitor people through
>> installing cameras in a nearly every corner of the nation.
>>
>
> When out in public, everyone has a decreased expectation of
> privacy. And cameras can be installed anywhere in public. This is
> perfectly legal.

Still scary... Do you want to live in the Communist State?

>> Security:
>> When more and more devices can connect to the Internet at the
>> faster-than-ever bandwidth rates, it can open an attack surface that
>> cybercriminals are waiting for. It will become easier to perform DDoS
>> attacks, cryptojacking, send spam, etc.
>
> It won't be any easier. It will be faster.
> If you have 100 units attempting a DDoS, 5G will allow it to
> happen faster than 4G, but it won't be any easier.
>
Let's imagine you have a server connected to the low-bandwidth Internet
connection. It will be, because 5G gives much more bandwidth than
previous cellular networks.

Michael Christ

unread,
Jan 18, 2020, 6:49:43 PM1/18/20
to
No one sits on a radio and TV transmitter 24/7!

There will be millions and millions of these towers all around us in
close proximity! The density of mobile phones in a square meter on a
bus full of people in New York. Think along those lines. Short, medium
to long term effects nothing?

You are trying to convince yourself 5g is nothing but a harmless
butterfly. It is not natural.

Nothing to see here folks is bullshit. They are gambling big time with
adult and children's health! This is what you are not getting, in small
doses, arsenic is quite useful.

You are gambling on the ways of man and look at his record.

Michael Christ

unread,
Jan 18, 2020, 7:00:27 PM1/18/20
to
Another 'I am God' newbie hath arrived.

Michael Christ

unread,
Jan 18, 2020, 7:11:22 PM1/18/20
to
On 18/01/2020 11:58 pm, KWills Shill #2 wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 14:22:00 +1100, Michael Christ
> <jesusisth...@hotmail.con> wrote:
>
>> On 18/01/2020 10:14 am, nospam wrote:
>>> In article <qvt6su$eu3$5...@dont-email.me>, Michael Christ
>>> <jesusisth...@hotmail.con> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Everything gets ramped up with 5g.
>>>
>>> not true.
>>>
>>> 5g mmw is low power short range.
>>
>> You're in denial.
>>
>
> He (I am presuming nospam is male, but I could be wrong) is 100%
> correct on this. It's not as if 5G's strength is a secret.
>
>> Trusting in man, no doubt.
>>
>
> It was man who developed 5G.

And nukes and bombs and guns and plastic filling the oceans and all
pollution and global warming and road rage and war and and and and and
and and and and and and.....................................

Great point!!

>
>> Well, we'll just see what happens when millions and millions of towers
>> go up around us and when masses of more information starts running
>> around and through us, won't you.
>
> Massive amounts of information has been running around and
> through us for decades. This has been the case since, at least, radio
> was new.
>

You need to do some learning, Bubba.

Ted

unread,
Jan 18, 2020, 7:23:36 PM1/18/20
to
Mostly positive. Which is probably what 5G is.

Arlen Holder

unread,
Jan 18, 2020, 9:04:59 PM1/18/20
to
What do I think about 5G?

A modern mobile device _must_ have it.
Which is why Apple surrendered _billions_ to Qualcomm, to get it.

See details here on the deals (which cost Apple about 6 billion!):
o *Apple would have died as a company if it didn't surrender to Qualcomm*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/jUEvxhLv2Gk/P49VzY_SCwAJ>

--
Bringing truth to the Apple newsgroups, where they need it most.

Arlen Holder

unread,
Jan 18, 2020, 9:08:44 PM1/18/20
to
> What do I think about 5G?

BTW, it's not just in modem ICs that Apple fails miserably on.
o *Did Apple (yet again) fail in chip design, this time with graphics chips?*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/_KhXtYcseUU/hsyoVb49BgAJ>

--
Bringing facts to the Apple newsgroups that apologists need to know.

Rod Flanders

unread,
Jan 19, 2020, 6:09:11 AM1/19/20
to
Microwave ovens, GMO food, and fluorescant lights are
already killing thousands of people every day. 5G is just
another nail in our coffin.

When will people ever wake up? God is talking to you.


>
>
>
> Michael Christ

KWills Shill #2

unread,
Jan 19, 2020, 9:16:19 AM1/19/20
to
On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 22:45:00 +0000, Unbreakable Disease
Not to the weather satellite data you mentioned. The receivers
will disregard anything that isn't in the specific band being
transmitted by the satellites.

>>> Health:
>>> This one is probably the most controversial, and for a reason. First, no
>>> scientific study regarding possible health effects of 5G technology has
>>> ever been conducted. As it uses much higher spectrum and more base
>>> transceiver stations than current-generation cellular technology, those
>>> concerns are *really* more than ever relevant.
>>
>> More transceivers are necessary because of the short range of 5G.
>> And the ease with which the signal can be blocked. You could be 10
>> meters from a transceiver and not get 5G if there is tree in the way.
>
>Yes, but what when you are outside?
>

Most of the time, trees are outside.

>>> Survelliance:
>>> While mass survelliance is already bad these days. 5G has the potential
>>> to make it even worse. It will become easier to monitor people through
>>> installing cameras in a nearly every corner of the nation.
>>
>> When out in public, everyone has a decreased expectation of
>> privacy. And cameras can be installed anywhere in public. This is
>> perfectly legal.
>
>Still scary... Do you want to live in the Communist State?
>

Why would it be Communist? It's near impossible to be outside in
London, England and not be on camera. I'm not an expert on the British
government, but I'm certain it's not Communist.
If you should visit Manhattan, you'll find cameras, and
microphones, on nearly every street corner. If you and I were there
together standing outside talking about whatever, we could be recorded
and it would be 100% legal. No part of New York is Communist.

>>> Security:
>>> When more and more devices can connect to the Internet at the
>>> faster-than-ever bandwidth rates, it can open an attack surface that
>>> cybercriminals are waiting for. It will become easier to perform DDoS
>>> attacks, cryptojacking, send spam, etc.
>>
>> It won't be any easier. It will be faster.
>> If you have 100 units attempting a DDoS, 5G will allow it to
>> happen faster than 4G, but it won't be any easier.
>>
>Let's imagine you have a server connected to the low-bandwidth Internet
>connection. It will be, because 5G gives much more bandwidth than
>previous cellular networks.

Nope. Only faster. This isn't a secret.
Stop accepting what the kook websites tell you. Check for
yourself.

KWills Shill #2

unread,
Jan 19, 2020, 9:17:34 AM1/19/20
to
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 10:49:40 +1100, Michael Christ
<jesusisth...@hotmail.con> wrote:

>On 18/01/2020 2:30 pm, nospam wrote:
>> In article <qvttkp$2jj$8...@dont-email.me>, Michael Christ
>> <jesusisth...@hotmail.con> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Everything gets ramped up with 5g.
>>>>
>>>> not true.
>>>>
>>>> 5g mmw is low power short range.
>>>
>>> You're in denial.
>>>
>>> Trusting in man, no doubt.
>>>
>>> Well, we'll just see what happens when millions and millions of towers
>>> go up around us and when masses of more information starts running
>>> around and through us, won't you.
>>
>> cellphones have been around since the 1980s, became very popular in the
>> 90s and today just about everyone has one, yet cancer rates have not
>> increased at the rate cellphone usage did, plus early on, phones were
>> analog and transmit power was a *lot* higher.
>
>> and then there all the *other* sources of rf, including radio and tv
>> transmitters, which are *far* more powerful than anything a cell tower
>> could ever possibly put out, by several orders of magnitude.
>
>No one sits on a radio and TV transmitter 24/7!
>

No one sits on a cellular tower 24/7.

>There will be millions and millions of these towers all around us in
>close proximity! The density of mobile phones in a square meter on a
>bus full of people in New York. Think along those lines. Short, medium
>to long term effects nothing?
>

Do you have evidence that anything more dangerous than we face
now will occur?

>You are trying to convince yourself 5g is nothing but a harmless
>butterfly. It is not natural.

Neither are computers. Or the Internet. Odds are, the clear
majority of your life is made up of that which is not natural.

>
>Nothing to see here folks is bullshit. They are gambling big time with
>adult and children's health! This is what you are not getting, in small
>doses, arsenic is quite useful.
>
>You are gambling on the ways of man and look at his record.

History shows man has done pretty good, over all. There are some
exception. Some of them showing the most deplorable aspects of humans.
But, for the most part, man's done well.

KWills Shill #2

unread,
Jan 19, 2020, 9:18:33 AM1/19/20
to
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 11:11:19 +1100, Michael Christ
<jesusisth...@hotmail.con> wrote:

>On 18/01/2020 11:58 pm, KWills Shill #2 wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 14:22:00 +1100, Michael Christ
>> <jesusisth...@hotmail.con> wrote:
>>
>>> On 18/01/2020 10:14 am, nospam wrote:
>>>> In article <qvt6su$eu3$5...@dont-email.me>, Michael Christ
>>>> <jesusisth...@hotmail.con> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Everything gets ramped up with 5g.
>>>>
>>>> not true.
>>>>
>>>> 5g mmw is low power short range.
>>>
>>> You're in denial.
>>
>> He (I am presuming nospam is male, but I could be wrong) is 100%
>> correct on this. It's not as if 5G's strength is a secret.
>>
>>> Trusting in man, no doubt.
>>
>> It was man who developed 5G.
>
>And nukes and bombs and guns and plastic filling the oceans and all
>pollution and global warming and road rage and war and and and and and
>and and and and and and.....................................
>
>Great point!!
>

And vaccines, and health care that helps reduce illness. Man has
found a way to make science understandable. An so on.
Your god, if he exists, has either caused directly or permitted a
great deal of suffering. If such a god exists, he, she or it should be
disregarded.

>>> Well, we'll just see what happens when millions and millions of towers
>>> go up around us and when masses of more information starts running
>>> around and through us, won't you.
>>
>> Massive amounts of information has been running around and
>> through us for decades. This has been the case since, at least, radio
>> was new.
>
>You need to do some learning, Bubba.
>

I am well educated. That you think only the uneducated can prove
you wrong is an interesting position for you to express.

--
Shill #2
Los Angeles Branch.
Strategic Writer, Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3618/5747904676_1e202191d3_b.jpg
All hail the taco! http://www.taconati.org/


>
>
>
>
>Michael Christ

KWills Shill #2

unread,
Jan 19, 2020, 9:19:18 AM1/19/20
to
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 02:04:59 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder
<arlen.geo...@is.invalid> wrote:

>What do I think about 5G?
>
>A modern mobile device _must_ have it.

Not quite must. 4G will be viable for a while yet.

>Which is why Apple surrendered _billions_ to Qualcomm, to get it.
>

All manufacturers will eventually offer devices that can use 5G.

>See details here on the deals (which cost Apple about 6 billion!):
>o *Apple would have died as a company if it didn't surrender to Qualcomm*
><https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/jUEvxhLv2Gk/P49VzY_SCwAJ>

Nah. The deal with Qualcomm didn't hurt Apple, and most feel
Apple isn't happy with the arrangement, but there's nothing to support
a claim that Apple would have failed without it. The company would
simply license the technology as all other manufacturers will.

KWills Shill #2

unread,
Jan 19, 2020, 9:19:33 AM1/19/20
to
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 19:09:09 +0800, Rod Flanders <rfla...@next.door>
wrote:

[...]

>> You are gambling on the ways of man and look at his record.
>
>Microwave ovens, GMO food, and fluorescant lights are
>already killing thousands of people every day. 5G is just
>another nail in our coffin.
>
>When will people ever wake up? God is talking to you.

And saying, "Don't pay attention to people who claim any god
actually exists."

Rod Flanders

unread,
Jan 19, 2020, 10:31:05 AM1/19/20
to
KWills Shill #2 <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 19:09:09 +0800, Rod Flanders <rfla...@next.door>
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> You are gambling on the ways of man and look at his record.
> >
> >Microwave ovens, GMO food, and fluorescant lights are
> >already killing thousands of people every day. 5G is just
> >another nail in our coffin.
> >
> >When will people ever wake up? God is talking to you.
>
> And saying, "Don't pay attention to people who claim any god
> actually exists."

The Bible warns us about antichrists like you.

1 John 4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is
come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit
of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come;
and even now already is it in the world.

Arlen Holder

unread,
Jan 19, 2020, 2:06:33 PM1/19/20
to
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 06:19:26 -0800, KWills Shill #2 wrote:

>>What do I think about 5G?
>>
>>A modern mobile device _must_ have it.
>
> Not quite must. 4G will be viable for a while yet.

FACTS + ASSESSMENT.

If you compare all phones, including $100 phones like my Moto G7, your
statement is valid - but you must think about Apple's price range phones.

Think about the key fact that Apple is all MARKETING of "premium" devices.
o How can a "premium" device sell, at premium prices, in 2020, without 5G?

Even today, my cheap $100 Mot G7 has vastly more app functionality than
_any_ iOS device ever sold (at any price)... and lots of modern hardware
functionality that isn't on even the most expensive of the primitive iOS
devices ... so think about how bad it would be for Apple if they didn't
surrender to Qualcomm on 5G.

While I grant you that most people aren't technical enough to realize how
utterly primitive iOS app functionality is, you can rest assured nobody
would have been ignorant of a thousand dollar phone that couldn't even get
something as simple as a modem to work.

Even the least technical person would have known that their thousand dollar
iPhone was a fraction of the networking speed of a modern Android phone.

>>Which is why Apple surrendered _billions_ to Qualcomm, to get it.
>>
>
> All manufacturers will eventually offer devices that can use 5G.

FACTS + ASSESSMENT.

My role on this newsgroup is to speak sense & adult logical reason.
o Bear in mind everything I state is backed up by the facts.

Apple spent upwards of 6 billion dollars to get their hands on 5G in 2020.
o That's how important getting their hands on 5G was to Apple's business.

Notice the Apologists claimed Apple "wasn't worried" about 5G; but if they
weren't worried, why did they spend six billion dollars to get their hands
on it by 2020?

How many projects do you think Apple spend six billion dollars on anyway?

>>See details here on the deals (which cost Apple about 6 billion!):
>>o *Apple would have died as a company if it didn't surrender to Qualcomm*
>><https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/jUEvxhLv2Gk/P49VzY_SCwAJ>
>
> Nah. The deal with Qualcomm didn't hurt Apple, and most feel
> Apple isn't happy with the arrangement, but there's nothing to support
> a claim that Apple would have failed without it. The company would
> simply license the technology as all other manufacturers will.

FACTS + ASSESSMENT.

First off, the deal "didn't hurt Apple" because Apple felt getting their
hands on 5G by 2020 was one of the most critical business objectives for
the company.

They traded six billion dollars for that 5G functionality.

It "didn't hurt Apple" because Apple would have died without it.
o How many projects do you think Apple spend six billion dollars on anyway?

Apple MARKETING runs the business - where the evidence shows that Apple
sells "premium" phones which would have taken a huge hit by being dog slow
in 2020 compared to the already far more modern Android phones.

Bear in mind, facts easily prove there is no app functionality on iOS that
isn't already on Android, and, worse, there is plenty of modern app
functionality on Android that isn't on iOS.

Also, bear in mind that it's more expensive to buy Android exploits than
iOS exploits simply because facts show the market is flooded with iOS
exploits.

FACTS + ASSESSMENT.

I agree with you that it's not clear to non technical laypeople how
shockingly primitive iOS app functionality is compared to modern Android
app functionality, but rest assured, EVERYONE would know how slow Apple's
modems would have been if Apple had not surrendered to Qualcomm to get 5G
by 2020 & beyond.

--
Bringing adult logic & reason to the Apple newsgroups one fact at a time.

nospam

unread,
Jan 19, 2020, 2:15:17 PM1/19/20
to
In article <r029bo$c6b$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder
<arlen.geo...@is.invalid> wrote:

> o How can a "premium" device sell, at premium prices, in 2020, without 5G?

easily, since very few phones have 5g, and the ones that do suck.

the samsung s10 5g overheats when using 5g within a minute or two
(i.e., it's useless) forcing it to fall back to 4g, plus it's battery
life is very short, barely lasting to lunchtime. it's also big and
expensive, carrying a $300 premium on top of the already high $1000 s10
price.

Michael Christ

unread,
Jan 19, 2020, 6:57:23 PM1/19/20
to
Yeah baby!

Michael Christ

unread,
Jan 19, 2020, 7:40:44 PM1/19/20
to
On 20/01/2020 1:17 am, KWills Shill #2 wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 10:49:40 +1100, Michael Christ
> <jesusisth...@hotmail.con> wrote:
>
>> On 18/01/2020 2:30 pm, nospam wrote:
>>> In article <qvttkp$2jj$8...@dont-email.me>, Michael Christ
>>> <jesusisth...@hotmail.con> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Everything gets ramped up with 5g.
>>>>>
>>>>> not true.
>>>>>
>>>>> 5g mmw is low power short range.
>>>>
>>>> You're in denial.
>>>>
>>>> Trusting in man, no doubt.
>>>>
>>>> Well, we'll just see what happens when millions and millions of towers
>>>> go up around us and when masses of more information starts running
>>>> around and through us, won't you.
>>>
>>> cellphones have been around since the 1980s, became very popular in the
>>> 90s and today just about everyone has one, yet cancer rates have not
>>> increased at the rate cellphone usage did, plus early on, phones were
>>> analog and transmit power was a *lot* higher.
>>
>>> and then there all the *other* sources of rf, including radio and tv
>>> transmitters, which are *far* more powerful than anything a cell tower
>>> could ever possibly put out, by several orders of magnitude.
>>
>> No one sits on a radio and TV transmitter 24/7!
>>
>
> No one sits on a cellular tower 24/7.

You are a cell tower!

And multiply that many fold over with 5g.


>
>> There will be millions and millions of these towers all around us in
>> close proximity! The density of mobile phones in a square meter on a
>> bus full of people in New York. Think along those lines. Short, medium
>> to long term effects nothing?
>>
>
> Do you have evidence that anything more dangerous than we face
> now will occur?

Do you have evidence that it is not?

It is you that is bringing unnatural into the natural world more and
more and more and more with no abating.

Anytime that is done that is unnatural means trouble one way or another.

And please, don't insult my intelligence with, 'What?'. I see no
increase of cancer through man's deeds or something as stupid.



>> You are trying to convince yourself 5g is nothing but a harmless
>> butterfly. It is not natural.
>
> Neither are computers. Or the Internet. Odds are, the clear
> majority of your life is made up of that which is not natural.
>

Of course, man has changed the whole planet with his ways. It is not an
argument to compare an orange with an orange.




>>
>> Nothing to see here folks is bullshit. They are gambling big time with
>> adult and children's health! This is what you are not getting, in small
>> doses, arsenic is quite useful.
>>
>> You are gambling on the ways of man and look at his record.
>
> History shows man has done pretty good, over all. There are some
> exception. Some of them showing the most deplorable aspects of humans.
> But, for the most part, man's done well.
>

Right! That is why we are destroying the planet. Just because we
haven't reached a tipping point yet, all is well!! :-).

You people with your head in the sand!

Michael Christ

unread,
Jan 19, 2020, 7:43:45 PM1/19/20
to
Sweep it all under the carpet but sooner or later!


>
>>>> Well, we'll just see what happens when millions and millions of towers
>>>> go up around us and when masses of more information starts running
>>>> around and through us, won't you.
>>>
>>> Massive amounts of information has been running around and
>>> through us for decades. This has been the case since, at least, radio
>>> was new.
>>
>> You need to do some learning, Bubba.
>>
>
> I am well educated. That you think only the uneducated can prove
> you wrong is an interesting position for you to express.
>

Isn't it amazing, atheists all do the same thing. You have an arm and a
knife, you slash your arm and go, look at what God has done if He exists.

:-).

Arlen Holder

unread,
Jan 19, 2020, 8:27:30 PM1/19/20
to
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 14:15:21 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> o How can a "premium" device sell, at premium prices, in 2020, without 5G?
>
> easily, since very few phones have 5g, and the ones that do suck.

Hi nospam,

Responding for the adults on this newsgroup (if any), it's clear that only
premium phones have 5G at the moment, and, for the next couple of years it
will likely be still only the premium phones.

My position is clear, which is supported by the facts, which is that Apple
spent that six billion dollars because they MARKET that they're premium
phones, and they couldn't maintain that illusion without a decent modem.

> the samsung s10 5g overheats when using 5g within a minute or two
> (i.e., it's useless) forcing it to fall back to 4g, plus it's battery
> life is very short, barely lasting to lunchtime. it's also big and
> expensive, carrying a $300 premium on top of the already high $1000 s10
> price.

You are a canonical Apple apologist, so it's expected that you incessantly
blame everyone else but Apple for everything you don't like about Apple.

The facts show that at least Samsung can make a modem where it's clear
Apple failed everywhere they tried (as they failed with CPUs having to be
throttled after only about a year, and they failed with GPUs just
recently).

If you wish to refute those facts, nospam, you know I'll provide cites
proving that the facts are correct, where all you ever do is blame everyone
else but Apple for what you don't like about Apple.

You already know we've proved, with facts, Apple has _never_ released a
best-in-class smartphone IC (facts prove Apple throttled CPUs, and Apple
throttled modems, and Apple dropped GPUs, for example).

Bear in mind that Samsung has _years_ on Apple on modem design, where the
facts show Apple can't even release iOS 13 without huge problems.

If Apple can't even make something as simple as a modem, or even release
something as simple as iOS without huge bugs, what makes you think Apple
will get modems right the first time out?

--
The facts prove Apple has never made any best-in-class smartphone IC, ever.

KWills Shill #2

unread,
Jan 20, 2020, 4:27:47 AM1/20/20
to
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 23:31:03 +0800, Rod Flanders <rfla...@next.door>
And if you don't kiss Hank's ass, he'll kick your ass.

http://jhuger.com/kissing-hanks-ass

KWills Shill #2

unread,
Jan 20, 2020, 4:30:14 AM1/20/20